HFBoards

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

All Encompassing Tanking/Rebuilding/Selling at Deadline Thread 2.0

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-22-2013, 01:57 PM
  #326
JohnLennon
Registered User
 
JohnLennon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,190
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
And we're off to a great start here...

So you're telling us that we didn't finish 15th with Plecs and Cole in the lineup last year?

I guess by 'flat-out wrong' you mean 'absolutely correct' right? Because that's FACT not opinion. Seriously man... you can't even acknowledge this?

I said we finished 15th last year with both guys in the lineup. And I was right.

I also said we could easily do the same thing this year. As for the 06-07 season, I don't remember Cole being on that roster dude. I'm talking about the state of the team as it is and what we should do about it.

But you can't even admit to the simple fact that we finished 15th. No wonder you don't understand anything.


Yeah you're right the Flyers didn't break up their core... oh wait, they dealt away Richards and Carter....

As for the Bruins, they didn't trade for any picks either and... oh wait, they got Seguin, Rask and Hamilton all picks and prosepects from the Maple Leafs.

But yeah, let's not talk about that part...

If he doesn't warrant a 1st then why is he so valuable to our team? Which is it? Is he a star or is he worthless? As for his value, I was pretty clear that he'd have to have a decent season to fetch a 1st. I don't see how he doesn't if he puts up decent numbers.

As for Plecs being part of the core... that's great and all but this core isn't going anywhere right now. If it was, I wouldn't think about trading him. And no we don't NEED Plecs on this team so stop being so frantic. We have other vets who can play mommy to the kids. It doesn't have to be him.

And I'm also not suggesting he be dumped or given away. If he doesn't net a strong prospect or top ten pick then don't deal him. I'm just saying that we should try to shop him... that's all.



How many vets have to be on the roster? 20? 10?

We've got enough that we can trade those three guys away man. Passing up on young talent for the sake of a babysitter is silly.

So what? We should've done this long ago when Koivu left. We didn't. We went for quick fixes. So instead of builidng when we should've we wasted years with Gomez and co. Now you want to put it off some more? Why? Why are the next two seasons so important to you when we're not all that good a team right now?


They'll get vets down the road. They did things the right way (even if it was unintentional) and got the talent first. Ryan Smyth is over there, he can play the role of leader just like Gionta can for us. You're talking like all these players will be lost forever. They won't.

It's a whole lot easier to get role players via FA down the road to flesh out a roster than it is to get young talent to build around.

How do you not understand this?

I love it when people say we should be like Detroit as though we can just all of a sudden start winning like they did. That club drafted high more than any other team did in the 80s and got one of the best players of all time out of it. Then they got lucky with Fedorov and Lidstrom late in draffs (something that's almost impossible to do)... once that's done then you're going to win a cup no matter what.

Detroit had MULTIPLE superstars on it. We've had none. And if you don't have superstars... good luck. We can't just wake up and decide to be Detroit dude...

Detroit's path can't be repeated. Edmonton's can. That's the difference.
Dude, please, stop avoiding arguments by pretending to be dumb. You know very well I was referring to the claim you made saying we should deal useful players when we finish last. Which is and always will be one of the dumbest things you've said. That statement, and the Markov for a 1st, were the ones I was explaining to be flat-out wrong... don't play dumb. And why are you even talking about Cole being on the roster in 06-07? Do you have reading comprehension issues? I said we haven't finished outside the playoffs since 06-07, making a point that finishing 15th isn't a common occurrence, and you avoid that point completely and go rambling about Cole? What?

Your argument isn't valid, dude. Philadelphia had a crap season and bounced back with the SAME roster, that's the whole point! They only traded Richards and Carter after making the playoffs 2-3 consecutive years first. And no one said anything about the Bruins trading picks! Stop making your own arguments up so that you can ignore what else was said. The Kessel trade has nothing to do with it, they traded him 3 years later! You are so bad at this, it is ridiculous. No one can win an argument with you because you pull random facts that have no correlation into the argument and then argue against those facts instead of the argument ACTUALLY PRESENTED. They traded Kessel for two first-rounders, 3 years later, and honestly who would give that up anyway? The point is that both these teams bounced back from being last or dead-last and maintained the same core of veteran leadership and SUCCEEDED with it, especially in Boston's case.

As for Markov, dude are you blind? Can you not see he is much more value on this team than off it? His trade value is at an all-time low right now, and you want to trade him? Think about that for a moment, let that sink in. All your arguments make no sense, that's why no one agrees with you. You don't trade a veteran who was injured for two years away when his value is low as it has ever been, especially when he is showing good signs right now. You let him play and see how he does, then make a judgment from there. People like you make me crazy, crying for trades after you have seen a single game played in three years by the player.

Plekanec could very well net us something good, but he IS a bigger piece on this team than you think. He is experienced in the playoffs, plays in EVERY single situation, is a great passer and can play top line minutes. Of course, if we can get a great return for him, go for it, but you throw around the idea of trading all our vets just for the sake of trading them and it's insanely silly.

Why are you complaining, as if I said we can just pick up and be the new Detroit? I said we should take example from a team like Detroit that consistently succeeded in the cap era, while you want a team like Edmonton who has made the playoffs twice in like 10 years! It is quite silly how you say Detroit's path can't be repeated while Edmonton's can. Just a dumb remark, man... come on. Detroit had superstars like Datsyuk and Lidstrom, with a great supporting caste of youth and veterans, while drafting well and developing prospects. I am talking the recent Detroit here, not what you were rambling about in the 80s. The Habs have a goaltender, which Detroit didn't. We have a great young core to build around, and we need to support that core with a good mix of veterans and youth. Trade one or two veterans, get a solid mix of both on this lineup, then develop our draft picks properly and not rush them like you want, and keep drafting well. It's as simple as that. We need a retool, we don't need to trade away all our assets, and let me paraphrase your ridiculous statement from before "useful players that don't mean anything if you're on a team that finished 15th". Give your head a shake man! No one rebuilds anymore unless the circumstances are critical.

Just stop for a minute and think about it: how would you rather your team be managed, like a team like Detroit, the class of the league for decades, or a team like Edmonton, who obviously hasn't done anything since that fairytale run. EVERYONE will take Detroit, even Oilers fans for god's sake.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blind Gardien View Post
The 80's Edmonton? Well, the thing is, anybody on any side can cherry pick any number of examples, franchise or player, and none of it means anything as a general rule or guiding philosophy. You need a stable and smart management structure, and/or a dose of good luck along the way. The rest follows from that. Make good trades at the right times, whether they are for veterans or for draft picks, win hockey games, grow the culture of winning, cross your fingers.
Pretty much exactly what he said. When I speak of Detroit, I speak about how their organization is managed, how they go about doing things, their plan of action. It is the class of the league and has been for years. All we need is a stable management that makes the right decisions at the right times, make good, smart trades and draft well, while developing properly. That really is a recipe for success.


Last edited by JohnLennon: 01-22-2013 at 02:06 PM.
JohnLennon is offline  
Old
01-22-2013, 02:02 PM
  #327
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 16,069
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
Why are you complaining, as if I said we can just pick up and be the new Detroit? I said we should take example from a team like Detroit that consistently succeeded in the cap era, while you want a team like Edmonton who has made the playoffs twice in like 10 years! It is quite silly how you say Detroit's path can't be repeated while Edmonton's can. Just a dumb remark, man... come on. Detroit had superstars like Datsyuk and Lidstrom, with a great supporting caste of youth and veterans, while drafting well and developing prospects. I am talking the recent Detroit here, not what you were rambling about in the 80s. The Habs have a goaltender, which Detroit didn't. We have a great young core to build around, and we need to support that core with a good mix of veterans and youth. Trade one or two veterans, get a solid mix of both on this lineup, then develop our draft picks properly and not rush them like you want, and keep drafting well. It's as simple as that. We need a retool, we don't need to trade away all our assets, and let me paraphrase your ridiculous statement from before "useful players that don't mean anything if you're on a team that finished 15th". Give your head a shake man! No one rebuilds anymore unless the circumstances are critical.

Just stop for a minute and think about it: how would you rather your team be managed, like a team like Detroit, the class of the league for decades, or a team like Edmonton, who obviously hasn't done anything since that fairytale run. EVERYONE will take Detroit, even Oilers fans for god's sake.
actually, he's right, every team can easily make moves to "guarantee" a decade of losing

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
01-22-2013, 02:06 PM
  #328
JohnLennon
Registered User
 
JohnLennon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,190
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
actually, he's right, every team can easily make moves to "guarantee" a decade of losing
You make a VERY good point

JohnLennon is offline  
Old
01-22-2013, 02:31 PM
  #329
cphabs
It complels you!
 
cphabs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: WNY
Country: United States
Posts: 759
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
Wrong. Higher picks in the first round are less risky, it is fact. Why do you write such things?

And then a tired cliche. Sometimes the grass really is greener on the other side of the fence dude. We finished 15th last year. The grass in our yard is dead.
You and wiskyseven(?) have some of the best quotes.

cphabs is offline  
Old
01-22-2013, 03:48 PM
  #330
habsfanatics
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,077
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
Nice argument based on one case.

Of course the Habs may fail if they rebuild, no one here has said a cup is guaranteed by rebuilding.

But I would rather finish near the top of the conference most years like Wash, with an exciting team that has star players, and have a legit chance at a cup, than be **** for 20 years.
Yes, being better on paper without actually doing anything is much more exciting.

habsfanatics is offline  
Old
01-22-2013, 03:54 PM
  #331
habsfanatics
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,077
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsl View Post
Wrong. Higher picks in the first round are less risky, it is fact. Why do you write such things?

And then a tired cliche. Sometimes the grass really is greener on the other side of the fence dude. We finished 15th last year. The grass in our yard is dead.
You have no idea what you're on about. I never said that higher picks carry as much risk as lower picks. Try making coherent arguments. We have names for when we people misrepresent someone's argument and then argue against the misrepresentation they've presented.

First round picks are still risky, many bust, all kinds, every year. We're not talking about top 5 picks that we're going to acquire for cole, gionta, and the like now are we. Or are you living in a bubble?

If you trade gionta for 20th overall pick there is a much higher chance that that player never comes close to Gionta at any time during his career. Wake the hell up.


Last edited by habsfanatics: 01-22-2013 at 04:02 PM.
habsfanatics is offline  
Old
01-22-2013, 04:00 PM
  #332
habsfanatics
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,077
vCash: 500
I also love how LafleursGuy looks at successful teams in hindsight and lists the players that were top 10 picks and labels them as proof positive the team were in a rebuild mode, but when montreal lands picks in top 10 it had nothing to do with being in rebuild mode. "We've been fighting for 8th place for 20 years, blablabla". How come other teams top picks were obvious rebuilding moves, but our own top picks were because we failed to make our ever ending push for 8th place?

I'd have np if he was consistent, but he's all over the map. He applies one standard to 29 teams and another to our own.

habsfanatics is offline  
Old
01-22-2013, 04:11 PM
  #333
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 7,542
vCash: 500
John,

You can follow the Detroit model simultaneously to all other models.

The Detroit model is to pick Franzen in the 3rd round, Lidstrom in the 3rd round, Zetterberg in the 6th round, and Datsyuk in the 7th round. That's a great model if you can pull it off.

The good news about that model is that you can pull it off regardless of whether or not you're a 1st place or 15th placer team. Lafleurs Guy likes to point out that picks 1-5 are better than 6-10 which are better than 10-15 and so on... but the steepness of the quality versus pick number curves declines at large pick numbers. Pick number 61 is not that much better than pick number 75, and pick number 153 is not that much better than pick 184.

Therefore, the Detroit model is not an alternative to other models, it's complementary.

On that note I'll point out that we're pretty good in the later rounds. 1st pairing dman Markov was a 7th rounder. 2nd line center Plekanec was a 3rd rounder. 2nd line center Grabovski was a 5th rounder. 1st line winger Sergei Kostitsyn was a 7th rounder. Right now, we have former 5th rounder Brenden Gallagher and former 4th rounder Morgan Ellis as two of the better prospects in our system.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
01-22-2013, 04:22 PM
  #334
JohnLennon
Registered User
 
JohnLennon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,190
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
John,

You can follow the Detroit model simultaneously to all other models.

The Detroit model is to pick Franzen in the 3rd round, Lidstrom in the 3rd round, Zetterberg in the 6th round, and Datsyuk in the 7th round. That's a great model if you can pull it off.

The good news about that model is that you can pull it off regardless of whether or not you're a 1st place or 15th placer team. Lafleurs Guy likes to point out that picks 1-5 are better than 6-10 which are better than 10-15 and so on... but the steepness of the quality versus pick number curves declines at large pick numbers. Pick number 61 is not that much better than pick number 75, and pick number 153 is not that much better than pick 184.

Therefore, the Detroit model is not an alternative to other models, it's complementary.

On that note I'll point out that we're pretty good in the later rounds. 1st pairing dman Markov was a 7th rounder. 2nd line center Plekanec was a 3rd rounder. 2nd line center Grabovski was a 5th rounder. 1st line winger Sergei Kostitsyn was a 7th rounder. Right now, we have former 5th rounder Brenden Gallagher and former 4th rounder Morgan Ellis as two of the better prospects in our system.
What you say is the Detroit model is not the Detroit model. A model is the way a team is built and managed. What you are talking about is drafting specifically, nothing else, and even then that isn't the Detroit model.

What you are explaining is how Detroit has great drafting, and that is but a portion of the Detroit model. I definitely think the Habs have a possibility to match Detroit's drafting techniques and success, and have been as of late.

The Detroit model that I think the Habs need to strive for is maintaining a healthy and effective management group, build around a great core of star players, draft well in all rounds, develop prospects as best we can and most importantly, get beyond stellar coaching. Detroit is the class of the league in the manner of how they compose themselves and run their organization, and if the Habs used that club as a role model I guarantee we would have more success.

JohnLennon is offline  
Old
01-22-2013, 04:30 PM
  #335
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 7,542
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
What you say is the Detroit model is not the Detroit model. A model is the way a team is built and managed. What you are talking about is drafting specifically, nothing else, and even then that isn't the Detroit model.

What you are explaining is how Detroit has great drafting, and that is but a portion of the Detroit model. I definitely think the Habs have a possibility to match Detroit's drafting techniques and success, and have been as of late.
We'll see how fabulous the Detroit model is in the next few years.

They have 3 cups in 20 years I think, 2 with former 1st overall Steve Yzerman, and 1 with Lidstrom, Datsyuk, and Zetterberg, all of whom should have gone 1st overall or close to it. However, all of those players are in decline right now.

Unless they nail the UFA market or acquire another lucky draft success, they are going to fall to bubble team status, maybe even lower. At that point people will see the much vaunted Detroit model for what it was: luck.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
The Detroit model that I think the Habs need to strive for is maintaining a healthy and effective management group, build around a great core of star players, draft well in all rounds, develop prospects as best we can and most importantly, get beyond stellar coaching. Detroit is the class of the league in the manner of how they compose themselves and run their organization, and if the Habs used that club as a role model I guarantee we would have more success.
There's no contradiction between any of that and rebuilding.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
01-22-2013, 04:31 PM
  #336
Blind Gardien
Global Moderator
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 19,841
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
The Detroit model that I think the Habs need to strive for is maintaining a healthy and effective management group, build around a great core of star players, draft well in all rounds, develop prospects as best we can and most importantly, get beyond stellar coaching. Detroit is the class of the league in the manner of how they compose themselves and run their organization, and if the Habs used that club as a role model I guarantee we would have more success.
Agreed. The Habs have some self-imposed limitations in that respect, however, but it shouldn't be impossible to overcome them. I think they "got their man" with Bergevin. I think they "settled" with Therrien, however. I don't think "settling" is going to get them where they need to be.

Blind Gardien is online now  
Old
01-22-2013, 04:32 PM
  #337
Lshap
Moderator
 
Lshap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsfanatics View Post
I also love how LafleursGuy looks at successful teams in hindsight and lists the players that were top 10 picks and labels them as proof positive the team were in a rebuild mode, but when montreal lands picks in top 10 it had nothing to do with being in rebuild mode. "We've been fighting for 8th place for 20 years, blablabla". How come other teams top picks were obvious rebuilding moves, but our own top picks were because we failed to make our ever ending push for 8th place?

I'd have np if he was consistent, but he's all over the map. He applies one standard to 29 teams and another to our own.
I'm finding the differences between what you, JohnLennon and LafleursGuy are saying are becoming narrower and narrower, to the point where the debate is less about specific moves the Habs need to make, and more about scoring personal zingers. All three of you are happy with the young core we have and have a common desire to build from there. All three of you recognize the value of top picks and the difficulty in getting them. All three of you would keep a vet or two, while trading away another vet or two depending what we could get in return. All three of you could see us buying a high-end UFA as the final piece of the puzzle in two or three years, once our prospects are developed and playing.

None of you guys are suggesting trading our core guys or draft picks. Nobody's saying our current roster is good to go as is. All you're arguing about are philosophical models (Detroit vs. Edmonton), definitions of terms like "Rebuild" and which vet is a keeper (Pleks vs. Markov vs. Cole vs. Gionta) for how many more seasons. Your debate has become more about conflicting metaphors than conflicting hockey strategies.

I'm mentioning this to you only because yours was the last post I saw. This applies equally to LafleursGuy and JohnLennon. My point to all three of you is that you agree on practically everything, except for the degrees and a specific name or two.

Lshap is online now  
Old
01-22-2013, 04:57 PM
  #338
JohnLennon
Registered User
 
JohnLennon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,190
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
We'll see how fabulous the Detroit model is in the next few years.

They have 3 cups in 20 years I think, 2 with former 1st overall Steve Yzerman, and 1 with Lidstrom, Datsyuk, and Zetterberg, all of whom should have gone 1st overall or close to it. However, all of those players are in decline right now.

Unless they nail the UFA market or acquire another lucky draft success, they are going to fall to bubble team status, maybe even lower. At that point people will see the much vaunted Detroit model for what it was: luck.

There's no contradiction between any of that and rebuilding.
My friend, everything in hockey boils down to luck. Detroit did it right, and has been doing it right for upwards of two decades. They have been in the playoffs every year for as long as I can remember because of their terrific model. Of course outstanding players helped lead them to the cup, but it was stellar management, drafting, developing and coaching that made everything possible. Who knows how those players would've turned out if they didn't develop with Detroit? I'm not saying we should strive for what they are today, but what they HAVE been for the last 20+ years. Essentially what Blind Gardien says below:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blind Gardien View Post
Agreed. The Habs have some self-imposed limitations in that respect, however, but it shouldn't be impossible to overcome them. I think they "got their man" with Bergevin. I think they "settled" with Therrien, however. I don't think "settling" is going to get them where they need to be.
I 100% agree with you. I feel comfortable with the management we have in place, but I still feel insecure with our coaching decision. Maybe the time will come when we get our man, or maybe Therrien does indeed turn out to be what we needed. I'm not sold yet, obviously, but only time will tell.

JohnLennon is offline  
Old
01-22-2013, 05:05 PM
  #339
JohnLennon
Registered User
 
JohnLennon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,190
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lshap View Post
I'm finding the differences between what you, JohnLennon and LafleursGuy are saying are becoming narrower and narrower, to the point where the debate is less about specific moves the Habs need to make, and more about scoring personal zingers. All three of you are happy with the young core we have and have a common desire to build from there. All three of you recognize the value of top picks and the difficulty in getting them. All three of you would keep a vet or two, while trading away another vet or two depending what we could get in return. All three of you could see us buying a high-end UFA as the final piece of the puzzle in two or three years, once our prospects are developed and playing.

None of you guys are suggesting trading our core guys or draft picks. Nobody's saying our current roster is good to go as is. All you're arguing about are philosophical models (Detroit vs. Edmonton), definitions of terms like "Rebuild" and which vet is a keeper (Pleks vs. Markov vs. Cole vs. Gionta) for how many more seasons. Your debate has become more about conflicting metaphors than conflicting hockey strategies.

I'm mentioning this to you only because yours was the last post I saw. This applies equally to LafleursGuy and JohnLennon. My point to all three of you is that you agree on practically everything, except for the degrees and a specific name or two.
I had began realizing this too, and I agree. The debate feels silly at this point, as when some posters throw around the term "rebuild" it really has a different meaning to everyone. I would agree to trading a couple mid-level players or high-end vets if the return is right, but oppose trading Markov because the return we will get probably will not give us anything as useful as he is on the group, mainly because his trade value is at its lowest.

I also think we should focus more on the Detroit philosophy as opposed to Edmonton, of course. I initially came in criticizing silly ideas of trading away our defense and making Beaulieu and Tinordi play defense this/next season, and buying out Markov. I never directed these comments to anyone but Lafleur's Guy seemed to have been offended. But in the end we all have similar outlooks on the team, you're right.

JohnLennon is offline  
Old
01-22-2013, 05:23 PM
  #340
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 7,542
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
I had began realizing this too, and I agree. The debate feels silly at this point, as when some posters throw around the term "rebuild" it really has a different meaning to everyone. I would agree to trading a couple mid-level players or high-end vets if the return is right, but oppose trading Markov because the return we will get probably will not give us anything as useful as he is on the group, mainly because his trade value is at its lowest.

I also think we should focus more on the Detroit philosophy as opposed to Edmonton, of course. I initially came in criticizing silly ideas of trading away our defense and making Beaulieu and Tinordi play defense this/next season, and buying out Markov. I never directed these comments to anyone but Lafleur's Guy seemed to have been offended. But in the end we all have similar outlooks on the team, you're right.
We do have similar outlooks, I think that's because a consensus is emerging that this year's Habs are awful , and that they won't win anything in the near future.

DAChampion is offline  
Old
01-22-2013, 05:46 PM
  #341
JohnLennon
Registered User
 
JohnLennon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,190
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
We do have similar outlooks, I think that's because a consensus is emerging that this year's Habs are awful , and that they won't win anything in the near future.
At this point in time the Habs don't seem like a team that will be contending for the cup. They would more possibly contend for the playoffs if all goes well. It all depends on what management decides to do with our assets moving forward that will dictate how our team will turn out, but I think we would all like to see some trades that improves our team in the future while not hurting the team too much in the present, and maybe being a little active on the FA market.

In the end, we all want the same thing: a Habs team that can compete today but be a cup contender tomorrow.

JohnLennon is offline  
Old
01-22-2013, 06:07 PM
  #342
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 23,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blind Gardien View Post
The 80's Edmonton?
Today's Edmonton. I actually think their management is terrible but they've unintentionally rebuilt. We'll see how they do but I suspect that there's too much talent on that team not to develop into a contender in the next couple of years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blind Gardien View Post
Well, the thing is, anybody on any side can cherry pick any number of examples, franchise or player, and none of it means anything as a general rule or guiding philosophy. You need a stable and smart management structure, and/or a dose of good luck along the way. The rest follows from that. Make good trades at the right times, whether they are for veterans or for draft picks, win hockey games, grow the culture of winning, cross your fingers.
I think there's a common thread on pretty much every cup winner. Superstars. Awfully hard to win cups without them.

So how do you get them? It's next to impossbile to deal for a superstar once they start producing. That's why I'm an advocate of getting the best picks and prospects to work with. We've shown no ability to do it via free agency, so that leaves the draft and dealing for prospects. If we can get a rip-off trade for an established superstar... sure. Who isn't for that? I just don't think you can plan for it.

But you can deal for prospects and picks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
Dude, please, stop avoiding arguments by pretending to be dumb.
Stop making dumb arguments in the first place. Saying I'm dead wrong on us coming in 15th is... DUMB.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
You know very well I was referring to the claim you made saying we should deal useful players when we finish last. Which is and always will be one of the dumbest things you've said. That statement, and the Markov for a 1st, were the ones I was explaining to be flat-out wrong... don't play dumb.
Dude, you tried to say that other clubs don't trade away core players to rebuild. You gave me two examples... and in BOTH cases they did exactly what you said they didn't do...

Dumb.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
And why are you even talking about Cole being on the roster in 06-07? Do you have reading comprehension issues? I said we haven't finished outside the playoffs since 06-07, making a point that finishing 15th isn't a common occurrence, and you avoid that point completely and go rambling about Cole? What?
I said Cole was on the roster last year when we finished 15th so was Plecs. You started talking about 06-07 in your post. I said it was irrelevant.

What is this an Abott and Costello routine? What's wrong with you. You say I'm dead wrong on things that are VERIFIABLY correct. And then you say I'm being dumb?

What's wrong with you?


Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
Your argument isn't valid, dude. Philadelphia had a crap season and bounced back with the SAME roster, that's the whole point! They only traded Richards and Carter after making the playoffs 2-3 consecutive years first. And no one said anything about the Bruins trading picks! Stop making your own arguments up so that you can ignore what else was said. The Kessel trade has nothing to do with it, they traded him 3 years later! You are so bad at this, it is ridiculous. No one can win an argument with you because you pull random facts that have no correlation into the argument and then argue against those facts instead of the argument ACTUALLY PRESENTED. They traded Kessel for two first-rounders, 3 years later, and honestly who would give that up anyway? The point is that both these teams bounced back from being last or dead-last and maintained the same core of veteran leadership and SUCCEEDED with it, especially in Boston's case.
It doesn't matter if it came two years later man. The point is that teams do trade core players for the future. And in both cases it was extremely successful.

Yet for some reason you keep trying to paint this as being dumb...

As for bouncing back after a bad season... sure it could happen. It could happen for us this year. I've never denied this. Doesn't matter though, rebuilding is still the right thing for us to do right now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
As for Markov, dude are you blind? Can you not see he is much more value on this team than off it?
What value is he bringing if we're still barely making the playoffs? Calling me blind isn't going to help you here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
His trade value is at an all-time low right now, and you want to trade him? Think about that for a moment, let that sink in. All your arguments make no sense, that's why no one agrees with you. You don't trade a veteran who was injured for two years away when his value is low as it has ever been, especially when he is showing good signs right now. You let him play and see how he does, then make a judgment from there. People like you make me crazy, crying for trades after you have seen a single game played in three years by the player.
Tons of people agree with me. Some have actually come here and said that I've helped convince them that rebuilding is the right path. Screaming that I'm crazy just makes you seem desperate dude.

Yes, his value is at an all-time low. I've already acknowledged this as has everyone else. That's why I said IF he has a good seaosn he should fetch a 1st. That's not unreasonable at all.

Screaming that we CAN'T trade him and that he's WORTH WAY too much to us is silly in the extreme when on the other hand you're saying he's not worth a 1st. Nobody is saying we should shove him out the door for no return or that he's hurting the team. You're making yourself look ridiculous here. Dealing him doesn't mean the sky is going to fall.

Get a grip.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
Plekanec could very well net us something good, but he IS a bigger piece on this team than you think. He is experienced in the playoffs, plays in EVERY single situation, is a great passer and can play top line minutes.
You continue to repeat how good Plecs is and can play in any situation... blahblahblahblahblah... we all acknowledge this. Stop repeating it.

What you refuse to acknowledge is that this team isn't winning anything now anyway so it really doesn't matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
Of course, if we can get a great return for him, go for it, but you throw around the idea of trading all our vets just for the sake of trading them and it's insanely silly.
In this one sentence you've actually agreed with me. Do you realize this? Then you go and write that I'm suggesting that we deal them for the sake of it? Something I've specifically repeated to you that we shouldn't do...

WTF?

Do you just not know how to read? You've just said that if we get a good return on him we deal him... well that's what I've been saying so wtf is your problem dude?

Stop being dumb.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
Why are you complaining, as if I said we can just pick up and be the new Detroit? I said we should take example from a team like Detroit that consistently succeeded in the cap era, while you want a team like Edmonton who has made the playoffs twice in like 10 years! It is quite silly how you say Detroit's path can't be repeated while Edmonton's can. Just a dumb remark, man... come on. Detroit had superstars like Datsyuk and Lidstrom, with a great supporting caste of youth and veterans, while drafting well and developing prospects. I am talking the recent Detroit here, not what you were rambling about in the 80s. The Habs have a goaltender, which Detroit didn't. We have a great young core to build around, and we need to support that core with a good mix of veterans and youth. Trade one or two veterans, get a solid mix of both on this lineup, then develop our draft picks properly and not rush them like you want, and keep drafting well. It's as simple as that. We need a retool, we don't need to trade away all our assets, and let me paraphrase your ridiculous statement from before "useful players that don't mean anything if you're on a team that finished 15th". Give your head a shake man! No one rebuilds anymore unless the circumstances are critical.
The "recent Detroit"... So you want us to be the recent Detroit that was already a winner. Gee, that sounds great. Let's ignore how they became winners in the first place and just skip to being a winning organization. Great idea man.

Detroit didn't make the playoffs for years in the worst division in the history of hockey man. They started the same way the Oilers did. The Leafs of the 80s were frequently better even though the Wings had Yzerman. That's how bad they were.

Yet you want us to be the Wings and not the Oilers? Both were bottom feeders for a long, long time. But you either don't understand this or don't want to acknowledge it. Right we'll just go and be the Red Wings... only the "recent Red Wings" though.

Holy crap man... lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
Just stop for a minute and think about it: how would you rather your team be managed, like a team like Detroit, the class of the league for decades, or a team like Edmonton, who obviously hasn't done anything since that fairytale run. EVERYONE will take Detroit, even Oilers fans for god's sake.
Both started the same way... losing for years and getting top picks. Detroit didn't just magically become contenders in the 90s. They rebuilt and then got extremely lucky in the draft.

Like I said, once you get Yzerman, Lidstrom and Fedorov you're going to win a cup man. It's only a matter of time.

As for Edmonton, they've lost unintentionally. I don't think much of their management. We'll see if they screw it up. If they're successful though, it will really underscore that rebuilding works because I don't have much faith in that management group at all. If they can do it, anyone can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
Pretty much exactly what he said. When I speak of Detroit, I speak about how their organization is managed, how they go about doing things, their plan of action. It is the class of the league and has been for years. All we need is a stable management that makes the right decisions at the right times, make good, smart trades and draft well, while developing properly. That really is a recipe for success.
Nobody disagrees that Detroit has had an amazing run. But they didn't start that way. They started as the Dead Things and built from there.

It's too soon for us to judge Edmonton. For all we know they'll be winning cups for years to come and then some guy like you will come on here and pretend like the rebuild never happened... just like you're trying to do with the Wings now.

In this very thread somebody tried to suggest NJ never rebuilt... You guys just ignore all the crap that those teams had to go through to become winners in the first place and then say... "Hey let's just be like the Wings..."

Wake up.


Last edited by Lafleurs Guy: 01-22-2013 at 07:12 PM.
Lafleurs Guy is offline  
Old
01-22-2013, 06:12 PM
  #343
Westcoasthabsfan
Registered User
 
Westcoasthabsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: In Pandoras Box
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,263
vCash: 500
I just read that Nino Niederrider is requesting a trade? Any interest from the Habs? He is 6'2 200 lbs and plays the wing and has skill. He would be a good addition for the rebuild.

Westcoasthabsfan is offline  
Old
01-22-2013, 06:33 PM
  #344
Blind Gardien
Global Moderator
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 19,841
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westcoasthabsfan View Post
I just read that Nino Niederrider is requesting a trade? Any interest from the Habs? He is 6'2 200 lbs and plays the wing and has skill. He would be a good addition for the rebuild.
He would indeed be a good addition, but NHL managers aren't going to let these building blocks take them hostage very often. I think that sort of thing happens less and less. So to get him, you probably have to give up so much that it precludes finding a really clear advantage for your team. It could still work out. But the odds aren't great IMHO.

Blind Gardien is online now  
Old
01-22-2013, 07:16 PM
  #345
habsfanatics
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,077
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lshap View Post
I'm finding the differences between what you, JohnLennon and LafleursGuy are saying are becoming narrower and narrower, to the point where the debate is less about specific moves the Habs need to make, and more about scoring personal zingers. All three of you are happy with the young core we have and have a common desire to build from there. All three of you recognize the value of top picks and the difficulty in getting them. All three of you would keep a vet or two, while trading away another vet or two depending what we could get in return. All three of you could see us buying a high-end UFA as the final piece of the puzzle in two or three years, once our prospects are developed and playing.

None of you guys are suggesting trading our core guys or draft picks. Nobody's saying our current roster is good to go as is. All you're arguing about are philosophical models (Detroit vs. Edmonton), definitions of terms like "Rebuild" and which vet is a keeper (Pleks vs. Markov vs. Cole vs. Gionta) for how many more seasons. Your debate has become more about conflicting metaphors than conflicting hockey strategies.

I'm mentioning this to you only because yours was the last post I saw. This applies equally to LafleursGuy and JohnLennon. My point to all three of you is that you agree on practically everything, except for the degrees and a specific name or two.
I agree with this mostly, however, I don't think some are being realistic about the returns. The veterans I am willing to trade, I am willing to trade, because I don't believe they offer much. The ones I am not willing to trade have a higher value, but not a value that will ever land a pick in the top 10 of the draft. Without a top 10 pick, I'd prefer the players we have than banking hopes on a crap-shoot.

If we can improve the roster through a trade, you do it, but you don't enter into a season with the sole purpose of unloading for the sake of it which is what some of have been suggesting.

The idea of trading pleks too as if he can't contribute to a good team is a move that is taking one step forward and two steps back for example. The likeliness of a 20-30 overall pick ever amounting to Pleks is very slim. Mysteries aren't better than sure things and newer isn't always better.

habsfanatics is offline  
Old
01-22-2013, 07:34 PM
  #346
JohnLennon
Registered User
 
JohnLennon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,190
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleurs Guy View Post
Today's Edmonton. I actually think their management is terrible but they've unintentionally rebuilt. We'll see how they do but I suspect that there's too much talent on that team not to develop into a contender in the next couple of years.

I think there's a common thread on pretty much every cup winner. Superstars. Awfully hard to win cups without them.

So how do you get them? It's next to impossbile to deal for a superstar once they start producing. That's why I'm an advocate of getting the best picks and prospects to work with. We've shown no ability to do it via free agency, so that leaves the draft and dealing for prospects. If we can get a rip-off trade for an established superstar... sure. Who isn't for that? I just don't think you can plan for it.

But you can deal for prospects and picks.

Stop making dumb arguments in the first place. Saying I'm dead wrong on us coming in 15th is... DUMB.

Dude, you tried to say that other clubs don't trade away core players to rebuild. You gave me two examples... and in BOTH cases they did exactly what you said they didn't do...

Dumb.


I said Cole was on the roster last year when we finished 15th so was Plecs. You started talking about 06-07 in your post. I said it was irrelevant.

What is this an Abott and Costello routine? What's wrong with you. You say I'm dead wrong on things that are VERIFIABLY correct. And then you say I'm being dumb?

What's wrong with you?



It doesn't matter if it came two years later man. The point is that teams do trade core players for the future. And in both cases it was extremely successful.

Yet for some reason you keep trying to paint this as being dumb...

As for bouncing back after a bad season... sure it could happen. It could happen for us this year. I've never denied this. Doesn't matter though, rebuilding is still the right thing for us to do right now.

What value is he bringing if we're still barely making the playoffs? Calling me blind isn't going to help you here.

Tons of people agree with me. Some have actually come here and said that I've helped convince them that rebuilding is the right path. Screaming that I'm crazy just makes you seem desperate dude.

Yes, his value is at an all-time low. I've already acknowledged this as has everyone else. That's why I said IF he has a good seaosn he should fetch a 1st. That's not unreasonable at all.

Screaming that we CAN'T trade him and that he's WORTH WAY too much to us is silly in the extreme when on the other hand you're saying he's not worth a 1st. Nobody is saying we should shove him out the door for no return or that he's hurting the team. You're making yourself look ridiculous here. Dealing him doesn't mean the sky is going to fall.

Get a grip.

You continue to repeat how good Plecs is and can play in any situation... blahblahblahblahblah... we all acknowledge this. Stop repeating it.

What you refuse to acknowledge is that this team isn't winning anything now anyway so it really doesn't matter.


In this one sentence you've actually agreed with me. Do you realize this? Then you go and write that I'm suggesting that we deal them for the sake of it? Something I've specifically repeated to you that we shouldn't do...

WTF?

Do you just not know how to read? You've just said that if we get a good return on him we deal him... well that's what I've been saying so wtf is your problem dude?

Stop being dumb.


The "recent Detroit"... So you want us to be the recent Detroit that was already a winner. Gee, that sounds great. Let's ignore how they became winners in the first place and just skip to being a winning organization. Great idea man.

Detroit didn't make the playoffs for years in the worst division in the history of hockey man. They started the same way the Oilers did. The Leafs of the 80s were frequently better even though the Wings had Yzerman. That's how bad they were.

Yet you want us to be the Wings and not the Oilers? Both were bottom feeders for a long, long time. But you either don't understand this or don't want to acknowledge it. Right we'll just go and be the Red Wings... only the "recent Red Wings" though.

Holy crap man... lol

Both started the same way... losing for years and getting top picks. Detroit didn't just magically become contenders in the 90s. They rebuilt and then got extremely lucky in the draft.

Like I said, once you get Yzerman, Lidstrom and Fedorov you're going to win a cup man. It's only a matter of time.

As for Edmonton, they've lost unintentionally. I don't think much of their management. We'll see if they screw it up. If they're successful though, it will really underscore that rebuilding works because I don't have much faith in that management group at all. If they can do it, anyone can.

Nobody disagrees that Detroit has had an amazing run. But they didn't start that way. They started as the Dead Things and built from there.

It's too soon for us to judge Edmonton. For all we know they'll be winning cups for years to come and then some guy like you will come on here and pretend like the rebuild never happened... just like you're trying to do with the Wings now.

In this very thread somebody tried to suggest NJ never rebuilt... You guys just ignore all the crap that those teams had to go through to become winners in the first place and then say... "Hey let's just be like the Wings..."

Wake up.
Oh my god, cut your he-said, she-said nonsense. You do realize you are embarrassing yourself, right? I even explained to you in black and white that I never said you were wrong that we finished 15th, I even mentioned it many times, stop pretending like I was doubting our position in the standings. OBVIOUSLY that was our position. I explained to you in simple terms I was telling you your other statements were wrong, and they still are. Your arguments are getting more stupid.

See, you're the one who made the stupid statement that you think just because a team finishes 15th, their players aren't worth it. I quoted you on it many times. You said useful players aren't worth anything on a team who finished last. You haven't even bothered defending that statement because you, and everyone else, knows its the most retarded opinion in the world. I then proceeded to explain to you that Philadelphia and Boston finished low one season, like the Habs, but next two seasons they rebounded by being playoff teams again. Then you start whining about how they EVENTUALLY trade some of their core (in Boston's case, only one player, three years later.... come on dude, pathetic) and that has nothing to do with it! The point was they finished poorly but rebounded with the same core just the next year and year after, so you saying Cole and Plekanec should be dealt just because they happened to be on our team when we finished last is a stupid argument.

I can't believe I have to spell it out for you like this. Boston dealt one player for two number one picks, that is hardly trading their "core" like you said. Philadelphia only traded Richards and Carter years after they finished last, so it has NOTHING to do with their poor record that year. Both teams succeeded with the same core, and only finished low once before rebounding. I explained how the Habs only finished out of the playoffs once since 06-07, so we could have a similar situation. That's it. Sure everyone can trade core players, we can too, that wasn't the point and you were too blind to see it so I had to explain it simply to you.

The fact that you bring up how the Wings were bottom-feeders for a long time just startles me so much, along with your other weak arguments, I just can't go on. The Red Wings have made the playoffs 26 of their last 28 seasons, more importantly their last 21 years. That obviously has very little to do with their being a weaker team almost THIRTY YEARS AGO! It is good management, great drafting, good coaching, great development and solid trades that has gotten them there. To even have the thought cross your mind that they have achieved all of this from their Dead Wings era and give full credit to THAT... Unbelievable. I am so speechless I can't even respond anymore. The lack of hockey logic is simply mind-boggling. It makes things even funnier that aside from these stupid semantics, we want a very similar direction for this team.

Quote:
Originally Posted by habsfanatics View Post
I agree with this mostly, however, I don't think some are being realistic about the returns. The veterans I am willing to trade, I am willing to trade, because I don't believe they offer much. The ones I am not willing to trade have a higher value, but not a value that will ever land a pick in the top 10 of the draft. Without a top 10 pick, I'd prefer the players we have than banking hopes on a crap-shoot.

If we can improve the roster through a trade, you do it, but you don't enter into a season with the sole purpose of unloading for the sake of it which is what some of have been suggesting.

The idea of trading pleks too as if he can't contribute to a good team is a move that is taking one step forward and two steps back for example. The likeliness of a 20-30 overall pick ever amounting to Pleks is very slim. Mysteries aren't better than sure things and newer isn't always better.
I agree with you completely, this mirrors my mindset perfectly. That last sentence really tells you how some people really do live in fantasy hockey land and not in the real world, and it is so true.


Last edited by JohnLennon: 01-22-2013 at 07:44 PM.
JohnLennon is offline  
Old
01-22-2013, 07:35 PM
  #347
TheGoalJudge
Registered User
 
TheGoalJudge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,065
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsfanatics View Post
I agree with this mostly, however, I don't think some are being realistic about the returns. The veterans I am willing to trade, I am willing to trade, because I don't believe they offer much. The ones I am not willing to trade have a higher value, but not a value that will ever land a pick in the top 10 of the draft. Without a top 10 pick, I'd prefer the players we have than banking hopes on a crap-shoot.

If we can improve the roster through a trade, you do it, but you don't enter into a season with the sole purpose of unloading for the sake of it which is what some of have been suggesting.

The idea of trading pleks too as if he can't contribute to a good team is a move that is taking one step forward and two steps back for example. The likeliness of a 20-30 overall pick ever amounting to Pleks is very slim. Mysteries aren't better than sure things and newer isn't always better.
I think Cole and Gionta could net 1st rounders at the very least for a few reasons. The beauty of this season is that the teams who pick 8 to 12 will very very likely be in the hunt at the trade deadline.

A team that is in 6th in the East at the deadline, for example, and trades for Gionta, could plummet pretty quickly with a jam packed field of teams in a shortened season.

Add to that the fact that sellers will be rare and the demand for our veterans will increase.

Add to that the fact that we now have the ability to eat salary and cap hit and our return could potentially be incredible. More than at any other time in NHL history with these UNIQUE set of circumstances.

And this "non top 10 pick" reason is bs. Just this year you had Forsberg, Grigorenko and even Ceci at 15 who were picked outside the top 10. Grigorenko made his team already.

Any pick inside the top 20 is very intriguing. If we put Gionta on the block, especially if we eat some cap hit, he is probably the best guy on the block. We just saw Gaustad and Brouwer get 1st round picks. Gionta's return would be double.

There are few people on this board who want to outright dump our players. Personally, I don't even put Plekanec on the trade block. I would barely put Markov unless I see a potential return.

But Gionta, Cole, Bourque, Kaberle are all useful guys at the deadline. They will have significant interest. Cole could fetch a ****ing ransom. We have to put these guys on the block.

TheGoalJudge is offline  
Old
01-22-2013, 07:42 PM
  #348
Lafleurs Guy
Registered User
 
Lafleurs Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 23,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsfanatics View Post
I agree with this mostly, however, I don't think some are being realistic about the returns. The veterans I am willing to trade, I am willing to trade, because I don't believe they offer much. The ones I am not willing to trade have a higher value, but not a value that will ever land a pick in the top 10 of the draft. Without a top 10 pick, I'd prefer the players we have than banking hopes on a crap-shoot.

If we can improve the roster through a trade, you do it, but you don't enter into a season with the sole purpose of unloading for the sake of it which is what some of have been suggesting.

The idea of trading pleks too as if he can't contribute to a good team is a move that is taking one step forward and two steps back for example. The likeliness of a 20-30 overall pick ever amounting to Pleks is very slim. Mysteries aren't better than sure things and newer isn't always better.
For the record, nobody is suggesting we trade Plecs for a 20-30 pick.

Lafleurs Guy is offline  
Old
01-22-2013, 08:25 PM
  #349
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 16,069
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGoalJudge View Post
I think Cole and Gionta could net 1st rounders at the very least for a few reasons. The beauty of this season is that the teams who pick 8 to 12 will very very likely be in the hunt at the trade deadline.

A team that is in 6th in the East at the deadline, for example, and trades for Gionta, could plummet pretty quickly with a jam packed field of teams in a shortened season.

Add to that the fact that sellers will be rare and the demand for our veterans will increase.

Add to that the fact that we now have the ability to eat salary and cap hit and our return could potentially be incredible. More than at any other time in NHL history with these UNIQUE set of circumstances.

And this "non top 10 pick" reason is bs. Just this year you had Forsberg, Grigorenko and even Ceci at 15 who were picked outside the top 10. Grigorenko made his team already.

Any pick inside the top 20 is very intriguing. If we put Gionta on the block, especially if we eat some cap hit, he is probably the best guy on the block. We just saw Gaustad and Brouwer get 1st round picks. Gionta's return would be double.

There are few people on this board who want to outright dump our players. Personally, I don't even put Plekanec on the trade block. I would barely put Markov unless I see a potential return.

But Gionta, Cole, Bourque, Kaberle are all useful guys at the deadline. They will have significant interest. Cole could fetch a ****ing ransom. We have to put these guys on the block.
Cole not only has a NTC, but he also has two more years on his contract after this season, and he's 35 already...

ECWHSWI is offline  
Old
01-22-2013, 08:27 PM
  #350
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 16,069
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLennon View Post
Oh my god, cut your he-said, she-said nonsense. You do realize you are embarrassing yourself, right? I even explained to you in black and white that I never said you were wrong that we finished 15th, I even mentioned it many times, stop pretending like I was doubting our position in the standings. OBVIOUSLY that was our position. I explained to you in simple terms I was telling you your other statements were wrong, and they still are. Your arguments are getting more stupid.
dont bother with this LG guy, examples of succesful rebuild for him are teams who never won anything or teams that spent a decade or more of losing before being contenders

ECWHSWI is offline  
Closed Thread

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 12:00 PM.

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.