HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Buffalo Sabres
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Steve Montador: An Objective Analysis

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-25-2011, 04:34 PM
  #51
Zip15
Registered User
 
Zip15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 17,115
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
And who are all these people who DON'T want Montador back? Does this contingent for which you created an entire thread and poured a ton of research into even exist?
As I said in my last post, I perused many of the offseason threads and few had Montador in the lineup. I'd estimate less than 10%. Go through them if you'd like, but I don't think you'll get a much different number.



Quote:
I did give you an answer to HALF of your question. you've not acknowledged it. I answered why MANY would pay significantly MORE for Bieksa. I showed you the difference between the two in the very style you seem to prefer.
But I don't want the question to be parsed. The question was why everyone was so willing to give Bieksa that money (again, something I'm fine with), but not give Monty half that (for a shorter term, no less) given their metrics last season.


Quote:
Here's a question for you, if Bieksa WAS signed (something you are not against), how high of a priority would bringing Monty back, be for you?
Can't answer that in a vacuum. How much are we spending on UFA forwards? Did we trade Drew Stafford? What'd we trade him for? Did we trade Butler, and, if so, for what? Did we move Sekera in a deal to get a forward (Filppula?)?

Those would have to be answered first. If you're asking me if I'd re-sign Montador if his agent came to me tomorrow and said Monty would take two years and $5m (2.5 cap hit), then I'd probably do it

Quote:
Most people are looking to UPGRADE our top 4.
Bieksa is an UPGRADE to Montador (you call it nitpicking when I point out that you attempted to paint the two as relative equals)
Bieksa is better than Montador. And you won't find me saying otherwise anywhere in this thread. But Monty wasn't light years away from him, either, at least in 2010-11. In fact, I think they were closer than you'll ever admit, but that's beside the point. Nathan Gerbe was on par with Pommer this year. Does that mean he'll do it again next year, or ever again? No. It was limited to one season.

You also won't find me saying that Bieksa wouldn't upgrade our top-4. I just wanted to know why so few people had Monty in our lineup for next season when he was better than most of our current defensemen last season. Again, 90% of my post was comparing him to our defensemen who are either under contract for next season or will be RFA's.

I merely pointed out that he had similar numbers to Bieksa. I didn't say he's as good as Bieksa going forward. Yet somehow what I was saying was being contorted into me saying that I think we should just ditch Bieksa and re-sign Monty for the top-4. Not what I was saying at all.

Zip15 is offline  
Old
05-25-2011, 04:43 PM
  #52
struckbyaparkedcar
Zemgus Da Gawd
 
struckbyaparkedcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Upstate NY
Country: Cote DIvoire
Posts: 10,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zip15 View Post
You can't argue that and then not concede that Montador brings things that those players don't. Over the course of 82 games, Montador was a better player than those to whom you refer. I see your logic as Golisanoan in nature: "Let's let the accomplished veteran walk; don't worry, the young guy who has shown flashes of it will just step into the role." And the talent bleed continues.
How is it talent bleed if his role in the top four is improved while kids with higher upside than Montador grow on the bottom pairing? Sekera was better than Monty this year, advanced metrics be damned. Weber is significantly more physical. Gragnani can QB a power play. Butler has the weakest argument in his favor and still played better than Monty in the playoffs in a bigger role (he's the only one I'd take Monty over with upgrades to the top four).

If the glut of higher-upside-but-not-quite-there-yet defensemen gets moved out to fill other needs, than cool, I'd welcome Monty with open arms, but resigning Montador should not be a priority.

struckbyaparkedcar is offline  
Old
05-25-2011, 04:46 PM
  #53
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 33,366
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zip15 View Post
As I said in my last post, I perused many of the offseason threads and few had Montador in the lineup. I'd estimate less than 10%. Go through them if you'd like, but I don't think you'll get a much different number


But I don't want the question to be parsed. The question was why everyone was so willing to give Bieksa that money (again, something I'm fine with), but not give Monty half that (for a shorter term, no less) given their metrics last season.
How many of those posts included a high cost Center addition, and an Upgrade on Defense (Bieksa, Erhoff, etc)

Maybe the entire premise for your thread was flawed. Maybe, after adding a 7 million center, 5 million dman... there just wasn't room for another 3 mil defensemen for the 3rd pairing.

For every LU that included Bieksa (Upgrad), the top 2 right side d slots were now set...

Quote:
Can't answer that in a vacuum. How much are we spending on UFA forwards? Did we trade Drew Stafford? What'd we trade him for? Did we trade Butler, and, if so, for what? Did we move Sekera in a deal to get a forward (Filppula?)?
Wow, that's an interesting response. You aren't able to answer that question in a vaccuum, but the entire basis of your thread was based on the responses you analyzed of other posters... but brought absolutely no context to their exclusion of Montador? You put their Lineups in a vaccuum and assigned them an opinion based on your analysis within a vaccuum.

That's priceless.

Quote:
Those would have to be answered first. If you're asking me if I'd re-sign Montador if his agent came to me tomorrow and said Monty would take two years and $5m (2.5 cap hit), then I'd probably do it
me too... it's short and safe. and veteran righties are always good to have. i'd still want to upgrade the top 4.


Quote:
Bieksa is better than Montador. And you won't find me saying otherwise anywhere in this thread. But Monty wasn't light years away from him, either, at least in 2010-11. In fact, I think they were closer than you'll ever admit, but that's beside the point. Nathan Gerbe was on par with Pommer this year. Does that mean he'll do it again next year, or ever again? No. It was limited to one season.

You also won't find me saying that Bieksa wouldn't upgrade our top-4. I just wanted to know why so few people had Monty in our lineup for next season when he was better than most of our current defensemen last season. Again, 90% of my post was comparing him to our defensemen who are either under contract for next season or will be RFA's.
But you don't want to know, or else you'd be collecting the details about each one of those lineups that ommitted him, and for most you would find good reason (hypothetical UFA or Trade acquisitions that upgraded the Lineup at higher costs and didn't leave room for Monty.



Quote:
I merely pointed out that he had similar numbers to Bieksa. I didn't say he's as good as Bieksa going forward. Yet somehow what I was saying was being contorted into me saying that I think we should just ditch Bieksa and re-sign Monty for the top-4. Not what I was saying at all.
Bieksa never should've entered the conversation then.

Jame is offline  
Old
05-25-2011, 07:35 PM
  #54
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 32,693
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
That's pretty much my point.

The subjective analysis, although flawed, would've been much better presented as a comparison to other Sabres. Comparing him to Bieksa, without the context of role/minutes/matchups/etc was pointless and only served to introduce the author's own bias.

I'm still not sure of the point, since I dont know of many fans on the board being steadfastly against signing Monty to a 2 year deal, in the 2.5-3.0 range...

JJ: Funny that you didn't have the same opinion in regards to Tallinder's relation to Myers. Hamhuis, is Bieksa's Tallinder.
Why in the world did you quote my post for this response? I haven't quoted or referenced you at all in this thread.

Don't you dare try and drag me into your current argument/debate.


Last edited by joshjull: 05-25-2011 at 07:44 PM.
joshjull is offline  
Old
05-25-2011, 11:40 PM
  #55
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 33,366
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
Why in the world did you quote my post for this response? I haven't quoted or referenced you at all in this thread.

Don't you dare try and drag me into your current argument/debate.
sorry bout that. dont worry... i think this one ended when Zip admitted he wouldn't answer a question in a vaccuum... even though the entire premise of his post was concluded by taking every other poster's comments and putting those comments in said vaccuum.

Jame is offline  
Old
05-25-2011, 11:52 PM
  #56
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 33,366
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zip15 View Post
As I said in my last post, I perused many of the offseason threads and few had Montador in the lineup. I'd estimate less than 10%. Go through them if you'd like, but I don't think you'll get a much different number.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post

Here's a question for you, if Bieksa WAS signed (something you are not against), how high of a priority would bringing Monty back, be for you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zip15 View Post
Can't answer that in a vacuum. How much are we spending on UFA forwards? Did we trade Drew Stafford? What'd we trade him for? Did we trade Butler, and, if so, for what? Did we move Sekera in a deal to get a forward (Filppula?)?

Those would have to be answered first.
come on... admit it.... you cant have your cake and dance naked in the street.

Jame is offline  
Old
05-26-2011, 06:38 AM
  #57
Zip15
Registered User
 
Zip15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 17,115
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post



Wow, that's an interesting response. You aren't able to answer that question in a vaccuum, but the entire basis of your thread was based on the responses you analyzed of other posters... but brought absolutely no context to their exclusion of Montador? You put their Lineups in a vaccuum and assigned them an opinion based on your analysis within a vaccuum.

That's priceless.

But you don't want to know, or else you'd be collecting the details about each one of those lineups that ommitted him, and for most you would find good reason (hypothetical UFA or Trade acquisitions that upgraded the Lineup at higher costs and didn't leave room for Monty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
sorry bout that. dont worry... i think this one ended when Zip admitted he wouldn't answer a question in a vaccuum... even though the entire premise of his post was concluded by taking every other poster's comments and putting those comments in said vaccuum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
come on... admit it.... you cant have your cake and dance naked in the street.
No, this one ended when Zip got tired of your argumentative gymnastics and contortions--which is your only technique. I told you that. But, of course, you complete inability to read most or any of what people write rears its ugly head again. That's what pisses people off about you. It's fatiguing. You're incapable of carrying on a civil debate without changing people's arguments.

In response to you accusing me of looking at people's lineups in a vacuum--people's fantasyland scenarios allow them to do whatever they want. Rationality isn't a prerequisite in those lineups. You can sign and trade whoever you want. You can trade Morrisonn for a pick. You can trade Butler and/or Sekera for a forward. The fact of the matter is that very few made the necessary moves to keep Montador on the roster.

You've now more or less requested that I use every statistic in the book before posting a thread, and that I post a thorough analysis of everyone's fantasyland lineups before posting a thread. Nope, sorry. I had enough evidence to back up everything I said.

Now get back to twisting my words and arguments. I'm sure you just read me saying Tyler Kennedy is better than Geno Malkin in the above.

Zip15 is offline  
Old
05-26-2011, 07:30 AM
  #58
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 33,366
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zip15 View Post
No, this one ended when Zip got tired of your argumentative gymnastics and contortions--which is your only technique. I told you that. But, of course, you complete inability to read most or any of what people write rears its ugly head again. That's what pisses people off about you. It's fatiguing. You're incapable of carrying on a civil debate without changing people's arguments.
Zip simply doesn't like the flaws in his argument/premise pointed out to him. I didn't even know you had an argument. It seemed that you were asking a question, not making an argument. You took the time to point out over and over, that you weren't saying that you wanted Montador back, or didn't want Bieksa. You were asking WHY people DID NOT want Montador back. And you took the position that fans didn't want Montador back, by throwing all of their fantasy lineups into a vaccuum, and removing all the context... the same context you said was required to answer whether YOU yourself wanted Montador back.

it's friggin hillarious.

Quote:
In response to you accusing me of looking at people's lineups in a vacuum--people's fantasyland scenarios allow them to do whatever they want. Rationality isn't a prerequisite in those lineups. You can sign and trade whoever you want. You can trade Morrisonn for a pick. You can trade Butler and/or Sekera for a forward. The fact of the matter is that very few made the necessary moves to keep Montador on the roster.
so your premise was to take a bunch of irrational lineups, and draw a conclusion from it...

Quote:
You've now more or less requested that I use every statistic in the book before posting a thread, and that I post a thorough analysis of everyone's fantasyland lineups before posting a thread. Nope, sorry. I had enough evidence to back up everything I said.
nope, you could've just posted all the statistics and made the point that Montador was really very good over the course of the 82 game season. You should've never brought Bieksa into the conversation, and you should've never attributed the position to everyone, that they don't want Monty back.

i've pointed out those flaws... your horse is too high to recognize them.

Quote:
Now get back to twisting my words and arguments. I'm sure you just read me saying Tyler Kennedy is better than Geno Malkin in the above.
{in best whiney voice}
i never said, that you said, that kennedy was better then geno. your reading comprehension is bla bla bla bla bla

Jame is offline  
Old
05-26-2011, 08:34 AM
  #59
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 32,693
vCash: 500
Ok guys thats it. Tone it down please.

joshjull is offline  
Old
05-26-2011, 10:38 AM
  #60
SackTastic
Embrace The Suck
 
SackTastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 5,058
vCash: 500
I don't normally agree with Jame, but on this I do.

The general tone of the first post is "Nobody wants Monty back, and here's why those people are wrong." Out of the gate, it assumes that anyone who doesn't want Monty back is letting their own bias get in the way, and only looking at a subset of games.

Any challenge to the assertions made it the first post has been met with derision.

If you're going to write a post that automatically discounts contrary opinions, you should expect some pushback. You got it.

SackTastic is offline  
Old
05-26-2011, 10:51 AM
  #61
Chainshot
Global Moderator
Give 'em Enough Rope
 
Chainshot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Costa Rica
Country: Costa Rica
Posts: 56,583
vCash: 500
Awards:
Enough with the personal crap. Enough. Understand?

__________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle
Chainshot is offline  
Old
05-26-2011, 11:03 AM
  #62
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 33,366
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beechsack View Post
I don't normally agree with Jame, but on this I do.

The general tone of the first post is "Nobody wants Monty back, and here's why those people are wrong." Out of the gate, it assumes that anyone who doesn't want Monty back is letting their own bias get in the way, and only looking at a subset of games.

Any challenge to the assertions made it the first post has been met with derision.

If you're going to write a post that automatically discounts contrary opinions, you should expect some pushback. You got it.
I dont usually agree with me either

Jame is offline  
Old
05-26-2011, 11:34 AM
  #63
Zip15
Registered User
 
Zip15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 17,115
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jame View Post
sorry bout that. dont worry... i think this one ended when Zip admitted he wouldn't answer a question in a vaccuum... even though the entire premise of his post was concluded by taking every other poster's comments and putting those comments in said vaccuum.
You're wrong. You've been wrong this entire time.

Zip15 is offline  
Old
05-26-2011, 11:38 AM
  #64
Jame
Dream '16
 
Jame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
Country: Pitcairn Islands
Posts: 33,366
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zip15 View Post
You're wrong. You've been wrong this entire time.
I'm right. I've been right this entire time. But your need to be right is definitely entertaining.

I bet you've never been wrong about anything on this board.

I'm wrong 80% of the time... too bad for you this falls in the 20%.

Jame is offline  
Old
05-26-2011, 11:39 AM
  #65
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 32,693
vCash: 500
I think this thread has run its course.

joshjull 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 05:15 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.