HFBoards

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

2012 CBJ Offseason Part III (Proposals, Speculations, Blog Rumors, etc. go here)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-03-2012, 09:53 PM
  #601
LetsGOJackets!!
Registered User
 
LetsGOJackets!!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Columbus Ohio
Posts: 2,583
vCash: 500
tanking is such a miss used term..

I look at the Pittsburgh Penguins that got picks Crosby & Malkin in back to back years and will always see their logo next to the phrase "tanking for draft picks" in my head. Did it hurt their fanbase? Did it hurt their teams reputation? Hell no it gave them a really good decade of hockey teams.

Now tanking and then still sucking a few years later, thats not tanking just mismanagement. Of course it generally leads to a change in management, except when expectations were set so low in the 1st place.

LetsGOJackets!! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2012, 10:07 PM
  #602
Viqsi
carrying the flag
 
Viqsi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: The Scary Internet
Country: United States
Posts: 21,775
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Viqsi
Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGOJackets!! View Post
I look at the Pittsburgh Penguins that got picks Crosby & Malkin in back to back years and will always see their logo next to the phrase "tanking for draft picks" in my head. Did it hurt their fanbase? Did it hurt their teams reputation? Hell no it gave them a really good decade of hockey teams.

Now tanking and then still sucking a few years later, thats not tanking just mismanagement. Of course it generally leads to a change in management, except when expectations were set so low in the 1st place.
I will not tolerate, nor will I seriously consider, any argument in favor of tanking. Ever. It's throwing away an entire season (in which entertainment - the goal of this whole thing - becomes very hard to come by in any form) for the sake of a poor-quality gamble. I don't care how much the hype machine is bouncing and screaming and foaming at the mouth over the flavor of the month. Hope is not a strategy.

__________________
Remember - when you're a hockey fan, it's not "reckless driving", it's "good forechecking".
"Viqsi, you are our sweet humanist..." --mt-svk on the CBJ boards

Thanks, Howson, for cleaning up MacLean's toxic waste. Welcome, Kekalainen; let's get good things built!
Viqsi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2012, 10:11 PM
  #603
punk_o_holic
 
punk_o_holic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: N. Vancouver, B.C.
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,141
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viqsi View Post
I will not tolerate, nor will I seriously consider, any argument in favor of tanking. Ever. It's throwing away an entire season (in which entertainment - the goal of this whole thing - becomes very hard to come by in any form) for the sake of a poor-quality gamble. I don't care how much the hype machine is bouncing and screaming and foaming at the mouth over the flavor of the month. Hope is not a strategy.
If a team were to tank on purpose, it all comes down to the players. Imo, players have pride and would rather win and climb up the standings, rather then lose on purpose to get a better draft pick. I don't think players wants to be known as the player that was on that ****** team that came in last place in the league.

Only problem is, if you're trying your hardest and the team keeps losing, after a while, I think you get used to the losing atmosphere and you give up hope. Now would that be considered tanking or is it the losing atmosphere just taking a toll on the players?


Last edited by punk_o_holic: 09-03-2012 at 10:57 PM.
punk_o_holic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2012, 06:06 AM
  #604
EspenK
Registered User
 
EspenK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,749
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viqsi View Post
I will not tolerate, nor will I seriously consider, any argument in favor of tanking. Ever. It's throwing away an entire season (in which entertainment - the goal of this whole thing - becomes very hard to come by in any form) for the sake of a poor-quality gamble. I don't care how much the hype machine is bouncing and screaming and foaming at the mouth over the flavor of the month. Hope is not a strategy.
Tanking and building a team intelligently are two entirely different things. Obviously you don't see the difference. Adding a player to win a few more games when you were the worst team in the league is dumb. Part of MacLean's problem's was the continuous revolving door of vets who were supposed to help but really didn't many brought in by trading draft choices (not that our drafting was very good).

Richardson, Sydor, LaChance, Federov, Marchant, etc.

Now I know you will come back with a bunch of stats showing how many of these guys contributed-yes, to an 8th pick or a 6th pick but never the creme de la creme picks or the playoffs.

Tanking is intentionally losing or holding your best players out of a key game. See the difference?

See the difference?

EspenK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2012, 08:47 AM
  #605
Viqsi
carrying the flag
 
Viqsi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: The Scary Internet
Country: United States
Posts: 21,775
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Viqsi
Quote:
Originally Posted by EspenK View Post
Tanking and building a team intelligently are two entirely different things.
Very true. Building a team intelligently means targeting players that will work and improve the team, not throwing away production - or assiduously avoiding it - because it interferes with your gambling habit.

MacLean's problem wasn't that he kept bringing in vets. It's that he kept doing the job halfway and expecting miracles. We were looking at bringing in someone like Sykora because he'd likely be valuable secondary scoring. He'd bring in Sykora and expect him to improve on his (impressive, unlikely) numbers from last year, and fire the coach if he wasn't played on the first line.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EspenK View Post
Tanking is intentionally losing or holding your best players out of a key game. See the difference?

See the difference?
It's also saying that we shouldn't get certain guys because they might accidentally make the team better.

****. That. ****.

Viqsi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2012, 09:21 AM
  #606
pete goegan
HFBoards Sponsor
 
pete goegan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 12,178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viqsi View Post

It's also saying that we shouldn't get certain guys because they might accidentally make the team better.

****. That. ****.
x two

pete goegan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2012, 11:09 AM
  #607
Crede777
Deputized
 
Crede777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 8,131
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EspenK View Post
Tanking is intentionally losing or holding your best players out of a key game. See the difference?

See the difference?
You forgot one other way to tank. In addition to losing intentionally or holding your best players out, you can also keep bad players in. Acknowledging their ineptitude but keeping them in place is tacit admission of tanking.

See: Steve Mason.

If I am a business owner and there is a severely underperforming employee of mine, if I acknowledge his lack of performance but fail to replace him, I am supporting an environment which condones that type of ineptitude.

Crede777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2012, 03:10 PM
  #608
EspenK
Registered User
 
EspenK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,749
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viqsi View Post
Very true. Building a team intelligently means targeting players that will work and improve the team, not throwing away production - or assiduously avoiding it - because it interferes with your gambling habit.

MacLean's problem wasn't that he kept bringing in vets. It's that he kept doing the job halfway and expecting miracles. We were looking at bringing in someone like Sykora because he'd likely be valuable secondary scoring. He'd bring in Sykora and expect him to improve on his (impressive, unlikely) numbers from last year, and fire the coach if he wasn't played on the first line.



It's also saying that we shouldn't get certain guys because they might accidentally make the team better.

****. That. ****.
So lets say we sign Sykora and Arnott and by some miracle they play close to 82 games, add about 30 pts apiece, deprive some of the youngins playing time, lead the jackets to say 22-24th in the league and announce their retirement.

Please explain how that kind of a scenario helps the jackets long term?

EspenK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2012, 03:26 PM
  #609
Double-Shift Lassť
Moderator
Just post better
 
Double-Shift Lassť's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Semirural Cbus
Country: United States
Posts: 18,684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EspenK View Post
So lets say we sign Sykora and Arnott and by some miracle they play close to 82 games, add about 30 pts apiece, deprive some of the youngins playing time, lead the jackets to say 22-24th in the league and announce their retirement.

Please explain how that kind of a scenario helps the jackets long term?
Nice selective use of language to phrase your question in a totally non-biased way.

"Deprive" the youngins of playing time? How about manage their ice time and put them in situations in which they can both learn but also have success?

See how the language game can be played both ways?

"By some miracle"? Because only old players sustain injuries? Also, I can't tell whether, in your scenario, you think that those two geezers playing close to 82 games is a good or bad thing.

__________________
"Every game, every point is a necessity." -- Ty Conklin, January 2007
"I'll have a chance to compete for the post of first issue. This is the most important thing." -- Sergei Bobrovsky, June 2012
Double-Shift Lassť is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2012, 03:29 PM
  #610
blahblah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 17,178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EspenK View Post
So lets say we sign Sykora and Arnott and by some miracle they play close to 82 games, add about 30 pts apiece, deprive some of the youngins playing time, lead the jackets to say 22-24th in the league and announce their retirement.

Please explain how that kind of a scenario helps the jackets long term?
Now see this is why I miss this place so much when I leave for a bit. You lead breadcrumbs to a place that may not exist, but you expect someone to defend your attack that created some possible doomsday scenario. You've already preordained that there could not be any possible benefits to their arrival. By your logic, bringing in Aucoin was a bad idea as well.

Just for clarification, assuming we are talking about the Sykora I am thinking of, he could have close to 30 goals. Never mind points.

Miss a week or two and you miss a lot.

blahblah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2012, 04:30 PM
  #611
candyman82
Registered User
 
candyman82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
Posts: 2,588
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EspenK View Post
So lets say we sign Sykora and Arnott and by some miracle they play close to 82 games, add about 30 pts apiece, deprive some of the youngins playing time, lead the jackets to say 22-24th in the league and announce their retirement.

Please explain how that kind of a scenario helps the jackets long term?
This idea reminds of the mistakes that we made in 2009-2010

candyman82 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2012, 04:41 PM
  #612
EspenK
Registered User
 
EspenK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,749
vCash: 500
Sykora has scored 30 goals, twice in his career;last time in 2002-3
Had 21 last year for NJ. Him score 30 here? I doubt it.

The whole argument is that we have a full roster of forwards signed and supposedly are building an identity of tough to play against. I'm pretty sure Sykora doesn't fit that bill and Arnott may have once upon a time but maybe (probably) not now. As constructed, I don't see the Jackets making the playoffs and they have a good shot at a top 5 pick. To start adding over the hill (or soon to be) vets to boost our position in the standings a few spots makes no sense to me.

If we were talking about adding a Bobby Ryan, where there would hopefully be a long term benefit as well as a short term one, I'd be in favor of it. Aged vets, not so much.

Field (ice?) a hard working team and let the chips fall where they may. I would rather go that route and wind up with one of MacKinnon, Monahan, etc than finish 20th and add to the distinguished list of number 1's in Jacket history.

Adding Aucoin does nothing for me one way or the other; I expect his impact to be similar to the impact Prospal made. 30th place is nowhere to go but up;without Prospal we most likely would have been in the same place. With or without Aucoin I see the result as plus or minus a few points. A solid guy on the third pairing isn't bringing the playoffs to Columbus.

The only logical argument that can be made for adding an Arnott or someone like him is to teach and influence the young guys. To expect significant improvement in the team as the result of adding such a player is beyond my comprehension. And to suggest that it is tanking, well, that is bs. By Viqsi and pete's logic, if the Jackets don't make any further roster moves they will be deemed tankers.Yes?

EspenK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2012, 04:52 PM
  #613
FANonymous
Registered User
 
FANonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,911
vCash: 500
Honestly I don't think anyone knows what the plan is. Including those people who are getting paid to institute it.

FANonymous is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2012, 07:49 PM
  #614
Double-Shift Lassť
Moderator
Just post better
 
Double-Shift Lassť's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Semirural Cbus
Country: United States
Posts: 18,684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EspenK View Post
Sykora has scored 30 goals, twice in his career;last time in 2002-3
Had 21 last year for NJ. Him score 30 here? I doubt it.

The whole argument is that we have a full roster of forwards signed and supposedly are building an identity of tough to play against. I'm pretty sure Sykora doesn't fit that bill and Arnott may have once upon a time but maybe (probably) not now. As constructed, I don't see the Jackets making the playoffs and they have a good shot at a top 5 pick. To start adding over the hill (or soon to be) vets to boost our position in the standings a few spots makes no sense to me.

If we were talking about adding a Bobby Ryan, where there would hopefully be a long term benefit as well as a short term one, I'd be in favor of it. Aged vets, not so much.

Field (ice?) a hard working team and let the chips fall where they may. I would rather go that route and wind up with one of MacKinnon, Monahan, etc than finish 20th and add to the distinguished list of number 1's in Jacket history.

Adding Aucoin does nothing for me one way or the other; I expect his impact to be similar to the impact Prospal made. 30th place is nowhere to go but up;without Prospal we most likely would have been in the same place. With or without Aucoin I see the result as plus or minus a few points. A solid guy on the third pairing isn't bringing the playoffs to Columbus.

The only logical argument that can be made for adding an Arnott or someone like him is to teach and influence the young guys. To expect significant improvement in the team as the result of adding such a player is beyond my comprehension. And to suggest that it is tanking, well, that is bs. By Viqsi and pete's logic, if the Jackets don't make any further roster moves they will be deemed tankers.Yes?
Setting aside your premise that better is worse and worse is better - which I'll let others tackle...

1) You are measuring player contribution only as it affects the final standings. I think most people are savvy enough to figure out that's not the only way to measure player contribution.

2) You are assuming that the team as constituted won't finish 20th, and that the team with the addition of another vet will not finish 30th. (This is where most folks on the internet would ask you for tomorrow's lottery numbers.)

Funny you should mention Prospal, as that example blows holes in both of your positions as I've outlined them here. First, are you suggesting that, because the team finished 30th after adding Prospal that the team did not benefit from his presence? Second, accoridng to your logic, since the team finished 30th after adding Prospal, the team should be adding another vet this year to help ensure the same result in the standings.

Double-Shift Lassť is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2012, 07:51 PM
  #615
Viqsi
carrying the flag
 
Viqsi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: The Scary Internet
Country: United States
Posts: 21,775
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Viqsi
Quote:
Originally Posted by EspenK View Post
The whole argument is that we have a full roster of forwards signed and supposedly are building an identity of tough to play against. I'm pretty sure Sykora doesn't fit that bill and Arnott may have once upon a time but maybe (probably) not now.
Sykora may not be the apotheosis of toughness, but he can play well in such a system. See: his prior years in New Jersey.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EspenK View Post
As constructed, I don't see the Jackets making the playoffs and they have a good shot at a top 5 pick. To start adding over the hill (or soon to be) vets to boost our position in the standings a few spots makes no sense to me.
See, I think the playoffs and last overall are more or less equally likely. I'm not interested in any sort of roster management justification based on "we could have a higher pick otherwise". That is a tanking mentality. And while I am not (yet) in a position to forbid such things entirely, I'm not about to tolerate it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EspenK View Post
Field (ice?) a hard working team and let the chips fall where they may. I would rather go that route and wind up with one of MacKinnon, Monahan, etc than finish 20th and add to the distinguished list of number 1's in Jacket history.
I do not care one iota who is likely to be drafted. Wake me when the season's over.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EspenK View Post
By Viqsi and pete's logic, if the Jackets don't make any further roster moves they will be deemed tankers.Yes?
Not in the slightest. If we can't get a guy for other reasons, then we at least tried. If we don't bother trying to get a guy because "oh no he might make the team do better and we can't have that", then somebody in the front office needs to be set on fire.



Quote:
Originally Posted by FANonymous View Post
Honestly I don't think anyone knows what the plan is. Including those people who are getting paid to institute it.
I can't fathom the logical chain that led to that conclusion (and I pride myself on my ability to deduce and follow other people's logical chains, particularly the broken ones ), but I hesitate to go into any more detail considering what happened the last time this discussion occurred.

Viqsi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2012, 08:09 PM
  #616
EspenK
Registered User
 
EspenK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,749
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Double-Shift Lassť View Post
Setting aside your premise that better is worse and worse is better - which I'll let others tackle...

1) You are measuring player contribution only as it affects the final standings. I think most people are savvy enough to figure out that's not the only way to measure player contribution.

2) You are assuming that the team as constituted won't finish 20th, and that the team with the addition of another vet will not finish 30th. (This is where most folks on the internet would ask you for tomorrow's lottery numbers.)

Funny you should mention Prospal, as that example blows holes in both of your positions as I've outlined them here. First, are you suggesting that, because the team finished 30th after adding Prospal that the team did not benefit from his presence? Second, accoridng to your logic, since the team finished 30th after adding Prospal, the team should be adding another vet this year to help ensure the same result in the standings.
Other than some esoteric "I think the Jackets benefited from Vinnie because he made X see how a true vet plays the game" I don't see how a team that finished dead last benefited from his addition. Maybe a better 30th than if he wasn't here but 30th none the less.

As to your second point I don't think that that is what I said and i think you are just interpreting my comments to help you make some point.

My bottom line point is I don't think adding a guy at the end of his career, even (especially) if he makes the team a bit better is the smart way to develop a Cup contender in the long term. Three or four years down the line and that is the final piece that makes the team a real contender, fine but not now. Call it tanking if you want; I prefer to think of it as a reasonable approach to building a team for the future.

EspenK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2012, 08:11 PM
  #617
leesmith
Still in.
 
leesmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 16,872
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viqsi View Post
Very true. Building a team intelligently means targeting players that will work and improve the team, not throwing away production - or assiduously avoiding it - because it interferes with your gambling habit.

MacLean's problem wasn't that he kept bringing in vets. It's that he kept doing the job halfway and expecting miracles. We were looking at bringing in someone like Sykora because he'd likely be valuable secondary scoring. He'd bring in Sykora and expect him to improve on his (impressive, unlikely) numbers from last year, and fire the coach if he wasn't played on the first line.



It's also saying that we shouldn't get certain guys because they might accidentally make the team better.

****. That. ****.
It's just sad that we're even HAVING this conversation here.

My position is that we need to give the kids lots of ice time this year now that we have mentors in place. Don't bring in a soon-to-be-retiree to take up their ice time. However, we still need upgrade the goalie position because to properly develop the kids, they need to be rewarded when they do things right.

leesmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2012, 08:14 PM
  #618
Samkow
Global Moderator
 
Samkow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Detroit
Country: United States
Posts: 14,651
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to Samkow
Sykora is unsigned for a reason. He doesn't play defense and really doesn't fit into the "tough to play against" thing that Howson's been going for in recent months. Arnott fits the mold, but has nothing left in the tank.

I'd pass on both.

__________________
Truth should never get in the way of a good persecution complex.
Samkow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2012, 08:27 PM
  #619
FANonymous
Registered User
 
FANonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viqsi View Post
I can't fathom the logical chain that led to that conclusion (and I pride myself on my ability to deduce and follow other people's logical chains, particularly the broken ones ), but I hesitate to go into any more detail considering what happened the last time this discussion occurred.
It's pretty simple. You want to see a plan so that's what you see.

To me it looks more like Howson desperately trying anything and everything and none of it working. Let's see how this latest experiment goes, we're only losing time and money. No big deal.

FANonymous is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2012, 08:30 PM
  #620
leesmith
Still in.
 
leesmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 16,872
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FANonymous View Post
It's pretty simple. You want to see a plan so that's what you see.

To me it looks more like Howson desperately trying anything and everything and none of it working. Let's see how this latest experiment goes, we're only losing time and money. No big deal.
We can only hope Craig Patrick is the one with the plan.

leesmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2012, 09:00 PM
  #621
Viqsi
carrying the flag
 
Viqsi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: The Scary Internet
Country: United States
Posts: 21,775
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Viqsi
Quote:
Originally Posted by leesmith View Post
My position is that we need to give the kids lots of ice time this year now that we have mentors in place. Don't bring in a soon-to-be-retiree to take up their ice time.
I would like to refute this absolutist position by waving my arms and running around shouting "GILBERT BRULEEEEEEE!!!!!!!1111"

AHL ice time counts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FANonymous View Post
It's pretty simple. You want to see a plan so that's what you see.
Thanks for sharing. It's always good to know what I'm actually thinking.

It's also entirely possible that I just happen to notice certain patterns of behavior with the GM. I was one of the few who followed along prior to last offseason, so, yeah, maybe this accusation could be leveled back then and we could have kept it as a simple "he said she said" (and, frankly, during last offseason it would have been an accurate statement because otherwise I was going to end up the Debbie Downer for our Brave New Beginning - which, in hindsight, I probably should have embraced ), but now damn near everybody here sees the pattern of action that's been adopted, so now you just look silly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FANonymous View Post
To me it looks more like Howson desperately trying anything and everything and none of it working.
That would be a very accurate depiction of the 2011 offseason, and part of why I was equal parts cautiously optimistic and completely freaked out.


Quote:
Originally Posted by leesmith View Post
We can only hope Craig Patrick is the one with the plan.
I certainly think he's settled things down. It looks like a twist on what was done before (fill the roster with capable secondary vets and let the kids develop to take the high-end jobs), but with what looks like much better attention to overall team chemistry.

Viqsi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2012, 09:12 PM
  #622
leesmith
Still in.
 
leesmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 16,872
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viqsi View Post
I would like to refute this absolutist position by waving my arms and running around shouting "GILBERT BRULEEEEEEE!!!!!!!1111"

AHL ice time counts.
Brule's performance for other NHL teams absolves from the CBJ for most of his lack of development.

And yes, I generally subscribe to Ken Hitchcock's belief that "the AHL is for development, the NHL is for winning" but the front office apparently doesn't share this point of view. So I'm making the best of it.

leesmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2012, 09:36 PM
  #623
FANonymous
Registered User
 
FANonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viqsi View Post
Thanks for sharing. It's always good to know what I'm actually thinking.

It's also entirely possible that I just happen to notice certain patterns of behavior with the GM. I was one of the few who followed along prior to last offseason, so, yeah, maybe this accusation could be leveled back then and we could have kept it as a simple "he said she said" (and, frankly, during last offseason it would have been an accurate statement because otherwise I was going to end up the Debbie Downer for our Brave New Beginning - which, in hindsight, I probably should have embraced ), but now damn near everybody here sees the pattern of action that's been adopted, so now you just look silly.
Okay. Tell me how well your plan goes when the jackets finish at the bottom of the league again. Or is that part of the plan too?

FANonymous is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2012, 09:42 PM
  #624
pete goegan
HFBoards Sponsor
 
pete goegan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 12,178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EspenK View Post
As constructed, I don't see the Jackets making the playoffs and they have a good shot at a top 5 in the team as the result of adding such a player is beyond my comprehension. And to suggest that it is tanking, well, that is bs. By Viqsi and pete's logic, if the Jackets don't make any further roster moves they will be deemed tankers.Yes?
Now you're trying to change the argument into what is and what isn't tanking? You're having enough trouble articulating your own ideas clearly, without trying to redefine mine.

pete goegan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2012, 10:07 PM
  #625
Viqsi
carrying the flag
 
Viqsi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: The Scary Internet
Country: United States
Posts: 21,775
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Viqsi
Quote:
Originally Posted by leesmith View Post
And yes, I generally subscribe to Ken Hitchcock's belief that "the AHL is for development, the NHL is for winning" but the front office apparently doesn't share this point of view.
What year is this? Because that hasn't been true since Doug MacLean was fired.

The front office has been adding vets instead of, say, having John Moore play regular minutes in 09-10 or 10-11. He wouldn't have played regular minutes this year either except that we got disastered w/r/t blueline injuries.

The front office, when presented with a rapidly rising David Savard, has opted to keep him developing in the AHL - and when he did get called up to the NHL, we were able to give him sheltered minutes because Lebda (yes, Lebda) was signed and was doing well.

The front office has brought up guys before they're fully NHL-ready at times... for brief periods, to see how they're doing, on short-term basis only.

Right now the only folks here I see associated in any way with the Jackets subscribing to that point of view are EspenK and yourself, and you're saying it's because of "everyone else". I confess I am therefore a tad lost.


Quote:
Originally Posted by FANonymous View Post
Okay. Tell me how well your plan goes when the jackets finish at the bottom of the league again. Or is that part of the plan too?
Expressions of pessimism and cynicism does not constitute a refutation of an argument any more than expressions of optimism do.

Alternatively: "You'll be singing a different tune when we make the playoffs." hey, it's just as absurd as an assertion...

Viqsi 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 08:57 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.