Baggins

Is Pearson a passenger? Forwards 5 on 5 points per 60 minutes played since Boudreau took over: Forwards 5 on 5 goals per 60 minutes played:

Time warp? Your uncle wasn't GM for a decade. With a 21-9-5 record since the coaching change, and no change in the roster, I don't think your uncle was the real problem. Btw, your uncle left a much better "prospect cupboard" than the wasteland he inherited. Not to mention your uncle inherited a team with one player under 27 worth keeping and left a team with high quality youth on it. Still in the cupboard: Klimovich, Rathbone, Woo, Lockwood, Jurmo, McDonough (in Hobey Bkaer running), Karlsson (highly likey SHL rookie of the year), Persson, and DiPietro.

Did you expect a rebuilding team to be top of the league?

Certainly not out of the question given they are 21-8-5 since Boudreau took over.

I don't think it's a question of who fetches the better return. If that's what matters trade Miller. He'll get the best return of all our forwards. But we're not rebuilding. So cost versus benefit shoiuld be the primary consideration. If somebody makes a crazy stupid offer you should likely take it regardless of which player it is. But that would more likely be from incoming offers as opposed to you actively shopping a player. If the goal is to improve the team through increased cap space, the player that provides the least versus their cost should be the one you actively look to move. Boeser or Garland you will get a valuable return. The real question which is better for the team to keep moving forward. If you want to contend bang for the buck is more important in deciding who to keep and who to move to improve the team. Btw, comparing the effectiveness of Garland's hit is irrelevant if Boeser doen't hit. This was kind of my point. Boeser has the size to throw his weight around and simply doesn't. Would he be more effective overall if he did? Boeser's one trip to the playoffs he increased his hitting from about half a hit per game regular season to one hit per game in the playoffs. This is based on his hits per 60 minutes and averaging about 20 minutes per game. He's actuyally below 20 minutes per game. Is one hit per game in the playoffs significant? Regular season Garland throws about 2.5 times more hits than Boeser per 60. Neither are hitting machines but I suspect Garland would also increase his hitting in the playoffs. What's more significant than punishing about throwing hit is causing the puck carrier to rush a play. Assuming Garland doubled his physical play in the playoffs as Boeser did, he'd be rushing the puck carrier by hitting 5 times more often than Boeser did. Personally I'd be surprised to see anybody moved at the deadline unless it's a forward for a legit top 4 RHD, or the wheels fall completely off on this home stand.

Well when it comes to physcality Boeser is dead last in hits per 60 minutes among the 16 forwards to play this season. Boeser doesn't really use the 6'1" 208 lbs size adsvantage he has over Garland. I look at this as bang for the buck. Boeser is tied dead last among the forwards in +/- at -7. Garland is +11, the highest of the 16 forwards. Boeser has 18 ES points to Garlands 29. Boeser this season is something of a PP specialist but has the benefit of PP1 with our best offensive players. While Garland has had rare appearances on PP1 and gets considerably less PP time with less talented forwards. Garland has drawn 24 penalties versus 10 taken, second only to Pettersson's differential 25 drawn versus 4 taken. Pearson has the third best differential at 14 drawn versus 11 taken, while Boeser is 8 drawn and 7 taken. Boeser did pick up the physical play in his one playoff appearance moving up to 13th of 15 fowards in hits per 60 minutes. Ahead of only Pettersson and Ericksson. We have nothing to reference with Garland in the playoffs unfortunately. I will point out that Boeser was 6th among forwards for ES points in the playoffs. Both Pearson and Sutter had more ES points. Motte had more ES goals, while Roussel and Virtanen equalled Boeser's ES goals. Again, other than the PP I'm not sure what qualifies Boeser as a playoff performer. Which brings us to bang for the buck. Garland is locked up under $5m for four more years. Boeser on the other hand is looking at a $7.5m QO and will definitely get over $6m because of it. If he doesn't like the offer he can simply take the QO on a one year deal. To me, given what Garland brings and Boeser doesn't, Garland is much better bang for the buck. Boeser averages a minute more at ES and almost a minute and a half more PP time per game than Garland..If Boeser is the one moved Garland obviously gets more opportunity. To me, of our top six forwards, Boeser is the most expendable when it come to bang for the buck. He would get a solid return and open more cap space to boot. In summary, neither is particularly physical. Garland is more responsible defensively, he's faster, and his shifty play draws the opposition into penalties. They have similar points this season despite Boeser getting more ES and PP time. Plus Garland is locked up cheaper with some term. As much as I like Boeser I do believe he is the best high cap contract to move.

I'm just curious, what specifically leads you to believe Garland being an overvalued top six?

League standings by Win % since Dec 5....

Shanny took over the same time as Benning. But they had sucked for about a decade before that and had higher picks that accompany sucking. That part tends to get ignored. Shanny's big turnaround was three players drafted 1st, 4th, and 8th overall. Benning needed to replace an entire team with no prospect pool. Shanny and Benning may have started at the same time, but they had very different starting points. Here's Shanny's 3 year plan rebuilding properly through the draft... All three of those high picks joined the team the same season. One huge boost in one season. Other than the 'big three' not much to write home about from the proper rebuild route. The rest of the improvements were through trades and free agency. The improper rebuild strategy.

Good thing you aren't actaully "The New GM". Top 10 individual PPG performances among forwards since Miller arrived and only one name appears 3 times...

I agree he'll likely be effective for some time yet. A goal scorers shot tends to decline quicker than a playmakers ability. Although Ovi is certainly not showing signs of a diminished shot at 36. Look at our top four forwards since Miller arrived.... Miller is driving bus when it comes to assists among our fowards. The guy is a line driver. Plus he's among our most physical forwards, currently sitting 3rd in hits per 60 minutes. I honestly think he'll be a solid asset to a top 6 line longer than Horvat will because he plays more physical and is a much better playmaker. Miller said in a recent interview that he's never considered himself a shoot first player, he just runs on instinct whether to shoot or pass in the situation. While Horvat is obviously the least likely of the four to be the setup guy on a line.

Obsolutely. I don't see why Miller would sign that though. There's 13 players with a cap hit of 10m or more and another 15 at 9m to 9.999m. Of those 28 cap hit 6 are D and 2 are goalies. Miller is currently tied at 21st for ppg in the league and there's only 2 d-men among those 9m+ cap hits in the top 25 ppg players. If his extension avarages an 8.5-9m cap hit I'd view it as a win. The bottom line is 9m x 6 is quite fair on his part, and anything below is Miller giving a good deal. Another year or two could be added to bring the cap hit down but would need limited (or no) trade protection included on them.

It just goes to show what I've said all along - everybody has different taste and there will never be agreement. Those who want something else will always make noise about regardless of what it used. That's a drawback to completely changing the logo rather than just tweeking from time to time. The end of this video says it all.... "Maybe you like the gradient red, and you're wrong. You're wrong!" This is excactly what you and others are saying - if you don't like what I like, you're wrong. Nobody is actually wrong, including you. We all simply have different taste in what we like. Making it a no win situation for the owner. I'll add this, the guy is right about the SiR logo. The C is more obvious in the updated version than the original because the gap is larger. It does look better than the original. But much like the skate logo, I think they're better on the shoulder than as the primary. On the shoulder the skate was fine, but blown up it's just busy and hard on the eyes.

Taveres has 34 assists to Horvats 16. That's 52 points in 55 games to Horvats 33 points in 52 games. Unless Horvat picks up about 20 points in the next 3 games I wouldn't call them similar.

It's not that they were underacheivers, they were just pretty average. Finally getting the compensation from the Blues for signing Nedved turned the team around. Getting Brown and Hedican was a huge upgrade to their D.

I can't help saying that in response your "beyond stupid" statement we are not the Orcas. You can't praise one image that forms a C for not representing the team name while condemning another image that forms a C for not representing the team name. Which you do constantly. So it's just more....

The truth is there's actually nothing particularly special about the Yankees NY logo. The reason it's iconic is hgow long it's been around combined with the success and history of the franchise. How long a logo is used is the primary reason in becoming iconic.Nothing specific in design makes a good logo or leads to iconic stature. The Red Wings logo is iconic and considered among the best in the NHL. The Blackhawks was widely regarded as the best in the NHL but has fallen from grace with political correctness. Neither is simple and boring. The hawks logo was never among my favorites even when there were only six teams. I always thought the Wings logo was the best of the original six even though I've never been a fan of the team. Time has more to do with iconic status than anything else. In the end beauty is still in the eye of the beholder.

Is it worth bothering at this point? Halak plays every few weeks. His NMC means he stays on the active roster and needing to send either a D or forward to the minors to bring Martin up. Fine at home but could be a problem on the road. Or leave it and let Martin play a lot in Abby rather than mainly sitting on the bench watching games for the rest of the season. Martin is a UFA at the end of the season as well. Do you want to up his value and/or attract competitors to sign him? On the other hand, if the team keeps slipping into the coasting way they played in NJ it doesn't matter much who is in goal. About 5-6 minutes into the game I said to my buddy, they sure aren't playing like they did against the Rangers. I get it was a back to back, but at least start the game playing hard and applying pressure.

I hate to break it to you but that very popular Yankees logo, although still in use, hasn't actually been their official logo for almost 75 years. Rather weird isn't it?

I think it's more the teams halackadaisical play in front of him. He's also had very good games where the team just didn't score.

Let's not get insulting. Carter was willing to throw hits and play hard along the boards.

I wouldn't say 'slow footed' but neither is fast. They are both decent skaters. If I was looking for a cap forward to move for a right side D Boeser would be my first choice. He has certainly improved the defensive side of his game but I wouldn't call him good defensively. He's ok along the boards but not good. He's the least physical, despite decent size, ranking dead last at hits per 60 minutes among the 16 forwards to play this season. Of our high cost forwards I view him as the most expendable. Garland, Podz, or Hogs could slot into his PP1 slot and I doubt it would be any worse. Plus there's still Pearson, who does more right, who can move up even strength. There is some depth at forward. As likeable as he is, he's the most expendable to bring a good return, preferably a top 4 RD of comparable age.

Remind me how Taveres wound up in TO. Would you agree plans are fluid in sports? That you may make a deal with an intention in mind but due to somebody else becoming the plan changes. That's exactly what happened. When Toffoli was traded for Benning had no idea OEL would become available after that season. While trying to swing a deal for OEL Toffi signed with the Habs and Tanev with the Flames. Unforseen circumstances that largely goes ignored. Who knows how it would have played out had OEL not suddenly appeared on the trade market. In a cap world you will sometimes have to wait on one deal to see how another deal plays out first. It happens. As much as I liked Toffi's play while here I didn't actually see him as a critical player to re-sign with Hogs and Podz on the horizon. You don't trade your MVP goalie and shutdown d-man when you're in a playoff position. Period. Had Demko been excellent that season rather than average, he might have at least considered moving Markstrom. But why would he even consider moving Tanev at that point?

First the SiR is not icon in any way. It wasn't used long enough, nor won anything, to contribute to that status in it's whopping 8 years. Classic or retro at best, but not iconic. Second, the Blackhawks logo was considered the best logo in the NHL for quite some time. It's fallen somewhat with pc times. It's the polar oppisite of what you claim makes a good logo. The Red Wings logo, which actuallly is iconic, also fail's your boring test. The simple truth is there are no hard line rules on what makes a good sports logo. Also wierd you'd like the Seahawks non-boring logo, and call it iconic, when it's such a similar style to the Orca and not boring at all. It also breaks your rules that make up an iconic logo. In the end I suspect you simply look for reasons to dislike and disqualify the Orca logo purely because it's not the boring logo you want.