07-12-2006, 01:39 PM
Join Date: Jul 2005
The biggest difference between winning and losing during a "rebuild" is that when your team is awful you are receiving top draft picks (preferably top 5 picks) which is where alot of franchise players come from.
Otherwise I dont see any value in losing.
07-12-2006, 01:43 PM
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
To me If I'm going to need vets, I'd rather have more skilled vets.
Immonen is the kid who seems to be shafted in all this and I frankly don't think he was ready.
Could've he have gotten 25 games? Maybe, but we'd be arguing both sides of the coins. When he did play "his head" was spinning but at the same time he should've gotten more games.
Either way I don't believe he was impeded.
07-12-2006, 02:07 PM
Join Date: Feb 2002
The term spinning was used...
for the period from his sixth game until the time he was sent back to Hartford, a period of several weeks in which he didn't get into one game while Hartford, and the Rangers, were in the playoffs. I would think, or hope, that the kid was itching to get into a game somewhere instead of practicing with the reserve guys on the Rangers and watching games from afar knowing that perhaps the AHL would've been better for him than sitting in a press box.
07-12-2006, 02:09 PM
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
But I don't believe he was ruined, he got a ton of time in the AHL and he really needed it. I personally think it made him a much better player.
07-12-2006, 02:39 PM
Join Date: Feb 2002
I think we've taken things to extremes...
and you may be confusing your discussions with dedalus with mine. Me, I was under the opinion that Immonen should've played earlier than when he did. I thought he played better than Rucchin in preseason, but recognize that he wasn't going to beat a guy like that. I did think there was an opportunity before late-March when the team was sputtering a bit offensively outside Jagr's line. Call it a 15-game stint, call it 25, whatever, but get a taste of more than 6 as I think many have different impressions of his 6 - like great the first two (I guess because he scored) and disappeared after that (because he didn't). Me personally, I thought he didn't play well in the first game in which he scored (didn't move his feet enough), played very well the second, didn't play well the next two, and became active and defensively responsible the last two. Again, would've like to have seen more and with the team's record, and the fact that some had off during the Olympics, some played, it would've been a good time for new blood and the coaching staff would've had a better feeling going into this preseason. [Maloney or Renney alluded to the possibility, but didn't follow through - and I'm guessing it was because they felt the guys were ready to go, as opposed to certain guys in Hartford being ready to go - similar to a call in late-December talking about possible call-ups [I'm not chastising either for not calling anybody up at this time].
As for ruined - never used the word, never thought of the word. I don't think you can get ruined from playing in the AHL as a 23 year old in your first season in North America. By the same token, he may not have been ruined playing more than six games begining on April 6th in the NHL, perhaps even failing but getting a taste of playing with the big boys and flying instead of taking a bus and if the coaching front is up front and honest, he'd know what needs to be done to get back to the show and stick.
And I don't even think sitting and watching for weeks ruined him - I think it was senseless, however, and perhaps things would've been different in Hartford had he been there all along (could've been positive, could've been negative, admittedly, but I'm thinking more along the lines of positive).
07-12-2006, 04:25 PM
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Central Jerz
As a fan
would you rather watch a team lose for 3-5 years while they rebuild, and stockpile those high picks that may or may not pan out, or remain competitive while they restock the cupboard so to speak. The Rangers were just short of winning a division title in a 'rebuilding' year. At the same time they had a group of prospects that were getting ready to make the next step in the AHL. As the veterans contracts expire or the younger players PROVE that they are ready for the NHL level they will fill those spots.
I know I would rather watch a competitive team year in and year out. The 7-8 years, however long it was was long enough.
07-12-2006, 04:47 PM
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
And those long term effects were what? You keep repeating this but you're not telling me how these kids were damaged. Are you claiming that Demitra was a Hall of Famer who was ruined by Ottawa's shuttling him back and forth between the AHL and NHL?
No, not at all. But rushing Demitra set his development back several years. The kid had the talent but he was rushed, as a result instead of taking maybe a year or two to develop it took longer and as a result of that extended time he didnít hit that level for the Sens.
Shuttling back and forth isnít the problem or the issue. The issue/problem is timing. Waiting till the kid is ready.
THAT is what I am saying.
Originally Posted by Edge On the contrary there is always pressure in those situations.When you're team SUCKS (and those teams really sucked), you run the risk of not giving people anything to watch. So they use the "bright spot" as the rookie who is going to help change everything. We've seen Ottawa do this, the Rangers
So you think that Mike York received this massive undue pressure with the sad sack Rangers?
This is not an inevitability as you claim. Players can be (and have been) shielded from that kind of pressure.
Mike York was 22, with four years of college and was ready. Again my problem is not playing the rookies, but rather playing them when they are ready.
Mike York was done the right way, he was ready.
Manny Malhotra was done to dull the pain of a pitiful season, he was a kid who clearly could have developed.
But all of that comes down to development.
Originally Posted by Edge You have kids who are not ready who get rushed and for what? They are not ready.
And the effect of that rush is ...
It takes longer to develop or can actually cause them not to develop at all.
Demitra being an example of a player whose development was set back, same with Malhotra.
Malhotra had been yo-yoíd so at that point, itís just not going to work on that team.
In some cases, if the kid had any chance at developing it is now gone. The last situation you want to be in is one where you have a 22 year old player whom you canít send down to the minors. Either for waiver reasons or for emotional reasons it doesnít work.
Weíve seen that countless times, and for what? What was the rush?
Originally Posted by Edge Daigle was rushed and it was obvious.
And the effect of that rush was ...
If he stood any chance of developing, rushing killed it.
Maybe a kid like Daigle never makes it no matter what the circumstances, but he wasnít physically ready to handle being brought along or emotionally.
I donít get whatís so complicated about that concept.
Itís the same reason a kid like Heatly went back to college for another year. Sure he couldíve played but in that time he grew as a player and a person, that is such a key part of a lot of these kids.
Originally Posted by Edge Demitra blossomed on another team after being allowed to actually (gasp) play in the minors.
He played 64 games in 96-97 for AHL & IHL affiliates before he officially joined the Blues squad at the end of that year.
Prior to that he'd played 150 AHL games at PEI, so let's not pretend the Sens had not given him AHL experience and that the Blues handled him in an extraordinarily patient way that brought out his gifts. That interpretation of events is not matched by the reality of where he played.
It is indeed matched. They Sens kept rushing him to the NHL when he wasnít ready. Instead of just leaving him to develop, he kept getting recalled to the NHL level where he was outplayed.
From 93-95 he never played more then 68 AHL games and it was often interrupted by both recalls and times where he didnít even get the ice time.
So rather than playing 80 some odd games and getting a ton of ice time, everything was broken into blocks which doesnít help anyone develop.
As a result, development instead of taking a season, maybe a season and a half was broken down into 3 seasons where he could never totally get on a role and when he was recalled, look terribly out of place.
So what happens in 96-97? He got a chance to play the entire season without periodic recalls and his game was able to get into a pattern and a groove (which I watched here in Las Vegas both with the Thunder and with Grand Rapids). And smartly he was finally recalled at the end of the season.
Jumping around doesnít benefit a lot of players and he was finally given the time to build that momentum (learn aspects of the game other than just offense) join the team late in the season and then start fresh the following year.
But it was that icetime, not having to jump to a level he wasnít totally ready for yet that allowed him to gain confidence and skills.
That is all I am saying. If they are ready they are ready, but it takes time and momemntum for a lot of these kids.
Originally Posted by Edge So who exactly do you want to throw in there?
I'd be happy to see what any of the names I threw out in my list be given at least 30 games this year. The Rangers should have given Immonen his 25-30 last year by moving Rucchin late in the season.
I do not believe Immonen was ready for that jump. Not from what I saw and apparently not from what the Rangers saw either.
We may disagree on this but I thought Immonen benefited far more from staying there the whole year. Now personally I wouldnít have approached his late season call-up as they did, but I donít believe it harmed him any.
Originally Posted by Edge Oh you mean like the Rangers from the last decade?
I don't know. Is it your contention that the failed Ranger kids from the last decade, the ones with real expectations on them like Brendl, Lundmark, and Malhotra, failed because the Rangers rushed them?
You'd have an inordinately difficult time making that case for Brendl. Given the way Lundmark was fed minutes and responsibility, I don't think you'd make a strong case for him being swallowed up by pressure either. Perhaps you can make a case for Malhotra, but in the end he has become exactly what a number of scouts predicted so you'd have to question the "damage" done to him.
I could make the case for a few guys. Blackburn probably shouldnít have been brought up and could have used another year of development.
Even if he didnít get hurt the Rangers wouldíve had a problem because itís a little awkward to send a kid at the NHL level for 2 years down to the AHL to work on things he couldíve been working on in the first place had they not rushed him.
Malhotra had a lot to learn at the AHL and OHL levels and heís another example.
Ironically I think Lundmark is a good example of doing it right, even though he didnít make. Because of their approach thereís not a what if factor involved.
No one can claim he wasnít given time to grow, develop or that he rushed.
To me, even if a player doesnít make it, thatís a good thing to be able to say.
Originally Posted by Edge And how many of those kids become stars for their teams?
Do they need to become stars for their teams? Is that all we're developing here?
The goal of any team is to develop players for themselves, not for other teams. In some cases they develop and you trade them, but you still want to develop them to get the highest value possible. A kid who was rushed to the NHL, has things that an NHL team might not have the space to teach on the NHL roster and who would need to clear waivers to get that development time, itís not overly appealing to a lot of teams.
So not matter what, any teams goal it for the player to develop with them.
Originally Posted by Edge How many develop elsewhere?
Where they develop is a function of how they are trained and how soon the organization givens up on them - part of the latter being whether the organization prioritizes training kids or playing vets to win now. If you're gunning to win now, even in the name of helping kids, you can much more easily opt to sacrifice a questionable prospect for a more certain one.
And how many develop because they were put into bad situations? Thatís my point. Timing and giving them the best chances to develop.
Originally Posted by Edge Lauri Korpikoski, Brandon Dubinsky, etc. etc. are good prospects but they are not sure things and they are going to need time.
They are going to need coaching, mentoring, and ice time. Some of them could get all of that at the NHL level and use it to blossom earlier into the player they have the chance to be.
Those kids are not ready for the NHL. Why is that such a hard concept. Lauri and Brandon are not ready, just like Nigel and Jarkko were not ready.
Throwing them in now would not help them.
For the same reason why throwing a 9th grader into college wouldnít help. They are still growing, learning and developing. Itís one step at a time.
Originally Posted by Edge And the more immediate success of their rookies in recent years has been bringing them into a winning environment as well.
Which of the rookies they've brought in since they started winning has shown more immediate success than Yashin? Than Redden? Than Alfredsson? Than even Daigle?
The talent levels are not equal to those guys.
We donít have a Yashin or a Redden on our team right now. A guy like Prucha who was ready, played and was successful.
And Prucha was allowed to develop overseas.
Thatís why he wasnít brought over at 19 or 20. He needed that time.
Same with Lundqvist.
If the Rangers had a player who could step right in I wouldnít have a problem, but right now they really donít.
The winning environment isn't what's making these kids good. Good coaching (which is why the Rangers lured a coach from the Sens), good mentoring, and opportunity is what's making them good just as it's what made Yashin, Redding, Hill, and Daigle good.
And why canít they have good mentoring while winning?
The Rangers have everything you just described, but they won in the process.
From a stars standpoint, no they donít have an 80 point rookie but thatís not a reflection of mentoring thatís because they donít have a kid who is developed enough to put 80 points on the board.
Originally Posted by Edge Bonk would have developed better and faster. He was LOST his first few years out there.
And there are plenty of people who will tell you he's STILL lost out there. Is the problem here with the Senators or with Bonk? You seem to take it as a given ("Bonk would have...") that a year or two in the AHL (AFTER 109 games in the IHL) would have made Bonk develop better and faster, but that's a statement of belief not a statement of fact.
But thatís exactly it, what would it have hurt to given him more time? The guy was struggling at the IHL level before they threw him out there. He was another one I got to watch a lot with the Thunder, he wasnít ready and putting him in over his head didnít help.
I'll admit, I don't know if it would have or not. What I do know is that Bonk posted 16 goals and 35 points in his first full season playing in a secondary role in Ottawa. That's a rookie season that shows he belongs, and perhaps if hadn't missed a quarter of the following season with a wrist injury, the slow progress for which you cite him would have been rather quicker.
And he followed that up with dismal seasons where you can def. See he didnít have the time to learn things at the lower levels.
So now you have a 22 year old center, you canít really send him down and you canít really give him time because you have Yashin and Daigle on the team, so what do you do?
That easily could have been avoided by teaching it to him in the first place and giving the time at the minor league level.
Originally Posted by Edge The problem is not once in this conversation have we looked at the guys who didn't make it. That's what always gets overlooked in these conversations, the players names who were lost to time.
The problem is that you must offer something other than "he was overmatched" (i.e. Neckar) to prove your point on this. Are some careers stifled? I have no doubt. Some careers are no doubt stifled because the kid is held too long at lower levels, too.
I don't overlook that this happens, but before I adopt it as a truth, I want to see that there's truth in it.
But you are creating a catch-22 argument you canít lose.
The guys who make it, seem to make it no matter where they play and when players donít it was because they never were.
Anyone can argue that point, you never lose when you take that stance.
Originally Posted by Edge Demitra was not hurt because someone else did it right.
Okay. What did the Blues do that the Sens did not? Don't tell me they gave him time in minor pro hockey, because the Sens gave him more time there than the Blues did.
This isn't a case of the Blues doing something different. It's a case of the Sens giving up too early on one of their own.
Wrong, what the BLUES did and when Demitra finally took the next step was when he was left alone for an entire season in the minors to work on his game. He wasnít shuttled a bunch of times, he was allowed to get momentumn in his game.
When we look at hockeydb. We see X games in the AHL and X in the NHL, but it doesnít show us when those movements happen. On a stat sheet it can look like a split, but in reality sometimes heíd get recalled every two weeks only to be sent back down, etc. And everytime he wasnít consistently allowed to expand his game at the AHL because heíd be rushed back up to the NHL.
But in that last AHL season, there were no recalls. It was just pure development time and he was able to learn and apply things night in and night out and so when the following season arrived those improvements had become part of his game.
It made a big difference.
Malhotra is exactly what many scouts predicted he'd be, and he was on the road to becoming exactly this with the Rangers.
Malhotra was not turning into that with the Rangers.
Originally Posted by Edge And there's no doubt that vets had some good things to teach
Oh. Because you seemed to be saying the opposite when you wrote: "Those guys didn't teach much to the kids."
I didnít say that.
Originally Posted by Edge but what is to say a skilled vet couldn't have taught the same thing while helping the kids win and be more successful.
Here is where your argument is becoming a product of belief. You're making the assumption that to win is to become more successful. The various players I've listed proves to win isn't to become successful.
Well of course thatís how it looked because every player that didnít make was never going to make it and ever player that makes it was going to make it no matter what.
How can you possibly lose when you set that standard.
You list the players who made it without success, but you donít mention any players who were rushed and who fell apart because in your eyes they were never going to make it anyway which is why they failed.
How am I supposed to argue that? Youíve cut out the kids in history who were rushed and blamed it on everything else.
Yours is all belief as well. Because you believe that that the ones who failed were not impacted by things you donít think matters.
So we can technically make that argument for anything either of us says.
Originally Posted by Edge Contrary to popular believe, just because is a journeyman NHL'er he's not always some enlightened fountain of knowledge who radiates virtues to every young kid he touches. And by contrast not every vet who actually has skills is selfish and a bad influence on kids.
I expect more than strawmen from you, Edge.
But is it not true? Could a talented NHL vet teach just as much as a journeyman?
Originally Posted by Edge Winning breeds hunger and builds experience. Watching how successful people become successful is VERY important.
Yes. Losing also breeds hunger and builds experience, and since the Sens stocked successful NHLers on their roster, I'm not sure where you're going with the second half of this comment.
Losing does breed hunger, but does it provide the experience of being in a division race or playing in the high energy playoffs.
Again all things being equal and assuming but breeds hunger, why canít a team win in the process? That is what I am asking.
Originally Posted by Edge It's not different that life. When you are around people who are going somewhere and have talent, you naturally are inspired and go for it. When you are around people and an environment that isn't going anywhere you don't evolve as quickly or sometimes at all.
Okay biologically speaking you've got this exactly backwards, but even socially one can make exactly the reverse argument, that it is the bitterness of conflict and defeat that drives us to greater struggle and yadda, yadda.
And again, don't tell me that the Sens didn't have veteran talent to which the kids couldn't look up. Both Turgeon and Murray had very fine careers and understood perfectly well how to be successful. Same for Shaw.
And now weíre getting into philosophy where we can both point to our little opinions.
The question is not whether the kids can develop, so much as why do they HAVE to lose.
Thatís still the one part that doesnít make sense even in our differing opinions.
Originally Posted by Edge On the contrary it was that losing that pushed Daigle into the lineup too young. He wasn't ready then and maybe he enver would have been the player he could've been but pushing him in over his head didn't help that cause.
"No one remembers who was drafted second." - Alexander Daigle.
Come on, Edge. This kid showed the world his mindset before he was even drafted, and it is the "Hollywood" mindset he's held throughout his career and that has convinced him that he need not work hard or develop his game.
And maybe he doesnít make it, but does rushing him help him?
I can point to a lot of stupid quotes by a lot of teenager draftees.
I happen to know Alexandre pretty well and the one thing has always bothered me is the assumption a lot of people have had about his personality and him as a person over the years.
But that aside, the smart thing would have been to give him time. Whether Alex was mature enough to realize that at the time or not, that is the job of the organization. Every kid wants to be a hockey star who you draft, but itís your job to do what is best for themÖ.not necessarily what is popular.
Maybe Alex never makes it, but if you give him that time when heís younger maybe he does get it.
God knows he wouldnít be the first kid. But therin lies our problem, any kid who goes back and makes it (no matter how his game changed) was destined to do the same if he played in the NHL anyway. Any kid who goes to the NHL and doesnít, was never going to do it at the minor league. I just donít think thatís a fair statement and bias to set.
Originally Posted by Edge If kids are going to develop no matter what than why aren't all of them playing at the age of 18?Why aren't they all just thrown in there no matter what?
Again with the strawman.
Have I ever posted that a kid should be tossed into the NHL the day after he's drafted?
But you do think they should be brought up when they werenít ready (Immonen) and that theyíre going to do what theyíre doing to do whether itís at the AHL or NHL.
And stop with with strawman ********, I could point to the same thing. Iím pretty patient but comments like that are pushing it.
Originally Posted by Edge If that's true than why did guys like Leetch/Richter suddenly become better with a guy like Messier around them rather than Kelly Kisio. He was a good guy.
Who says Leetch suddenly became better with Messier? At least in terms of production, he showed a greater leap the year before with Bernie Nichols (a reasonably successful player whom you've elected to ignore in order to cite Kelly Kisio as a teacher) than he did the year Messier arrived. (It may also be worth noting that his smaller jump in improving his output coincides with the loss of ... Kelly Kisio!)
One might also ask, if Leetch did improve, what makes you believe we should attribute that improvement to Mark Messier rather than the simple product of it being his 4th year in the league? Or the product of working with Roger Neilson who oversaw those two monumental leaps of development?
(And laughably, Mike Richter's numbers declined the year Messier arrived. But I don't blame that on Messier.)
But see there we go again, no affect because you donít believe that.
Iím not looking at the stat sheet, Iím looking at the people they became with Messier and the confidence they gained. Brian Leetch became aware of fitness, became aware of becoming a leader and the entire locker room became aware of what it meant to be a winner with Messier around.
Thatís not my view, EVERY one of those guys will tell you that. So whether you believe it or not, itís straight from THEIR mouth.
Originally Posted by Edge Or for that matter, why did Eric Staal suddenly learn new and amazing things from Rod Brind'amour?
Wait. Brind'Amour was on the team with Staal LAST year, too.
We must wonder if Rod simply wasn't working with Staal or if Staal was slower to learn his lessons last year because he ended the year with some pretty pedestrain numbers Which do you suppose it was, because Rod certainly didn't seem to have taught Staal how to be a superstar last year, did he?
Funny because Staal had said that Rod helped him with that numerous times last year.
So now we have people actually mentioning how that helped them. Does that not count?
This now goes beyond what both of us ďbelieveĒ, weíre talking about people who have actually been there and said it.
But weíve thrown that completely out the window. When Ottawa players comment on the leadership years later it doesnít count and when guys like Leetch, Ricther and Staal say as much as we donít count that either.
These are not made up theories my friend, these are people saying as much themselves.
Originally Posted by Edge I mean afterall, all Rod did was take icetime from a guy like Staal.
Well let's see. Staal earned 19:38 of TOI this season. I gotta tell you, thatís really quite a comfortable number for a second center. Seems to me that Rod was actually probably taking time from ... oh ... Cullen or Adams, don't you think? Because that 19:38. Wow! I wonder if there was a second center in the league who earned as much time.
Cmon now, you and I both know who the other top center was outside of Staal.
You canít twist this one.
BUT HEY! I bet Staal wasn't earning that kind of time the year before! Maybe increased ice time has something to do with his development and increased production!!!!!!! You think?????
Or maybe it was actually what he said, working with Rod Brindamour.
Again not my words, theirs.
(Or not. Maybe Brind'Amour just found time in his busy schedule to teach Staal what no journeyman could have .... And in any case, more ice time certainly wouldn't have that kind of positive effect in New York.)
By Staalís own admission, Rod taught him to become a star and to hit that higher level in the NHL. He himself credits Rod for that. Do you think a journeyman wouldíve done the same?
As you would say ďNow weíre getting into the maybeísĒ.
The big problem Iím seeing is that we have two different believes. The problem is that youíre taking all yours as fact by throwing out quotes and players who donít fit what your trying to point to and we just cannot do that.
And I wonder if working with Peter Laviolette and his coaching staff for an entire year had anything to do with his forward development. Nah. Had to be Rod BrindíAmour.
I must say between Laviolette here and Roger Neilson above, one would think you believe coaches have no influence on the development of kids.
Who said they didnít have an impact? But Staal himself pointed to the main reasons for his success being Rod Brindamour.
I never claimed coaches donít have an impact, but Carolina is an example of a team who rebuilt, surrounded their kids with good vets and won. They got the best of both worlds, icetime for the kids and a championship.
And the kids, thanked those talented vets.
They didnít need to lose, they didnít need to surround themselves with journeymen.
(Please note, Edge, that I would prefer not to resort to sarcasm with you. You and I have had plenty of civil conversations in the past without resorting to such things, but if you choose to make your points thus, I will certainly do so too.)
Whoís being sarcastic, I am going off the words from the horses mouth which you donít know want to hear?
Iím going off another team that had talented rookies that intergrated them with vets and not journeyman.
All I am doing is giving you a standing example of what Iím talking about.
Originally Posted by Edge You look at Prucha and say "He could've gotten more ice-time". I look and say "Other team's would've focused on him".More is not always better. Getting hammered into the boards every night because you have no support is a learning experience
1st: Why assume there's no support?
2nd: Maybe there's something to be learned about skating in traffic and avoiding checkers in being hammered into the boards.
Why assume theirs no support? Take away Jagr and tell me who takes all that pressure than?
Maybe there is something to be learned by that, but I think there is more to be learned by growing into your skills. Itís probably a good reason why the prospect camps involve drills rather than a special instructor coming in and hitting all the kids repeatedly.
You're making two bad assumptions here:
1: That 2nd and 3rd tier players cannot support kids. They can.
2: That bad outcomes mean people don't learn. They do.
Can they support kids? Maybe, but why canít a first tier player? Thatís not a bad assumption, thatís an honest question.
People do learn from bad outcomes, and even with stars youíre going to have that. But with better vets you also have more good outcomes as well.
Again you can have both, so why do you have to lose? That still seems to be the one thing missing with al lthings being equal and both our views making a degree of sense.
If all else is equal, why not win?
Originally Posted by Edge All things being equal, what was lost by these kids getting a taste of success? Who was harmed?
1. Immonen's opportunity to begin his NHL development was lost.
I agree with the Rangers assessment that he was not ready. He developed just fine. If he went down there and was stagnant maybe, but he needed that adjustment.
2. The opportunity for a couple other kids to grab a cup of coffee at the NHL level (and perhaps instill a bit of hunger for that?) was lost
Who was ready? Outside of Immonen, there werenít a lot of kids I thought were ready myself.
3. The chance to add future talent to the roster by the refusal to deal veterans was lost.
Outside of Jagr there wasnít a whole lot of interest.
This I know because the deadline is one of my busier times for asking.
Jagr couldíve fetched something, I do not believe that move makes sense.
4. An already acquired asset was lost picking up another veteran (who brought nothing in the team and now looks to be lost to rehab, and suspension.)
The attitude of ďletís win and give the kids a taste of successĒ also leads to a lack of openings and/or real competition during camp.
You had 6 kids on this team last year. How many teams in the last 20 years can you name thatís had more than 6 kids on the roster playing roles like that and had the chance to get them some playoff experience?
Not too many.
So either youíve stumbled onto something that myself or no one in the NHL has thought to try or there is a reason for that.
And personally I wouldnít trade those kids getting the playoff experience for those future assets. You might not agree with that, but to me that is more valuable than adding some more prospects.
Originally Posted by Edge Your A-List is comprised of Immonen, Helminen, Dawes, Staal and maybe Dubinsky. Maybe even Ward.Every one of those guys will be on this team if they are ready. But if there is stuff to work on, what is the harm of sending them to the minors. What does exposing it at the NHL level prove to anyone?How many rookies are we going to have this year? We have no less than 3 core rookies from last year, so how many is enough?
Actually my list was: Dubinski, Greg Moore, Dawes, Helminen, Baranka, Immonen. You could add Pock and Staal to that list perhaps.
How many is enough? The number that shows itself capable of being successful at the NHL level. This is the difference between us, Edge. For you there is apparently some kind of artificial cap that dictates ďWell, we canít have HIM here. That would be too much youth.Ē I donít believe in such a thing.
I do and I am especially of that belief if the kids arenít ready and those kids were not ready last year so to me it becomes a mute point.
I am not against bringing kids up if they are ready, but in not one situation last year did I think the Rangers should bring a kid up and didnít.
Letís assume that we could add three more full-time rookies to this yearís roster. That means 3 rookies, 3 sophomores, and seventeen vets. Honestly, those numbers donít scare me in the least. Numbers like that mean the kids are getting all the guidance and protection they need.
And I donít think they scare the Rangers either but we donít know who is ready yet and as of right now, barring a major change the Rangers have a better idea than any of us coming out of the prospect camp.
Originally Posted by Edge Why do they HAVE to lose.
Who says they HAVE to lose? Not me. I think losing is probably going to result if we send away some vets like Jagr and Kaspar, but the returns on those kids of players help the team (and these kids) in the longterm (and maybe the short if Jagr brings back a 26 year old quality player).
Jagr isnít bringing back a 26 year old quality player? Why? Because theyíve already looked around and tried. This was even mentioned in passing by Brooks, who for once was almost on to something. The Rangers were very interested in this, there was no deal to be made.
And I disagree. I think the influence they bring and the taste of playoff success is more valuable than rolling the dice with a prospect.
Weíre going with the mindset that the prospects are a given and they arenít. Prospects under the best of terms are a crap shoot, but the Rangers have some kids who are for real and already playing. Iíd rather get them the experience of the playoffs and the hunt than role the dice on a prospect.
The old bird in the hand worth two in the bush scenario.
Originally Posted by Edge Prospects are like brownies (and yes I know this is going to sound stupid but it does make sense I promise), you can take them out of the oven early and they'll be okay. But you could let them cook a little longer and they'll be even better.
No, Edge, your analogy is faulty because when a brownie is pulled from the oven, it is no longer being baked. Its progress has stopped. This is not true of humans.
A better analogy would be to say the brownies are placed into a hotter oven and state the danger of their burning. And they may burn but just as you say, the continued baking may make them better. It certainly means we'd need to be more careful "bakers," but it also means they'd be "baked" and ready for the shelves sooner than they'd have been had they been cooked only in the first oven.
And what's wrong with a brownie or a man reaching his potential earlier?
I feel silly having this conversation, but I brought it on myself =)
I disagree with you there as well. A hotter oven does not always cook the brownie, it burns it. Thatís why life is divided into tiers. You donít put a 4th grader in junior high unless is he super talented.
And human progress can stop if too many steps are skipped. Otherwise 21 years olds would all be VPís and thereíd be no experience to learn.
When I hire a kid, I could put him in charge of an elite account but heís not going to be ready for that. Iíd rather him learn where the stakes arenít as high and work him along. These kids arenít robots, if they mess up at the NHL and lose confidence that can have some long term affects.
Thatís one of the things thatís been forgotten in this whole argument, that these kids are humans. They sulk, they get upset and have comfort zones. Itís not only about talent and the potential, itís about the person who has to fulfill that potential.
Originally Posted by Edge And they're turning into good players, but they're also turning into good players who know how to win and who know how to adjust.
So your position is that losing stops players from learning how to win and adjust. The facts donít support you in that idea. There are plenty of winners in the lists Iíve given you.
Didnít say that, but winning does expose them to winning. All things again being equal if theyíre gonna develop either way, Iíd like to also experience winning.
Originally Posted by Edge I don't want to be the next Ottawa, i want to be the next NJ Devils. I want 3 championshops, not a bunch of guys with all-star like offensive highlights.
Aaron Broten joined the .306 81/82 Rockies as a 21 year old.
Joe Cirella joined the same club at 18.
Pat Verbeek joined the 83/84 Devils (.256) as a 20 year old.
John Maclean joined the same team at 19.
Kirk Muller at 18 joined the 84/85 Devils (.338)
Greg Adams at the same 21.
Bruce Driver the same at 22
Ken Daneyko went full time at 21 with the 85/86 Devils. (.369)
Craig Wolanin same team at 18
Craig Billington same team at 19
Brendan Shanahan joined the 87/88 Devils (.512) at 18.
Sean Burke started for the 88/89 team (.412) at 20.
90/91 is the last year the franchise was below .500. Want to know who the leading scorers were? MacLean, Muller, and Shanahan. Driver led defensemen in scoring and Daneyko was the only defenseman to play 80 games.
If you want to be like the Devils, Edge, youíll feed these kids early, not worry about how many youths are on the roster, and not worry about winning and losing.
And those teams did not win the cup. Which teams did? The oneís that had older kids brought along slowly and learning the system from the bottom up.
Coincidence? I think not.
And your arguing a point Iím not making. If they are ready I have no problem playing them. These kids are not ready yet though. Itís not just the Rangers who think that, I donít either.
I am not unwilling to play rookies, you keep harping back to that and Iíve never said I am unwilling to play them. I would they are ready.
Originally Posted by Edge If you pair him with a defenseman that strengthens Tyutins game, you're helping Tyutin. If you play him with a guy who does nothing for him, how are you helping him?
Agreed. Who says that defenseman has to be a top flight player (which seems to be your suggestion here)? A journey man can strengthen his game. (God knows there are enough journeyman NHLers who have turned into very fine coaches and helped kids strengthen their games.) Likewise a veteran who was once very good but is no longer can do the same. (I think we can agree that Messier had things to teach kids and ďstrengthen their gamesĒ even in his final three years here when he was a shadow of his former self.)
No one, and they arenít.
Iím starting to lose track of what youíre trying to say at this point youíre making it very confusing.
I donít have a problem with vets either, none of this is what Iím even arguing.
Kids donít need to learn from All-Stars and superstars like Jagr to be successful. They can learn every bit as successfully from their coaches and good mentor players who may NOT be the mosty exceptionally skilled players in the world.
Yes they can, and they can also learn fro Jagr. So if they can learn from both and one helps the team be successful as well, how is this a problem?
Originally Posted by Edge Once again, why would we want to lose when we can accomplish just as much and win? That just doesn't follow any logic.
If you look at ďaccomplishing somethingĒ as ONLY the development of one player, you may have a point. If ďaccomplishing somethingĒ means successfully rebuilding and allowing kids like Immonen a chance, well then youíre NOT ďaccomplishing as much.Ē (See the list of other harms above.)
No I look at accomplishing something as developing Lundqvist, Prucha and the other kids from last year.
And once again I donít believe Immonen was ready so to me it was a non issue.
You seem to believe Immonen was harmed. I donít even think he was ready.
Originally Posted by Edge Development is key
You seem to believe Iím against development when nothing could be further from the truth. Iím against the mindset that says, ďWe should win because a winning environment will help these kids the most.Ē
That mindset is based on a false premise and it leads to a number of harms, almost all of which have to do with the acquisition and development of kids.
We disagree. I donít think anyone was harmed. The kids who were not in the NHL were not ready and not just because the Rangers didnít think so, I didnít think so.
I donít believe Immonen was ready last year.
The kids who were ready and performing got into the playoffs. The ones who werenít were not blocked.
You view it as a false premise because you simply cannot accept my belief or their belief that Immonen was not ready.
Thereís nothing false about it, it was an opinion. No more false than your opinion that he was not only ready but blocked and harmed.
The difference is you seem unwilling to accept mine or theirs while maintaing a different opinion.
Originally Posted by Edge Immonen probably could've played with the Rangers earlier, but he went to Hartford and become a much better player. He developed because he was allowed to put his lessons to action without going against people who would blow him away.Now when plays he's gotten used to those adjustments and he's better for it. If he's not than there is ZERO need for any kind of minor league system, any kind of development camp or any other action that for the first time in 10 years is producing some LEGIT NHL talent.
Youíre making a ridiculous leap between these two paragraphs.
Immonen did indeed develop in his six months at Hartford. That shows the usefulness of minor leagues. Other kids will need the full year or more. BUT by the trade deadline Immonen had come a long way from his time in Hartford, and spending the last 2 months in New York Ė a jump for which he was ready by then Ė might have proven extraordinarily beneficial THIS year (whether he failed and was sent back to the AHL for more seasoning and definitely if he makes the big club).
See this is what I mean, youíve called me everything from strawman to ridiculous and I just donít agree with your opinion.
I still donít think Immonen was ready at that point.
And youíre assuming that your views of ďmightĒ or ďmaybeĒ are somehow worth more than mine.
I respect that, you canít seem to do that.
My opinion is that he was not ready.
What would it have hurt to have him learn the pro game for 2 months? So if the benefits are potentially more in the future, why wouldnít you let him have his chance?
(The answer is, of course, because the team was more interested in making the playoffs than in furthering Immonenís career. This isnít to say that theyíre not interested in furthering the kidís career, just that last year they put him 2nd to the playoffs.)
Personally I donít believe that. I believe if they felt Immonen was ready, he wouldíve been up sooner. I think it all comes down to weighing the value. At the end of the day they felt Immonen needed a little more time and the benefits of making the playoffs for the kids who were ready was more important than bringing Immonen up too soon, no matter how slight it was.
Thatís not an unreasonable concept for me.
Originally Posted by Edge Jagr allows a guy like Prucha to not be the sole focus of the other teams defense. How is it that we can say "Jagr drew other teams top players" and not realize that it means Prucha didn't have to deal with those guys?That is EXACTLY the kind of double standard people have created around here. Did it ever occur to anyone that if Jagr isn't facing those guys and getting his can kicked, that it would directed at Prucha?
1st: This assumes that a second tier winger - say Mark Recchi - couldnít have functioned in the same role. I think we both know he would have. Other teams would work Recchi and defend Recchi and send their top defenders against Recchiís line not Pruchaís. Simple as that. Jagr doesnít have to be the guy that distracts other teams.
And you assume that Recchi wanted to come and was willing to sign a one year contract.
This assuming that a lot of vets wanted to be here. Suffice to say that was not the case. So we can talk all we want about this player or that player, but if they werenít coming its another mute point.
And Mark Recchi was not going to draw other teams attention the way a hart candidate and leading scorer like Jagr was.
Are you going on record as saying that a Mark Recchi like player would have gotten the same attention Jagr did?
2nd: It assumes that this kind of attention is bad for the kid. Didnít seem to have hurt the careers of the guys Iíve talked about. Ovechkin draws all the attention on his team. He seems to be doing just fine and is without doubt learning from that attention.
And it assumes that being given the freedom to grow doesnít help just as much. Once again we can both talk about assumptions here.
So if all things are equal, why not give them room?
3rd: It fails the ďreverseĒ test. Radek Bonk, who you say could have been better and was damaged by his position with the Sens, HAD that protection in the forms of Yashin and Daigle. If your position is that heís not the player he might have been, having the protection of high profile stars apparently did nothing for him.
It doesnít fail anything because Bonk would have been down in the minors developing not at the NHL level. Because in his case I said he wasnít ready.
Your combining different things now and thatís not what I said.
Originally Posted by Edge Does he help Prucha a lot more than having Brad Smyth on the team? You bet.
Yes and when you find that Brad Smythís numbers and profile EVER match up to those of Murray and Turgeon, you let me know. You shouldnít have to reach for ignoring key members of supporting casts to make your points, Edge.
Not ignoring anything, even with Turgeon or Murray, Jagr offers more protection.
And letís not go into the ignoring game.
Originally Posted by Edge All things being equal and vets not mattering, what is the logic in not winning? If it doesn't matter and you're going to have the same players developing no matter what, what does losing do? [At what pace, Edge?]I fail to understand that. Losing for the sake of losing. Nothing changes, the kids develop anyway and everything stays the same but they don't win.Why? What is that going to prove.
First let me try to steer you away from the simplistic thinking that other posters here have adopted. You must understand that no one is advocating ďlosing for the sake of losing.Ē Do some of us recognize that losing is a probable result of the course we would choose? Yes but thatís hardly the same as wanting to ďlose for the sake of losing.Ē I hope I donít have to make this point to anyone again.
Youíre probably going to have to because whether you realize it or not thatís the point your making to us simple thinking folk. Whether you realize it or not, that IS the point your making.
Now to the actual philosophy at work here.
The benefits of winning to the development of kids are ambiguous at best. I heartily doubt you can site a single study which proves the sports benefit of winning on the development of young players. (If you can Iíd be fascinated. By all means point me to it.) You may speculate on the efficacy of a winning environment, but at the end of the argument what youíre writing about ďwinning environmentsĒ is simple faith backed by debatable anecdotal evidence.
And what studies do you have to go off to back your statements?
We can both point to our different teams as examples.
So as I say, all things being equal Iíll take the winning.
The only player we can point to is Immonen and Iíve already stated I donít think he was ready.
On the other hand, like it or not and painful as it may be, the benfits of losing are concrete, known, and not subject to debate: Crosby, Ovechkin, Yzerman, Lindros, Pronger, Redden, Shanahan, Lemieux, etc. etc. etc.
So I guess we canít mention Forsberg, Datsyk, Jagr, Havlat, Hossa, Phaneuf or other kids who came into winning environments with vets on the teams than?
Once again we can both provide our ďlistsĒ.
In short, even if someone actually DID argue ďlosing for the sake of losing,Ē heíd be making a perfectly valid argument, because we can debate all day Ė without empirical proof to support either side Ė the advantage of winning. There is no debating that losing carries a great advantage. None.
Based on what, I can give just as much evidence to the opposite. For every list you produce I can produce one, vice versa.
So all things being equal, Iíd like to win.
So if you want to know why some people are willing to accept losing, call it a simple case of playing the odds. They are willing to trade a dubious, perhaps completely non-existent benefit, for guaranteed help in rebuilding: the cold, hard fact of the elite draft pick.
Once again Iíll take my chances with playoff experience for the players I have in my mind for the maybe I might get with a draft pick.
Originally Posted by Edge How many "Draft" picks have we sent off. This isn't even making sense now.
They dealt a 3rd rounder (one theyíd acquired for a young player) for an aging vet at the trade deadline. Why did this ďrebuildingĒ club toss away that rebuilding asset, Edge? In the name of winning.
If a third round pick is what weíre debating than consider my not affected.
Iíll take my chances for a third round pick. Doesnít bother me one bit.
Originally Posted by Edge So again, all things being equal, why should the team lose?
All things arenít equal, Edge, for the reason I wrote above. You cannot support your claim about a winning environment with anything other than suppositions and anecdotes which I can counter with just as many other suppositions and anecdotes. What cannot be argued for a rebuilding team is that losing carries an iron-clad advantage, one that is not subject to supposition.
This is why all things are not equal.
Actually on the contrary I just gave you reasons right back and a list right back etc.
You might not agree with my claims or my support but it is indeed there. One reason why almost everyone who has responded to our debate as said as such.
I accept that, can you?
Originally Posted by Edge If kids are going to learn no matter what, would you hold class in an alley or a classroom?
As a teacher I will tell you that this depends entirely on what I was teaching and what my final goal NOT just for the kid was but for the whole community.
EXACTLY. My goal is to get these kids meaningful minutes in big game situations which they did.
This is what youíre cutting out of the equation in your half of this discussion. Youíre acting like development happens in the bubble of a single season and that it can be separated from other aspects of rebuilding. It cannot.
Not at all, never said that. Just think that if I can win, while I build Iím going to do and I think the Rangers did it very well last year.
Originally Posted by Edge Winning while learning is the best environment.
Youíre offering a statement of faith not a fact here. Hereís my empty claim: ďLosing while learning is the best environment.Ē I can back it up with all the usual arguments about ďwhatever-doesnít-kill-you-makes-you-stronger.Ē
And Iíve backed up with mine about winning teaching winning.
I could take your approach and say ďStudies have shown what doesnít kill you doesnít make you stronger but only weakerĒ and we can go on and on like two blow hards but what would be the point?
Both of us are offering up statements of faith and opinion.
Both have our little sayings, our little examples our little lists.
I am perfectly fine with that. But at the end of the day we can produce the same amount of evidence to support either approach. And if that is indeed how it is, than for the same result Iíd rather win in the process.
Originally Posted by Edge Getting guys like Prucha and Lundqvist not only the regular season experience, but also playoffs experience is worth more to me than picking 10 slots higher in the draft.
1. Immonen 35 games
Donít think he was ready. Nothing more I can say.
2. a couple other kids 10-15
VERY rare and depends on the kids and if they are ready. I didnít think they were.
3. a couple of additional picks from dealing vets like Rucchin, Rucinsky, and Kaspar
Nobody wanted Kaspar and his salary and impending surgery.
Rucinsky was also a wounded bird.
Rucchin didnít have a huge value and personally I would rather have kept Immonen in the AHL for the year.
4. AND a draft slot ten places higher (with the added bonus of a disproportionately higher chance of dealing into the top 5) would have been worth more to me than a trip to the playoffs this year. (I wonít even go into the windfall of futures the team wouldíve reaped by dealing Jagr.)
And thatís your opinion, Iíd trade that pick for the playoffs experience and the play down the stretch of Prucha, Lundqvist and the others.
You might not agree with it, but that was worth it for me.
Originally Posted by Edge You honestly don't think playing in the playoffs makes you want to get it back even more?Have you ever played a sport? That's exactly what you want. Once you taste it, you want it badly because you actually know the feeling.
Sure have played and no, getting to the playoffs made no difference in my desire to make the playoffs. I wanted it more than anything before I ever got the chance to play in those games, and I wanted it just as much after.
Well for me it was the opposite.
Why? Am I that exceptional? I really donít think I am. I think most pro athletes burn at that level, most amateur athletes do, and I think most weekend warriors do, too. If you didnít, Iím amazed you didnít.
I did as well but once I got a taste I also wanted it more and I know of plenty of people who felt the same way. Itís funny how thereís that little extra jump in your step when you battling for the playoffs as opposed to knowing youíre heading for the bottom of the division.
Originally Posted by Edge We're getting to the point where nothing matters. The playoffs, winning, influence. No matter what these kids are going to develop AND be as hungry as possible.So what do we need a coach for or minor league systems for that matter. This is getting to the point where it almost seems predestined. These kids are going to be what they'll be no matter what. Nothing will change or help that.
Wow! Iím hoping this little rant is a product of frustration not a complete inability to understand what Iím saying. If itís the latter, just ask me to clarify rather than stretching what Iíve written beyond all meaning.
No rant at all. And youíve been rather rude in this whole thread to be honest.
Originally Posted by Edge Having the Borques or the Huffmans do not make Prucha or Lundqvist better players. They don't develop better playing with those guys
1st: Why do you say this?
Watching kids for as long as I have.
Do we want to compare lists again or are 20 pages responses enough to realize that we just donít view the situation the same?
2nd: Even if you assume (which you must) that these kinds of players are utterly incapable of teaching something to kids (and thus making them better), why do you ignore the possibility of having better players on a roster? Why must the leap be from Jagr to Dan Hinote? Are you honestly so short of arguments that you must pretend that no potential teachers lie between superstars and plumbers?
See this is the general kind of disrespect and immaturity youíve approach this entire thread with.
You donít agree with me thatís fine, but we donít have 20 pages responses each without having some points. And the people reading them have appreciated that. You need to knock off the pot shot routine.
It is my belief that a more skilled player, with leadership ability provides more to a kid than a grinder. Iíve already given my reasons and examples.
Iím not asking you to like them or agree with them, but I am not going to get dragged into a spitball contest.
Originally Posted by Edge Why would I want any of those options?
Simple. For the chance to make the kids AND the organization better down the road.
And I believe that that the experience the kids got this year does make them better, thatís what the last 30 pages have been about it.
We both have our examples of successful rookies who came in to both losing and winning situations. We disagree on which is better and thatís fine. So if we both have our examples and the general consensus seems to be they both will produce, Iíd rather experience the winning as a bonus.
Disagree with that, fine. But donít take it in the direction I can tell you are itching to.
I havenít insulted you or called your opinion flawed/simple/ or anything else, do me the same respect.
07-12-2006, 04:48 PM
Change is good.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn of course
Burnside chat wrap
Scott Burnside over at ESPN.com had an interesting online chat the other day. He basically answered one question on each team - most answers were fairly interesting and honest (i.e. he didn't just say "yeah, they're headed in the right direction" to every fan). Here's what he had to say about the Rangers (it mentions the signings in particular and also touches on the rebuild-while-winning questions, so I figured it was worth posting in this thread):
07-12-2006, 04:48 PM
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
I think I've said all there is to say from my end on the discussion.
I think it's teetering on the brink of getting nasty and it's getting to big to respond to at this point.
So that's my last words on the matter.
07-13-2006, 02:58 PM
Join Date: Feb 2002
I've freely offered this concession to your side of the argument, but you seem unwilling to offer the reverse which is just as valid: some kids have NOT been stifled; some kids have no doubt improved MORE QUICKLY; some kids became better then what they might have been because they were challenged early.
My position on this is simple: kids will learn from many sources: coaches, stars, journeymen, once-accomplished vets past their prime. By what you've written, your position is that kids learn only from stars and superstars. I say this because you actually WROTE that the Sens' journeymen "didn't teach much to the kids" and because you've entirely cut coaches out of your end of the discussion until I forced you to acknowledge them. (Nor have you yet acknowledged the influence of people like a waning Messier, Turgeon, and Murray.)
This goes to your question: "Can they support kids? Maybe, but why can’t a first tier player? That’s not a bad assumption, that’s an honest question."
As I've said above, yes of course they can. I admit that freely and will not qualify it with a "maybe" as you have regarding journeymen. But 1st and 2nd tier talents can be used for other purposes like acquiring assets, and that is what separates them from journeymen, and so I will ask you an honest question (which you need not reply to because your position is already clear), if I can use coaches, journeymen, formerly accomplished vets, and a few 2nd tier talents to teach my kids, why shouldn't I collect more kids or the means of acquiring BETTER kids by dealing off those 1st tier talents and some of the 2nd tier talents?
If those greater talents are only there to teach, those teaching chores can be farmed out. If they are there to help the team win, well, as I wrote before, the impact of winning is dubious and debatable. The impact of the #2 pick in the draft is not. Look at the very kid around whom this part of the argument revolves: Staal.
Carolina won the Cup because they had the opportunity that the Rangers will not allow themselves: the chance to come in dead last in the league and pluck a Staal or an Ovechkin, or a Crosby. If you want to look to the magic of Carolina's championship, you must look at the result of their league-worst record in 02-03, because while Carolina MAY win the championship with Cory Stillman being Staal's teacher, they're not winning without Staal.
1st: An ongoing problem with this discussion has been some mixing of topics. The point about the Devils was a point about a losing franchise. You say that you want to be the Devils - not the Sens - because of their Cups, and I showed you that the Devils drove their kids through pitifully losing seasons, too. The winning doesn't matter to successful rebuilding, and there is one unquestionable advantage to losing.
2nd: Your second sentence appears to set up a conflict with what you'd written earlier: I wrote in my last post For you there is apparently some kind of artificial cap that dictates “Well, we can’t have HIM here. That would be too much youth.” I don’t believe in such a thing.
Your response was unequivocal: "I do"
But what if you have a number of kids who are ready (whom you say above you would play) and a team already loaded with 1st and 2nd year players (which you say above you would cap)? Something has to give here. Either you send kids who are ready back down to the farm, or you sacrifice your cap philosophy and have a team with too many kids.
I know you don't want to write any more on this topic, but I actually do wish you'd resolve this because there's a potential conflict here, and I want to see which of these two you'd let go first.
The fact of the matter is that there ARE other possibilities between Jagr and Bourque, between Messier and Huffman. In an attempt to make an argument you opted to ignore those, apparently assuming it was beyond me to understand the league on anything but a two-tier level.
1. Your analogy was called flawed not your opinion. Your analogy IS flawed for the reason I stated. If you'd like to debate the correctness of your analogy, fine, but acknowledge that it is not related to your opinion.
2. You re-statement of MY position was called simplistic. Your idea that some believe in "losing just to lose" is what I called simplistic (which it is for the reasons I stated), not your opinion.
Last edited by dedalus: 07-13-2006 at 03:04 PM.
07-13-2006, 07:24 PM
Join Date: Feb 2002
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:18 AM.
monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"