Baggins

You said he's too small for a playoff team... Again, too small for a playoff team...

Where does that leave Hoglander?

I got it from 5 on 5 stats... Here's Garland's goaless period. Yet he still outproduced Boeser. As I said, I don't care if you're scoring the goals or setting them up, you're contributing to the score.

How about he gets to the playoffs before deciding what he will be. I don't care if he's not scoring goals if he's setting them up. Which he was. Still scored almost twice as many ES goals thatn the team sniper did. you still haven't rational why you believe Bouda doesn't see him as a top 6 forward.

I don't think it's rumours of "trying" to move Garland. He's easily moveable. It's more rumours of teams interested in him. I don't think they were "trying" to move Boeser, Miller, or Garland at the deadline. It was more of a case of teams calling and either testing the water or making offers. There was no real reason to move any of them at the deadline unless an offer blew them away as none were pending UFA's. There's also been rumours of moving Boeser. Does that mean he's not a viable top 6 forward? Do rumors about moving Miller mean he's not a viable top 6 forward? Not sure how trade rumors define a player as top 6 or not. Garland ideally a third line winger? You've been playing too much EA. Among all right wingers in the league (with 25 or more games) he was 7h in ES pts per 60 minutes played and among ALL forwards he was 29th in the league. There aren't many teams that wouldn't view him as a top 6 forward.

I agree regarding Hoglander, but the only winger to get more even strength ice time than Garland was Boeser. Garland was 5th among our forwards in TOI per game and 4th among forwards in ES time per game. He averaged more ES time per game than Pettersson. What makes you think Bouda doesn't view him as a top 6 forward? Btw Boeser, your sniper, was 12th among our forwards for goals per 60 ES minutes played. Even Hoglander was ahead of him.

He played 5 playoff games for the Flyers and they were knocked out in the first round. Babych was on the bottom pair with Murzyn when he was traded and 6th among the D in ice time per game. He successfully sued the doctor for misdiagnosing the injury as a bone bruise when it was a fracture. He tried suing the team for fraud and lost that case.

We had no money for a top four d-man in free agency plus a decent guy to go with the rookie. $6m got us Myers two years ago. Less money and term than many analysts had predicted. What would $5.5 gut us on the open market with two spots to fill? Got magic beans? Last year wasn't a particularly great year for D free agents let alone RHD. Do try to keep in mind Schenn and Burroughs performance is pure hindsight and they played well above expectations. Both were signed for depth not regular spots. You're not going to convince me. Just agree to disagree.

We didn't have the cap space for a top four d-man without moving a high cap forward. Full stop. Schenn was signed as a 7/8 guy. Fringe. That he surprised is hindsight. Full stop. For these reasons a player above 7/8 was signed to pair with a left side rookie. It made sense at the time. Burroughs wasn't even signed as a 7/8 guy. He was signed for depth. That he surprised is also hindsight. We'll simply have to agree to disagree.

Based on this I don't think you get my point of view regarding a rookie with a fringe d-man.

Button had Pettersson 6th behind Glass and Vilardi. When it comes to prospects everybody is right and wrong. The truth is Virtanen had all the tools to be a solid pick with his size, speed, and shot. The problem was he lacked the maturity and work ethic to use and build on those natural skills. He just didn't have that drive and desire to be the best he could be. Would Horvat be the same player is he didn't have the drive and desire? What if he showed up to camp failing one or more fitness tests year after year. Or couldn't be bothering to hire a power skating coach after his first season. Maturity, drive and desire doesn't alway come across in prospect interviews. They are coached on how to answer questions. Kassian wasted years of his career because he had the same problem lacking desire and drive. Wasted talent due to a lack of maturity and work ethic. I'm not sold Virtanen was all Benning and not the scouting department as well. Button wasn't the only "expert" one that believed Virtanen was most likely to be picked. Much like Pettersson, Virtanen was all over the place on various draft rankings. Button was the only one I saw that didn't have Virtane in the first round. Pettersson was in the 20's on one list. I still think the reason he spent on that right side was to help support a rookie (Juolevi) being on the left side.

I grasp your point. We simply view it differently. With a rookie on the left side it made sense to me to sign more than a minimum wage fringe 7/8 guy for the right side. It's not easy signing a top 4 RHD in free agency at a decent price. The odds are you'll overpay. I don't see it happening without moving Myers. Then you need another top 4 anyway. The most likely scenario is moving a top 6 forward for a top 4 RHD and moving Myers for the cap space. The money wasn't there to sign a top 4 to push Hamonic down to the third spot. I think we're now in position to move a top 6 forward for a top 4 RHD. The way Podz played in the second half he can be moved into the top six. Plus there's Hogs potential still and Karlsson coming with potential. it's trading from strength to address weakenss. We weren't in that position last year.

Given it was a new team and his injuries/health problems limiting him to just under half a season I'm willing to give him a mulligan. But I think he was signed to be the steady 3rd on the right side with the 3rd left side being a huge question mark. Juolevi was the guy expected to be in that 3rd left spot. Being an inexperienced question mark it made sense to have a steady guy to pair with him whether it was Hamonic or Poolman. That fell apart quickly with Juolevi failing to impress at all in preseason. The best thing about signing Schenn for depth is he can play either side. Good depth signing but he really exceeded my expection.

I agree letting Ronning walk was a mistake. But at the point of big change big change was needed. As to Babych friends and I often joked about how slow he was. He was still good defensively in the zone but the he was constantly left behind transitioning from O-zone back to D-zone. He was slow. Loved him in his prime but as I said, he was past his best before date. It was time to move on from him.

It was a team bleeding money with declining attendance. A team with both Mogilny and Bure that couldn't make the playoffs. Which is why Quinn was fired. It seriously needed change. I believed at the time there was a problem in the room even before Messier arrived and Keenan took over. He just made it worse by going after Linden. I don't think Linden and Bure liked each other. Nor do I think Bure and Mogilny liked each other. Bure was definitely team Keenan as he recommended hiring him in Florida when their coach was fired. So yes, the team needed change. I did wonder which side Quinn would have fallen on had he stuck around another year. Babych was past his best before date. He was slow before the broken foot in Philly. At team with two 50 goal scorers that can't make the playoffs needs change. I just think they put the wrong guy in charge of the change.

Actually I think Schenn was signed to be the number 7 guy. He just played better than expected, particularly with Hughes. Just as Burroughs wasn't signed to be among the six. He was a bit of a nice surprise though. A good thing Benning signed some depth.

I thought Poolman was alright. But let's be real, you don't generally get a "special" player in free agency for $2.5m either.

Try on the big boy pants. Even liked players get traded. Maclean wasn't as good after the 94 run. After 94/95 his S% wasn't even among the top 20 starters in the league. He only had one .900 S% season after 94/95. Babych was slow as molasses at that point. Good positionally but it was time to move on and he didn't play much after being traded. And Brashear was a better heavy weight and better hockey player than Gino. It's not a case of not liking any of them. It's just part of the game. There's always a point to move on and the team certainly needed change.

There's a difference between simple and utterly boring and abstract. I think the current Orca is pretty simple and no where near as busy or hard on the eyes like the skate logo. Plus the C is more obvious..The Blackhawks logo is anything but bland or boring and is iconic. The Whalers logo was good because it is visually simple but very creative at the same time with both a W and the whate tail for the name and the two forming an H for where the team played. Simple, visually pleasing, and obvious. The funny thing about the H within Montreals C is most, particularly out west here, thought the H was for Habs rather than Hockey. I followed the NHL for more than 20 years before finding that out. Of course that was long before internet was around to easily look these things up. But growing up hearing everybody calling them "The Habs" it was an easy assumption the H was for Habs and it made sense. That logo is iconic because it's been used for over a century with just minor tweeks. Being the winningest team of the O6 era doesn't hurt either. Those O6 logos are iconic because of how long they've been in use without major change.

Overly dramatic as you could say there was a forced exodus under Emporer Burke as well. I get the Messier hate but I think the divide that came had far more to do with Keenan than Messier himself. It was Keenan going after Linden that really divided the room, Messier is guilty by association, but I really do think it's was Keenan that divided the room. Now I was shocked at the time Linden was traded but blamed Keenan far more than Messier. That said I'm not bitter about Linden getting moved at all. That trade was a major factor in this team being very good for over a decade and Linden returned later to boot. Get over it already. I was over the trade it after Bertuzzi's first game here. That doesn't mean I didn't feel warm fuzzies when Keenan was fired. At that point I wanted Messier, Bure and Mogilny gone as well.

I was in high school when the Nucks joined the league. I got the hockey stick making the central part forming an abstract C. It wasn't until the second season somebody told it was a stick in a hockey rink forming a C. I said, knowing that doesn't change it being a stupid looking logo. So bland and utterly boring.

Here's the leagues logos from 70/71 I thought the Nucks and Seals were the two worst in the league with Minny and LA not far behind. Of the original six I always thought the Red Wings had the best logo. It has style and adding the wheel as a nod to where the team plays was brilliant. But the SiR in comparison to any of them is just a plain boring meh.

I was surprised how quickly this jersey grew on me. My first impression was "it's certainly better than the original gradient". I liked it the more I saw it. When I actually saw somebody wearing one I liked it more than our current Orca.

I don't know about that. As I recall when it was brought back for three games a few years back we lost all three. But I do believe many players have a thing for black jerseys. But in the end it's team make up that's more important to success than what color they wear.

I would be very surprised if there hasn't been some talks. But his agent would be an utter fool to make that public.