HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Dallas Stars
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

General Stars Talk IV: The Prequel

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-10-2012, 02:55 PM
  #376
piqued
Registered User
 
piqued's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Dallas
Country: United States
Posts: 32,014
vCash: 3722
How are those people from St. Louis' past?

piqued is offline  
Old
05-10-2012, 05:28 PM
  #377
SonicSpeedDash
All bets are off
 
SonicSpeedDash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Amarillo, TX
Country: United States
Posts: 4,034
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars99Lobo37 View Post
This franchise is so unbelievably stuck on the people that were around during those times....it's absolutely ridiculous.

I do think Gainey will help GMJN but good Lord.
I like to point out his positive times rather then his negative ones. I wasn't a fan around those times anyway.

I hope he doesn't convince Joe on making bad moves, but i guess we'll see.

SonicSpeedDash is offline  
Old
05-10-2012, 05:45 PM
  #378
piqued
Registered User
 
piqued's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Dallas
Country: United States
Posts: 32,014
vCash: 3722
It's not like Joe is some amazing GM who only makes good moves. I'm no more worried now than I was before. It's just somewhat comical how there's seemingly always a second act for those involved in Dallas Stars hockey.

piqued is offline  
Old
05-10-2012, 06:36 PM
  #379
LatvianTwist
Global Moderator
Team ϶(o)ϵ
 
LatvianTwist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Texas A&M
Country: Latvia
Posts: 21,871
vCash: 500
This is kind of OT, but does anyone know of a bad move Chiarelli has made? My friend and I were arguing about this in class today, and I really couldn't think of one that stood out.

I'm happy with Gainey being here, but it doesn't change much at all. I have a feeling it was more just to get him in the organization and they're using him as a bridge for something bigger, or simply as a sign that the current personnel are sticking for the time being.

LatvianTwist is offline  
Old
05-10-2012, 07:08 PM
  #380
Mr Misty
The Irons Are Back!
 
Mr Misty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,194
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LatvianTwist View Post
This is kind of OT, but does anyone know of a bad move Chiarelli has made? My friend and I were arguing about this in class today, and I really couldn't think of one that stood out.

I'm happy with Gainey being here, but it doesn't change much at all. I have a feeling it was more just to get him in the organization and they're using him as a bridge for something bigger, or simply as a sign that the current personnel are sticking for the time being.
Kaberle FTW.

However that man has done a fantastic job setting up his team to continue to win for years to come.

Mr Misty is offline  
Old
05-10-2012, 07:41 PM
  #381
cupwatcher2014
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,840
vCash: 500
Gainey? Bye Bye Ryder.

cupwatcher2014 is offline  
Old
05-10-2012, 07:46 PM
  #382
Alistar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: Azores
Posts: 9,333
vCash: 500
well as it turns out Atlanta / Winnipeg came out looking great in the Rich Peverley for Blake Wheeler and Mark Stuart trade, as Wheeler is probably their 2nd or 3rd best forward and Mark Stuart is a damn good defensive defenceman, but there may have been internal pressure to do that one what with Wheeler being a cancer in the locker-room and all.

I don't think people around here have an appreciation for what a bad general manager is.. maybe if Brett Hull had managed to hang on for another couple of years. GM Joe's made some great moves during his time here, and with some support from the ownership he'll have Dallas in the playoffs before too long.

Alistar is offline  
Old
05-10-2012, 11:00 PM
  #383
BigG44
Registered User
 
BigG44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 22,290
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by piqued View Post
How are those people from St. Louis' past?
I get the feeling you just argue for the sake of arguing.

We're talking about GM's ... I specifically mentioned Doug Armstrong ... the GM ... all 3 people I mentioned have ties to Armstrong ... the GM. It just so happens that Armstrong was Dallas' former GM (and those 3 people have ties to Dallas) which has nothing to do with the point I made that nearly every GM has players/coaches/personnel on their staff from past teams they were affiliated with.

Brian Burke does it ... players, coaches, and personnel. Like I said, it's not shocking or abnormal from teams/GMs to go after people they have previous relationships with. I'm not going to sit down and try and do it, but I bet you'd have a pretty hard time finding a team that doesn't have re-treads of former relationships.

BigG44 is offline  
Old
05-10-2012, 11:36 PM
  #384
Stars99Lobo37
Away Games - 13
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sec 314 - Richardson
Country: United States
Posts: 52,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigG44 View Post
We're talking about GM's
Pique and I were talking about in general (at least my original post was intended that way).

This entire organization has clung to 1999 and 2000. And when things have strayed too far away from the core of that team, someone has come in and rejoined the team.

The second we got rid of having anyone from the 1999 team on our team anymore, Nieuwendyk goes and trades for Langenbrunner. Sydor has had countless trips back to Dallas. Even bloody Robidas has had two stays here (not that he was apart of the 99/00 teams or anything but I just don't like him so including him).

Now after Modano and Lehtinen have retired...we have gone out and have Nieuwendyk leading the team, Lites trying to work things out as he did during the 90s, and Gainey helping Nieuwendyk. And before Nieuwendyk was GM, we had Hull as half GM. Heck, Ludwig is even involved with TV broadcast. Even better..Brent Severyn has even had two stays here on the broadcast side. Am sure we'll find Lehtinen a spot in management eventually if he ever wanted it. And Modano will never leave the franchise.

We've had countless tributes to that team and era (deservingly so). And maybe it just feels even more so with the three tributes to Hull, Nieuwendyk, and Belfour in the past two years.

I understand that teams or people tend to stay with people they're familiar with it, but this franchise takes it to the next level. And they've been stuck living off 1999 ever since that season ended. Think that's why I'm even more so ready to see Morrow and Robidas and company leave this team. The time to move on and start a new era of Stars hockey is now. We have a new owner, we're getting a new jersey sooner rather than later. We have new superstars waiting to take over this team. Just would rather see the team push forward instead of drawing back on old hopes.

Stars99Lobo37 is offline  
Old
05-10-2012, 11:48 PM
  #385
BigG44
Registered User
 
BigG44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 22,290
vCash: 500
Even if you aren't just talking about the GM ... it's still common in sports (not just the NHL) to have those people from your past around. It's literally everywhere in every sport.

How many times do you see former Cowboys and former Rangers doing team broadcasts, promoting the team, getting hired by the organization in a different role ... it's endless (I don't watch the NBA so I don't know how it is for them).

I just don't understand how that eats on you where the Stars are concerned, but if it does bother you it really sucks because I don't see it changing anytime soon.

Just curious, but were y'all disappointed with Gainey drawing on so many of his past relationships to build the late 90's Dallas Stars?


Quote:
How do you think Gainey built the Stars? He trusted Doug Jarvis because he was an old teammate. He trusted Guy Carbonneau and CraIg Ludwig and Brian Skrudland and Mike Keane and Kirk Muller. Why? Because he had familiarity and insight.

BigG44 is offline  
Old
05-11-2012, 12:14 AM
  #386
glovesave_35
Name
 
glovesave_35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: South Korea
Country: United States
Posts: 16,387
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigG44 View Post
How many times do you see former Cowboys and former Rangers doing team broadcasts, promoting the team, getting hired by the organization in a different role ... it's endless (I don't watch the NBA so I don't know how it is for them).
So what?

Tom Grieve doesn't have anything to do with the day to day baseball operations of the Rangers. The scouting department has been turned over it seems a few times since the Rangers' "glory days". Jon Daniels was at Cornell or still in high school when the Rangers had their most successful seasons of the 90's. I don't know how anybody who follows the Rangers can say with a straight face that the Rangers have been overly tied to their past these last four or five years. Actually, pretty much as soon as they stopped living in the past and decided to pull themselves up by the bootstraps they've been trending up.

I know the point you're trying to make but each situation is unique. I feel the same way as Lobo and have railed against bringing in people who were connected to the teams of the late 90's-early 00's. It's not even that they are necessarily bad hires; for me it has to do with an unhealthy amount of living in the past. Also, I wouldn't hold up Brian Burke's hiring tendencies as some sort of managerial blueprint for success.


Edit: I just want to add that, just as I said each situation is unique, that stands true for this particular hire. I'm cautiously optimistic he will turn out to be a helpful voice in the mix.


Last edited by glovesave_35: 05-11-2012 at 12:19 AM.
glovesave_35 is offline  
Old
05-11-2012, 12:41 AM
  #387
BigG44
Registered User
 
BigG44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 22,290
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by glovesave_35 View Post
So what?

Tom Grieve doesn't have anything to do with the day to day baseball operations of the Rangers. The scouting department has been turned over it seems a few times since the Rangers' "glory days". Jon Daniels was at Cornell or still in high school when the Rangers had their most successful seasons of the 90's. I don't know how anybody who follows the Rangers can say with a straight face that the Rangers have been overly tied to their past these last four or five years. Actually, pretty much as soon as they stopped living in the past and decided to pull themselves up by the bootstraps they've been trending up.
Craig Ludwig and Brett Severyn on Fox Sports doesn't have anything to do with the front office, and celebrating three important former players becoming Hockey Hall of Famers has nothing to do with the front office. I was merely responding to Lobo bringing up the broadcast booth and things not pertaining to hockey operations when it came to seeing former Stars everywhere. All those organizations do lean heavily on the past when you're talking about promotions and the game experience (both in person and on TV).

I wasn't going to re-state my opinion about adding former players personnel again to respond to the rest of his point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by glovesave_35 View Post
I know the point you're trying to make but each situation is unique. I feel the same way as Lobo and have railed against bringing in people who were connected to the teams of the late 90's-early 00's. It's not even that they are necessarily bad hires; for me it has to do with an unhealthy amount of living in the past. Also, I wouldn't hold up Brian Burke's hiring tendencies as some sort of managerial blueprint for success.
Again .. it's not just Brian Burke and the Dallas Stars. I'll concede that I literally can't put myself in your shoes in this instance and see the other side. If the Stars were in a unique situation where they hired an re-hired former teammates, friends, and employees I'd understand the frustration more. The NHL is a league of surrounding yourself with your friends and bringing in the occasional fresh voice. Dallas has the same same setup.

Just look at Detroit's staff and pick out all the former Wings in management positions or scouts.

For all the things to get a little twisted about, this just seems like it'd be pretty far down the list, especially since the team only has 3 guys from 1999 on the hockey operations staff. One of them isn't even a full-time role.

I just think you're hyperfocused on 1999. Sure, there are quite a few guys around from that time, but it's not like this team looks anything like the 1999 Dallas Stars or they are trying to build in the image of that team.

BigG44 is offline  
Old
05-11-2012, 12:47 AM
  #388
glovesave_35
Name
 
glovesave_35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: South Korea
Country: United States
Posts: 16,387
vCash: 500
I'm not hyper-focused on 1999 but it's kind of hard not to be when the team markets the glory years as much as they do. My panties aren't in a bunch about this particular thing but they were when Nieuwendyk was hired because that seemed like the ultimate reach-back, especially given his lack of experience.

I get that sports and the NHL is all about networking and maintaining relationships. I get it. But when the team hasn't made the playoffs in four straight years I don't give a rats ass about bringing in "voices of experience" from when this team was good. I want fresh blood with new ideas. A new perspective is needed from time to time.

As far as Detroit goes; if I were them and had the success that they've had I would sure as **** keep those voices of success around. Apples and oranges here.

glovesave_35 is offline  
Old
05-11-2012, 12:49 AM
  #389
BigG44
Registered User
 
BigG44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 22,290
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by glovesave_35 View Post
Edit: I just want to add that, just as I said each situation is unique, that stands true for this particular hire. I'm cautiously optimistic he will turn out to be a helpful voice in the mix.
I agree, and the one thing I forgot I wanted to add is that each situation might be unique ... but the situation of hiring re-treads is far from unique.

Regarding Lites .. this is mainly directed at Lobo's comment from earlier, "Lites trying to work things out as he did during the 90s" ... how is that a bad thing?

I get maybe JN might not be the best option for GM anymore. If you want to make that argument, there are plenty of examples you could come up with that would be fair arguments against his ability.

Lites on the other hand is a guy who already has a proven track record of selling hockey in a bad environment. When you have a team bleeding money, it's probably smart to go get a guy that's done it before.

I'd argue that Lites coming to Dallas has little to do with a Stanley Cup (he didn't have much to do with the on-ice product) and everything to do with his experience building hockey support from the ground up. If that's dwelling on the past in this situation, so what? You know he can sell hockey. That's what you needed right now.

BigG44 is offline  
Old
05-11-2012, 01:00 AM
  #390
BigG44
Registered User
 
BigG44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 22,290
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by glovesave_35 View Post
I'm not hyper-focused on 1999 but it's kind of hard not to be when the team markets the glory years as much as they do. My panties aren't in a bunch about this particular thing but they were when Nieuwendyk was hired because that seemed like the ultimate reach-back, especially given his lack of experience.

I get that sports and the NHL is all about networking and maintaining relationships. I get it. But when the team hasn't made the playoffs in four straight years I don't give a rats ass about bringing in "voices of experience" from when this team was good. I want fresh blood with new ideas. A new perspective is needed from time to time.

As far as Detroit goes; if I were them and had the success that they've had I would sure as **** keep those voices of success around. Apples and oranges here.
3 people from 1999.

1 has nothing to do with the on-ice product.

Joe Nieuwendyk was going to be a GM in this league even if it wasn't in Dallas, but I do think you are right it was a last desperate move by Tom Hicks to bolster fan support. However, even if he was hired a bit early before he had a ton of experience, let's not pretend that he's not in the job (GM ... not specifically with Dallas necessarily) that everyone thought he'd eventually be. I think it's fair to say that if Dallas ultimately moves on with GMJN ... he'll be back. This isn't a Brett Hull situation where the guy was a total bust. I only say that to point out that GMJN was and is a legitimate NHL GM unlike the sideshow of the Co-GMs. Could it be time to move on? That's a fair question.

I get being frustrated about not making the playoffs, but the team has a majority of voices that aren't from 1999. Plus, this team right now has pretty much only one thing in common with the 2008/09, 2009/10, and 2010/11 Dallas Stars ... they missed the playoffs. It's not like the team is just spinning it's wheels. EDIT - The work the hockey operations has done the past 3 years with GMJN at the top has set the team up with the best prospect depth they've had in years. They're set up to be a good team and consistent playoff contender with only one or two additions, and their prospect depth could/should make them a very good team and possible Stanley Cup contender in the next few years. All of his decisions haven't been the best possible move for the Dallas Stars, but overall the team is in a much better place. Like I said ... I'm not going to fault someone for wanting to replace GMJN, but in this case the good for me out weights the bad. I'm looking forward to see what he does with a legitimate owner ... and that has nothing to do with 1999.


Last edited by BigG44: 05-11-2012 at 01:09 AM.
BigG44 is offline  
Old
05-11-2012, 01:03 AM
  #391
BigG44
Registered User
 
BigG44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 22,290
vCash: 500
Calling the Co-GM's a side show isn't exactly fair. On his own, I think Les Jackson could have been a good GM. They never gave him a chance. The side show was not picking one voice and forcing Brett Hull into a role he wasn't suited for.

BigG44 is offline  
Old
05-11-2012, 03:38 PM
  #392
LatvianTwist
Global Moderator
Team ϶(o)ϵ
 
LatvianTwist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Texas A&M
Country: Latvia
Posts: 21,871
vCash: 500
I'm not sure you can use the Rangers in this argument. They've never really had success like they are now, or a couple big seasons like the Stars did. I know they keep some guys around, but the situation isn't all that similar.

I wonder (and I'm confident they do) if they feel like keeping these guys around builds an atmosphere of success around the organization. Constantly reminding themselves of the glory days.

LatvianTwist is offline  
Old
05-12-2012, 05:57 AM
  #393
glovesave_35
Name
 
glovesave_35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: South Korea
Country: United States
Posts: 16,387
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigG44 View Post
3 people from 1999.

1 has nothing to do with the on-ice product.

Joe Nieuwendyk was going to be a GM in this league even if it wasn't in Dallas, but I do think you are right it was a last desperate move by Tom Hicks to bolster fan support. However, even if he was hired a bit early before he had a ton of experience, let's not pretend that he's not in the job (GM ... not specifically with Dallas necessarily) that everyone thought he'd eventually be. I think it's fair to say that if Dallas ultimately moves on with GMJN ... he'll be back. This isn't a Brett Hull situation where the guy was a total bust. I only say that to point out that GMJN was and is a legitimate NHL GM unlike the sideshow of the Co-GMs. Could it be time to move on? That's a fair question.

I get being frustrated about not making the playoffs, but the team has a majority of voices that aren't from 1999. Plus, this team right now has pretty much only one thing in common with the 2008/09, 2009/10, and 2010/11 Dallas Stars ... they missed the playoffs. It's not like the team is just spinning it's wheels. EDIT - The work the hockey operations has done the past 3 years with GMJN at the top has set the team up with the best prospect depth they've had in years. They're set up to be a good team and consistent playoff contender with only one or two additions, and their prospect depth could/should make them a very good team and possible Stanley Cup contender in the next few years. All of his decisions haven't been the best possible move for the Dallas Stars, but overall the team is in a much better place. Like I said ... I'm not going to fault someone for wanting to replace GMJN, but in this case the good for me out weights the bad. I'm looking forward to see what he does with a legitimate owner ... and that has nothing to do with 1999.
All good points.

When I think of the prospect quality/depth (quality is still yet to be truly determined) we currently have I tend to consider that more of a continuation of the progression this organization had made even toward the end of the Armstrong era - an era where Eriksson, Grossman, and Fistric were key prospects. I won't argue though that they've kept a good thing going.

The biggest thing that's annoyed me about the Nieuwendyk hire was that it didn't need to happen. It didn't create buzz so it didn't sell tickets. The only thing that needed to happen was removing Hull from the equation (he never should have been in the first place). Les Jackson could, and in my opinion did, hold down the job of GM pretty solidly. Hull all but admitted that it was Jackson pulling the strings while they were co-GM's. The biggest blunder seems to have been the free agent bone that was thrown Hull's way - Sean Avery.

glovesave_35 is offline  
Old
05-12-2012, 08:08 AM
  #394
BigG44
Registered User
 
BigG44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 22,290
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by glovesave_35 View Post
All good points.

When I think of the prospect quality/depth (quality is still yet to be truly determined) we currently have I tend to consider that more of a continuation of the progression this organization had made even toward the end of the Armstrong era - an era where Eriksson, Grossman, and Fistric were key prospects. I won't argue though that they've kept a good thing going.

The biggest thing that's annoyed me about the Nieuwendyk hire was that it didn't need to happen. It didn't create buzz so it didn't sell tickets. The only thing that needed to happen was removing Hull from the equation (he never should have been in the first place). Les Jackson could, and in my opinion did, hold down the job of GM pretty solidly. Hull all but admitted that it was Jackson pulling the strings while they were co-GM's. The biggest blunder seems to have been the free agent bone that was thrown Hull's way - Sean Avery.
Yeah I think Jackson got boned, and I'm thankful he's still with the organization. I'd love to see what he could have done without an anchor.

When you look at what the Doug Armstrong era produced, it is a pretty solid list:

Trevor Daley
Loui Eriksson
Mark Fistric
Nicklas Gorssmann
Matt Niskanen
James Neal
Tom Wandell
Richard Bachman
Jamie Benn
In Addition: Ivan Vishnevskiy turned into Kari Lehtonen

In his time, his staff found 3 of Dallas' 5 current core players (as described by GMJN and Gaglardi), and 3 of his picks helped acquire the other 2.

When I looked back on Armstrong's drafts, I usually couldn't get beyond the annoyance of blown, desperate 1st round picks being traded for rentals and the constant need to trade down. However, if you look at the guys that made it for Dallas (and some I didn't list playing well for other NHL teams), his leadership produced some important players.

I still think a big part of it is the scouting department, but I'm trying to figure out a healthy balance of giving a GM his credit and not totally discounting their influence. I figure complimenting the "leadership" is a good middle ground ... .

That said, it's kind of funny that Les Jackson's one true draft in 2008 would have been mostly a disaster if Philip Larsen hadn't blossomed. The first two picks were significant reaches for high risk players. Though, injuries ended the career of Tassone, and Bergin is likely getting pushed out be Dallas' younger D prospects turning pro. However, you could say injuries delayed his development enough to screw him over too.

BigG44 is offline  
Old
05-12-2012, 11:35 AM
  #395
Hull Fan
trou du cul rapide
 
Hull Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Arlington, TX
Country: Albania
Posts: 5,952
vCash: 500
I vaguely remember reading that Jackson himself said he wanted to get back to the scouting/drafting side rather than the GM responsibilities. I think that is why he's doing what he's doing rather than GM or assistant GM.

Armstrong's trades damned him more than his drafts but I would think this collection is league average as far as success rate goes. Daley didn't become the PMD they thought he would be. Neal was streaky. Niskanen fell off a cliff. Wandell isn't anything special. Fistric is a bottom pairing guy. Grossman began to really struggle here. Benn and Loui are outstanding but over an 11 year span is that really impressive?

Hull Fan is offline  
Old
05-12-2012, 11:43 AM
  #396
LatvianTwist
Global Moderator
Team ϶(o)ϵ
 
LatvianTwist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Texas A&M
Country: Latvia
Posts: 21,871
vCash: 500
Armstrong hasn't really impressed me all that much.

LatvianTwist is offline  
Old
05-16-2012, 12:15 PM
  #397
Ambassador Of Fun
Registered User
 
Ambassador Of Fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,929
vCash: 500
Gaglardi on the BAD Radio at 12:30. Doubtful that we'll get any new info, but I'll be listening.

Ambassador Of Fun is offline  
Old
05-16-2012, 01:04 PM
  #398
Ambassador Of Fun
Registered User
 
Ambassador Of Fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,929
vCash: 500
Cliffs:
-Joe is a good GM
-Gainey is a good hockey mind
-Gulutzan is a good coach
-We will go hard after a couple of guys in free agency. Made it sound like big names.
-More than likely going to go Center at 13, possibly a defenseman if all the centers are gone.
-Souray coming back is a mehbye
-Benn could get a bridge or a long-term deal but no way we don't match an offer sheet.
-Likes a young fast team
-There was one trade that would have been for future assets for a good locker room guy that was turned down that they were considering. All the other deals they didn't get the good NHL ready player they wanted for their vets. (I assume that means they didn't get the guys they wanted in deals for Morrow, Ribeiro, Ott, or Robidas and more likely it was Souray for a couple picks or something)

Ambassador Of Fun is offline  
Old
05-16-2012, 01:59 PM
  #399
Hull Fan
trou du cul rapide
 
Hull Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Arlington, TX
Country: Albania
Posts: 5,952
vCash: 500
At some point even if you don't prefer it don't you have to take the picks or young prospects rather than keep holding onto Morrow, Robidas, etc? I understand they want NHL ready but most teams aren't moving those cost controlled assets but you can still get picks which at the draft you may be able to move around. *Sigh* more of the same.

I don't doubt they're aiming high for both Parise and Suter but what happens when they don't come. There's a huge dropoff and pretty much everyone else will either cost too much or just not be worth what they'll agree to sign for.

Hull Fan is offline  
Old
05-16-2012, 02:09 PM
  #400
BigG44
Registered User
 
BigG44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 22,290
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hull Fan View Post
I don't doubt they're aiming high for both Parise and Suter but what happens when they don't come. There's a huge dropoff and pretty much everyone else will either cost too much or just not be worth what they'll agree to sign for.
That's the trades they've been talking about IMO. When they miss out on free agents or are unable to acquire younger players through trades, they'll add salary dumps to make the team better.

I do think it's reasonable to be confident that they can get at least one young player through free agency or trade (more likely).

BigG44 is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:26 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.