HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > St. Louis Blues
Notices

Strickland on a touchy subject

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-27-2007, 03:35 PM
  #1
Celtic Note
Chi Town Bound
 
Celtic Note's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 8,601
vCash: 500
Strickland on a touchy subject

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog.php?blogger_id=5

Read the part on KT and his possible return as well as the part on Briere and Drury.
I have suspected that the brass would take this route. They need to keep the budget tight and we need about two forwards, so money will not be spent on high priced players.

Note: This article does not cite his sources on the subject, so it could be his opinion.

Like to hear all of your thoughts on this!


Last edited by Celtic Note: 04-27-2007 at 04:05 PM.
Celtic Note is offline  
Old
04-27-2007, 04:46 PM
  #2
Robb_K
Registered User
 
Robb_K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: NordHolandNethrlands
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,582
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zundo View Post
http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog.php?blogger_id=5

Read the part on KT and his possible return as well as the part on Briere and Drury.
I have suspected that the brass would take this route. They need to keep the budget tight and we need about two forwards, so money will not be spent on high priced players.

Note: This article does not cite his sources on the subject, so it could be his opinion.

Like to hear all of your thoughts on this!
Two young (low-mid 20s) proven NHL-level scoring forwards obtained in trades, WOULD be better than obtaining an over 30 $7million star. Those 2 could play on a Blues' Stanley Cup contender, while a $7 million salary would impede The Blues from having better quality overall depth. If they are ever going to pick up the high-priced $7 million star, it should be just when they become a UFA, at a younger age of eligibility (when it gets down to 27 years old)-a few years from now, also at a time when The Blues' depth in quality players will give them their best chance to win The Stanley Cup.

Robb_K is offline  
Old
04-27-2007, 07:40 PM
  #3
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 50
If they bring back Tkachuk, it means one of two things but cannot be both IMO:

1) Management is rational and understands that it'll be essentially a very similar scoring capability as last year (when you consider that Tkachuk plus 10 forwards under contract plus two RFAs including Stempniak minus Guerin plus a trade or UFA acquisition is close to the same lineup as played much of last season). Due to that reality it views 07-08 as purely a rebuilding and deadline-selling year despite any public statements to the contrary; OR

2) Management's judgment possesses major flaws and the benefit of the doubt must be rescinded immediately.

I would obviously not be happy to see Tkachuk back here as it eliminates the team from Cup eligibility, but another year of rebuilding is probably the wisest choice even as it tests fans' patience. I'd be fine with a year of rebuilding and would like to see that happen more than a five-games-and-out playoff experience, which I have seen enough of from the Blues to last me forever.

If they give Tkachuk any type of no-trade I will be furious. That negates his entire value. [Not that anyone is going to bring to the table the same harmonic convergence of desperation, incompetence and three years of no Tkachuk-playoff data to talk yourself out of reality that Atlanta thankfully did.]

By the way, it is not a virtue to be an F if all your teammates are F-quadruple-minuses. You were less catastrophically crappy, but you were still catastrophically crappy. Just less so. Scoring your lone goal after 14 straight blanks and when the four-game sweep is all but decided and there's zero pressure is unacceptable. If you are good, you are good, you will your way to produce. That goal was an almost unbearable turd on the concept of "playoff hero."

Also keep in mind it is Strickland, who has a groove in his tongue from Tkachuk.


Last edited by Irish Blues: 04-27-2007 at 08:08 PM.
PocketNines is offline  
Old
04-27-2007, 08:07 PM
  #4
Irish Blues
____________________
 
Irish Blues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country: St Helena
Posts: 21,804
vCash: 91
1. I gave someone else a public notice on filter circumvention; it actually applies to everyone. Please spell Tkachuk's name correctly, or come up with something that is less offensive.

2. Tkachuk actually scored the 1st goal of Game 4, so it wasn't like it was completely worthless. Besides, I've already illustrated how Tkachuk was by far not the worst player on the Thrashers in the playoffs - that's not saying he was great (he was OK), but when the 2nd line of Belanger, Kozlov, and Hossa is a combined 1-1-2 (Belanger with a PP goal in Game 1, Hossa with a secondary assist in Game 4) and each guy is -6, it's going to be hard for anyone to make up for that kind of suckiness; throw in the shaky goaltending and generally poor play of the defense, and it's a recipe for disaster. But if anyone would like to continue to blame Tkachuk for the Thrashers going out in 4 straight, have at it.

3. I'm a big proponent of the "1-year with incentives" plan, so I'm in agreement with you here. It makes smart business sense, and maybe gives Tkachuk some motivation. In the cap era, teams can't afford to reward loyalty with multi-year contracts to guys whose skills are clearly declining ... especially when those 2nd and later years count against the cap no matter what, eating up what could be potentially valuable cap space in those years should the team be in the position to make a huge playoff run.

__________________
No promises this time.
Irish Blues is offline  
Old
04-27-2007, 08:27 PM
  #5
StLooFrenchy
Registered User
 
StLooFrenchy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Southern Illinois
Country: France
Posts: 1,626
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketNines View Post
I would obviously not be happy to see Tkachuk back here as it eliminates the team from Cup eligibility
Cup contention is not our goal for next season. Rebuilding is. I would welcome KT back; at center.

StLooFrenchy is offline  
Old
04-27-2007, 08:49 PM
  #6
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 50
[The spelling was a slam on Strickland, fwiw. Not a nickname, just a shortening of saying Strickland slurps Tkachuk.]

If you want to interpret giving Tkachuk an F and guys like Hossa an F-quadruple-minus as me saying "Tkachuk was the lone reason they lost," that spin belongs to you - describing Tkachuk as an F in the series definitionally is not a comment on his value to the rest of the team. It is an absolute value. Others may say it, but if you are replying to me right after I bring it up then I am going to point out that you are implying an argument to me that I am not making.

One team in sixty-five years has come back from a 3-0 deficit. Game 4 of a 3-0 series is literally the least clutch hockey playoff situation to score conceived by the mind of man. Tkachuk must've said, hey I haven't scored a playoff goal since I bumped a 5-0 rout to 6-0 rout in a Game 1 fifteen games ago... why not try a Game 4 down 3-0?

PocketNines is offline  
Old
04-27-2007, 11:40 PM
  #7
Irish Blues
____________________
 
Irish Blues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country: St Helena
Posts: 21,804
vCash: 91
I wouldn't give Tkachuk an F. More like a C- ... and I think the highest grade anyone gets is a C (Dupuis). But there are a bunch of F's, complete with red ink.

But to rip on him for finally scoring a goal in a "meaningless" Game 4, ... would it have been just as meaningless if they were down 3-1 (NHL teams down 3-1 are 20-194, .093 all time) or even 3-2 (58-220, .209)? Historically the chances of rallying from those deficits to win aren't exactly great either. Hell, maybe we could have written the Thrashers off after Game 1, since all-time NHL teams who win the opening game of a series go on to win the series 68% of the time.

Tkachuk had the opening goal in Game 4. It should have inspired his teammates to at least try to fight back into the series; instead, Jim Slater takes a penalty 1:07 later and the Rangers convert just 12 seconds after that. Avery was on Kovalchuk like stink on ****, and that left Tkachuk to feed the other winger who was generally ........ Scott Mellanby. Tkachuk was never on the ice for a goal against during the entire series. No, he didn't go 3-2-5 in a losing effort, but some perspective please: most of the rest of the team killed any chances the Thrashers had of winning with their uninspired, lackadasical, defenseless play; with Kovalchuk more focused on decking Avery than scoring at times, it was Tkachuk against the Rangers defense - and c'mon ... you really expect Tkachuk to single-handedly beat 4 guys when he's got Mellanby or Kozlov (who was out to lunch the entire series) as the sniper?

Irish Blues is offline  
Old
04-28-2007, 10:34 AM
  #8
210
Registered User
 
210's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Worcester, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish Blues View Post
Tkachuk was never on the ice for a goal against during the entire series.
A fact I'm certain many did not know...

210 is offline  
Old
04-28-2007, 12:03 PM
  #9
execwrite
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Peekskill, NY
Posts: 3,480
vCash: 500
Why go backwards instead of forward?

Just say no to Keith. Find a younger play with potential who doesn't cost as much.

execwrite is offline  
Old
04-28-2007, 12:29 PM
  #10
Robb_K
Registered User
 
Robb_K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: NordHolandNethrlands
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,582
vCash: 500
This thread isn't just about the fact that The Blues will not likely be able to offer Tkachuk enough money for him to sign with them. The more ominus part of Strickland's comments was that they would most likely be unwilling to bid on a top-line UFA forward, as they would all be out of their price range.

That means that The Blues WON'T be acquiring the big name to help fill up Scotttrade, and they won't be getting that leader on offence that they can always count on.

So, no Drury, Briere or Ryan Smith. This means they WILL have the money for two $3 million forwards. Rather than signing 2 second-tier over 31 aged UFAs, perhaps they should get BOTH forwards via trades, so they can get younger players?

Picking up one young PROVEN NHL talented scoring centre, and a similar winger, could help the team more in the future. In 2-3 more years, after many of The Blues' prospects are playing well in The NHL, and The Blues have most of the pieces of the puzzle, they could add a top-line UFA forward, who then might be only 27 years old (and thus, play 4 more years with The Blues-than the 31 year old UFA taken this year).

Robb_K is offline  
Old
04-28-2007, 12:50 PM
  #11
coolhandluke2410
"BleedBlue44"
 
coolhandluke2410's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 2,639
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to coolhandluke2410 Send a message via Yahoo to coolhandluke2410
Joe Thornton = FA in 08?

coolhandluke2410 is offline  
Old
04-28-2007, 03:34 PM
  #12
Wes McSnipes*
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: St. Louis, MO
Country: United States
Posts: 464
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robb_K View Post
This thread isn't just about the fact that The Blues will not likely be able to offer Tkachuk enough money for him to sign with them. The more ominus part of Strickland's comments was that they would most likely be unwilling to bid on a top-line UFA forward, as they would all be out of their price range.

That means that The Blues WON'T be acquiring the big name to help fill up Scotttrade, and they won't be getting that leader on offence that they can always count on.

So, no Drury, Briere or Ryan Smith. This means they WILL have the money for two $3 million forwards. Rather than signing 2 second-tier over 31 aged UFAs, perhaps they should get BOTH forwards via trades, so they can get younger players?

Picking up one young PROVEN NHL talented scoring centre, and a similar winger, could help the team more in the future. In 2-3 more years, after many of The Blues' prospects are playing well in The NHL, and The Blues have most of the pieces of the puzzle, they could add a top-line UFA forward, who then might be only 27 years old (and thus, play 4 more years with The Blues-than the 31 year old UFA taken this year).
First of all, read the article again. Because you're wrong about a few things here.

1.) Strickland NEVER said that the Blues WON'T try to add a big-name player in the offseason. All he said was that they won't go after Briere, and probably not Drury either (but there is a possibility that they will make him an offer). That doesn't mean they won't get ANY big-names. Players like Ryan Smyth, Scott Gomez, and Paul Kariya will all be FA's too, and they are all very good, but will probably be 1 or 2 million dollars cheaper than Briere or Drury. Those are the kind of big-names the Blues would target, if any. I could see the Blues targeting a player like Gomez, and I think it's possible. He isn't that expensive compared to a few other players in the market. Along with Gomez, we could acquire a cheap 2 million dollar center or winger as well. I would be happy with that. Saying that the Blues won't go after Briere is completely different than saying we won't target any big-named players. So you're wrong about that.

2.) And say that Strickland comes out with another article soon that does say that we won't target any top FA's, I have some news for you: It's only the end of April. We still have 2 months until the Draft and Free agency, so did you ever think that JD and the ownership group could change their mind about who they go after in the offseason? Just calm down. You're assuming way too much. Strickland didn't say half of the stuff that you're saying.

I could very well see us targeting a player like Gomez, along with another cheap but solid scorer in free agency (and perhaps we'll get another forward through a trade). I just don't agree with your most of your post.

Wes McSnipes* is offline  
Old
04-28-2007, 04:49 PM
  #13
Robb_K
Registered User
 
Robb_K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: NordHolandNethrlands
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,582
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wes McSnipes View Post
First of all, read the article again. Because you're wrong about a few things here.

1.) Strickland NEVER said that the Blues WON'T try to add a big-name player in the offseason. All he said was that they won't go after Briere, and probably not Drury either (but there is a possibility that they will make him an offer). That doesn't mean they won't get ANY big-names. Players like Ryan Smyth, Scott Gomez, and Paul Kariya will all be FA's too, and they are all very good, but will probably be 1 or 2 million dollars cheaper than Briere or Drury. Those are the kind of big-names the Blues would target, if any. I could see the Blues targeting a player like Gomez, and I think it's possible. He isn't that expensive compared to a few other players in the market. Along with Gomez, we could acquire a cheap 2 million dollar center or winger as well. I would be happy with that. Saying that the Blues won't go after Briere is completely different than saying we won't target any big-named players. So you're wrong about that.

2.) And say that Strickland comes out with another article soon that does say that we won't target any top FA's, I have some news for you: It's only the end of April. We still have 2 months until the Draft and Free agency, so did you ever think that JD and the ownership group could change their mind about who they go after in the offseason? Just calm down. You're assuming way too much. Strickland didn't say half of the stuff that you're saying.

I could very well see us targeting a player like Gomez, along with another cheap but solid scorer in free agency (and perhaps we'll get another forward through a trade). I just don't agree with your most of your post.
I hope you're right about that. I got the idea from Strickland's article that they didn't want to pay out big money. I took that to mean not just $7 million, but probably $4.5 million +, and low 4s would be the most they'd put out for any one player. But knowing what Checketts and JD have said so far, I assume that they won't sit back and NOT improve the team's offence. I know that they will pick up at least two talented scoring forwards (either by trade or as free-agent signings).


Last edited by Robb_K: 04-28-2007 at 04:51 PM. Reason: I referred to Strickland's article as a "post" (changed to article)
Robb_K is offline  
Old
04-28-2007, 05:03 PM
  #14
2ForRoughing*
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 541
vCash: 500
I think you're all overshooting the mark. I think the Blues will have to settle for a Nylander or Zubrus type signing, or two of that level. I don't imagine they will nor should they commit big funds to one player when they lack depth overall. They need to spread out the skill over as many lines as possible and have threats generated from at least 3 lines. Right now they lack skill overall and adding one expensive, high end player, however sexy the fans might find it, doesn't really solve the problem. Adding two or maybe even three players up front does. Rather go that route.
And just say no to KT. He really doesn't have high end offensive skills anymore. His puckhandling is atrocious and his shot is not what it used to be, or at least hasn't been as impressive as it was in years past. The days of him being a point per game player are gone. He shouldn't be asking for nor getting any more than 3.5 million a year, maybe, maybe 4 at the utmost, but that's pushing it. Just adding KT alone doesn't make this team playoff contenders.


Last edited by 2ForRoughing*: 04-28-2007 at 05:04 PM. Reason: clarification
2ForRoughing* is offline  
Old
04-28-2007, 05:54 PM
  #15
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish Blues View Post
I wouldn't give Tkachuk an F. More like a C- ... and I think the highest grade anyone gets is a C (Dupuis). But there are a bunch of F's, complete with red ink.

But to rip on him for finally scoring a goal in a "meaningless" Game 4, ... would it have been just as meaningless if they were down 3-1 (NHL teams down 3-1 are 20-194, .093 all time) or even 3-2 (58-220, .209)? Historically the chances of rallying from those deficits to win aren't exactly great either. Hell, maybe we could have written the Thrashers off after Game 1, since all-time NHL teams who win the opening game of a series go on to win the series 68% of the time.

Tkachuk had the opening goal in Game 4. It should have inspired his teammates to at least try to fight back into the series; instead, Jim Slater takes a penalty 1:07 later and the Rangers convert just 12 seconds after that. Avery was on Kovalchuk like stink on ****, and that left Tkachuk to feed the other winger who was generally ........ Scott Mellanby. Tkachuk was never on the ice for a goal against during the entire series. No, he didn't go 3-2-5 in a losing effort, but some perspective please: most of the rest of the team killed any chances the Thrashers had of winning with their uninspired, lackadasical, defenseless play; with Kovalchuk more focused on decking Avery than scoring at times, it was Tkachuk against the Rangers defense - and c'mon ... you really expect Tkachuk to single-handedly beat 4 guys when he's got Mellanby or Kozlov (who was out to lunch the entire series) as the sniper?
Maybe a goal scored by Tkachuk in a 3-1 series deficit game would have been more meaningfulÖ if he was trying to help his team come back against a team with Tkachuk on it, as he has been on 15% of all of them in the history of mankind. Since they played NHL hockey five decades before he was even born, thatís way, way, way more than his share. He also has a 3-2 choke for good measure, and with the other three 3-1 chokes he has zero points in the four Game 7s.

Your "meaningfulness" argument boils down to "thereís a spectrum of likelihood of comeback, and since Tkachukís goal came in a game that lies anywhere on that spectrum, it must be meaningful." Itís a textbook slippery slope argument that looks ridiculous when you remember once again Ė one time in the last 65 years (itís like Halleyís Comet!). That is exponential explosion of your spectrum.

You full well know, because Iíve made it clear multiple times, that an organizing criticism is the timing of Tkachukís playoff production. The facts bear out a devastating, inarguable critique. This Game 4 goal exactly fits in that pattern. When youíre a fan, and you really, really have hope for your teamÖ itís tied lateÖ itís Game 5 in a series tied 2-2Ö your team is up 3-1 and you need to close the other team outÖ itís Game 7Ö Tkachuk simply WILL NOT SCORE for your team. On those rare occasions when he does score in the playoffs, the pressure of the game or series situation is way, way, way down compared to time when a hero might score. That's the point made about this goal. Seriously, if my team is down 3-0 in a series and has the option of losing 4-1 or 4-2 in the final game, I am not giving up assets or lucre to get a guy whose lone score will make that difference.

If Tkachuk simply does not get it done, an argument that is terrible (and used all the time) is "well, others played terrible too. Since you canít single him out 100% of the time, the people criticizing him donít really have that strong a case against him." Again, if A is X and B is X, you cannot say: ergo, A is NOT X. Bringing up the fact that B is X is not responsive to the question, "did A equal X?"

I mean, consider just how sad this is. Your defense of him is that his one goal in the non-pressurized once-every-65-years situation plus all these other guys being brutal in some way should negate the overwhelming verdict on his career. Because otherwise what is the point of the debate. I am in no way disagreeing with you about the almost inexpressibly hideous Atlanta Thrashers (who werenít a patsy relative to the Rangers coming into the series) Ė it just has no bearing on my point about Tkachuk.

PocketNines is offline  
Old
04-28-2007, 10:41 PM
  #16
Irish Blues
____________________
 
Irish Blues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country: St Helena
Posts: 21,804
vCash: 91
Marian Hossa had 43 goals in the regular season; Vyacheslav Kozlov had 28. Hossa had 100 points, Kozlov had 80. Between the two of them, they had one (1) playoff assist. When one of your scoring lines is doing squat, it makes shutting down the other one a lot easier - especially if you're victimizing that non-performing line by scoring goals left and right on them. Where's the blame for their miserable effort?

Kovalchuk had 42 goals in the regular season; he had one (1) goal in the playoffs, that from a Tkachuk assist in the 3rd period of Game 2 that tied the game at 1. Instead of scoring, he racked up 19 PIM's, 15 of those going after Sean Avery in Game 3 instead of keeping his cool (for which Tkachuk got a misconduct trying to pull Mara off the pile). Where's the blame for him not showing up, either?

Perspective. That's all I'm asking here. Am I saying that criticizing Tkachuk for past playoff performances is out of line? Of course not - what I'm saying is that this year's effort wasn't nearly as bad as you're making it out to be. Am I saying it was stellar, and that he's shown he's a gritty, proven playoff guy now? Of course not - I think I've been pretty clear saying that he's not a guy a team can hitch its wagon to in the playoffs. However, in past years, you could point to his lack of performance and say "... and that is why the team lost."

Not this year. Far from it. That's all I'm saying. Criticize him all you want for years past, but this year? C'mon ...

Irish Blues is offline  
Old
04-28-2007, 10:56 PM
  #17
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 50
I've made my argument about Tkachuk and it is what it is.

The ONLY reason I'm not posting about those other two is they have zilch to do with the Blues. Tkachuk is still relevant to Blues discussion. If people started talking about trading for Kovalchuk or Hossa you can take it to the bank that I would be on that.

If your argument is Tkachuk is utterly dependent upon other players and when they don't, gee, there's just nothing to be done then it beautifully reinforces my point about him being a non-difference maker in the postseason regardless of his supporting cast. I know you are not saying that your defense of him equals "let's bring him back" but I am saying that he is utterly dead weight. He's a body. He fills space. He takes ice time from minor leaguers you could put in there who just might get lucky.

His apogee of achievement is being the least worst. That is the very optimal best you can hope from him the postseason. I just don't want that kind of player - no matter what his name is - anywhere near the team I root for.

PocketNines is offline  
Old
04-28-2007, 11:59 PM
  #18
Irish Blues
____________________
 
Irish Blues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country: St Helena
Posts: 21,804
vCash: 91
Fine. You're not getting an argument from me about whether he should be on the Blues in 2007-08 (I maintain he shouldn't be, I think I've said that more than several times now), and you're not getting an argument from me about his playoff value (it's nil, but still higher than that of Bill Guerin - who coincidentally was on the ice for both the SHG that tied the game and the GWG, putting him -2 for the game, -3 for the playoffs, and leaving him at 0-2-2 in now 7 playoff games this year). I guess I just don't get the utter hatred of all things Tkachuk at every chance the opportunity comes up to rip on him.

My point (which you've continually missed) is that Tkachuk-Kovalchuk-Mellanby/Dupuis/whoever was effectively negated by the Rangers because two guys who combined for 70 goals and 180 points utterly failed to show up, and much of the rest of the team was likewise out to lunch. The only way the Thrashers win a game (much less win the series) is if Tkachuk is going 2-2-4 every night - but since the Rangers didn't have to use their best defensive unit on anyone else, they could put their top defenders on the Tkachuk-Kovalchuk line ... making it extremely difficult for those two to get much done. Throw in Avery getting under Kovalchuk's skin from early on, and the fact that 800-year old Scott Mellanby was the other winger and was busy taking stupid penalties himself, ....... yeah, I know - it doesn't matter, Tkachuk should have been able to do it all by himself if he was any good.

Irish Blues is offline  
Old
04-29-2007, 07:27 AM
  #19
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 50
Have your ownself one of these. Iím NOT missing your point. Your point is that other playersí suckiness created a tipping point of suckiness that rendered Tkachuk helpless. O Alack! The terrible misfortune! Just when Tkachuk was set to prove critics wrong, fate conspired against him and he was forced to suck yet again. Canít a guy catch a break?

Guerin sucks in the playoffs. Agreed. Not on the NHL-historical-context scale that Tkachuk has, but he sucks. Why, why, WHY is this responsive? Tkachuk was a central player for the Blues whose contract reverberated throughout the organizationís decision making for years and may come back this summer leaving the topic open. Guerin was a one-year rental in a year coming off a dead-last finish when nobody besides one notable poster thought theyíd make the playoffs and he won't be back.

Itís getting silly. You should list out the whole list of bad playoff performers and then in one fell swoop rather than one at a time I can agree that they embody to varying degrees elements of the gold standard set by Tkachuk in his career.

PocketNines is offline  
Old
04-30-2007, 05:43 PM
  #20
Celtic Note
Chi Town Bound
 
Celtic Note's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 8,601
vCash: 500
2forroughing or anyone,

I would love to see Nylander come to the Blues, but I have questions about him.

First, how well will he play with out Jagr and would he dare leave the NYR?

What player(s) do we have that would work well enough with him to put up the points he has with Jagr?

How much will he cost after a good showing in the playoffs?

Celtic Note is offline  
Old
04-30-2007, 09:03 PM
  #21
Irish Blues
____________________
 
Irish Blues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country: St Helena
Posts: 21,804
vCash: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketNines View Post
Have your ownself one of these. Iím NOT missing your point. Your point is that other playersí suckiness created a tipping point of suckiness that rendered Tkachuk helpless. O Alack! The terrible misfortune! Just when Tkachuk was set to prove critics wrong, fate conspired against him and he was forced to suck yet again. Canít a guy catch a break?
You're right - this is pointless, because you're refusing to look at what really happened and are hell-bent on placing blame at Tkachuk's feet. Go ask someone else who watched the series - they'll tell you that Tkachuk wasn't the problem. If you want to keep chewing on this point, you're on your own.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketNines View Post
Guerin sucks in the playoffs. Agreed. Not on the NHL-historical-context scale that Tkachuk has, but he sucks.
The only thing Guerin has that Tkachuk doesn't is a Stanley Cup. Otherwise, coming into this year's playoffs ...
-- Tkachuk had 27 goals and 26 assists for 53 points in 81 playoff games; Guerin had 28 goals, 20 assists for 48 points in 96 playoff games. Advantage: Tkachuk
-- Tkachuk had 8 PPG and 1 GWG in 81 games; Guerin had 11 and 2. Advantage: Guerin (barely)
-- Since 2002-03: Tkachuk was 1-5-6 in 12 playoff games; Guerin was 3-2-5 in 14 playoff games. (Note: in just '02-03 and '03-04, Guerin was 0-1-1 in nine (9) games.) Advantage: Tkachuk
-- Number of times either guy scored at least 10 points in a playoff year: Tkachuk 1, Guerin 1. Advantage: push
-- Number of times either guy scored at least 6 points in a playoff year: Tkachuk 4, Guerin 3. Advantage: Tkachuk
-- Guerin hasn't been even in +/- much less positive since playing on the Devils Cup-winning team in 1995; Tkachuk was +2 this year, +1 in '01-02, and even in '00-01. Advantage: Tkachuk
-- Last time playing on a team that won a playoff series: Tkachuk - 2002, Guerin - 1998. Advantage: Tkachuk

Hell, this year? Guerin's played 3 more games and it took until Game 6 to tie Tkachuk in assists; he scored 36 goals in the regular season, and still has none (0) in the playoffs despite 9 more shots on goal than KT. To boot, he's a -3, including the disaster that was last game. Again - Tkachuk was +2, and was never on the ice for a goal against.

Yeah, clearly Guerin is the more proven playoff performer. Including his stats from the '95 Cup run, he's still worse in terms of goals/game and points/game, and over the last 4-5 years he's been demonstrably worse to the point that he's clearly cost his team at least as many series as Tkachuk, if not more. As I said - the only thing Guerin has is a Cup.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketNines View Post
Why, why, WHY is this responsive? Tkachuk was a central player for the Blues whose contract reverberated throughout the organizationís decision making for years and may come back this summer leaving the topic open. Guerin was a one-year rental in a year coming off a dead-last finish when nobody besides one notable poster thought theyíd make the playoffs and he won't be back.
For the 14th time, I'm in the "don't bring KT back" camp, but apparently you're still trying to convince me of this; otherwise, I have no idea where you're going with this, but hey ... it's your argument, the rest of us will sit back and see where you go with this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketNines View Post
Itís getting silly. You should list out the whole list of bad playoff performers and then in one fell swoop rather than one at a time I can agree that they embody to varying degrees elements of the gold standard set by Tkachuk in his career.
Meh ... I'd rather you put that list together, because I'm waiting to see when you're going to start bringing some more facts to the discussion. Suffice it to say I'd have absolutely no problem swinging this ... but anyone who's been around to see me get into a debate knows I can. I'm tired of doing all the work, let's see what you can do.

Irish Blues is offline  
Old
05-01-2007, 12:09 PM
  #22
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 50
IB, your post is one of the biggest tributes to strawmanship I've seen in quite some time.

You are going way, way, way out of your way to expressly prove that you don't grasp my argument. Who gives a living, breathing crap about Bill Guerin in the playoffs? I do not. Argue with someone else about him. Did I bring Guerin up? No. I referred to him to make the sole point that he is irrelevant to me. Your response? arguing with me as if I were defending Guerin. That's called a strawman argument. Look up the term if you don't know what it means. Very weak debaters use it because it is the height of dishonesty in debate. Maybe you are too busy in the last couple posts bragging about what a good debater you are and how everyone knows it, but you are unequivocally and inarguably using a series of strawmen against me - totally dishonest.

You also falsely re-state my argument about the Atlanta series. You seem determined to attribute the claim "Atlanta lost and it was all Tkachuk's fault." Again, if you can find something IN MY POSTS about this, help yourself. Otherwise, you are again using a strawman argument. I am arguing that Tkachuk sucked in the series because once again, he produced no difference-making moments and that is what first-line players are supposed to do. If you want to reassert your apparently insanely low performance standard, that is your business. But otherwise, by ignoring my repeated explicit acknowledgement that others on the Thrashers sucked even worse, you enable yourself to push the dishonest "it was ALL Tkachuk's fault" onto my plate.

Another dishonesty from you... apparently you are saying with a straight face that I have not brought facts to back up my claims about Tkachuk. Your fellow moderator actually cited my post by linking to it from Game Time (in the playoff thread there to the playoff GDT here) as a factual rundown of Tkachuk's failures. I mean, that is just unreal dishonesty from you, IB. I get accused all the time of being long winded and guilty as charged, but you can't also claim that I don't combine facts and argument.

You also pretend not to know the reason why I distinguish Tkachuk from other NHLers - even though I explicitly wrote in my last post, the reason why I focus on Tkachuk instead of others... It is more self-serving to pretend that there's no point. I'll repeat why - Tkachuk was a central facet of the Blues for many years AND there is the possibility of him returning. He is both current and relevant to my Blues-centrism. Now, go back and read my last post and you will find that same point, the part you made a big deal about not knowing why I wrote it. It is in your self-serving interest to paint me as having pre-judged Tkachuk, but in my commentary on him (go back to the playoff GDT) I explain the genesis of my focus on him and my confirming research. It's all there.

What you are dishonestly arguing is that for my reaction to Tkachuk's career to be correct, nobody else can suck. If other people suck, then Tkachuk cannot be talked about unless that person also discusses every other player who sucks. Then and only then can the argument have merit. That is absurd. I talked about Tkachuk in this thread because it is about Tkachuk. It isn't about us re-signing Guerin or any other NHLer you want to name who sucks. Talking about Tkachuk here is incredibly rational.

Honestly, before you come back with yet another post talking about how everyone here knows how amazing you are in argument, you are going to have to drop all these painfully amateur, dishonest strawmen and focus on what I actually say. It seems like you want to debate other people who might say the things you falsely accuse me of saying (e.g., "everything is all Tkachuk's fault."). I highly recommend the Asylum to you if that's what you want.

PocketNines is offline  
Old
05-01-2007, 03:37 PM
  #23
fcpremix88
Registered User
 
fcpremix88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Tampa
Country: United States
Posts: 2,837
vCash: 602
Haven't we suffered enough Tkachuk bashing? Even if you don't mean it, PocketNines,... it's fairly blatant. And, IB, why are you arguing with someone that won't completely agree. Agree to disagree here, people?

If you guys are gonna write enough blogs to make a book... just give a warning beforehand please.



I would like to see Tkachuk back but not as the #1 center... sign Gomez for that

fcpremix88 is offline  
Old
05-02-2007, 02:17 PM
  #24
210
Registered User
 
210's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Worcester, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 9,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketNines View Post
IB, your post is one of the biggest tributes to strawmanship I've seen in quite some time.
Not based on what you said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketNines View Post
Guerin sucks in the playoffs. Agreed. Not on the NHL-historical-context scale that Tkachuk has, but he sucks.
IB's post shows that your statement is incorrect, that Guerin does indeed suck "on the NHL-historical-context scale" more than Tkachuk does.

So, to steal from IB's posts: Advantage: Irish Blues

210 is offline  
Old
05-02-2007, 03:46 PM
  #25
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by 210 View Post
Not based on what you said:



IB's post shows that your statement is incorrect, that Guerin does indeed suck "on the NHL-historical-context scale" more than Tkachuk does.

So, to steal from IB's posts: Advantage: Irish Blues
Wrong.

IB's analysis of Tkachuk's postseason production is incredibly shallow. It is awesomely lazy. Apparently you are a champion of shallow anaylsis given your reply. See my posts in the Playoff GDT thread for in-depth analysis. IB apparently values all goals in all situations equally. Team trailing 5-1 in Game 2 and he scores is valued the same as a Game 7 goal according to IB, a simply laughable premise. You must agree, since you validate his post. Another quick example, he cites Tkachuk's GWG without telling you anything about that goal. Tkachuk has never broken a tie to win a playoff game. Again, his analysis is completely shallow.

I could have debated it point by point, but I SIMPLY DO NOT CARE about the comparison. Let me add, I do not care. Also... caring? Not me re: Guerin/Tkachuk. Don't care, don't care, don't care.

Guerin isn't in Tkachuk's historical category of not producing at any point because Tkachuk's failure to produce at meaningful moments in playoff games (again, see factual rundown in GDT) means at worst he could only be tied for least clutch playoff player ever conceived by the mind of God if in theory there could be a tie.

I really don't know how else to say it. It's not relevant. This thread was started about Tkachuk and I replied on point.

And chiodos, fact-based analysis is not bashing. If people understood and really looked at the timing of the playoff production, then there really wouldn't be any need to reiterate anything - but as is obvious you still have some lazy thinkers out there.

PocketNines 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 08:55 AM.

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.