View Single Post
07-26-2013, 05:48 PM
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Da Big Apple
Originally Posted by
What in the world is with your recent fascination with Siemens? He's your next Hall.
No undue fascination. He is a worthy target for acquisition if the price is right. That's all, same as was case with Hall.
You keep calling him "the next Hamilton" despite
a) He is nothing like Hamilton except in height
b) Hamilton isn't even that good yet
I did once or twice say Doug Hamilton is a good comparison not as to literally every single aspect of the game, but as to what could be hoped for, ie, a young big D from a good pedigree (draft) suggesting a decent chance of success he'll develop, and develop into a preferred asset.
I would not say "He is nothing like Hamilton except in height".
Gernat of Edmonton is like 6'5", and he is a stickhandling skating type you hope, best case scenario, develops into someone like Hedman --- again, I emphasize an EXTREMELY lite Hedman.
Hamilton and Siemens and McIlrath are all big, strong tough guys who can clear the crease. That is the fair and accurate common denominator. You may be aware of more intricate differences than I am, but my analogy is apt to that extent, which is fair.
As to "Hamilton isn't even that good yet" I would exactly consider him chopped liver.
Hamilton is turning into an irreplacable lynchpin for the Bs.
He has a way to go before he gets to the level of a Staal, but it is a favorable comparison given the experience of the master versus the adapting by the newbie.
You're giving up an established top pairing guy from a contender for a prospect who almost definitely won't be as good as Staal. It's ridiculous.
A draft slot is no guarantee of future value. At the same time, it is not always wrong.
Mark Staal was drafted what, like 12th overall?
Siemens and Hamilton in the top 10?
There is no guarantee in absolute terms, not withstanding that technically only God is actually absolute, that Siemens won't ever become as good as Staal. Or that he actually will. It is a crapshoot. An informed crapshoot with some idea of the variables involved, but it is a crapshoot.
However, as discussed following, there is more to the equation than who is the better player NOW. Salary cap. Getting younger. ETC.
Stop looking at "value". Trades aren't done in a vacuum with prices established in dollars. Nobody cares that we're getting 4 dimes in 3 years for our quarter now. We aren't going 17 steps back to jump 5 forward with the promise of 30 future steps forward. Coke for Pepsi is more common than an elephant for thirteen jaguars. Taylor Hall is not moving. We are not icing 4 rookies on our blueline.
Those who live for today, and only today, constantly in win now mode, without setting up for the future, would have players in their prime only, burning twice as brightly but for half as long. That is too much risk. Learn from the Hawks, who have gotten it right.
Up until recently, our drafting SUCKED. big time. Dealing established value for promising potential IF DONE CAREFULLY can not immediately but soon enough have the effect of reversing that. That is not open to debate. That is logic. That is fact. Like any other action, it can be screwed up. But if you get it right, you get your reward.
"We aren't going 17 steps back to jump 5 forward with the promise of 30 future steps forward."
If that route actually takes us forward, it should only not be pursued if there is an even better route forward.
The guys that want to just do win now mode, those are the ones that are not addressing reality.
PS --- my detractors on this, kindly, bend, buckle and break.
While we are immediately ok, at some point we need to move vets --- eg Staal, Girardi + yes even Callahan (as we are locked in on Nash and will have to pony up for Lundqvist). That is not an option because of the cap.
Doing do sooner as opposed to later = max or at least better return than waiting to the last minute. I agree, if there is no good deal, don't make a bad one --- but at least be open minded.
"Coke for Pepsi is more common than ...."
Coke for Pepsi, not withstanding the exceptions where you get equal or better value on a complementary need, a lefty for a righty, is a waste of time.
It's good that we made small improvements, such as the ones where we recently moved Christian Thomas and Kris Newbury. I consider that not really coke for pepsi, but getting the slightly better product for slightly less, not really a different product.
But let us not kid ourselves.
You want to make an omelette, you need to break a few eggs.
You want to advance, you have to think outside the box.
And if you lack the courage to do that, don't criticize those that do.
A trade that changes more than a third of the makeup of any team will not happen.
If that third of the team could be improved it should be tried, whether it is one (or two) fell swoop larger deals, or several mini deals.
Change is not the consideration. PROGRESS and IMPROVEMENT should be the goal.
I agree, change for the sake of change = coke for pepsi = nothing to brag about.
But the correct changes if worthwhile should be pursued.
Next time you propose something, ask yourself two things before:
1) Does this make the team contending worse and the team who is not concerned about the immediate future better?
2) Does this involve several moving parts that would never move in a trade together?
I will take that under advisement.
But those questions do not superimpose themselves upon my approach.
If the answer is yes to either,
don't post it
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that as constructive criticism for the moment, whether I agree with it or not.
However, let no one get me pissed with comments that restrict freedom of speech or would arbitrarily restrict the competition of ideas.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by bernmeister