View Single Post
04-24-2007, 08:25 AM
Only a 2 year window
PocketNines's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 500
I don't know how many times I'll have to clarify this but I am NOT putting a lot of credibility one way or the other in the ratings here.

I am totally agnostic on the quality of the ratings here. If I say, "they call Kessel and Backstrom 8.5s and Staal, Toews, etc. 8.0s" that is NOT equivalent to endorsing the correctness or incorrectness of any of those assignments.

What I am positing is - if you simply take the definitions and accept that such things DO exist - that perennial All-Stars DO exist and that the category "perennial All-Stars" has been assigned the label "9" then it is possible to discuss a rebuild and say, OK, we need a 9, a few 8s, or whatever.

THEN AND ONLY THEN you go back and say, hmm, is so and so an 8? Or more like a 7? It used to be this team had a few 8s and had a lack of 7s. Now we have lots of 7s but few 8s. So we discuss, could Logan Couture be an 8? HF says he's this, the way Jarmo talks about him he's this, you think he's that, I think he's something else. Or whatever. What's Brad Richards? If you think he's an 8.5, someone else thinks he's a 9, someone thinks he's only an 8, then it can go into an argument of... "regardless of the salary, you gotta get a 9 who gets it done when you can even if the cost is high" versus "ah, he's only an 8 and you can't tie up that much salary in an 8."

Honestly, my posts recently have been making attempts to look at things from a slightly different perspective than "is this guy good and do you think we should get him" to situate those discussions in a broader concept. IMO different, thoughtful perspectives are a value-add to the board.

PocketNines is offline   Reply With Quote