HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Pittsburgh Penguins
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Derrick Pouliot | Defenseman | Portland (WHL) | 1st Round, 8th overall

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-27-2012, 01:50 PM
  #326
Kunitziwa
Registered User
 
Kunitziwa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 2,015
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Kunitziwa
Also as an argument for PMD bringing a lot of value, Zidlicky and Burns both fetched pretty high returns as a part of somewhat recent moves.

Kunitziwa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2012, 02:07 PM
  #327
Shady Machine
Registered User
 
Shady Machine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,715
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kunitziwa View Post
I'm sorry if this was already mentioned but here it goes anyway.

Do you guys think part of the D heavy drafting philosophy is that it seems to be an organazational strength? The success rate for defensmen drafted by us the past, idk 10 or so years has seemingly been pretty good. Especially when compared to the forwards we drafted (outside of Crosby, Malkin, Staal). In other words do they just feel flat out more confident in their ability to draft defenseman versus forwards, and therfor tend to shy away from drafting forwards? Is it just luck of the draw that D are topping their BPA lists at the time of our picks versus where they have forwards ranked? Or does the organization just truly believe that D bring the best value?
I don't think it's a coincidence at all. Drafting and developing puck moving d seems to be their strength. All else equal, they will draft a dman every single time.

Shady Machine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2012, 02:19 PM
  #328
Le Magnifique 66
Let's Go Pens
 
Le Magnifique 66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,328
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kunitziwa View Post
Also as an argument for PMD bringing a lot of value, Zidlicky and Burns both fetched pretty high returns as a part of somewhat recent moves.
Goligoski got us a player we needed in Neal, you can't have enough d's especially with puck moving skills. In today's league the stay at home D's aren't worth much

Le Magnifique 66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2012, 03:43 PM
  #329
Jules Winnfield
I gives no ****s!!!
 
Jules Winnfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 5,885
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danccchan View Post
Wild fan here.

So what is the consensus opinion on the pick by the team's fans?
I think the consensus is the Pens will be changing to a 2 forward, 3 defenseman 5 man unit in the next few years.

Parise Crosby
Letang Orpik Despres

Malkin Neal
Pouliot Morrow Dumoulin

Kunitz Sutter
Martin Niskanen Engelland

Dupuis Vitale
Harrington Maata Bortuzzo



Seriously though, I think it's a good pick because Pouliot will be a good player. They have to love the Pouliot/Morrow combination BUT there were other players ranked much higher by numerous analysts that would've addressed organizational needs.

The only thing that matters though is what the Pens organization thinks. Shero has had a track record for turning D into forwards for us.

Jules Winnfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2012, 03:48 PM
  #330
jmelm
HFBoards Sponsor
 
jmelm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,494
vCash: 500
I have no problem drafting Dmen all day long, provided that most of them have some offensive upside. The same way having forwards who can play a good "team defense" can help the team win and help support a less strong D-corps, having offensive Dmen who can start the play up ice and put up some points helps the team score more goals and can make up for some weaknesses offensively amongst the forwards.


2 years ago, Mike Gillis said the goal & strategy of their team was to have a D-corps that could collectively put up 200 points. They were able to do that, finished with the President's trophy and got to within 1 victory short of a Stanley Cup. I think we have a realistic shot of reaching 200 points or more among our Dmen in a few years if all develop the way we hope.

jmelm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2012, 05:00 PM
  #331
Jacob
Registered User
 
Jacob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 25,976
vCash: 500
I think it's more likely that the trend of drafting d-men high and avoiding forwards (and especially Euro ones) is just kind of a fluke.

Jacob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2012, 11:23 PM
  #332
Tender Rip
Learning from Scuds?
 
Tender Rip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Shanghai, China
Posts: 12,403
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
You simply keep reading things the way you want, which is a lack of reading comprehension I suppose.
Hmm... some times when meeting people more obstinate than oneself, a rare thing in my case, one must be patient.

1: I completely understand and realize that your overarching point of view before and after the draft is that - Great, Shero builds a tremendous pipeline. That has major value for a lot of reasons. . In a vacuum, I can only agree with this.
2: One of those reasons you have pointed to many, many times is that these highly valued D-men prospects can be moved for other assets if needed. Like many others here, you have been pointing to our recent experiences moving puck moving D-men as primary examples. Not just in this thread.
3: I point out that those we moved for great returns were not prospects and had already made it to the NHL, playing big minutes, providing lots of offense and succeeded on a big team.
Nevermind that I find guys like Despres, Morrow etc. to look like ultimately better NHL talents than Whitney and Goligoski, down the line, I don't think this means more or comparable trade value before they show that they can succeed in the NHL. I have therefore asked you to give some examples to this presumed trade value of prospect D-men to justify frequently telling me that my reservations are wrong.

4: You tell me I can't read/read only what I want, and insist that your point was simply:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
I've talked about the plethora of options Shero has. I've mentioned blueliners like they have can fetch a nice return without ever playing in the NHL, then listed a litany of other ways they have value.
....and your list of unproven blueliners was one player, a player I had already mentioned myself, who got St.Louis an asset you yourself said fell solely due to the Russian factor.
I think that is a very weak reply on your part, and I think it very dodgy to point to a draft pick yet to be realized as an example of great trade value.
Then you mentioned Voinov because his presence liberated LA to trade Johnson, but that of course says nothing about Voinov's TRADE VALUE prior to proving himself, which is what I have very explicitly been inquiring about. It said a lot about trade value of NHL proven young puck movers though, as Jack Johnson was the principal piece in getting Carter despite having been atrocious defensively pretty much throughout his NHL career.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
Not once did I say I believe any of them will be moved because of roster problems. You brought that into the equation.
Non sequitor much? When did I talk of roster problems at all? There is no relation between what you quoted from me and any of the above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
That is why I continue to mention that no one knows what this roster will look like in three years.
A point on which I have agreed entirely in principle, yet added that with the depth of blueliners already on the team, it is obvious that our recent and very capable D-prospects will be kept down longer than if they'd been forwards where our pipeline and internal competition is no way near as hard.
I am sure we could choose to agree with each other on both these points in isolation. If the intention was to understand and react to each others comments at least.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
Well I guess this is the part where I have to call you a liar.

Jags can easily back me up about how I felt about Whitney vs Martin as we both agreed two Summers ago Whitney is the guy we both wanted badly.
He could back you on wanting Whitney, which is something we could go back and find was vocally shared by me, Champagne Wishes and no doubt many, many others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
If you can find a quote where I said their D was top three back then, good luck. If you can't (and you won't) well we both know what that makes you.
If you insist.
July 1st 2010: http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...&postcount=288

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
"I was agt. Shero spending all of the cap dollars on defense and finding balance... but I never even considered he would land both Michalek and Martin... I didn't think it was even possible...

Apparently Martin took less money to sign with the Pens than NJ. He was upset with the NJ doctors... (what my buddy told me he heard on the radio?)

Shero just made their blueline one of the top 3 in the league today and they are all locked up for the next few seasons as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
Try to keep your own argument straight, playboy.
Well...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
You just made a fool of yourself... Do research if you are clueless.
...and so we come to one of those where one can just say mea culpa. I didn't remember it as St.Louis trading to take him on draft day. So, my mistake.

I will repeat though, that the value for Rundblad here as a trade asset, I find it unreasonable to see this as viable example.
The value depended on what St.Louis did with that pick and how that prospect would later develop, and thus isn't a fair indication on Rundblad's market value. Rundblad was a 17th overall pick who had developed well since his draft and was traded for a 16th overall pick a year later.
St.Louis made out like bandits because they picked right/gambled on the high profile Russian who is now coming over. A draft day steal. Good for them, great, would have been better still if we had traded up from Beau Bennett at 20.

When we traded for Hossa, the 1st rounder (29) involved became Daultan Leveille who is most likely a complete bust - ie. that 1st round pick was as worthless as Angelo Esposito, but only because of who was picked. Seeing that Markström went 31st and Voinov 32nd for instance. So many say that Hossa came really cheap, and in the greater scheme of things he sure did. But the value of a pick is entirely relative to where that pick ends up, and who you end up choosing.
Kessel ultimately yielded Boston Seguin, Jared Knight and Dougie Hamilton. Who really thinks that reflects Kessel's asset value?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
Again, you are pulling things out of your ass. Just stop.

Go back and read the thread. People wanted Letestu traded or given away. Ppl were hailing Shero as a hero for getting a 4th.
Many of us were not. Ultimately this was a consequence of having collected numerous assets competing for similar positions and being forced by sheer numbers to deal an asset while his value was low. Considering Letestu's 2010/2011 season and capacity to deliver secondary scoring at a bargain cap-hit, a 4th rounder was not a particularly great return, but it obviously beats getting nothing at all for Nick Johnson.
Those who thought Shero for getting a 4th was genius are the same people who are OK with ditching most any player going through a difficult patch, never mind their asset value.

Tender Rip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2012, 12:11 AM
  #333
Rob Scuderi
Registered User
 
Rob Scuderi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 2,706
vCash: 500
How much value do you think a signed Justin Schultz would have right now? A former second rounder, no less.

What about Tim Erixon's value despite it was known he'd sooner re-enter the draft than sign with Calgary?

Rob Scuderi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2012, 12:22 AM
  #334
Tender Rip
Learning from Scuds?
 
Tender Rip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Shanghai, China
Posts: 12,403
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring Back Scuderi View Post
How much value do you think a signed Justin Schultz would have right now? A former second rounder, no less.
Is that for me?

Can't say... the great appeal of Schultz would seem to be that he is a highly rated talent that you DON'T have to give up assets to sign. Hence many teams would like to give him a big bonus laden contract. Like with Bozak and Mr. Hobey Baker Gilroy. The scarcity of comparables where such players are traded for anything substantial, or at all, suggests first of all that few teams have enough such prospects to want to trade them, period. Second that few are willing to pony up anything that equals their perceived future value.

As for Tim Erixon, are you saying that those two 2011 2nd rounders was a good return for Tim Erixon? Because I think it was Sather taking advantage of a sweet opportunity without coming to seem like a total *******.


Last edited by Tender Rip: 06-28-2012 at 12:32 AM.
Tender Rip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2012, 06:22 AM
  #335
wej20
Registered User
 
wej20's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Swansea,UK
Country: Wales
Posts: 21,641
vCash: 500
I'm pretty sure Schultz is not eligible for a bonus filled contract a la Gilroy.

wej20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2012, 07:20 AM
  #336
Tender Rip
Learning from Scuds?
 
Tender Rip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Shanghai, China
Posts: 12,403
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wej20 View Post
I'm pretty sure Schultz is not eligible for a bonus filled contract a la Gilroy.
Seems you are right. Should only make him more appealing, of course.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/...anagement.html

Tender Rip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2012, 07:34 AM
  #337
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,826
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tender Rip View Post
Hmm... some times when meeting people more obstinate than oneself, a rare thing in my case, one must be patient.
Ditto.

Quote:
1: I completely understand and realize that your overarching point of view before and after the draft is that - Great, Shero builds a tremendous pipeline. That has major value for a lot of reasons. . In a vacuum, I can only agree with this.
2: One of those reasons you have pointed to many, many times is that these highly valued D-men prospects can be moved for other assets if needed. Like many others here, you have been pointing to our recent experiences moving puck moving D-men as primary examples. Not just in this thread.
3: I point out that those we moved for great returns were not prospects and had already made it to the NHL, playing big minutes, providing lots of offense and succeeded on a big team.
Nevermind that I find guys like Despres, Morrow etc. to look like ultimately better NHL talents than Whitney and Goligoski, down the line, I don't think this means more or comparable trade value before they show that they can succeed in the NHL. I have therefore asked you to give some examples to this presumed trade value of prospect D-men to justify frequently telling me that my reservations are wrong.
You were given an example of a blueliner taken with a mid first round pick just a year beforehand, bringing back the best fwd prospect in the world. A trade you were aware of, but tried in every way to downplay.

Quote:
....and your list of unproven blueliners was one player, a player I had already mentioned myself, who got St.Louis an asset you yourself said fell solely due to the Russian factor.
I think that is a very weak reply on your part, and I think it very dodgy to point to a draft pick yet to be realized as an example of great trade value.
Then you mentioned Voinov because his presence liberated LA to trade Johnson, but that of course says nothing about Voinov's TRADE VALUE prior to proving himself, which is what I have very explicitly been inquiring about. It said a lot about trade value of NHL proven young puck movers though, as Jack Johnson was the principal piece in getting Carter despite having been atrocious defensively pretty much throughout his NHL career.
Again, you have a great example of how a young blueliner with no NHL experience can be traded for exactly what you want, but you continue to type with one hand over your eye.

Your agenda is crystal clear... Sadly.

Quote:
Non sequitor much? When did I talk of roster problems at all? There is no relation between what you quoted from me and any of the above.
You are the one who is so concerned about how difficult it will be for all of these blueliners to make this team, hence your "worries" about their trade value not being maximized.

Not me.

Quote:
A point on which I have agreed entirely in principle, yet added that with the depth of blueliners already on the team, it is obvious that our recent and very capable D-prospects will be kept down longer than if they'd been forwards where our pipeline and internal competition is no way near as hard.
I am sure we could choose to agree with each other on both these points in isolation.
And there we have it...

You continue to operate under the assumption competition is a bad thing, every prospect will pan out and that Shero won't max out the trade value of these blueliners when the time comes.

Yet somehow you want to claim we agree in any manner...

Quote:
He could back you on wanting Whitney, which is something we could go back and find was vocally shared by me, Champagne Wishes and no doubt many, many others.

If you insist.
July 1st 2010: http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...&postcount=288

Well...
Once again you skip over context when it suits you, which is ironic given your propensity to be a finger jockey.

You stated I was agt signing Martin because I claimed the Pens had a top 3 D in the league, yet I still don't see that quote anywhere.

I wanted the Pens to sign Michalek and Whitney. I wanted the balance both brought to the team and had just watched Michalek have a phenomenal series agt Det. When rumors of the Pens signing Martin were flying, I was agt it. It was overkill in my mind.

After he signed, reading what Cole said about having a great top four now, convinced me Shero made the right moves. When I looked over their blueline and got over missing out on Whitney, I agreed with Cole and thought the Pens had a top three blueline.

Ironically, I'm one of the few Martin supporters left, even though I initially didn't want Shero to sign him.

However as disapointed as most of us are in this season's performance, this blueline played extremely well last season and Shero was lauded as a genius. The depth of his blueline also allowed Shero to move GoGo for Neal as well.

Again, context is a refreshing thing.

Quote:
...and so we come to one of those where one can just say mea culpa. I didn't remember it as St.Louis trading to take him on draft day. So, my mistake.

I will repeat though, that the value for Rundblad here as a trade asset, I find it unreasonable to see this as viable example.
The value depended on what St.Louis did with that pick and how that prospect would later develop, and thus isn't a fair indication on Rundblad's market value. Rundblad was a 17th overall pick who had developed well since his draft and was traded for a 16th overall pick a year later.
St.Louis made out like bandits because they picked right/gambled on the high profile Russian who is now coming over.
You are backtracking to suit your purposes. Please...

It's funny how you were agreeable to the value of the trade when you didn't believe it happened moments before the pick took place.

And you preach about debating honestly...

Again, you are going out of your way to discount this trade and it is transparent why.

Quote:
When we traded for Hossa, the 1st rounder (29) involved became Daultan Leveille who is most likely a complete bust - ie. that 1st round pick was as worthless as Angelo Esposito, but only because of who was picked. Seeing that Markström went 31st and Voinov 32nd for instance. So many say that Hossa came really cheap, and in the greater scheme of things he sure did. But the value of a pick is entirely relative to where that pick ends up, and who you end up choosing.
Kessel ultimately yielded Boston Seguin, Jared Knight and Dougie Hamilton. Who really thinks that reflects Kessel's asset value?
This is more posturing and filler to make a muddled point...

Rundblad was traded with Ott still on the board. Murray wanted him more than Tarasenko. Just man up and admit that much... My God.

You look very petty here.

Quote:
Many of us were not. Ultimately this was a consequence of having collected numerous assets competing for similar positions and being forced by sheer numbers to deal an asset while his value was low. Considering Letestu's 2010/2011 season and capacity to deliver secondary scoring at a bargain cap-hit, a 4th rounder was not a particularly great return, but it obviously beats getting nothing at all for Nick Johnson.
Those who thought Shero for getting a 4th was genius are the same people who are OK with ditching most any player going through a difficult patch, never mind their asset value.
This is semantics, but the general consensus was, in my mind and all I had read before and after the trade, that people were thrilled to get a 4th.

Letestu also didn't get traded because of too much competition, he simply made himself expendable with his poor play. I didn't want him to be moved, but I admitted then as I do now he cashed his own ticket out of town.

As for Johnson, you are preaching to the choir.

I still don't see the relevance of Letestu to the Pens blueline pipe.

Mr Jiggyfly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2012, 08:06 AM
  #338
Shady Machine
Registered User
 
Shady Machine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,715
vCash: 500
Dang Jiggy I didn't think you could get out of that "Show me where I said the Pen's D was top 3" thing. I have to give you props for trying to dance around that. You asked for him to show you and he did. Just say okay I did say that but....


Last edited by Shady Machine: 06-28-2012 at 09:13 AM.
Shady Machine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2012, 08:31 AM
  #339
MrBurgundy*
Time to move forward
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: GlassCase of Emotion
Country: United States
Posts: 16,896
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shady Machine View Post
Dang Jiggy I didn't think you could get out of that "Show me where I said the Pen's D was top 3" thing. I have to give you props for trying to dance around that. You asked for him to show you and he did. Just say okay I said did say that but....
I respect his opinions on prospects a lot, but when somebody disagrees with him...

Hell hath no fury...

MrBurgundy* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2012, 08:39 AM
  #340
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,826
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shady Machine View Post
Dang Jiggy I didn't think you could get out of that "Show me where I said the Pen's D was top 3" thing. I have to give you props for trying to dance around that. You asked for him to show you and he did. Just say okay I said did say that but....
I don't have to dance around the truth...

Quote:
Much like how you now claim you were always against the Martin pick-up while hailing our D as top-3 in the league when Shero made the deal
This infers I was "always" agt the signing, which I never was, while also implying I felt the Pens had a top 3 blueline without Martin (hence the reason I didn't want him signed). I was agt Martin, because I liked Michalek more, Martin's knee worried me and finally I felt they needed the balance Whitney would bring. But I didn't flp out and saw the logic behind the moves after awhile.

Which further proves my point about seeing the big picture.

I wanted Michalek and Whitney, but was able to see the other side of the coin when reading Cole and others views about the rarity of getting two top four blueliners without giving up any assets. Just like I wanted Aberg or Frk, but completely understand what Shero is doing.

Mr Jiggyfly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2012, 09:23 AM
  #341
Shady Machine
Registered User
 
Shady Machine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,715
vCash: 500
Yeah I guess I shouldn't have butted in, but I just found that little part amusing. I agree with your original premise that although you may not have agreed with the pick, building the best prospect blueline corps in the league is extremely valuable. This organization seems to have the right resources to scout and develop the right ones. They in turn become very valuable commodities.

At the same time, Tender Rip makes a good point that there aren't many examples of D prospects without NHL experience garnering a lot in a trade. The Rundbland example is interesting, but it was really a gamble given that Tarasenko was a 16th overall pick. Even though he is turning out to be one of the best forward prospects in the game (if not the best), it's not like his value was that high at the time. It was certainly a risk.

The part of this that I like is that these guys will be pushing out other D in the next few years. We traded Michalek, in part for cap space, but also because we have Despres, Strait, and Bort knocking on the door. Morrow or Pouliot may end up making Letang expendable. That's all very exciting to me.

At the end of the day, I'm pleased with the picks. I'd still have gone for Forseberg or Grigs at 8th overall but I can't question with real authority or knowledge on the matter.

Shady Machine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2012, 09:26 AM
  #342
Darth Vitale
Moderator
Transitional Period
 
Darth Vitale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Victoryville
Country: United States
Posts: 25,580
vCash: 500
This thread needs more Pouliot.

Darth Vitale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2012, 09:37 AM
  #343
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,826
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shady Machine View Post
Yeah I guess I shouldn't have butted in, but I just found that little part amusing. I agree with your original premise that although you may not have agreed with the pick, building the best prospect blueline corps in the league is extremely valuable. This organization seems to have the right resources to scout and develop the right ones. They in turn become very valuable commodities.
No biggie. I have no problem owning up to something, if it is indeed what I said. What is being overlooked is I'm flat out admitting I wanted Michalek the most, yet he was the first guy shipped out.

Quote:
At the same time, Tender Rip makes a good point that there aren't many examples of D prospects without NHL experience garnering a lot in a trade. The Rundbland example is interesting, but it was really a gamble given that Tarasenko was a 16th overall pick. Even though he is turning out to be one of the best forward prospects in the game (if not the best), it's not like his value was that high at the time. It was certainly a risk.
The example still stands that a young blueliner not in the NHL landed the top fwd prospect in the game. As I also touched on in another thread, most GMs don't want to trade away their young blueliners before they mature... Too much risk. Very few teams are stacked with depth at the top and on the farm. Shero has a rare luxury.

Quote:
The part of this that I like is that these guys will be pushing out other D in the next few years. We traded Michalek, in part for cap space, but also because we have Despres, Strait, and Bort knocking on the door. Morrow or Pouliot may end up making Letang expendable. That's all very exciting to me.

At the end of the day, I'm pleased with the picks. I'd still have gone for Forseberg or Grigs at 8th overall but I can't question with real authority or knowledge on the matter.
We'll find out in a few yrs. I'd worry about it then if need be.

Mr Jiggyfly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2012, 10:01 AM
  #344
bigd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,922
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wej20 View Post
I'm pretty sure Schultz is not eligible for a bonus filled contract a la Gilroy.
Only bonuses allowed under the EL contract agreement. I believe he can make up to 3.5 mil if all bonus limits are hit.

bigd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2012, 10:28 AM
  #345
Tender Rip
Learning from Scuds?
 
Tender Rip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Shanghai, China
Posts: 12,403
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
You were given an example of a blueliner taken with a mid first round pick just a year beforehand, bringing back the best fwd prospect in the world. A trade you were aware of, but tried in every way to downplay.
You have provided one example - one that I even mentioned in advance. One instance is not a trend, it is not a pattern, and it sure isn't the 'big picture'. One instance if it stays one instance is an anomaly. You can make everything plausible if you assume one example makes a case.
Not saying there aren't more lying around, but as said I cannot really think of any (other) good examples and apparently neither can you.

I can admit when I make a mistake (there have been many obviously), and did so as regards St.Louis trading for the pick.

Lets even say that Terasenko was a superb example of a GM dealing from strength (St.Louis had a fine D-pipeline indeed) to address a weakness. It was.
That doesn't mean that Terasenko's situation was normal or indicative of any trend (less so when we're likely talking non-hockey reasons for his falling), nor that there's the same clear cut value proposition when you trade for an as yet unrealized draft pick, as it was when for instance Goligoski netted proven NHL players and both sides of the trade was known.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
You are the one who is so concerned about how difficult it will be for all of these blueliners to make this team, hence your "worries" about their trade value not being maximized.

Not me.
I get it. You are high on faith with this one. I just think in the battle between one example of this and a litany of examples of the other, the one comes up short. I suppose that is my shortage of faith.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
You stated I was agt signing Martin because I claimed the Pens had a top 3 D in the league, yet I still don't see that quote anywhere.

No. As you very well know, I stated you were NOT against signing Martin, despite repeatedly claiming it this season after he turned out not to be the solution Shero and most here hoped and thought. And I showed you your own quote from the day the signing went down. How can you dance with this one?

You even want to obfuscate on that top3 matter, after calling me out as a liar and insuring that such a quote could not be found? Yet there it is, bolded and underlined. Yet you tell me you don't see it anywhere????

Ah well..... that exhausts my interest for now.

What can I say... I hope you turn out to be right, and in the spirit of tonight's game, Forza Pouliot.

Tender Rip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2012, 12:15 PM
  #346
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,826
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tender Rip View Post
You have provided one example - one that I even mentioned in advance. One instance is not a trend, it is not a pattern, and it sure isn't the 'big picture'. One instance if it stays one instance is an anomaly. You can make everything plausible if you assume one example makes a case.
Not saying there aren't more lying around, but as said I cannot really think of any (other) good examples and apparently neither can you.

I can admit when I make a mistake (there have been many obviously), and did so as regards St.Louis trading for the pick.

Lets even say that Terasenko was a superb example of a GM dealing from strength (St.Louis had a fine D-pipeline indeed) to address a weakness. It was.
That doesn't mean that Terasenko's situation was normal or indicative of any trend (less so when we're likely talking non-hockey reasons for his falling), nor that there's the same clear cut value proposition when you trade for an as yet unrealized draft pick, as it was when for instance Goligoski netted proven NHL players and both sides of the trade was known.
All you need is one example to see the value is there. You want to brush it aside, again not my problem. I'm not the one who is worried here.

Also, do you think GMs make a habit of trading off top four potential blueliners in 1 for 1 deals before they mature? You act as if there is a surplus of these prospects on every team. You fail to see the forest through the trees....

And again you are the one who is concerned about their trade value being affected before they mature, not me.

Quote:
I get it. You are high on faith with this one. I just think in the battle between one example of this and a litany of examples of the other, the one comes up short. I suppose that is my shortage of faith.
I am high on expecting these blueliners to get their chances just as Despres and Strait did this year. I'm not concerned about their value being a "sweetener" like you are.

Quote:

No. As you very well know, I stated you were NOT against signing Martin, despite repeatedly claiming it this season after he turned out not to be the solution Shero and most here hoped and thought. And I showed you your own quote from the day the signing went down. How can you dance with this one?

You even want to obfuscate on that top3 matter, after calling me out as a liar and insuring that such a quote could not be found? Yet there it is, bolded and underlined. Yet you tell me you don't see it anywhere????
I think you need to go back and read your quote I responded to. If that is what you were in fact actually trying to convey, you did a piss poor job (but I admit I have been guilty of that before). I already explained in a post above the context in which I took your statement.

"Much like how you now claim you were always against the Martin pick-up while hailing our D as top-3 in the league when Shero made the deal"

So again when did I ever claim I was always agt. the Martin signing? I have been defending him all offseason, stating I supported Shero's decision to sign him.

The only statement I made that you could of twisted around, was when someone brought up signing Whitney and I said I had preferred him over Martin two years ago (fact), so I would love to see him come here. How that could be misconstrued, especially after all of the time I have spent defending Martin, is beyond me.

Again, it's a lie. I'm not sure how else to sugar coat that. So when someone lies about something you have said, it is difficult not to misconstrue it, especially when the statement was poorly phrased to begin with.

Essentially you put the onious on yourself now to find the quote (s) where I stated I was always agt the Martin signing. When you come up short, I expect an apology...

Mr Jiggyfly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2012, 12:16 PM
  #347
wej20
Registered User
 
wej20's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Swansea,UK
Country: Wales
Posts: 21,641
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigd View Post
Only bonuses allowed under the EL contract agreement. I believe he can make up to 3.5 mil if all bonus limits are hit.
are those the sort of bonuses that he can only hit if he wins the Norris or Hart?

wej20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2012, 12:19 PM
  #348
Ogrezilla
Nerf Herder
 
Ogrezilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 33,797
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wej20 View Post
are those the sort of bonuses that he can only hit if he wins the Norris or Hart?
If I'm not mistaken, Toews got a bonus for winning the Conn Smythe and it cost his team more cap punishment the next year

Ogrezilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2012, 12:24 PM
  #349
wej20
Registered User
 
wej20's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Swansea,UK
Country: Wales
Posts: 21,641
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogrezilla View Post
If I'm not mistaken, Toews got a bonus for winning the Conn Smythe and it cost his team more cap punishment the next year
has a defenseman on an ELC ever won the Conn Smythe? I have to imagine he'd be the first

wej20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2012, 01:06 PM
  #350
Tender Rip
Learning from Scuds?
 
Tender Rip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Shanghai, China
Posts: 12,403
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
Again, it's a lie. I'm not sure how else to sugar coat that. So when someone lies about something you have said, it is difficult not to misconstrue it, especially when the statement was poorly phrased to begin with.

Essentially you put the onious on yourself now to find the quote (s) where I stated I was always agt the Martin signing. When you come up short, I expect an apology...

22.06.2012 - less than a week ago.
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...&postcount=395

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
Two Summers ago you and I were pissed Shero signed Martin and not Whits...
So not only did I find the quote where you express your satisfaction about signing Martin on the day it happened (something you claim you were not), because with him and Michalek we would have a top 3 defence (something you claimed you never said), we also have the one from this week where you declared yourself pissed he was signed rather than signing Ray Whitney...(and I am supposed to infer that 'pissed' means.... something else than pissed.... and was only relative to a potential Whitney signing?)

You ask a lot me in terms of benign and thorough reading of your arguments and the thoughts behind them then. Slightly more than you will offer the other way around, I might add. And taking you at your word makes me a liar....

Those are lofty context demands from a guy who stubbornly insists - despite a now near infinite number of requests for more than one very unusual example to corroborate the very notion that we're actually debating - that:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
All you need is one example
...and yes, in fact I do know you were defending Martin for a long, long time. After all I have been the person here who probably have been most against that signing, so I noticed.
I also believe that you - just like me btw. - has said that Martin will still have significant value, because he is no way near as bad as what his last season implies. In fact he is a very good defenseman in the right kind of situation. That situation was just never going to be in Pittsburgh considering the rest of the gang we had. A shame with Michalek though.

But enough of this. I'll leave the field and hopefully Chancellor Vitale can have his wish with more talk about this exciting new prospect of ours.


Last edited by Tender Rip: 06-28-2012 at 01:12 PM.
Tender Rip 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 03:35 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.