Quote:
Originally Posted by mullichicken25
i dont get why you insist on doing that
also, if a rant is explaining and subsequently defending the reasons i feel he should be traded if the right offer comes around then i guess /rant?
edit: now that i notice my grade has been changed i feel i should mention that its quite dificult to get a point through when someone refuses to actually read and think about what is said
|
I insist on doing that because your logic is questionable and what you're saying makes zero sense. Not all of it, but alot, especially when it comes to goalies.
Let's take it again from the beginning:
*As your main point, you're describing and rating Hank as an above average goalie who is among the worst in the league in consistency. "Horrible" usually means "among the worst". This, I have to repeat, is according to me a ridiculous and faulty analysis of Henrik Lundqvist.
*You say you absolutely would trade Lundqvist "for a good offer".
*A couple of posts after that, you hope some GM would be "stupid enough" to trade for him.
*You're also stating just about any average starter in the league could probably do almost as well, as the difference is very slim.
*You bash me for claiming you wish to trade Lundqvist and calling you out on that average starters would do just as well.
*Yet, you also mention him among words as "World class goalie"?? How you can do that while describing him as nothing but above average, is beyond me. Is that what is called "covering all your bases"?
So:
1.You want to trade him, but get angry at me when I imply you wish him gone, especially when I call you out on that such a fine example as the average Kevin Weekes was such a success for the team (and according to your logic, would do almost as well as Hank). And I mean yeah, this team has
such a fine history with successful, average goaltenders that have been able to cover all the flaws and holes of the pathetic performances, in the lineups that have been housed.
2. You don't seem that happy to have him around, especially if you're counting in his salary, which you
should.
Pardon my "reading and comprehension skills" and that my tone towards you might seem harsh, but your babbling where you do 180 degree turns just between a few lines is difficult to grasp and makes an unserious tone, hence the continous derogation of the contents of your posts by "statz" and "analyziz". You're simply frustrating to read and that will bring a clear tone of frustration in the answers. Childish of me, perhaps, but I'm just sick and tired of this.
---
Somehow, alot of you seem to get stuck in the mindset that "Building a team around Hank is wrong". Talk about simplyfying the New York Rangers. You seem to miss that the team isn't built around Hank. The team is built around utter crap to ridiculous contracts, where zero performance is asked back. Hank is just there to try to cover up the mess. True, Hank is and should be an integral part of a successful NYR team. Tom Renney built the team around Hank, but that was only because he realized what a mediocre team he had in front of him. Hank should be
one of the franchise players the team has, not
the. Morons. Just because this franchise has failed miserably at constructing a team, it doesn't automatically mean it's stupid to have a franchise goalie. Just how you come to that conclusion is beyond me.
Forget about all this crap such as "that team had two good centers", "that team had a good defenseman and a winger." How about aquiring good players, regardless of their ******* position? That's a good start if you want a good team. Dynasty franchises form their plan and then get the players, but that's probably a little bit too complicated for the NYR. So getting some players worth a damn should be a good start. First learn to crawl, then you can learn to walk.
As so many want to build some pathetic copy of the Washington Capitals: They would be an entertaining team to watch, if they had just Ovechkin. But they don't. They have a couple of special players that are carrying the team. The NYR has
two and had
one last year. So somehow, the team isn't more than mediocre, because we have an elite goalie instead of, I don't know, an elite center instead of Hank? Give me a ****ing break. How about a real center @ $7.3m instead of Drury or a real defenseman instead of Redden @ $6.5m?
This boards... sometimes... I just don't know how some of you passed school. You wish him traded? Well, too often nowadays I wish him traded too, but for whole other reasons than yours. I wish him to ask for a trade, get traded for someone like Kane, some depth player, some scrub like Huet/ Khabibulin and some pick. Then you can sit there and appreciate the stinking crap of a team that will aquire high draft picks like it was candy on Halloween for another half a decade. All the while Hank wins multiple cups with the Blackhawks. But I'm sure the offense will be better.
Get this through your heads:
1. Franchise players are good to have. Regardless of position.
2. The more franchise players or players with carrying capability you have, the better chances your team will have of becoming successful.
3. Trading away your franchise players to become better, because the rest of the team are bums, is ****ing retarded and ONLY pays off if it is found out the franchise player was only a fake franchise player, who flourished in the enviroment he played in*. Prime example: Marleau.
4. Practically ALL GMs who have traded away franchise players, have been considered idiots when history has passed its judgement.
*I think it's pretty safe to say Hank doesn't exactly need the bona fide elite defense of the New York Rangers to continue being a franchise goaltender on another team.
The internet classic.
