HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > San Jose Sharks
Notices

DW looking for another winger

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-22-2013, 04:07 PM
  #851
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 16,791
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
They may tell the fans cup, but they are battling astronomically high odds against on this issue already. It is more about playoffs. Look to the teams that have rebuilt successfully and won. They had to tank for a year or two at least. TO is the classic case followed by StL. Philly is perpetually rebuilding on the fly yet fails repeatedly (although getting very close a couple of times).

I don't like most media narratives on how to build a team as they are skipping over key ingredients and commonalities. Whether the GMs know these ingredients and commonalities, who knows? Just a case in point, for how many years have we heard from Drew about how Edmonton will rise from the ashes with all of their high picks? Every year, it is next year and next year arrives and is follow by "next year" again.
Detroit didn't tank, nor did LA, nor did Boston. Hawks and Penguins did, but so have Edmonton, NYI, Panthers, etc etc and gotten nowhere. I don't think there is any formula to winning a cup. You can tank and still be terrible, or you can tank and win it all. You can slowly build through good drafting and trading while maintaining profitability. That's what the Sharks are trying to do.

hockeyball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 04:09 PM
  #852
TheJuxtaposer
#healBurish
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 23,649
vCash: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
Detroit didn't tank, nor did LA, nor did Boston. Hawks and Penguins did, but so have Edmonton, NYI, Panthers, etc etc and gotten nowhere. I don't think there is any formula to winning a cup. You can tank and still be terrible, or you can tank and win it all. You can slowly build through good drafting and trading while maintaining profitability. That's what the Sharks are trying to do.
LA picked 4-2-5 in consecutive years between 2007 and 2009. I'd call that a tank.

Detroit? Those guys called Lidstrom, Datsyuk, and Zetterberg.

Boston? Signed Chara as a UFA, got lucky with Thomas.

TheJuxtaposer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 04:12 PM
  #853
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 16,791
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
LA picked 4-2-5 in consecutive years between 2007 and 2009. I'd call that a tank.
I don't consider anything beyond 3rd overall worthy of a 'tank' label. After 3rd overall your odds of getting a star player go down dramatically. You are right though, they got Doughty in 08.

hockeyball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 04:13 PM
  #854
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 16,791
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
LA picked 4-2-5 in consecutive years between 2007 and 2009. I'd call that a tank.

Detroit? Those guys called Lidstrom, Datsyuk, and Zetterberg.

Boston? Signed Chara as a UFA, got lucky with Thomas.
Still not tanking. Proves my point.

hockeyball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 04:19 PM
  #855
TheJuxtaposer
#healBurish
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 23,649
vCash: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
Still not tanking. Proves my point.
We don't have Lidstrom, and we're not going to sign Chara. I guess that's my point, that we aren't capable of winning in those ways.

I think 4th overall qualifies as tank material. Top-5 is tank material for me.

TheJuxtaposer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 04:21 PM
  #856
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 11,805
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
LA picked 4-2-5 in consecutive years between 2007 and 2009. I'd call that a tank.

Detroit? Those guys called Lidstrom, Datsyuk, and Zetterberg.

Boston? Signed Chara as a UFA, got lucky with Thomas.
I am tagging onto you because you caught part of my response. It goes back to 2 out of 3 ain't bad. Boston did the non-tank method although they did tank to get JT and traded him. The 3 points are Vezina caliber goalie, Norris caliber dman and strong down the middle. Boston was missing strong down the middle although they somewhat compensated with quantity. It is easier to get Norris caliber and Vezina caliber late in the draft although by no means easy and they stretched it further by nailing the FA pool on the money.

Other secondary ingredients are coaching, development, etc. Both of them were spot on in nailing some key side issues. Both of them have failed to acknowledge those side issues in post-cup decisions. (I expect LA to fail hard this year. I had a suspicion about it over the off season and it seems to be coming to fruition.)

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 04:22 PM
  #857
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 11,805
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
Still not tanking. Proves my point.
Top 5 pick is assuredly tanking.

And what in SJ drafting/development gives you confidence that they can come up with Norris or Vezina caliber late in the draft. The only thing that the Sharks have done is grab elite through firesale trades. And grabbing elite forwards through trade has really not been a key to winning cups.


Last edited by SJeasy: 02-22-2013 at 04:31 PM.
SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 04:33 PM
  #858
TheJuxtaposer
#healBurish
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 23,649
vCash: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
Top 5 pick is assuredly tanking.

And what in SJ drafting/development gives you confidence that they can come up with Norris or Vezina caliber late in the draft. The only thing that the Sharks have done is grab elite through firesale trades. And grabbing elite forwards through trade has really not been a key to winning cups.
Well, Richards and Carter beg to disagree.

But yeah, I agree with your other points.

TheJuxtaposer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 04:38 PM
  #859
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 16,791
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
We don't have Lidstrom, and we're not going to sign Chara. I guess that's my point, that we aren't capable of winning in those ways.

I think 4th overall qualifies as tank material. Top-5 is tank material for me.
Uhm, we nearly signed Chara you realize right? He only didn't sign here because we would not promise him the captaincy, that's pretty well known.

We did get Thornton, Boyle, Burns, Heatley... traded up for Couture... I'm not terribly concerned about our ability to get good players, it could be better, but we do a lot better than a lot of teams.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
I am tagging onto you because you caught part of my response. It goes back to 2 out of 3 ain't bad. Boston did the non-tank method although they did tank to get JT and traded him. The 3 points are Vezina caliber goalie, Norris caliber dman and strong down the middle. Boston was missing strong down the middle although they somewhat compensated with quantity. It is easier to get Norris caliber and Vezina caliber late in the draft although by no means easy and they stretched it further by nailing the FA pool on the money.

Other secondary ingredients are coaching, development, etc. Both of them were spot on in nailing some key side issues. Both of them have failed to acknowledge those side issues in post-cup decisions. (I expect LA to fail hard this year. I had a suspicion about it over the off season and it seems to be coming to fruition.)
While we have never had a true Norris caliber d-man, Boyle is about as close as you can get without winning. Nabby nearly did and should have won the Vezina. All that aside, a high draft pick is not a good way to get a vezina goalie, and most of the best defensemen were not top 5 picks (Chara, Weber, Keith, even Karlsson). That's good drafting, good development, and tanking doesn't help.

The only thing tanking can do is get you a Crosby, Ovechkin, Malkin. It's not a guarentee though, those players are few and far between (Hall, RNH, etc are a step down). Getting Crosby worked for the Pens, but it's a huge risk, if the Sharks tanked and ended up with say Taylor Hall (who is good and all) it simply isn't going to make that big of a difference and the fans are not going to tolerate a season of tanking well, especially if its followed up by several seasons of mediocrity.

I absolutely do not think tanking is a good idea unless the Sharks know a super-elite NHL ready player is going to be available, and even then they only have a 25% chance of getting that player. It's not worth it.

hockeyball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 04:39 PM
  #860
Tkachuk4MVP
22 Years of Fail
 
Tkachuk4MVP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 8,923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
I don't consider anything beyond 3rd overall worthy of a 'tank' label. After 3rd overall your odds of getting a star player go down dramatically. You are right though, they got Doughty in 08.

The Kings finished second to last in the Conference twice and dead last once during those three seasons. The fact that they only had one top 3 pick is irrelevant, because they were certainly terrible enough to warrant one in each of those years. On top of that they were mediocre for almost twenty years before turning it around.

Tkachuk4MVP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 04:41 PM
  #861
Tkachuk4MVP
22 Years of Fail
 
Tkachuk4MVP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 8,923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
Uhm, we nearly signed Chara you realize right? He only didn't sign here because we would not promise him the captaincy, that's pretty well known.

Really? I had never heard that before.

Tkachuk4MVP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 04:42 PM
  #862
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 11,805
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
Well, Richards and Carter beg to disagree.
Who were the top 2 scorers for LA in the playoffs? The answer matches my formula exactly. BTW, my take on LA doing not so well is what amounts to Patrick Kane disease (many other pros have the affliction with or without cups) and that is Carter and Richards in spades.

Edit:
Another fun one. How are the Rags doing? Replacing Dubie Do and Ants with Nash. Hmmmmm . . . . .


Last edited by SJeasy: 02-22-2013 at 04:48 PM.
SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 04:42 PM
  #863
BrianSmith
Welcome home Stuey!
 
BrianSmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Cali
Country: United States
Posts: 2,923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by one2gamble View Post
Why, thats exactly what this team had on their top line for a long time. A quick borderline player.
Sure, and we had Wingels up there last year when Havlat was out - how'd that look? Have you seen Galiardi play? Useless... NOT fast.

And Sheppard (who has far exceeded what I was expecting) is still just back from 2 years off and being rushed to the NHL too early.

Could you please point out this "quick" borderline player out of the three I mentioned that is smart to bank on?

Maybe a long shot is Kennedy - he IS quick, fast, shifty, but size is a concern.

BrianSmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 04:46 PM
  #864
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 16,791
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tkachuk4MVP View Post
The Kings finished second to last in the Conference twice and dead last once during those three seasons. The fact that they only had one top 3 pick is irrelevant, because they were certainly terrible enough to warrant one in each of those years. On top of that they were mediocre for almost twenty years before turning it around.
The Kings won because they had one of the worst coaches in hockey, and I said so long before he was fired, and he was fired, and they immediately won a cup. They did that because they had a great roster, and fantastic goalie (I've always been a fan of Quick, long before he proved anything) and most of all a good coach.

I don't buy into tanking being a reliable method of building a team. It fails as often, or more often, than it works. Plus you guys are moving the goalposts around too, we picked Marleau 2nd overall, he's still on the team, doesn't that count as much as Doughty does at this point? They make the same amount of money...

If Tanking worked, Edm wouldn't still be looking at another lottery pick. Tanking is just one avenue to talent, it still requires good coaching, good development, and a lot of luck. We choose to rely on good scouting and timely trades to get our talent, and because of it we have more talent than the majority of teams in the league. What is holding us back is coaching and luck.

hockeyball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 04:56 PM
  #865
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 11,805
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
The Kings won because they had one of the worst coaches in hockey, and I said so long before he was fired, and he was fired, and they immediately won a cup. They did that because they had a great roster, and fantastic goalie (I've always been a fan of Quick, long before he proved anything) and most of all a good coach.

I don't buy into tanking being a reliable method of building a team. It fails as often, or more often, than it works. Plus you guys are moving the goalposts around too, we picked Marleau 2nd overall, he's still on the team, doesn't that count as much as Doughty does at this point? They make the same amount of money...

If Tanking worked, Edm wouldn't still be looking at another lottery pick. Tanking is just one avenue to talent, it still requires good coaching, good development, and a lot of luck. We choose to rely on good scouting and timely trades to get our talent, and because of it we have more talent than the majority of teams in the league. What is holding us back is coaching and luck.
You are correct about tanking not being a guarantee, but limp along doesn't work unless you are grabbing a superstar here or there with those late picks (Detroit method).

By the formulas. The Sharks are not grabbing superstars late. They have managed a couple of elite. They have won on quantity in drafting but their top end falls short in drafting.

I will repeat so my meaning is clear. Vezina caliber means top 3 in the voting. Norris, again top 3. Boyle is not top 3 although close maybe once or twice.

And again 2 out of 3. Nemo was the third wheel on a Chicago team, didn't qualify as one of the 3 prerequisities. The Hawks had Norris caliber, Keith, and strong down the middle, Bolland, Sharp, Toews. The Hawks had 2 out of 3 with Vezina caliber being the missing ingredient.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 05:01 PM
  #866
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 16,791
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
You are correct about tanking not being a guarantee, but limp along doesn't work unless you are grabbing a superstar here or there with those late picks (Detroit method).

By the formulas. The Sharks are not grabbing superstars late. They have managed a couple of elite. They have won on quantity in drafting but their top end falls short in drafting.

I will repeat so my meaning is clear. Vezina caliber means top 3 in the voting. Norris, again top 3. Boyle is not top 3 although close maybe once or twice.

And again 2 out of 3. Nemo was the third wheel on a Chicago team, didn't qualify as one of the 3 prerequisities. The Hawks had Norris caliber, Keith, and strong down the middle, Bolland, Sharp, Toews. The Hawks had 2 out of 3 with Vezina caliber being the missing ingredient.
Again though, we have been strong down the middle and had Vezina caliber at the same time. The year Nabby was 2nd in Vezina voting and we had Thornton (just coming off his MVP year too If I recall). We've never had a Norris d-man, but even right now Niemi is playing Vezina quality (if he keeps it up) and we are loaded down the middle. Boyle and Burns might not win the Norris, but few teams can boast that kind of defensive quality.

I get what you are saying, and having 2 of those 3 certainly helps, but without good coaching it doesn't mean a damn thing. I don't care if we drafted Gretzky next year, without proper coaching the team is sunk.

hockeyball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 05:10 PM
  #867
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 11,805
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
Again though, we have been strong down the middle and had Vezina caliber at the same time. The year Nabby was 2nd in Vezina voting and we had Thornton (just coming off his MVP year too If I recall). We've never had a Norris d-man, but even right now Niemi is playing Vezina quality (if he keeps it up) and we are loaded down the middle. Boyle and Burns might not win the Norris, but few teams can boast that kind of defensive quality.

I get what you are saying, and having 2 of those 3 certainly helps, but without good coaching it doesn't mean a damn thing. I don't care if we drafted Gretzky next year, without proper coaching the team is sunk.
Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. I somewhat agree with your take. And I agree that few teams have it.

The Sharks get hit on the side issues meaning that they depend on top scoring from outside the org. That is another of those astronomical odds things. Coaching is another side issue and I am well aware that SJ coaching has holes in that regard. Creativity in coaching is a huge plus. IMO, TM is good but not elite. Grab another coach and it easily could be much worse. Sutter with this team would be a freakin' disaster. Lavi might work.

IMO, even at this rate, Nemo won't be in the Vezina race. He is playing better, but he is not close to Vezina quality (what gains votes, count the shutouts).

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 05:32 PM
  #868
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 16,791
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. I somewhat agree with your take. And I agree that few teams have it.

The Sharks get hit on the side issues meaning that they depend on top scoring from outside the org. That is another of those astronomical odds things. Coaching is another side issue and I am well aware that SJ coaching has holes in that regard. Creativity in coaching is a huge plus. IMO, TM is good but not elite. Grab another coach and it easily could be much worse. Sutter with this team would be a freakin' disaster. Lavi might work.

IMO, even at this rate, Nemo won't be in the Vezina race. He is playing better, but he is not close to Vezina quality (what gains votes, count the shutouts).
He won't win because he's not on the east coast, let's be real here

If the team was playing half decent he'd have another shutout or two, he certainly deserves to have had them. If they start playing better he might get them. He's certainly got the SV% and GAA needed so far.

I guess what I'm trying to say is it simply isn't that simple, having your 2 out of 3 doesn't guarantee a win, tanking for high picks doesn't guarentee a win, having a good coach doesnt even guarantee a win. Luck alone plays a huge part.

hockeyball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 05:48 PM
  #869
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 11,805
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
He won't win because he's not on the east coast, let's be real here

If the team was playing half decent he'd have another shutout or two, he certainly deserves to have had them. If they start playing better he might get them. He's certainly got the SV% and GAA needed so far.

I guess what I'm trying to say is it simply isn't that simple, having your 2 out of 3 doesn't guarantee a win, tanking for high picks doesn't guarentee a win, having a good coach doesnt even guarantee a win. Luck alone plays a huge part.
In terms of defense the team is playing great. Huge shell with huge collapse in their own zone. A formula that grants great GAA with all but the worst goalies. What shutouts measure is goalie focus. Can he sustain top end for 60 min? He always seems to have one little slip or one time where he can't make that stellar save. I don't think he would have another one or two shutouts if the team played better, Nemo himself screws it up. That's a valid criteria for the voters and Nemo has failed hard there even when doing well (a lot of one goal against games). That is why shutouts are part of Vezina voting. I do take a peek at teams GAA in the standings to see who will be in the running for Vezina and the Sharks are in a group of 5 or 6 teams for that (includes Boston, StL. and Ottawa). We'll have to get closer to season's end to get a real gauge (~36 games). Most years, I have an inkling by about 45-50 games. If I had to prognosticate now, I would say Rinne is the frontrunner. When the Sharks have done well in the past, they generally put their goalies just outside Vezina range, somewhere between #5 and #10.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 05:56 PM
  #870
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 16,791
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
In terms of defense the team is playing great. Huge shell with huge collapse in their own zone. A formula that grants great GAA with all but the worst goalies. What shutouts measure is goalie focus. Can he sustain top end for 60 min? He always seems to have one little slip or one time where he can't make that stellar save. I don't think he would have another one or two shutouts if the team played better, Nemo himself screws it up. That's a valid criteria for the voters and Nemo has failed hard there even when doing well (a lot of one goal against games). That is why shutouts are part of Vezina voting. I do take a peek at teams GAA in the standings to see who will be in the running for Vezina and the Sharks are in a group of 5 or 6 teams for that (includes Boston, StL. and Ottawa). We'll have to get closer to season's end to get a real gauge (~36 games). Most years, I have an inkling by about 45-50 games. If I had to prognosticate now, I would say Rinne is the frontrunner. When the Sharks have done well in the past, they generally put their goalies just outside Vezina range, somewhere between #5 and #10.
I disagree, there have been at least two OT's where it either went in off one of his team mates or was absolutely unstoppable because of a terrible give-away. If you don't count OT he's had what... 4 shutouts so far? I think, 3-4. Point being, he's getting it done for 60 minutes, but the complete and total lack of offense is screwing him over.

hockeyball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 06:15 PM
  #871
TheJuxtaposer
#healBurish
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 23,649
vCash: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
Who were the top 2 scorers for LA in the playoffs? The answer matches my formula exactly. BTW, my take on LA doing not so well is what amounts to Patrick Kane disease (many other pros have the affliction with or without cups) and that is Carter and Richards in spades.

Edit:
Another fun one. How are the Rags doing? Replacing Dubie Do and Ants with Nash. Hmmmmm . . . . .
I did call the Rangers one, I have to say. Arty and Dubinsky were two-thirds of a great shutdown line for the Rangers in 10-11.

As for the Kings, I think they're getting incredibly unlucky as far as shooting goes. They're still a top possession team, it's mostly Quick that's killing them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. I somewhat agree with your take. And I agree that few teams have it.

The Sharks get hit on the side issues meaning that they depend on top scoring from outside the org. That is another of those astronomical odds things. Coaching is another side issue and I am well aware that SJ coaching has holes in that regard. Creativity in coaching is a huge plus. IMO, TM is good but not elite. Grab another coach and it easily could be much worse. Sutter with this team would be a freakin' disaster. Lavi might work.

IMO, even at this rate, Nemo won't be in the Vezina race. He is playing better, but he is not close to Vezina quality (what gains votes, count the shutouts).
I've actually been really interested in Laviolette for a small time now. With things going badly in Philly maybe they pull the trigger on him. Or trade us a forward. Either way, I'm rooting for the world to burn in Philly, and not just because I can't stand Kevin Kurz.

TheJuxtaposer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 06:17 PM
  #872
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 11,805
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
I disagree, there have been at least two OT's where it either went in off one of his team mates or was absolutely unstoppable because of a terrible give-away. If you don't count OT he's had what... 4 shutouts so far? I think, 3-4. Point being, he's getting it done for 60 minutes, but the complete and total lack of offense is screwing him over.
The off one of his teammates thing is the stellar save thingy. Literally, he has to be responsible for everything, including teammate issues. Another old observation from someone else on shutouts is that it takes 3 stellar saves along with great team play to get a shutout. Again, I think he is playing fairly well this year, better than any prior with the Sharks, but it is still short. In prior years, he wasn't even in my top ten book. This year, he is. What he lacks is athleticism and some small technical.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 07:22 PM
  #873
Lebanezer
Registered User
 
Lebanezer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Country: Lebanon
Posts: 2,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
I did call the Rangers one, I have to say. Arty and Dubinsky were two-thirds of a great shutdown line for the Rangers in 10-11.

As for the Kings, I think they're getting incredibly unlucky as far as shooting goes. They're still a top possession team, it's mostly Quick that's killing them.



I've actually been really interested in Laviolette for a small time now. With things going badly in Philly maybe they pull the trigger on him. Or trade us a forward. Either way, I'm rooting for the world to burn in Philly, and not just because I can't stand Kevin Kurz.
I like several of the forwards on Philly. Hopefully they decide to give us one for Clowe.

Also, regarding Kurz, and I know this may not belong in this thread, but I always get the impression he roots against the Sharks.

Lebanezer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 07:40 PM
  #874
Kitten Mittons
Registered User
 
Kitten Mittons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Francisco
Country: Armenia
Posts: 46,674
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lebanezer View Post
Also, regarding Kurz, and I know this may not belong in this thread, but I always get the impression he roots against the Sharks.
He's just mad that every single one of his "insider" statements turns out to be wrong.

Kitten Mittons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-22-2013, 08:33 PM
  #875
do0glas
Registered User
 
do0glas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,777
vCash: 500
Kurz is just an hf board poster with a medium. Obviously there are posters here that do real research, but he falls for the confirmation bias every time, he plays favorites, and typically his stories are just fluff.

Much prefer David pollack.

do0glas 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 01:52 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.