Thread: Proposal: Canes-NYR-Avs
View Single Post
07-27-2013, 09:09 PM
Start The Shooting
Monument's Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 10,757
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by bernmeister View Post
1- Don't see the connection to the first quote box with all comment directed to my quote.
Accidental, didn't realize I quoted it.


Not only can we, my friend, we have to, because we are still catching up from prior crappy drafts. That, though is open to interpretation, I admit, based on how much you think we need to improve the club. If you are good enough w/Rangers in the status quo, you can toe the line a bit longer. I for one prefer to take improvement at most opportunities, because windows to make deals open and close all the time, and the deal you can make next month, you have to risk you can do better than the one you can do this month.
No, YOU CAN'T because then our franchise player and best goaltender in the history of this club and the current best goaltender in the world would want to walk out on this team and there's not a living soul who can blame him as he wants to win a damn cup before he retires and won't with your mindset.

But what is not open to interpretation, as I noted, is how the cap will push us to move our vets.

That doesn't mean we have to 'blow up everything' all at once.
But it does mean we need a controlled demolition on a couple of assets -- those vets --- as soon as the return is favorably high. And if we have to bundle other assets to get the best deal possible, that's okay too as long as we get good or better value coming back the other way on such other assets.
Like who? Who needs to go aside from the obvious Beaver, who is a cap casualty?

If we are not moving MDZ/Moore to RD, or trading one, we have an extra LD w/McD + Staal. Sure, there are injuries, insurance, etc, but that's what we got guys like Aaron Johnson for. So the fit is too tight if you don't wanna waste --- or under use and overpay --- for a certain asset.
This makes no sense. We deal Moore, MDZ, or Staal because the fit is too tight??? That's just awful asset management.

I'm flexibile, we could move MDZ, let Staal prove his MAX value and we are good until cap forces him to go. With Skjei on the way, that's an option. But given the position the AVs are in, they might well move a prime prospect for a prime asset if we provide conditional guarantee. MDZ will command, but not as high as Staal.
Why are you talking about Skjei like he's even in the cards in the next 2-3 years? He's not. You're basing these hypothetical scenarios on a guy like Skjei stepping in and eating up minutes? Have you gone mad? The kid hasn't even played a professional game yet. You're just completely out of reason right now.

[QUOTE/Preaching to the choir. Amen.

I view Gaby and Torts as connected, but able to be disconnected. So there were good and bad moves for keeping or trading Gaby. Torts had to go.[/QUOTE]

Torts should have went before Gaborik was traded. We had 2 40-goal threats and a team that could roll two different lines that could kill you on any night and the coach STILL couldn't manage the slightest bit of offense with it. A credit to his awful and outdated system. We were a couple of good bottom 6 players and a 6th/7th defender away from a cup.

Now, we're right back where we started.

Monument is offline   Reply With Quote