Thread: Player Discussion: Cal Heeter
View Single Post
Old
01-13-2014, 12:37 PM
  #33
DrinkFightFlyers
Provolone & The Neck
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 14,682
vCash: 470
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
Emery. And Giroux the Damaja nailed it.

You still clearly have no idea what differentiates "justified patience" and "patience for the sake of being patient."
I do, it just seems to me like around here "justified patience" means "the patience required to support your argument." If it is a player you like, patience. If it is a team whipping boy, no patience. Emery got hurt what three years ago? He played fine since then. NOW it is the injury that is holding him back. Where was that injury in November when he went 3-3 with a .926 save percentage? I understand that he is injured and it is less likely for him to regain his form...but that injury was years ago. I was vocal about not re-signing him when he left because of his injury. He proved that it wasn't an issue (IIRC, most on here said a one year deal is fine because he showed the injury doesn't really hamper him like expected). But now he isn't playing great (behind a pretty atrocious defense I might add), and it is the injury and we have no patience this is not justified move along. It doesn't add up to me.

You want patience, great. You want justified patience ok. But why not justify to me why this situation doesn't warrant patience? Because he got injured two years ago? That doesn't sound like a good argument to me because he bounced back quite nicely since then. Now, if he re-injured it and I just missed it, well that is an entirely different story. But if you are just speculated that his poor play is his hip, you are using your "justifiable patience" argument to my exact definition (i.e. that it supports your argument, not the need for patience).

Quote:
Edit: Oh, and remember that conversation about whether Leighton was an NHL caliber backup where I showed the average save percentage for backups is .910? Emery is sitting at .896, which is bad.
Great. Once again, I am not necessarily saying that I am against the idea of replacing Emery. It is the patience thing that gets me about many on here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Striiker View Post
How about because Emery is not a young player who might just need time to put it together, he's a vet who's playing bad because of a documented injury problem. It's not an injury that just occurred and is going to get better either.
First of all, he's only played in 13 games, and in about half of them he hasn't look bad, so its not like this is a guy who just can no longer play the game. Second of all as I noted above, this is an injury that didn't stop him from being pretty damned good the last three seasons. So again I ask, where was this injury then? He wasn't as good two years ago in Chicago, they had patience with him and look what he did last year. Not saying that is going to happen, but is this how quickly we turn on a guy? 13 games? Are we trading VL now too, he hasn't looked good since coming back from injury. He's toast.

Quote:
And yes, him playing 12 more games could cost them the playoffs if he's as bad as he has been. Hypothetically, lets pretend he plays poorly and costs them 6 of those games (which is being generous), that's 12 points right there, not to mention they could be against divisional opponents. That's enough to lose a playoff spot.
Sure, hypothetically it is, but that can be said about any backup goalie. By definition your backup is not going to be as good as your starter. Starting your backup, regardless of who it is (Danis, Heeter, an outside guy), is going to give you less of a chance to win than with Mason out there.

Quote:
Also believe it or not, the team he was on last season was a little better than decent, that might have had something to do with his stats. Pretty sure Leighton could look good on the Hawks.
Absolutely the Hawks were better, but you don't just discredit everything he did because the team was better. If you do, then you gotta discredit the bad here. You don't get to take away the good because he was on a better team, then stick him with the bad while he is on a worse team. If your team affects the way you play in net when the team is good, then it does the same thing when they aren't as good.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote