HFBoards

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

Should Thornton be traded?

View Poll Results: Should Joe Thornton be traded?
Yes 27 20.77%
No 86 66.15%
Not sure 17 13.08%
Voters: 130. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-26-2013, 02:12 AM
  #151
TheJuxtaposer
#Shorks
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,945
vCash: 1379
Quote:
Originally Posted by juantimer View Post
With the exception of Malkin and Crosby, these guys just happened to catch fire for their runs. Year to year and even in other runs they have not been any more special than our guys. Our guys are as capable of catching fire as anyone else, but have arguably better baseline talent levels than many of those guys. We are not lacking in talent.
I'd trade Marleau and Couture in a heartbeat for Kopitar and Brown, or Toews and Kane, or of course Malkin and Crosby. For one year, I'd trade them for Datsyuk and Zetterberg. I don't understand how people can honestly think our two are on the level of their two. Hell, I'm the biggest Marleau fan around here and I don't see it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by juantimer View Post
There weren't any norris caliber defensemen on the Kings. Who was the good 3rd line center on the kings?
Drew Doughty. I know, everyone thinks he's a flash in the pan, but he's an elite defenseman. He's a Norris caliber defenseman. He put up 16 points in 20 games for the Kings in their run, all while starting only 42% of his shifts in the offensive zone and facing top competition. He's a Norris defenseman and he showed it during the playoffs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WTFetus View Post
Easy is also fine with keeping Thornton if he takes a lesser role in the future (3rd line C and PP specialist).

I think this was a great post by another poster that some people missed.
Easy doesn't want to not keep Thornton on principle, he just thinks, and I agree, that Thornton is too good to allow the Sharks to pick high enough to get those star players.

I agree with that post, I love team loyalty. But we aren't Detroit, we don't have wave after wave of superstars being drafted in the 7th round or bought with no salary cap. Detroit's the only team that could do that, and they're going to have to stop doing it soon. They're going to have to face a tough choice very soon: if Datsyuk, as he's implied, is truly interested in returning to the KHL after this contract, will they sell him off for assets, or will they have him retire a Wing? Their philosophy would make me think they'll keep him, but isn't that a huge waste of potential assets if they aren't a contender?

TheJuxtaposer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 02:24 AM
  #152
Phu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 7,192
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
I'd trade Marleau and Couture in a heartbeat for Kopitar and Brown, or Toews and Kane, or of course Malkin and Crosby. For one year, I'd trade them for Datsyuk and Zetterberg. I don't understand how people can honestly think our two are on the level of their two. Hell, I'm the biggest Marleau fan around here and I don't see it.
Wait why are you comparing our 2nd and 5th best players with those teams' 1st and 2nd? This is where the comparison breaks down. What just because Thornton isn't homegrown, he can't lead a stanley cup team? Why the **** not? Marleau is any more equipped because he is?

Phu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 02:28 AM
  #153
TheJuxtaposer
#Shorks
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,945
vCash: 1379
Quote:
Originally Posted by juantimer View Post
Wait why are you comparing our 2nd and 5th best players with those teams' 1st and 2nd? This is where the comparison breaks down. What just because Thornton isn't homegrown, he can't lead a stanley cup team? Why the **** not? Marleau is any more equipped because he is?
I've just showed you a trend. It's not a small sample size, it's an "every team has these characteristics" thing.

You can change it to Marleau and Pavelski, or Pavelski and Couture, the point stands.

TheJuxtaposer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 02:31 AM
  #154
WTFetus
Moderator
Most popular combo
 
WTFetus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 12,138
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
I've just showed you a trend. It's not a small sample size, it's an "every team has these characteristics" thing.
Sounds a whole lot more like correlation instead of causation. It doesn't make sense that not being a home-grown talent suddenly makes you incapable of leading a team to the SC.

WTFetus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 02:31 AM
  #155
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
Easy has been over it with you all time after time. Championship teams win with home-grown high-end forwards.

Kopitar and Brown led the Kings in scoring.

Krejci and Bergeron led the Bruins in scoring.

Toews and Kane led the Hawks in scoring.

Malkin and Crosby led the Penguins in scoring.

Zetterberg and Datsyk led the Wings in scoring.

Getzlaf and Perry led the Ducks in scoring.

Eric Staal and Cory Stillman led the Hurricanes in scoring.

Literally every team that has won the Cup between the last two lockouts, their top two scorers (and more than often top-3) have been home-grown, the only exception being Stillman, and that Canes team was a weird team.

We have Marleau/Couture/Pavelski/Clowe as our top home-grown Sharks forwards. Are any of them in the league of any of those duos, with exception to the Bruins who one because of Thomas, and of course Stillman? The answer is no, and another trend? They're all young, with the exception of Datsyuk and Zetterberg. Marleau isn't Datsyuk or '08 Zetterberg, and Couture isn't Malkin/Crosby/Kopitar/Getzlaf/Staal/Toews/even Bergeron.

Suffice to say, this group isn't working.

And how do you get these young elite home-grown forwards? Draft them. With exception to the Detroit (special exception) and Boston (won because of Thomas) examples and this ****ing Stillman character, all of those forwards were drafted in the first round. Toews, Kane, Malkin, Crosby, Kopitar, Brown, Getzlaf, Perry, Staal.

Moreover, all those forwards were either great scouting, or top-3 picks. Since we aren't a great first-round scouting organization, there's one solution remaining. As long as those forwards don't have to go through Sommer, we're good.

We need to do that, since our current group isn't doing it.
Yes, but a further examination breaks this idea down. Pronger and Niedermayer were incredibly valuable to the Ducks in their cup run, as were Thomas and Chara for Boston.

If anything, the key benefit of homegrown talent is that it is cheaper.

OrrNumber4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 02:34 AM
  #156
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
I've just showed you a trend. It's not a small sample size, it's an "every team has these characteristics" thing.

You can change it to Marleau and Pavelski, or Pavelski and Couture, the point stands.
Also, I would argue that Marleau and Couture match up favorably with some of those pairs.

OrrNumber4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 02:34 AM
  #157
Phu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 7,192
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
I've just showed you a trend. It's not a small sample size, it's an "every team has these characteristics" thing.
It is a tiny sample size. 7 playoffs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
You can change it to Marleau and Pavelski, or Pavelski and Couture, the point stands.
What point is that? The only point is that the whole team needs to perform. Your homegrown players leading in scoring means nothing if the rest of the team sucks. Kopitar and Brown were exactly 1 PPG last playoffs, the same as Thornton. We know full well we have other players capable of doing that, Marleau has put up .93 PPG before.

The only advantage homegrown players potentially confers is a salary advantage, which the Hawks certainly had but the Kings really did not. The further we get from the start of the salary cap era, the less salary advantage homegrown players will confer.

Phu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 02:52 AM
  #158
TheJuxtaposer
#Shorks
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,945
vCash: 1379
Quote:
Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
Yes, but a further examination breaks this idea down. Pronger and Niedermayer were incredibly valuable to the Ducks in their cup run, as were Thomas and Chara for Boston.

If anything, the key benefit of homegrown talent is that it is cheaper.
Obviously it's not an end-all be-all (sorry if it came off that way), but it's a big piece. Like Easy's said too, Norris defensemen and Veznia goalkeeping are two more keys.

Quote:
Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
Also, I would argue that Marleau and Couture match up favorably with some of those pairs.
Out of curiosity, which?

Quote:
Originally Posted by juantimer View Post
It is a tiny sample size. 7 playoffs.
If there were more than one player in that group that didn't fit the trend, you'd have a point. But lets go to contenders this year: Chicago (Kane and Toews), Pittsburgh (Malkin and Crosby), LA (Kopitar and Brown), Vancouver (the Sedins, and Kesler), St. Louis (Backes and Oshie, or Berglund and Perron, or Tarasenko, you get it),

Quote:
Originally Posted by juantimer View Post
What point is that? The only point is that the whole team needs to perform. Your homegrown players leading in scoring means nothing if the rest of the team sucks. Kopitar and Brown were exactly 1 PPG last playoffs, the same as Thornton. We know full well we have other players capable of doing that, Marleau has put up .93 PPG before.

The only advantage homegrown players potentially confers is a salary advantage, which the Hawks certainly had but the Kings really did not. The further we get from the start of the salary cap era, the less salary advantage homegrown players will confer.
Over 20 games, have they? 5 points is five games is a hell of a lot different than 20 points in 20 games.

Kings got the salary help with Brown, who's on one of the best contracts in the league.

And actually, as the cap goes down again in the next couple of years, ELC's become of even greater importance. The Oilers are wasting the ELC years of their players, particularly Taylor Hall, and they're doing a piss poor job of developing RNH and Yakupov, combined with a really unfortunate injury to Shawn Horcoff, which forced them to throw RNH to the wolves.

TheJuxtaposer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 03:29 AM
  #159
Phu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 7,192
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
Kings got the salary help with Brown, who's on one of the best contracts in the league.
He's a Seto-Clowe type player on a Seto-Clowe contract. More consistent than either of them so the contract is good but not a super steal or anything. He had an atypical playoffs last year and that was a big key to the Kings' success. But it was atypical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
And actually, as the cap goes down again in the next couple of years, ELC's become of even greater importance. The Oilers are wasting the ELC years of their players, particularly Taylor Hall, and they're doing a piss poor job of developing RNH and Yakupov, combined with a really unfortunate injury to Shawn Horcoff, which forced them to throw RNH to the wolves.
Nothing will compare to the effect of going from not having a cap to having one. Teams have now been operating in the salary cap era for some time, so a lowering of the cap won't be nearly the change adding a cap at all was.

Phu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 03:35 AM
  #160
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,531
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
Yes, but a further examination breaks this idea down. Pronger and Niedermayer were incredibly valuable to the Ducks in their cup run, as were Thomas and Chara for Boston.

If anything, the key benefit of homegrown talent is that it is cheaper.
I revised my original from long ago and made the point that cup winning goalies and dmen could much, much more easily be bought or acquired in trade. The change in the original came with a hypothesis as to why.

Juan,
It isn't just the 7 years Jux gave, I looked farther back than that. It was overwhelming. The top offensive players on playoff winners are tilted dramatically to homegrown. It is not unusual for a winner to have a top guy who takes a step back while a homegrown lesser light steps up. Never the other way around.

Also as far as JT wanting to stay. If the Sharks wanted to go trap and transition, I could see JT and possibly even Patty not liking it. If they asked JT to gain a step in speed, I don't think he could answer the call either although he might try. I don't think the Sharks will go trap and transition without a major overhaul. Only Havlat and possibly Couture would look to be comfortable, maybe Pavs. It kills top line scoring.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 03:43 AM
  #161
Phu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 7,192
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
It isn't just the 7 years Jux gave, I looked farther back than that. It was overwhelming. The top offensive players on playoff winners are tilted dramatically to homegrown. It is not unusual for a winner to have a top guy who takes a step back while a homegrown lesser light steps up. Never the other way around.
How far back, and how much is the difference? Is this just a remarkable artifact of variance? I can't think of a logical explanation for this other than the salary thing, but the salary seems to have no relationship to it, and of course before the salary cap salary didn't matter at all.

This smacks of a remarkable coincidence that is nevertheless a coincidence. Or, perhaps a non-causative correlation, such as a team's success causing less roster turnover which keeps homegrown players around longer, but without those players necessarily being part of the reason for that success.

Phu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 04:04 AM
  #162
Phu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 7,192
vCash: 500
A quick look through the post lockout playoff history shows a bunch of non-homegrown players that led teams to cups or finals:

Briere is probably the premiere example, but there's also Pronger, Heatley, Hossa, Kovalchuk. And Stillman was NOT homegrown, I dont know how I missed that. Yes a lot of homegrown players are on the list but that's more a case of good players being held onto rather than anything else.

Phu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 04:39 AM
  #163
TheJuxtaposer
#Shorks
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,945
vCash: 1379
Quote:
Originally Posted by juantimer View Post
A quick look through the post lockout playoff history shows a bunch of non-homegrown players that led teams to cups or finals:

Briere is probably the premiere example, but there's also Pronger, Heatley, Hossa, Kovalchuk. And Stillman was NOT homegrown, I dont know how I missed that. Yes a lot of homegrown players are on the list but that's more a case of good players being held onto rather than anything else.
Defenseman (Pronger) are not part of the forward requirement. Heatley is not a playoff performer, and it's easy to argue that Hossa isn't either. His goals per game dip dramatically from the regular season to the post-season. He only had 3 goals in Chicago's run. The only really good playoff Hossa had was in 07-08 with, guess who, Crosby as his center. As for Kovalchuk, his numbers went down in the playoffs too. I gave you Stillman, I don't know how you missed him.

Briere is a weird case, but he's also one of the worst defensive forwards in the entire league. Everyone's wowed by his offensive stats, but he gives everything and more back in his own end.

And Finals is different than Cups. The only one on that list that led their team to a Cup was Pronger, who isn't a forward.

TheJuxtaposer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 05:59 AM
  #164
Phu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 7,192
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
Defenseman (Pronger) are not part of the forward requirement.
You'll have to forgive me, it's tricky to stay consistent when responding to a nonsense argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
Heatley is not a playoff performer,
Maybe if you slice his his numbers as thin as you can until it shows what you want. Of course you should remember that when he came to the Sharks one reason was his playoff scoring. He did great for us in that capacity until he pretty much fell apart and couldn't skate anymore.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
and it's easy to argue that Hossa isn't either. His goals per game dip dramatically from the regular season to the post-season. He only had 3 goals in Chicago's run. The only really good playoff Hossa had was in 07-08 with, guess who, Crosby as his center. As for Kovalchuk, his numbers went down in the playoffs too.
Most of the people on the positive side of the cup ledger, aside from their cup runs, also have a significant goal per game dip, including the great sidney crosby. In other words, they aren't playoff performers (by your standard), until they are. It basically takes a hot run from a player and prior playoff performance is no guarantee of anything. Crosby being Hossa's center is irrelevant to the meme you are pushing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
And Finals is different than Cups.
If the teams are competitive and enough of the games come down to a single goal, then, no they really aren't that different.


Last edited by Phu: 02-26-2013 at 06:17 AM.
Phu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 02:42 PM
  #165
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,531
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by juantimer View Post
How far back, and how much is the difference? Is this just a remarkable artifact of variance? I can't think of a logical explanation for this other than the salary thing, but the salary seems to have no relationship to it, and of course before the salary cap salary didn't matter at all.

This smacks of a remarkable coincidence that is nevertheless a coincidence. Or, perhaps a non-causative correlation, such as a team's success causing less roster turnover which keeps homegrown players around longer, but without those players necessarily being part of the reason for that success.
Back to the Rags' cup but not including. (Note Forsberg rule: Original team is considered to be the team for which the player played his first NHL game.)

Various hypotheses:

1. Forwards peak earlier therefore GMs are better at identifying those who have that extra something. Much easier as they can control the player's contract until UFA.

2. Hometown allegiance. Easier to dig a little bit deeper for the original developing org.

3. Forwards that are traded are deeply flawed in some way. Similar to item 1. GMs recognize it and these are the only ones available in trade. Basically the lemon hypothesis like car buyers who won't sell back cherry cars, only lemons.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 02:51 PM
  #166
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Out of curiosity, which?
Hawks, Bruins, Kings, Ducks?

Quote:
If there were more than one player in that group that didn't fit the trend, you'd have a point. But lets go to contenders this year: Chicago (Kane and Toews), Pittsburgh (Malkin and Crosby), LA (Kopitar and Brown), Vancouver (the Sedins, and Kesler), St. Louis (Backes and Oshie, or Berglund and Perron, or Tarasenko, you get it),
Going over my memory of the roster, it is an interesting set. Chicago and Vancouver do it the traditional way: depth plus top players. Chicago is more top-heavy on defense, Vancouver up front. Pittsburgh is doing it the Colorado way: Two world-class players. LA does (did) it with a good roster with an elite goaltender, like Boston. St. Louis is doing through effective strategy and team-play like the 2003-2004 Sharks.


Quote:
Over 20 games, have they? 5 points is five games is a hell of a lot different than 20 points in 20 games.

Kings got the salary help with Brown, who's on one of the best contracts in the league.
One of the differences is that Doughty, Brown, and Kopitar all "elevated" their play during the playoffs, or as hockey analytics would put it, had favorable variances during the playoffs. Doughty isn't normally a Norris caliber D, but he played like one in the playoffs. Etc., etc.

Quote:
And actually, as the cap goes down again in the next couple of years, ELC's become of even greater importance. The Oilers are wasting the ELC years of their players, particularly Taylor Hall, and they're doing a piss poor job of developing RNH and Yakupov, combined with a really unfortunate injury to Shawn Horcoff, which forced them to throw RNH to the wolves.
Generally, generally, tank-to-win does not work.

Plenty of players have been thrown to the wolves and found success.

OrrNumber4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-26-2013, 08:18 PM
  #167
5H4RK5
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,689
vCash: 500
If for Malkin sure or another up and comer. Thornton and our top 6 can't carry our team to a championship. The bottom 6 needs to be fixed or he is just exerting too much for nothing. They practically have us figured out. We might need a change of coach as well because Tmac isn't good at strategizing against the best coaches.

5H4RK5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-27-2013, 02:05 PM
  #168
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,531
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5H4RK5 View Post
If for Malkin sure or another up and comer. Thornton and our top 6 can't carry our team to a championship. The bottom 6 needs to be fixed or he is just exerting too much for nothing. They practically have us figured out. We might need a change of coach as well because Tmac isn't good at strategizing against the best coaches.
On coaching, you run into the same problem as JT. There are worse coaches than TM, a lot worse. Guys like RW or Sutter (either Sutter) would be a flaming disaster at this point. The good ones are few and far between. If they want another coach, DW has to do his homework again as TM was actually cream of the crop in his class.

I will make a point about JT that just grinds on me. It is not JT himself that grinds on me, but every time I see someone put him next to God as far as hockey goes (like no one can match him) then I see the fallacy. Same would go for anyone else. As soon as godliness is attributed to any player, the team concept goes out the window. Personally, I think Crosby is the best out there when healthy but even he goes nowhere without Malkin and Letang and realistically his subordinates are not so subordinate. It is a fallacy for a fanbase/org to gift the spot of top dog on any team because it blinds them to other team issues and takes away several pieces of motivation for that player and the rest of the team. It becomes an aristocracy rather than a meritocracy. When issues like turnovers or speed or anything else come up, the issues get submerged in the motor boat argument, "But, but, but . . . ". It happens in all sports.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-27-2013, 02:23 PM
  #169
Dicdonya
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: San Jose
Posts: 695
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
On coaching, you run into the same problem as JT. There are worse coaches than TM, a lot worse. Guys like RW or Sutter (either Sutter) would be a flaming disaster at this point. The good ones are few and far between. If they want another coach, DW has to do his homework again as TM was actually cream of the crop in his class.

I will make a point about JT that just grinds on me. It is not JT himself that grinds on me, but every time I see someone put him next to God as far as hockey goes (like no one can match him) then I see the fallacy. Same would go for anyone else. As soon as godliness is attributed to any player, the team concept goes out the window. Personally, I think Crosby is the best out there when healthy but even he goes nowhere without Malkin and Letang and realistically his subordinates are not so subordinate. It is a fallacy for a fanbase/org to gift the spot of top dog on any team because it blinds them to other team issues and takes away several pieces of motivation for that player and the rest of the team. It becomes an aristocracy rather than a meritocracy. When issues like turnovers or speed or anything else come up, the issues get submerged in the motor boat argument, "But, but, but . . . ". It happens in all sports.
I disagree slightly with the idea that having an outright best player is always a problem, especially if you bring other sports into it. Hockey is special in the sense that even though one player may the best he really can only elevate the play of others to a certain point.

In other sports like basketball and football for example though, one player really can literally make your team a powerhouse regardless of most circumstances. Players like Jordan, lebron, Brady, manning, Peterson, Barry sanders etc could/can literally win a game almost by themselves.

I think you can't allow yourself as a coach/GM to not try to put good pieces around your unquestioned superstar, however I don't think it's really a fault either to recognize how good they really are and act as such. It's only really a problem if you don't recognize that even superstars can be better if they are surrounded by other talented players, and simply rely on one guy to do it all.

Dicdonya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-27-2013, 02:40 PM
  #170
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,531
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dicdonya View Post
I disagree slightly with the idea that having an outright best player is always a problem, especially if you bring other sports into it. Hockey is special in the sense that even though one player may the best he really can only elevate the play of others to a certain point.

In other sports like basketball and football for example though, one player really can literally make your team a powerhouse regardless of most circumstances. Players like Jordan, lebron, Brady, manning, Peterson, Barry sanders etc could/can literally win a game almost by themselves.

I think you can't allow yourself as a coach/GM to not try to put good pieces around your unquestioned superstar, however I don't think it's really a fault either to recognize how good they really are and act as such. It's only really a problem if you don't recognize that even superstars can be better if they are surrounded by other talented players, and simply rely on one guy to do it all.
Not quite. My argument is that when you attribute infallibility to a superstar, you have failed. The temptation is always to go with infallibility as one of the superstar's characteristics. And it becomes much more difficult to motivate the superstar to improve.

I came from an era long ago when I saw two players in basketball, Chamberlain and Russell. Both excellent. Russell was definitely the lesser of the two, yet won ALL of the championships. In fact individually, none of the Celtics of that era would be considered top at their position. At one point, their best player, Havlicek, was the sixth man. The team was so integrated that he unbalanced the lineup when he was inserted. All of the pieces fit and they played the system to a tee. I wasn't even a fan of the Celtics.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-03-2013, 07:47 AM
  #171
Helistin
Dustin's equilibrium
 
Helistin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Close to you
Country: Heard and McDonald Islands
Posts: 1,441
vCash: 500
Trade everyone except Pavelski,Couture,Vlasic and tank for the next 5 years->profit.

Helistin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-03-2013, 07:50 AM
  #172
Graveland
HONE YOUR CRAFT
 
Graveland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sunnyvale
Country: United States
Posts: 11,583
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
Bad reason. A rebuild means the youngsters are taking over. Handing them a crutch is not a good thing as they will never learn to dominate on their own. JT's skills are unique and not likely to be passed to another generation. My counter is not a reason to trade him now, but your argument is horrid with regards a real rebuild and as a reason to keep JT. The best argument for keeping him is if he would be gracious in accepting a lesser role like 3c and PP specialist.

The only reason I am on the fence about trading JT now is that the org needs an overhaul in scouting and development until they commit to or accomplish that, wasting a pick is just stupid. Set the direction then fire away with trades. The same reason applies to trading either Marleau or Boyle.
Maybe the scouts aren't getting the job done?

Graveland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-03-2013, 01:52 PM
  #173
TheDanceOfMaternity
Registered User
 
TheDanceOfMaternity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: San Francisco, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 6,368
vCash: 500
The only guys the sharks have ever had that are indisputably good playoff performers are Pavelski and Marleau about half of the time.

All the other big names are on the fence. Not awful, but definitely not great.

TheDanceOfMaternity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-03-2013, 02:33 PM
  #174
Ninja Hertl
formerly sharkohol
 
Ninja Hertl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Yay
Country: United States
Posts: 5,184
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDanceOfMaternity View Post
The only guys the sharks have ever had that are indisputably good playoff performers are Pavelski and Marleau about half of the time.

All the other big names are on the fence. Not awful, but definitely not great.
Or, you know, our best defenseman for about 5 seasons now.

Ninja Hertl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-03-2013, 04:52 PM
  #175
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 34,091
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharkohol View Post
Or, you know, our best defenseman for about 5 seasons now.
Problem with Boyle in the playoffs has always been on the defensive side though.

Pinkfloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:49 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.