HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.

Would Thornton and/or Marleau waive there NMC?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-11-2012, 04:50 PM
  #76
zombiekopitor
GOALdobin
 
zombiekopitor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Best Coast
Posts: 2,595
vCash: 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by MessierII View Post
Iv watched every single San Jose Sharks post season game since 2006
There's your problem, Marleau has in fact carried this team to a WCF, granted it was 8 years ago, but it was awesome to watch, that was the best hockey he ever played. We still see flashes of that, I do not feel like the blame can be put on him and Thornton.
The whole team is just too damn streaky, there have only been 2 times in the Jumbo era where the whole team was playing up to capacity, the 2nd half of the 05-06 season when we got Joe and the start of the 08-09 when they sucked the 2nd half but still won the presidents trophy
If/When this teams decides to actually play, and I hope it's sometime this year, havent lost hope yet, they can still do alot of damage regardless of their seeding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CloweForbidzYou View Post
and for the love of god, can we trade havlat for a piece of glass, the value is the same, but the glass has less cap hit.

get bigger. stronger. faster. and then we'll win.

most of this is just mindless ranting.
At least we agree on something
but yeh they're already big and strong, they just forgot what to do with it....of course we need speed, but Havlat can provide that, I hope we will see him a bit more this year before we say he is useless.

zombiekopitor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-11-2012, 04:52 PM
  #77
TheJuxtaposer
#Shorks
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,342
vCash: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by MessierII View Post
Honestly yes I think they could have beaten Van. Vancouver really isn't that good they fold mentally kind of like the Sharks, Chi they didnt stand a chance but regardless they sure could have beaten Edmonton, Dallas and Anaheim. You can keep saying it's the support players that are the problem but the support players have constantly changed since 06 with the same result. It's the leadership and the culture and Marleau and Thornton are a big part of that.
I'll give you Edmonton, but I'd argue the other too. Anyway, not my point. I'l acknowledge that JT hasn't been the best playoff performer in the past, but the point is that now he is. The past two years he's been awesome in the playoffs, and I'll put more stock into the last two years than the three before it.

And you think that we could have beaten Vancouver, but should we have beaten them? We were grossly injured, icing Kent Huskins in our top-4, and Vancouver matches up very well against us. Yes, we should have taken them to game 6 (botched icing call that lead to the tying goal with 10 seconds left in game 5, and then the stanchion), and maybe we win game 6 at home, but I honestly don't think we'd have stood a chance in game 7 in Vancouver. Thornton was playing with a separated shoulder.

And this "fold mentally", where on earth do you get this from. You say you watch the Sharks, but you put your stock into stereotypes instead of actually watching the games.

TheJuxtaposer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-11-2012, 05:06 PM
  #78
MessierII
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,123
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
And this "fold mentally", where on earth do you get this from. You say you watch the Sharks, but you put your stock into stereotypes instead of actually watching the games.
Stereotypes don't come out of nowhere. What do you like to call it when a grossly takented team goes through a stretch like they are right now?

MessierII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-11-2012, 05:11 PM
  #79
MessierII
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,123
vCash: 500
There's something that separates the teams that win cups and the teams that dominate regular seasons. There's one element that separates the Detroits, Pittsburgh's and Chicagos from the San Jose's, Vancouvers and Washingtons. There's something that allows winning teams to pull together and play their best hockey in a time of need. That something is leadership and that's where San Jose's problem lies.

MessierII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-11-2012, 05:15 PM
  #80
Mafoofoo
:facepalm:
 
Mafoofoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 12,948
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MessierII View Post
There's something that separates the teams that win cups and the teams that dominate regular seasons. There's one element that separates the Detroits, Pittsburgh's and Chicagos from the San Jose's, Vancouvers and Washingtons. There's something that allows winning teams to pull together and play their best hockey in a time of need. That something is leadership and that's where San Jose's problem lies.
So you're saying somehow by trading Marleau and Thornton, guys like Pavelski and Couture are gonna be better leaders? Even though the team on multiple times have all stated that the previous two are the best leaders in the room? Huh?

First you say it's a talent problem and how they need sexy new prospects, but now you say it's purely a leadership problem? Which one is it? You seem to know more about the team than us fans do. So tell us.

Mafoofoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-11-2012, 05:19 PM
  #81
TheJuxtaposer
#Shorks
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,342
vCash: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by MessierII View Post
Stereotypes don't come out of nowhere. What do you like to call it when a grossly takented team goes through a stretch like they are right now?
Have you paid attention to anything I've been saying? This team is underachieving for every reason besides Marleau and Thornton right now. Pavelski and Couture are playing through injuries, Havlat has been out for 40 games, Clowe has been extremely sucky, Boyle is definitely declining, and Niemi has been average at best.

The stereotype is that the Sharks are chokers, and then people extend that to Thornton and Marleau and blame them because they're the best players. You have absolutely no evidence that Thornton and Marleau are what you say they are.

TheJuxtaposer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-11-2012, 06:51 PM
  #82
MessierII
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,123
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mafoofoo View Post
So you're saying somehow by trading Marleau and Thornton, guys like Pavelski and Couture are gonna be better leaders? Even though the team on multiple times have all stated that the previous two are the best leaders in the room? Huh?

First you say it's a talent problem and how they need sexy new prospects, but now you say it's purely a leadership problem? Which one is it? You seem to know more about the team than us fans do. So tell us.
What are you talking about? I said from my 1st post they need a culture change.

MessierII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-11-2012, 06:54 PM
  #83
TheJuxtaposer
#Shorks
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,342
vCash: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by MessierII View Post
What are you talking about? I said from my 1st post they need a culture change.
Which you then didn't remotely back up with anything even close to resembling evidence. Sue him for not exactly buying the argument.

TheJuxtaposer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-11-2012, 06:57 PM
  #84
MessierII
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,123
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
Have you paid attention to anything I've been saying? This team is underachieving for every reason besides Marleau and Thornton right now. Pavelski and Couture are playing through injuries, Havlat has been out for 40 games, Clowe has been extremely sucky, Boyle is definitely declining, and Niemi has been average at best.

The stereotype is that the Sharks are chokers, and then people extend that to Thornton and Marleau and blame them because they're the best players. You have absolutely no evidence that Thornton and Marleau are what you say they are.
If you honestly your going to win a cup with Thornton and Marleau on your hockey team then that's fine. I'm just giving an outsider opinion that the team should retool and needs a change of culture in that dressing room. I'm not trying to insult the Sharks or their players I'm just giving my opinion if you don't agree that's fine. No need to get mad.

Fact: the Sharks have accomplished nothing and have been labeled underachievers the entire tenure of the Thornton/Marleau/Boyle era. Is it sooooooo unreasonable to suggest its time to move on?

MessierII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-11-2012, 06:59 PM
  #85
MessierII
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,123
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
Which you then didn't remotely back up with anything even close to resembling evidence. Sue him for not exactly buying the argument.
Sorry but what better evidence is there then the captaincy shifting and the team constantly underachieving?

MessierII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-11-2012, 07:01 PM
  #86
TheJuxtaposer
#Shorks
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,342
vCash: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by MessierII View Post
If you honestly your going to win a cup with Thornton and Marleau on your hockey team then that's fine. I'm just giving an outsider opinion that the team should retool and needs a change of culture in that dressing room. I'm not trying to insult the Sharks or their players I'm just giving my opinion if you don't agree that's fine. No need to get mad.

Fact: the Sharks have accomplished nothing and have been labeled underachievers the entire tenure of the Thornton/Marleau/Boyle era. Is it sooooooo unreasonable to suggest its time to move on?
Is two WCFs underachieving and considered nothing? I think a lot of teams would be happy with that.

And I agree, the current team can't win it. But trading other players, like Murray and Clowe, who are about the same age as JT/Marleau but fit the system significantly worse than the latter.

My point is that your "outsider opinion" has very little worth, considering it's a, you know, outsider opinion on something that's going on in a locker room across the country from you.

TheJuxtaposer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-11-2012, 07:07 PM
  #87
MessierII
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,123
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
Is two WCFs underachieving and considered nothing? I think a lot of teams would be happy with that.

And I agree, the current team can't win it. But trading other players, like Murray and Clowe, who are about the same age as JT/Marleau but fit the system significantly worse than the latter.

My point is that your "outsider opinion" has very little worth, considering it's a, you know, outsider opinion on something that's going on in a locker room across the country from you.
I'm sorry but yes for how good the Sharks have been since probably 2004 they have absolutely underachieved. Stanley Cup contender every year with not 1 run to the finals? Damn my Oilers have accomplished more and we haven't been considered a contender since 92.

MessierII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-11-2012, 07:10 PM
  #88
TheJuxtaposer
#Shorks
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,342
vCash: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by MessierII View Post
I'm sorry but yes for how good the Sharks have been since probably 2004 they have absolutely underachieved. Stanley Cup contender every year with not 1 run to the finals? Damn my Oilers have accomplished more and we haven't been considered a contender since 92.
Then you overrate the Sharks in the regular season. There is not a single year where the Sharks were the best team in their conference.

Honestly, tell me you think that the Oil have really accomplished more since the lockout.

TheJuxtaposer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-11-2012, 07:12 PM
  #89
MessierII
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,123
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
Then you overrate the Sharks in the regular season. There is not a single year where the Sharks were the best team in their conference.

Honestly, tell me you think that the Oil have really accomplished more since the lockout.
So what your saying is the Sharks have never been that good just consistently grossly overachieve to win their division every year?

MessierII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-11-2012, 07:13 PM
  #90
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 32,039
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by MessierII View Post
I'm sorry but yes for how good the Sharks have been since probably 2004 they have absolutely underachieved. Stanley Cup contender every year with not 1 run to the finals? Damn my Oilers have accomplished more and we haven't been considered a contender since 92.
The only people that believe the Sharks have underachieved are the people who weren't educated enough about the teams to give a realistic expectation of them. The first three years out of the lockout, they were not Cup contenders. Their first real year of contention was 2008-09 and that team got killed by injuries. These last two teams were contenders but never the best team up and down the lineup in their own conference and were beaten out by the teams that were.

For me, it's tough to take seriously someone who believes this team was a Cup contender right out of the lockout. It's an absurd notion if you actually watch the teams and saw who was in their lineup.

Pinkfloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-11-2012, 07:15 PM
  #91
MessierII
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,123
vCash: 500
So the arguements from Sharks fans is that they've never been that good. Every single season they just overachieved by such a large margin they were consistently one of the top teams in the conference with a stacked lineup on paper every year. Ok.

MessierII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-11-2012, 07:17 PM
  #92
TheJuxtaposer
#Shorks
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,342
vCash: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by MessierII View Post
So the arguements from Sharks fans is that they've never been that good. Every single season they just overachieved by such a large margin they were consistently one of the top teams in the conference with a stacked lineup on paper every year. Ok.
The argument is that we've never been favorites to win a Cup. I think it's fair.

TheJuxtaposer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-11-2012, 07:20 PM
  #93
MessierII
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,123
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
The argument is that we've never been favorites to win a Cup. I think it's fair.
Usually the best teams are favorites to win a cup but ok.

MessierII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-11-2012, 07:21 PM
  #94
TheJuxtaposer
#Shorks
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,342
vCash: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by MessierII View Post
Usually the best teams are favorites to win a cup but ok.
Seriously, tell me one year where the Sharks were the best team.

TheJuxtaposer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-11-2012, 07:24 PM
  #95
MessierII
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,123
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
Seriously, tell me one year where the Sharks were the best team.
So you have to be Presidents Trophy winner to be considered a cup contender?

MessierII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-11-2012, 07:26 PM
  #96
TheJuxtaposer
#Shorks
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,342
vCash: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by MessierII View Post
So you have to be Presidents Trophy winner to be considered a cup contender?
You said best team. Contenders get to WCFs, we've been a contender and gotten to WCFs. I don't see a problem.

TheJuxtaposer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-11-2012, 07:26 PM
  #97
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 32,039
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by MessierII View Post
So the arguements from Sharks fans is that they've never been that good. Every single season they just overachieved by such a large margin they were consistently one of the top teams in the conference with a stacked lineup on paper every year. Ok.
The Sharks have never been as good as national media pundits would like to believe. Anybody really following the team would understand that outside of one year, they finished about where they should have been expected. They didn't consistently hit the top teams of the conference until the end of 2007-08 and that was only because they acquired Brian Campbell, which addressed a critical area of weakness at the time which was puck movement from the blue line. The Sharks have never had a 3rd line since the lockout that wasn't worse than a comparable contender's 3rd line except for last year but it was still not the best 3rd line among contenders.

The reality is that if you followed this team, they've finished about where one would expect every year except this season and 2008-09 and that team was decimated by injuries which was why they lost that year.

Pinkfloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-11-2012, 07:31 PM
  #98
MessierII
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,123
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
You said best team. Contenders get to WCFs, we've been a contender and gotten to WCFs. I don't see a problem.
Sorry when did I say they were the best team? I didn't. However consistently finishing near the top of the conference constitutes you a Stanley Cup contender. You even just said you've been contenders. To contend for that long and not get to even to the finals is not success. The goal is to win a cup is it not? Or is it to get out of the 2nd round? If that's your definition of success then congratulations on the past two years.

MessierII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-11-2012, 07:34 PM
  #99
TheJuxtaposer
#Shorks
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,342
vCash: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by MessierII View Post
Sorry when did I say they were the best team? I didn't. However consistently finishing near the top of the conference constitutes you a Stanley Cup contender. You even just said you've been contenders. To contend for that long and not get to even to the finals is not success. The goal is to win a cup is it not? Or is it to get out of the 2nd round? If that's your definition of success then congratulations on the past two years.
Wow... I don't even know... But the point is that there isn't a year where the Sharks should have won if but didn't. Of course I'm not satisfied with just getting to the 3rd round, but I can't expect anything more than that with the level of talent that we had.

TheJuxtaposer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-11-2012, 07:35 PM
  #100
MessierII
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,123
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
The Sharks have never been as good as national media pundits would like to believe. Anybody really following the team would understand that outside of one year, they finished about where they should have been expected. They didn't consistently hit the top teams of the conference until the end of 2007-08 and that was only because they acquired Brian Campbell, which addressed a critical area of weakness at the time which was puck movement from the blue line. The Sharks have never had a 3rd line since the lockout that wasn't worse than a comparable contender's 3rd line except for last year but it was still not the best 3rd line among contenders.

The reality is that if you followed this team, they've finished about where one would expect every year except this season and 2008-09 and that team was decimated by injuries which was why they lost that year.
What your saying is the Sharks have never been as good as the RESULTS have led us to believe. Consistently winning the division and putting up 100 point seasons is not media fabricated it's factual. If you don't think they were that good then why do you disagree with me when I suggest a retool and culture change? They certainly aren't better now.

MessierII 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 05:23 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.