TheGuardian_

Guaranteed 6th to 9th, 4 Points Better Than Last Year.

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, Pete M said:

Exactly the kind of stuff I'm talking about Alf, and those who are defending management tend to ignore or sweep under the rug.

 

It is almost like they are paid to defend management...because they sure are sticking to their narrative and trying to distort facts. When the facts are in plain view (i.e., Stecher fiasco. losing seasons for the last 3 years, etc, etc.

 

and the Edmonton Oiler example of developing players is nauseating. Not all 1st round picks turn out. The Oilers trading Taylor Hall is just poor management...has nothing to do with player development...and picking Lucic ....bad management...nothing to do with player development. Paying their first round picks $6M per season after their 3rd year...bad management...which is cause and effect to players thinking they are good before they reach their potential...the Oiler example is more about bad management, then about player development.

 

 

Why is our big Russian not here anymore?  One could certainly argue bad management, right?  It's frustrating to see a (potentially) very important piece on our blue-line leave because he and his very young and pregnant wife were not cared for properly.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, oldnews said:

 

I don't think a deal involving Gagner  to Columbus is realistic.

I also wouldn't be shopping Granlund as opposed to Baertschi - imo Baertschi is more likely to become a difficult fit than Granlund.  If SB loses his top 6 LW spot to (ie to Leipsic and Pettersson) - then he becomes a more difficult fit than Granlund - who can play center or wing on any of the bottom 3 lines.

 

Asking Columbus to split assets to move Jenner though - not sure why they would -- they're really just needing to fill a couple bottom six spots and have players like Hannikainen and Sedlak .  They'll probably just to to UFA for a depth forward or two to replace Calvert/Letestu - that is if they don't bring those guys back,   I also think you might be over-stating Jenner's "sizable raise" on 2.9 million - imo part of what makes him attractive is/was the potential 'buy-low' aspect as a result of his role and production changing/decreasing - and suspect that could/will come into effect when it comes to him re-signing.

 

It's the contingency around re-signing Stastny that could make it interesting in Winnipeg - if they bring him back, their cap gets tighter - whether that would create a window of opportunity who knows, but any team in that situation can always use futures.

 

You don't think so? He had success there in the past under Torts as Vanek is now. I think they largely let him go because of $ and term but with only 2 years remaining and at 50% discount, I'd wonder if they wouldn't be happy to have him back in that same role? Are they going to be able to fill that role cheaper/with less term in free agency...?

 

I agree I'd prefer to move Baer vs Granlund, just spitballing on what they might want back for Jenner. Baer's 2 way play has certainly improved but he's no Jenner (or Granlund) and he can't play C (even in a pinch). But by all means, if they had interest in him instead...

 

Well yes, I was considering the 'buy-low' aspect of his role in relation to that raise. The two are connected along with his soon looming UFA status in a few years. 

 

Stastny would certainly make things tighter...I suppose we wait and see :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.