-
Posts
7,291 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by Gollumpus
-
1.) So is it your opinion that posters who support Ehlers don't have a "conflict of interest" in how they state their case? And how is it slander to state an opinion that a certain player is small if the facts bear it out? I believe it is closer to slander to diminish the talent of a larger prospect in order to validate support for the smaller, and arguably more talented prospect. 2.) From your post, "fair minded" people seem to be those who agree with you. I suspect that this was not your intent. Ehlers might reach 6' or more, or he may not. And he may get to 190 - 195 pounds, or may not. I believe these are optimistic estimates. And even if he were to reach these higher weight levels (which I don't see happening), would it be an appropriate weight for him and his style of play? He may well play better at 180 - 185 and anything over that means that he is too slow and heavy to be effective. regards, G.
-
1.) You are correct, chum, you are not the person to whom I was originally responding. I was aware of this when I made my first response to you, but thanks for pointing it out anyways. 2.) To my mind, you were not being "helpful", you were making an attempt at sarcasm. The irony of it is, you were unable to recognize that sarcasm was being used on you in my original reponse (to you), or in my response to that original post to which you have just pointed out that you weren't the guy who wrote it. Once again, thanks for that clarification. Note: I'm not taking any bets from anyone that you are even capable of recognizing the sarcasm being used on you in this response. 3.) You say that you are helping me by suggesting that I do research prior to responding. This is good advice for everyone, and thanks for passing it along. I would also note the irony here in that you obviously did not first do your research by fully reading my post (if you did at all), and then comparing it to what you had found on your link to capgeek (a page with which I, and probably the vast majority of people who post here, are well aware). Had you done your research (at all), you would have noted from reading the capgeek page that I had responded correctly to the other person's post. And you would have (should have) realized that I was being just a bit sarcastic to that person by asking them to explain where I was wrong in my understanding of how NTC's work and requesting that they supply links to pages which countered my position (which I'm pretty sure don't exist). I'd acknowledge part of your post as what could be taken as an attempt at sarcasm on your part ("its called doing research by using google"), however I believe it was merely accidental. Research by using Google is kind of despised in academic circles. 4.) As to the rest of your post, gosh that stuff was devastating. I'll probably never be able to post on the internet again. Ever. regards, G.
-
I accept your version as a more realistic sequence of events. This is still a far cry from, "just tell the player we don't want him anymore". A number of people here appear to assume that things will work out without any kind of effort/time. Or that the player will have no reservations about waiving. And if the GM doesn't get a result which they feel should be as easily achieved as it is in their own minds, then the GM doesn't know what he is doing. regards, G.
-
Hammond regards, G.
-
Nedved regards, G.
-
[Nick Ritchie] Junior Point totals vs Getzlaf, Lucic, and Nash
Gollumpus replied to Merci's topic in Canucks Talk
I'm sensing that the honeymoon with the new administration may already be showing signs of being over for some people, and Benning hasn't really done anything as yet. I believe it took most of Gillis' critics until after the 2008 draft before they started in on hating him. regards, G. -
So I followed your helpful advice: What's the difference between a NTC and a NMC? A no-trade clause means a player cannot be traded without his consent. Consent is not required for waivers for assignment to the minors. A no-move clause means a player cannot be traded, waived for a claim by another team, or assigned to the minors without his consent. This does not protect the player from a buyout. Limited and modified NTCs and NMCs simply mean the player's contract includes specific terms for the clauses, usually allowing the player to specify a no-trade list of undesireable teams or a trade list of desireable teams. If a player waives a clause to accept a trade to a new team, it is rare he will do so without a promise that the acquiring team will continue to honour the clause. Brad Richards, when traded from Tampa Bay to Dallas in 2007-08, is an example of this. However, if the player is traded before a clause has kicked in, that clause is automatically ruled void. It should also be noted that clauses can only cover what would have otherwise been unrestricted free agency years. So how is this in any way different (if at all) from what I wrote? Do you read the stuff you google before you link it? If so, you would then have seen that I pretty much am in line with your link. If you are wanting to be helpful, and I'm certain that this was your intent, then show us where I differ (to any great extent) from what was written on the capgeek page? regards, G. EDIT: I did miss the waiver aspect of the NMC. My bad.
-
To my recollection, a NMC has two properties: 1.) that the player can't be sent to the minors without their consent; 2.) the player may not be traded without their consent. Should the player agree to be traded, they may (or may not) then submit a list of teams to which they would then agree to be traded. A NTC is that a player a player may not be traded without their consent. Should the player agree to be traded, they may (or may not, but probably will) then submit a list of teams to which they would then agree to be traded. A Limited NTC has the most wiggle room for a team. It is where the player may be required to submit a list of teams to which he would agree to be traded. Please inform us of how NTC's actually work, and provide links. Thanks. regards, G.
-
You (the new gm): Hey, (player X), we don't want you anymore and we want to trade you. Player X: Hmm, well I do have a NTC, and I have no desire to be traded, either for professional or personal reasons. You (the new gm): Yeah, but weren't you listening? We don't want you anymore. Player X: Yeah, I heard you, however, this does not change the fact that I have a NTC and I don't want to leave. You (the new gm): Look, get it through your thick skull, we don't want you anymore. Player X: Yeah, you keep saying that. It still doesn't make me any more interested in being moved. You (the new gm): WE! DON'T! WANT! YOU! ANYMORE!!! Player X: Tell you want, I'll put you on with my agent. I have to get down to the rink. Agent X: Hey, what's going on? You (the new gm): We don't want Player X anymore. Agent X: Hmm, well this presents a bit of a problem then. He isn't interested in being traded. You (the new gm): Doesn't change anything. We still don't want him. Agent X: Well, my client will be reporting for work as usual. You (the new gm): Fine. We'll bench him. We'll let him rot in the pressbox. Agent X: Well, if that's what you want to do. My client is adamant that he will not accept a trade. And if you do put him in the pressbox then that is something you will have to explain to your boss. Just out of curiosity, how are you guys doing for cap space? You (the new gm): I'm all in on this. We don't want your client anymore. He'll eventually blink and then we'll trade him. Agent X: Okay, well I tell you what, I'll send you some numbers/e-mail contacts for people in the NHL head office (legal) and the folks at the NHLPA. I'm also going to go cc your boss about this. A while later... Your phone: Ring ring President of the team: Hi. Just wanted to inform you that we don't want you anymore. regards, G.
-
It could happen. Maybe not something that I would put (a lot of) money on. I could also see the following: 1.) Florida decides that they need a winger more than another d-man prospect, so they take Draisaitl or Dal Colle? * Maybe they even trade down * They've lost a lot of guys over the last while and I believe they don't have a whole lot in the way of winger prospects. Yes, a guy like Bennett could play wing. There are those who follow Florida a bit more closely than I. Perhaps they can speak to this. 2.) Reinhardt - maybe Buffalo decides that Hodgson is not the long term answer. They take a center and move Hodgson in a couple of years. 3.) Edmonton would likely take Ekblad if he was still there, otherwise they'll go with one of the bigger wingers. 4.) Calgary may well take Ritchie, but if one of Bennett/Reinhardt is still there then there's a good chance that that's who they will pick. 5.) The Islanders will take a winger to replace Moulson (Draisaitl/Dal Colle?). Maybe they would even take Ritchie, with an eye towards playing Boston. 6.) Ritchie if he's available, otherwise one of the other wingers. regards, G.
-
I was going to wrte a longer response, but I'm out of "give a damn." It's on back order. Perhaps it will be in some time in July. Size, and the use thereof, is just one more tool which a player can develop and use over his career. There seems to be a deliberate oversight of this "ability" because it puts certain people's positions at a disadvantage. This being said, you say you are "tired of people trying to 'blend' guys like Schroeder in with 5ft 11 and 6ft players." Well, I'm tired of people (apparently) gauging the size of a player based only on his height. They are not in the same class with guys who have similar height but who also have weight. (Believe it or not, I do look at both height and weight.) A player at 180 lbs is a world away from a player who is 200 lbs. You believe Ehlers is 6' (or really close if he wears an extra pair of socks). I haven't seen anything that says he is anywhere near 180 lbs. Crosby is 5' 11" and and is listed as weighing 200 lbs. Who is the "bigger" player? regards, G.
-
On what are you basing this? Just curious. Looking at the draft rankings, and the players actually taken, size still seems to be pretty darn important to teams. And if we assume that a player like Schroeder and Shinkaruk are fast and smart (I believe they are), why did they fall as far down in the draft as they did if not because they are "small"? regards, G.
-
I suspect that the Canucks will still draft fairly close to what they intended prior to Benning being hired. If that's Ritchie, or Ehlers, or the BPA then that's what they'll do. As others have noted, there may be trades which can alter things considerably. What I'm looking for is whether or not Benning has, and uses any insider knowledge he may have picked up from the scouts in the Boston system. There may be a guy (or two) who could be great, later round pick ups, who have been found by the Bruins, but who haven't been as heavily scouted by other teams. regards, G.
-
[Confirmed] Jim Benning signs as new Canucks GM
Gollumpus replied to TheRussianRocket.'s topic in Canucks Talk
To my recollection, AV was a defense first type of coach. When Gillis took over, he gave AV the option of changing his style to one which was more offense first, or being replaced. He did pretty good for while. regards, G. -
[Confirmed] Jim Benning signs as new Canucks GM
Gollumpus replied to TheRussianRocket.'s topic in Canucks Talk
Okay, I'll bite. What do you mean by "Someone not afraid to take a chance..."? I'm assuming you don't mean that the team should go off the board and draft another Patrick White. regards, G. -
So then, the team is picking Tuch? regards, G.
-
The question which I have is: will Ehlers' ability translate to the NHL? I can't say that I've seen anything which makes me belive that he has a better chance than any other player. Meh, let's see what happens in June. regards, G.
-
[Confirmed] Jim Benning signs as new Canucks GM
Gollumpus replied to TheRussianRocket.'s topic in Canucks Talk
Well, there was that time back on the farm when he had worms... oh wait, that was the family dog. regards, G. -
I don't have a dog in this fight. If the Canucks were to choose Ehlers, fine. I'll cheer for the kid. If the Canucks were able to drfat Ritchie I'll cheer for him as well. What I find amazing is how people assume that just because a player has more size he would be the lesser of two choices. Size is not the only factor or the most important. This being said, size, and the knowledge, ability, training and will to use it effectively is a very important factor. It appears to be something which is constantly being overlooked by "smaller" player advocates. As I see it, people who say yes to Ritchie are not "completely ignoring the pure talent" of Ehlers, but rather are accepting a trade off. Does Ritchie lack Ehlers' talent? It would appear so. This being said, Ritchie is still a pretty skilled player, something which is glossed over by Ehlers fans. Advocates of Ritchie are willing to take a bit less of the kind of talent Ehlers' has in exchange for the advantages that a larger player brings. It is good to see that you acknowledge that each player brings "different things" to the table. This being said, you go on to suggest that size is the only thing that a player like Ritchie has in his favour. Ritchie is a pretty good skater, has good hands and shows good hockey IQ. Once again, advocates of Ritchie are willing to take a bit less of the virtues which Ehlers (supposedly will display at the NHL level) in exchange for size. Drafts can be a crap shoot. Large players fail and small players fail, or succeed. This being said, players (regardless of size) who are rated with loads of talent also fail. If there is little certainty that any guy a team picks will succeed (as you suggest), then it seems to me that they would be better off drafting the larger guy. If the small guy fails as a top-6, he spends his time in the AHL, KHL or elsewhere. If the big guy fails to be a top-6 player, there's better chances that he can still be a very serviceable 3rd/4th liner. It should be noted that "falacious assumptions" are not restricted to one side or the other. Your last comment is a bit misleading. Skill can be taught, otherwise Ehlers wouldn't be the player he is, right? Players can improve their on ice performance, with proper coaching. Are we talking going from a 4th liner to Gretzky? No, but there can be improvement. A player's skating ability can be improved. And if the player is already starting at a higher level of talent, and has size, then that is a pretty good gamble. Players generally put on weight as they get older and physically mature. Smaller players do not put on enough weight/muscle so as to be confused with a larger alternative over which they were drafted, or if they do, then the skill and skating ability as usually negatively affected, no? regards, G.
-
[Confirmed] Jim Benning signs as new Canucks GM
Gollumpus replied to TheRussianRocket.'s topic in Canucks Talk
Just curious here, what about guys like: Booth, Edler, Higgins, Jensen, Marskstrom, Richardson, Stanton, Zalewski who are still under contract? regards, G. -
Sneaky. I like it. regards, G.
-
Well, that's what the AHL is for. If he is picked and he does have some issues, going back to being a small fish might cure some of them. Some truth here. +1 Also some truth here. +1 regards, G.
-
ISS/CS Draft Rankings - 2014 NHL Entry Draft
Gollumpus replied to motzaburger's topic in Canucks Talk
How many guys who were drafted in the later rounds are put into a position of holding their own as a 2nd or 3rd liner at 18-19? To be fair, you are talking about guys who are high first round picks who have an exceptional talent level and are also ahead of the norm in physical development. Further, a lot depends on the situation in which these young players find themselves (coaching etc). I noticed that you didn't mention any of Edmonton's prospects. How well is Edmonton doing with all of their 1st overalls and other high picks being thrown into the NHL to adapt? Hall is doing well, but I'm thinking that some of them could have used another year in junior or the AHL. After being drafted, Shea Weber played another two years in Kelowna and spent a further half a season in the AHL before moving up. The experience didn't seem to hurt him, or doesn't he count because he's a d-man? How about Getzlaf? He spent another two and a half years in juniors and the AHL before he made it with the Ducks. Go through the list of top point getters this season and you'll see that the vast majority spent at least another year (or more) playing hockey somewhere other than at the NHL level. regards, G. -
How do you get to "never" from "not very"? There's a bit of a range there. regards, G.