HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > San Jose Sharks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Beefy D-Men

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-11-2009, 09:29 PM
  #76
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 38,807
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
I'm confused where did I contridict myself?

Skill wise Blake was better than Rivet last year. For 1.5m less and the intagibles though I at the time and still would choose Rivet. When you factor in that we did not in fact with the cup last year and we now have a player who is on the downturn of his career, Rivet was the better bet and smarter choice.

If you don't like discussions, uhm, don't join discussion boards? I think predicting the future is a lot more futile than analyzing the past personally.
This year, it's Rivet by default because Blake hasn't played as much but once the season progresses, I believe the scales will eventually even out and then tip in favor of Blake.

Pinkfloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2009, 02:45 PM
  #77
sjshrky27
Registered User
 
sjshrky27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: CA
Country: United States
Posts: 3,695
vCash: 500
can we trade Huskins for a bobble head, and get back Lukowich from the minors? I would take Luko over Huskins anyday at this point

sjshrky27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2009, 04:55 PM
  #78
19sharks19
Registered User
 
19sharks19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: T.O. to S.J. & back
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,073
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post

I don't think Blake has done anything significant for this team. Rivet showed a ton more heart and leadership on the ice and I think that would be more valuable.
The one plus with Rivet over Blake, other than Blakes hip check, Rivet was much more involved physically in most other areas.

19sharks19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2009, 06:19 PM
  #79
Tealblood
Registered User
 
Tealblood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Northern California
Country: United States
Posts: 2,572
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 19sharks19 View Post
The one plus with Rivet over Blake, other than Blakes hip check, Rivet was much more involved physically in most other areas.
I haven't seen the blake hip check in awhile. He hasn't been that physical lately. Lately he mostly just stands in front of nabby in our zone while pickles is struggling in the corner for the puck.

Rivet would be battling his ass off on the boards. He also wasn't as big of a liability on the backcheck. Anyone with decent speed steals it from blake and they're gone...

Blake's shot is his best asset, but even then he's started to become really slow like he's winding up a clock before every shot.

I think dougie's "get him just because he was a big factor for a cup" mentality was a wrong one. Rivet was one of the most passionate players we had that year and blake doesn't come close...

I miss Rivet...

Also miss luko, sort of had rivet's hard work ethic against the boards. Huskins hasn't shown much...I'd gladly ask dallas(or is it vancouver?) for luko back and they can have their pos prospect.

Tealblood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2009, 09:34 PM
  #80
ThorntonFan19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,803
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuitarByte View Post
I haven't seen the blake hip check in awhile. He hasn't been that physical lately. Lately he mostly just stands in front of nabby in our zone while pickles is struggling in the corner for the puck.

Rivet would be battling his ass off on the boards. He also wasn't as big of a liability on the backcheck. Anyone with decent speed steals it from blake and they're gone...

Blake's shot is his best asset, but even then he's started to become really slow like he's winding up a clock before every shot.

I think dougie's "get him just because he was a big factor for a cup" mentality was a wrong one. Rivet was one of the most passionate players we had that year and blake doesn't come close...

I miss Rivet...

Also miss luko, sort of had rivet's hard work ethic against the boards. Huskins hasn't shown much...I'd gladly ask dallas(or is it vancouver?) for luko back and they can have their pos prospect.
Lately blake has been trying it more.

one that sticks out to me is the one on Neal (although it was a dumb interference penalty).

ThorntonFan19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2009, 10:11 PM
  #81
Winky
Registered User
 
Winky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 3,326
vCash: 500
The problem with the "should have kept Rivet over Blake" scenario, is that there were rumors (not sure how true) that Blake was signed to get Danny Boyle to waive.

Has this ever been confirmed, or at least accepted without confirmation, or was this just a rumor?

If it was true, who could/should we have dumped to get both Blake and Rivet?

Winky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2009, 10:18 PM
  #82
one2gamble
Registered User
 
one2gamble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 6,131
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winky View Post
The problem with the "should have kept Rivet over Blake" scenario, is that there were rumors (not sure how true) that Blake was signed to get Danny Boyle to waive.

Has this ever been confirmed, or at least accepted without confirmation, or was this just a rumor?

If it was true, who could/should we have dumped to get both Blake and Rivet?
why would you want both

one2gamble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2009, 11:08 PM
  #83
Winky
Registered User
 
Winky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 3,326
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by one2gamble View Post
why would you want both
Not sure. But many here are saying that they wish DW would have kept Rivet, and never signed Blake.

While I agree with this, if by doing so Boyle doesn't waive his NTC to come to SJ, then I would not agree with it. See?

Winky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2009, 11:17 PM
  #84
09
what
 
09's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,157
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winky View Post
The problem with the "should have kept Rivet over Blake" scenario, is that there were rumors (not sure how true) that Blake was signed to get Danny Boyle to waive.

Has this ever been confirmed, or at least accepted without confirmation, or was this just a rumor?

If it was true, who could/should we have dumped to get both Blake and Rivet?
The way I saw it, regardless rumors behind the scenes (because we don't know if they were true), went like this:

1. Sharks offseason began with the intent to re-signing Campbell. If this happened I'd imagine the defense would have kept in tact as-is.

2. July 1, 2008 Campbell signed with Blackhawks.

3. July 3, 2008 Blake signed with Sharks to cover for the loss.

4. July 4, 2008 Sharks traded for Boyle.

5. July 4, 2008 Sharks traded Rivet to Buffalo to balance the books.

I think the Sharks had a period of uncertainty after losing Campbell and before dealing for Boyle, which made DW pull the trigger on Blake. In hindsight the trade happened only a day after Blake signed, but if Boyle trade fell through the Sharks would have been stuck without a proven offensive dman. DW couldn't afford to have Blake float out in FA for too long and risk not getting him signed so he had to do it quickly.

It turned out that they got Boyle the next day so the timing seemed dumb, and Rivet became a casualty. Still, I don't think they could have waited on Blake. If they didn't sign him, and the Boyle trade either dragged on through the summer or didn't go through at all, Blake might have signed elsewhere by then and the Sharks would have come away empty handed.

09 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2009, 11:22 PM
  #85
Kitten Mittons
Registered User
 
Kitten Mittons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Francisco
Country: Armenia
Posts: 47,934
vCash: 500
Doug said he's been "scouting" Boyle for a couple of years so I doubt that Blake was his insurance, or that they weren't talking about the Boyle deal prior to July 4.

Doug upgraded the offensive dman and also the defensive dman.

Kitten Mittons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2009, 11:35 PM
  #86
Led Zappa
Tomorrow Today!
 
Led Zappa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Country: Scotland
Posts: 39,932
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davidhye View Post
Doug said he's been "scouting" Boyle for a couple of years so I doubt that Blake was his insurance, or that they weren't talking about the Boyle deal prior to July 4.

Doug upgraded the offensive dman and also the defensive dman.
Blake was insurance. He had been trying to acquire Boyle for 2 years and still didn't have him. You can't take the chance that the deal will go through when your not only dealing with the other teams management but a player that must agree to the trade.

__________________

Well, that was another in a long series of regrettable life choices
Led Zappa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2009, 11:39 PM
  #87
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,538
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davidhye View Post
Doug said he's been "scouting" Boyle for a couple of years so I doubt that Blake was his insurance, or that they weren't talking about the Boyle deal prior to July 4.

Doug upgraded the offensive dman and also the defensive dman.
More than that. The Boyle deal was in the works for a while but Tampa had more than one suitor. DW was playing chicken with at least two other GMs (Isles and ?). IMO, DW got played by the game of chicken and gave up more than was necessary because of that game of chicken. I am sure that the nitty gritty of the deal for Boyle started no later than draft day.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2009, 11:42 PM
  #88
Kitten Mittons
Registered User
 
Kitten Mittons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Francisco
Country: Armenia
Posts: 47,934
vCash: 500
Speaking of NTCs, was it finally confirmed that Heater doesn't have NMC?

Kitten Mittons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2009, 01:11 AM
  #89
matt trick
Registered User
 
matt trick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,094
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
More than that. The Boyle deal was in the works for a while but Tampa had more than one suitor. DW was playing chicken with at least two other GMs (Isles and ?). IMO, DW got played by the game of chicken and gave up more than was necessary because of that game of chicken. I am sure that the nitty gritty of the deal for Boyle started no later than draft day.
It was Philly assuming reports were true.

matt trick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2009, 08:55 AM
  #90
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 19,281
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davidhye View Post
Speaking of NTCs, was it finally confirmed that Heater doesn't have NMC?
Yes, it is not in effect. Pollack confirmed.

hockeyball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2009, 11:57 AM
  #91
19sharks19
Registered User
 
19sharks19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: T.O. to S.J. & back
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,073
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 09 View Post
The way I saw it, regardless rumors behind the scenes (because we don't know if they were true), went like this:

1. Sharks offseason began with the intent to re-signing Campbell. If this happened I'd imagine the defense would have kept in tact as-is.

2. July 1, 2008 Campbell signed with Blackhawks.

3. July 3, 2008 Blake signed with Sharks to cover for the loss.

4. July 4, 2008 Sharks traded for Boyle.

5. July 4, 2008 Sharks traded Rivet to Buffalo to balance the books.

I think the Sharks had a period of uncertainty after losing Campbell and before dealing for Boyle, which made DW pull the trigger on Blake. In hindsight the trade happened only a day after Blake signed, but if Boyle trade fell through the Sharks would have been stuck without a proven offensive dman. DW couldn't afford to have Blake float out in FA for too long and risk not getting him signed so he had to do it quickly.

It turned out that they got Boyle the next day so the timing seemed dumb, and Rivet became a casualty. Still, I don't think they could have waited on Blake. If they didn't sign him, and the Boyle trade either dragged on through the summer or didn't go through at all, Blake might have signed elsewhere by then and the Sharks would have come away empty handed.
It also seemed they moved way too fast to ship out Rivet. They had the whole summer and early fall to make a deal and, EVEN CONSIDER OTHER OPTIONS. But, it seemed D.W. needed to catch an early upcoming flight and needed all done within the first week of July.

19sharks19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-15-2009, 03:44 PM
  #92
Kitten Mittons
Registered User
 
Kitten Mittons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Francisco
Country: Armenia
Posts: 47,934
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
Yes, it is not in effect. Pollack confirmed.
That is so awesome.

Kitten Mittons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-16-2009, 04:18 PM
  #93
sojushark
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 74
vCash: 500
Rivet by a long shot and I thought that last year when all the d-men were reaping the benefits of a new system. All the d-men increased their points last year......Rivet would have had the same points as Blake if with the Sharks last year.....hell he had 35+ points with us when RW was coach. Doug W was a slime ball and signed Rivet asking him to give up his FA status and then trades him the next season, to Buffalo a place he would never go. Many players and agents took note of that move. Also I think he owed Darcy Regier in Buffalo a favour for dealing Campbell to us. I am sure many teams were in the running and Rivet was already promised back in the off season. Slimey move by our GM!

sojushark is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:49 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.