Dazzle
Members-
Posts
11,843 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by Dazzle
-
Generally speaking, in terms of "performance" (points wise), Nelson fits right about the middle of the pack. Notable players like Monahan, RNH and Scheifele are among the best performers with around 80 pts or so. Zibanejad has 74 points. Horvat is cheaper than aforementioned players and has produced more than Nelson (making him a great deal by comparison). Kyle Turris is among the worst on this list. The point being is that 6 million is STILL not an overpayment in comparison to these players. You also have to understand that this player is one of the fan favourites of NYI (akin to Boeser) - how do you justify low balling him when he's been CONSISTENTLY a useful player? It's possible that Nelson's numbers will fall off after this contract but there's nothing so far to suggest that it will. He's never had an "off" season aside from his first season. It appears that he's even trending upwards, making him possibly a REALLY good signing down the road. We'll just have to wait and see.
-
But he's paid 6 million... your point? Not being paid 7 or 8 million as you said. 6 million for a known quantity that has consistently produced on your team since day 1? I still don't see how you can say it is a bad contract when Eriksson got paid for 3 seasons of 30 goals (deserving at the time).
-
Did you even bother looking at his stats? He's been with the same team (team that drafted him) for like 5 years and has produced consistently. He deserves to get paid. It's not even an overpayment.
-
#manifestdestiny Enough excuses Rob, I see what you're doing.
-
You also can't use points as a definitive proof of his ceiling either. How many points did Marchessault/William Nylander have before going to LV? Granted, it is an extreme example, but my point still stands. Best thing for us to do is wait and see and not write off a young kid who's clearly working hard on his game.
-
Correct, and Stone is American. /sar
-
Yannick Weber is Swiss. Swing and a miss, buddy
-
Really good signing. 2014-15 New York Islanders NHL 82 20 22 42 24 6 2 0 2 2 2015-16 New York Islanders NHL 81 26 14 40 30 11 1 4 5 6 2016-17 New York Islanders NHL 81 20 25 45 36 -- -- -- -- -- 2017-18 New York Islanders NHL 82 19 16 35 43 -- -- -- -- -- 2018-19 New York Islanders NHL 82 25 28 53 28 2018-19p New York Islanders NHL 8 4 0 4 2 He is pretty much a consistent 20+ goal scorer, 40 P guy, minus his first year with 14 goals (I omitted it) http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/viewastext.php?491830ed=a1a236f6&pid=127790 Looks like he took a hometown discount.
-
Nobody knows. The entire LV team from 2017-2018 could attest to how talent can be underappreciated. Then again, you can throw minutes at a player *cough* Vey, Megna, Chaput - and they still can't produce. You can't say any one of those three didn't get opportunities. Opportunities alone don't tell the whole story. I think we can also see Eriksson be such a poor fit for Vancouver, when he has produced at least 30 goals a few times. It's weird to see him struggle to score.
-
You may not have openly called for Juolevi, but your explanation doesn't make sense. The posts are out of order when quoting these, FWIW. I believe the Shinkaruk trade was Benning selling a mistake to somebody else and winning on that trade. For whatever reason, Shinkaruk did not succeed at the NHL level (and arguably the AHL level). The Patrick White trade was basically a dump. San Jose didn't even qualify him so they got a 2nd round pick out of it and traded away Ehrhoff to us in the process. Neither Calgary nor San Jose benefited from the players we traded away. On the other hand, Forsling was traded to Chicago in exchange for Clendenning (a player that you would probably have argued could have helped us over the hump). From a stats point of view, the trade seemed to make sense. Clendenning looked like he was on the cusp of playing in the NHL because of his sublime AHL stats. And we know what happened with him. He has never made an NHL team full-time. Meanwhile, Forsling continues to thrive at the NHL level as a young defenseman. It was a loss for us for sure. It goes without saying that you can't trade players too quickly.
-
Normally, I'm very appreciative of your posts and I do like you as a poster. Unfortunately, I will comment about this post which may come across as antagonistic, but I truly do not mean any offense. The hope is that you'll read it as objectively as possible, think about it and agree/disagree with it. Nothing more, nothing less. I, as a Canadian history major, am particularly aware of the US' history of interfering in foreign affairs, which I believe you are aware of as well. Afghanistan serves to be another example of that narrative. In 1991, the US was involved in the Gulf War, after Iraq invaded Kuwait. This war was supported by the United Nations, for what it's worth, which is not to say that the organization is above criticism. In the late 1980s-1992, the United Nations proved itself to be incompetent, despite the well-known 'ethnic cleansing' that was going on in Yugoslavia (ultimately Yugoslavia would get disbanded into six new countries). In fact, the United Nations were so humiliated that some of the United Nations peacekeepers were even kidnapped and held hostage. Fast forward to 2001, Saddam Hussein is still around in Iraq. September 11 happens. There's lots of outrage and lots of people dying. The impact the attacks had on the free world can't be understated. However we're going to skip all that, for the sake of getting to the main point. The United States' response was to blame Osama Bin Laden, the leader of the feared Al-Qaeda terrorist group, even though, according to History.com*, the vast majority of the terrorists/hijackers were allegedly from Saudi Arabia. In other words, no one was from Iraq or Afghanistan. *Source: https://www.history.com/topics/21st-century/9-11-attacks If we were to dig deeper, an American historian Gareth Porter argues that the Saudi government "certainly" had a role in the attacks*. Whether Saudi Arabia was directly responsible or not is unclear and inconclusive. So what does invading Iraq have anything to do with it? George W. Bush declares Iraq to be hiding Weapons of Mass Destruction. This ultimately leads to the fall of Saddam Hussein, who had insisted that his country did NOT have WMDs. After many years of searching, no WMDs were indeed found. *Source: https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-classified-911-28-pages-a-diversion-from-real-us-saudi-issues/5522085 Fast forward to 2011 (ten full years after 9/11), US intelligence narrowed down Osama to a location in Pakistan. The former CIA director/defense secretary at the time, Leon Panetta, suspected that Pakistan probably knew about Osama's whereabouts.* In fact, Pakistan was considered so untrustworthy that the US decided to withhold notifying Pakistan.* *Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/leon-panetta-abottabad-compound *Source: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/pakistans-trustworthiness-was-questionable-by-us-for-osama-raid/articleshow/52087446.cms That means Pakistan AND Saudi Arabia are implicated in the attacks, yet America decides to go after Iraq and Afghanistan. Does this make sense? It doesn't. Period. I haven't even talked about the 2003 invasion which was NOT UN sanctioned. In other words, the invasion once again proved that the United Nations is a weak entity. The United States openly violated international protocols but was not at all punished internationally. More recently, Russia made pretexts to invade the Crimea regions. Again, no response. Osama Bin Laden was and has always been a distraction. Your argument that the United States "won" by killing Osama Bin Laden is woefully fallacious. Propaganda has been incredibly successful on the American people. It worked for a while in the Vietnam War. It worked for the Afghanistan/Iraq wars. And now Trump. Canada is by no means better than the United States. Our peacekeeping reputation that we had obtained in years past is all but gone. We have one of the smallest military that has been severely neglected over the years. Though our military is well-trained, we are in no position to pretend to be world police. And the ironic thing about it was that the US didn't originally plan to be World Cop. Nobody else wanted to do it after WW2 because practically half the world was broke and America was the richest nation in the world. It had to share its money to the world to fix the damaged economies of most countries in Europe, while Communism was gaining a lot of influence. Could the United States just stand idly by with its isolationist policies? If it did, this world, I'd argue, would have changed dramatically. I'll end this post saying that the peoples of our nations need to be educated about the world around them. No one in the so-called "free world" should have any excuse to be so ignorant. We have the power, supposedly, to make changes to government, in ways that other countries can't. Still we elect bozos that have no business telling us to go to wars that we have no business being in. General Eisenhower was alarmed about the "military industrial complex" that was becoming far too strong. He wasn't wrong. It is out of control today.* *Source: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/eisenhower001.asp
-
I feel you are contradicting yourself. If Juolevi flourishes elsewhere, that doesn't necessarily mean he WOULDN'T have flourished here. You simply didn't give him a chance to. (You traded him off for his "potential", which is something you don't seem to value as much as something that is more known - i.e. Clendenning). Furthermore, you can't trade off a guy whose potential you don't value (as much) to get someone BETTER than him. That's not how it works. The second player is BETTER because he has proven something. Juolevi isn't worth that much in the same way as Puljarvi (sp) isn't worth what his current pick is - or even Yakupov, if EDM still had his rights in the past. Thirdly, a player who has potential may or may not get better, but unless you have a crystal ball, there is no way of knowing. At best, you can look at his current toolset/skills and make an educated guess. How would you know if Juolevi will or will not exceed his expectations? We will have to see. Maybe he is a top 4 defenceman as predicted, but until that happens, trading him away is a MISTAKE.
-
Or maybe if you're too trigger happy to make a trade that you lose out on a player whose POTENTIAL was fulfilled on another team...
-
ZOMG benning wasted a pick to trade this guy. Assetmanagement fail. /sarc
-
Delayed penalty? Wrong button pushed on keypad?
-
This needs to be tagged as speculation.
-
[Signing] Lightning re-sign Jan Rutta
Dazzle replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
Cap circumvention to me. -
[Discussion] Exploring a trade for Phil Kessel
Dazzle replied to Gator's topic in Proposals and Armchair GM'ing
Honestly, I think some players just don't do well in certain systems. Eriksson has played well on the same NHL surface for many years, prior to coming over to the Canucks. He's also shown in this tournament that he is far from "washed up". Heck, even Gudbranson looks/looked better in Pittsburgh, but someone like Tanner Pearson, though skilled, looked like a plug in Pittsburgh. -
[Discussion] Exploring a trade for Phil Kessel
Dazzle replied to Gator's topic in Proposals and Armchair GM'ing
You mean the leading point scorer for Sweden right now? Would be a huge mistake. -
This is too true. Too many people use hindsight to call this a bad pick. The reality was that Schroeder (and Hodgson) were both DOMINANT on the international stage for their age. People liked the picks at the time, but of course, pretend to know from the beginning that their careers would not make it through to the end.