Trade Rumor Thread IV - "What's all the roar over RoR?"
View Single Post
02-22-2013, 09:33 AM
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Land of no calls..
Originally Posted by
The team he never played for because they cut him out of training camp. A team that at the time had a horrendous defense. Yeah. That team.
I'm not misinterpreting Torts' quote at all, btw. You can find it earlier in this thread, where he clearly said that they obviously don't want Stralman playing that many minutes. And the rumor reported was that Stepan and Del Zotto were non-starters. Not a package of Del Zotto and whatever the + was--Stepan and Del Zotto, as players, were non-starters.
They cut him and he ended up on our team playing just fine. Cut from a team that made a stupid decision? Yeah. That team.
He played him in Girardi's spot. Girardi gets 25 minutes a night. That's not 2nd pairing minutes.
That player would not be in the NHL on a team with a half-decent defense. He's not a bad player--he has potential, and I could see him maxing out as an average 2nd pairing guy, but he's not in the same stratosphere as Del Zotto. He'll be lucky if he turns out like Tyutin.
Considering he plays nothing like Tyutin, I'm just going to agree to disagree. Simply don't trust your judgement after that comment.
You think he could be replaced by a rookie on his first cup of coffee in the NHL. So no, you did not literally write out "he would be easy to replace" but you imply it with every post you make. Ten years--one guy managed to do it, and you want to trade that one guy for another lotto ticket. You're like Peter Griffin with the mystery box.
Incorrectly interpreting what I'm saying and then arguing against it is a waste of time. Rozsival hit 40 points. So this "ten years" stuff is nonsense. Never once did I say that legitimate offensive defensemen are easy to find, or easy to replace. All I said was that Barrie has the potential to bring what Del Zotto brings. Sorry if you can't see that. Not my problem.
And Miller, while not ideal, is fine for right now. His offense isn't all there, but I've been pleasantly surprised by how composed he is defensively and in the faceoff circle. I'd be nervous if the playoffs started today, but I'm confident that in a couple of months, he would be an acceptable option. Not as good as O'Reilly, to be sure, but Miller and MDZ gives us a better chance to win than Miller and O'Reilly in my view.
So Miller playing 3rd line center, who is turning the puck over several times per game, and played all of 9 minutes last night, is "fine for right now" but Barrie, who is playing 20 minutes a night is not? Quite the double standard you have going there.
It's called applying your logic to other situations. You don't seem to believe your own argument when it doesn't suit you. What should that tell you about the validity of that argument?
So, can you point me to where I said it was a certainty? Does the term "straw man" mean anything to you?
He fell in the draft because he was a lousy skater (and he's still not great at that part of the game) and because his goal totals went DOWN in his second year in juniors, and because he didn't have a noticeable jump in overall production in his second year in juniors. In short--he fell because of his offense. Why do I question whether he can improve that offense? Easy--I love heart and soul players. There are not many better kinds of player in my mind. That said, heart and soul players with top-shelf talent are better. O'Reilly has never really had that talent offensively. As Kent Wilson (Calgary based hockey writer) noted in his pre-draft analysis of O'Reilly--it's great to hear that a player has intangibles--but when that's ALL you keep hearing about a player, it raises red flags.
He was never a goal scoring center. He was billed as a elite defensive player with solid play making ability. That's what he is. Not sure why that's so hard to grasp. 3 goal drop, but added 17 assists to his totals.
At a younger age? They are a few months apart. You're really reaching now. As for where you said he was better than Richards, it was right in your post. You said, and I quote: "ROR steps in today and he's likely in a deadlock with Stepan as our best center." Are you quibbling on the word "likely" or what? You said it. You even bolded "today."
A "few months" apart? Draft eligibility actually means something.
Was supposed to say "second" best center, but I admit I left that part out and it did in fact say that in my post.
I can't figure out why you guys can't see this one. This is the one point where it looks the same whether you are basing your argument on the stats OR watching the games. Stat-wise: You have a player noted for being offensively limited. Drafted as a defensive specialist. Spends two years in the league as a defensive specialist. Third year in the league, he's suddenly putting up 2nd line production. He doubles his previous career high. How often do you see numbers jump like that?! Answer--you don't. Development is nearly always incremental. What changed? One thing--Landeskog got stapled to his wing.
Now watch the games to see exactly what I'm talking about. Landeskog is a bulldozer on offense. He creates chaos around the crease. The vast majority of O'Reilly's assists to Landeskog are not plays that he "created." O'Reilly would give the puck to Landeskog and Landeskog would create a goal. O'Reilly would fan on a shot, and Landeskog would find a way to put it in on a goal-mouth scrum. It happened over and over again. Landeskog figured into about half of O'Reilly's points. The fact that you refuse to see that is baffling. I hate this HFBoards attack trope, because I think it is used entirely too often, but if you just watch a few of the games from last year it would be easy to see.
3rd year in the league, and he's suddenly putting up 2nd line production. What's the more likely cause: The fact that he's playing with a rookie on his wing who is doing all the work, or the fact that he increased his PP TOI by nearly 2 minutes a night, and was getting more time at even strength? Yes, playing with better players helped considerably, but to imply that Landeskog is the lone reason for his jump in production is completely asinine.
Whatever. Agree to disagree. Tired of arguing in circles.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Trxjw