Wilbur Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 And you've risen to the top of CDC's "makes ridiculous, unqualified claims" list. By what metric is Dan Hamhuis the 209th worst blueliner in the NHL? Absolute nonsense based undoubtedly on a silly cherry-pick. Someone needs to appraise Steve Yzerman of that, because apparently the dumbies at Hockey Canada consider Hamhuis an Olympian. That would be a free-fall decline - but that's not the case. It's really just a ridiculous claim.I choose to flip it around, if you can follow my logic. The 1st worst defenseman would be the absolute worst in the league, while the 262nd worst defenseman should be the best, right? So, out of 262 defensemen, if Hamhuis is the 209th worst you can flip the list and say he is the 53rd best? That sounds closer to the truth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 I choose to flip it around, if you can follow my logic. The 1st worst defenseman would be the absolute worst in the league, while the 262nd worst defenseman should be the best, right? So, out of 262 defensemen, if Hamhuis is the 209th worst you can flip the list and say he is the 53rd best? That sounds closer to the truth Ah yes, that's a solid - you took the double-negative out of it. Bang on. That would make Bieksa 52nd, and Sbisa a virtual Norris candidate. I like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilbur Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Ah yes, that's a solid - you took the double-negative out of it. Bang on. That would make Bieksa 52nd, and Sbisa a virtual Norris candidate. I like it. Yeah, the logic breaks down when you mention Sbisa. That is why I conveniently ignored him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Yeah, the logic breaks down when you mention Sbisa. That is why I conveniently ignored him. Still, Sbisa as a Norris candidate makes more sense than Hammer at 209th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-DLC- Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Not sure what the argument is. "Best" and "worst" changes on a regular basis as players hit slumps and skids or go on a tear so it isn't definitive. It's no secret that Bieksa has struggled of late....just look at his face on the ice some nights to see it. Thing is - he knows it and IS a veteran who's battled back before. Do you give up on someone so valuable in every respect of the game and as a leader on the bench? Such an integral part of the toughness that is so desperately lacking at times? Be careful what you wish for. Every time a player struggles we don't need to jump on them....have you learned nothing from the past? Bieksa will be fine and take him out of the line up and we lose more than we win..have you done that stat yet? Intangibles...this game is full of stories that can't be told via stats. Here are some numbers for you. When Bieksa was injured and out as of Jan. 29 last year, the team went on to lose their next 5 games in a row without him in the lineup. Guess what? He returned to the line up on Feb. 26/14 annnnnnnd, we won in a game where he had 4 shots, 2 hits and 4 blocked shots. Perhaps the other players play with more focus and confidence knowing he's got their backs? It allows them more freedom? Something was missing when he was out and whether it was directly connected to him or not, you have to at least consider it as part of the equation. Sure, he makes some glaring and costly mistakes at times and needs to tighten up. Absolutely. With that, he has done what it's taken in the past to adjust his game and I suspect he will again. He knows the drill. We don't need to find scapegoats to rip on when things aren't perfect in a team game. Hamhuis's absence is also a huge deal here with the others picking up slack. We know Bieksa is a high risk player, ,that's no secret. Personally, I think he's at his best when he's angry/fired up and some of his recent blunders are gaffs that can be corrected and he zones out when it isn't as intense and physical. He is making it harder to defend him at times but I also recognize that he's part of a core that IS in a bit of a transitional phase as they work toward grooming and sliding in some younger players. Did you see Papa B when Edler came off the ice? He's a huge part of this team, win and lose, and stats don't tell the whole story. grrrr /rant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amish Rake Fighter Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Well, one more game loss caused exclusively by Bieksa against L.A. tonight. This is another in the very many games he has given away due to his out of position, lazy, poor thinking defensive motions. His thought process is that of a old mid 30 y.o.man dreaming about retirement on the beaches in Florida. Lets oblidge! Trade him for anything you can get. He's probably worth a bit more than a bag of pucks now and the longer mgmt waits the less valuable he becomes. He isn't getting any younger and certainly not quicker - god knows! when the apocalypse comes, you and the people who gave this post a plus will be eaten first Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 when the apocalypse comes, you and the people who gave this post a plus will be eaten first regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fozzy Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 How did you come to a stupid conclusion like that based on what Rupert said? Read his post again. I just did what he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Read his post again. I just did what he did. Wrong again. I was pointing out the error in stating that the loss to LA was caused "exclusively" by Bieksa. Maybe you should read it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 There you go, tossing straw whenever a discussion takes a turn against you. I didn't say anything against trading him. If it were a deal that helps the team, then I'd trade pretty much anyone. However, I've yet to see any solid proposal that makes any kind of sense for the team. Just a whole lot of hyperbole like "we'd be hard pressed to find a d-man playing as bad as Bieksa" and "he can't play offense or defense". My question was directly aimed at your opinion that he'd garner a high return, despite your assertion that he can't play offense or defense. The two statements seem to contradict each other IMHO and the only thing you said that addresses that particular anomaly is "the stupidity of GMs". If that truly is your answer, then fine, but stand by it instead of using the tired, old "Oh Bieksa can do no wrong in your books! You think he's the greatest defenseman ever!" routine. It was weak when you were doing it four years ago in this thread and it's weak now. I guess you missed me also saying that a big part of bieksa's issues are the way he is forced to be utilized as a top 4 do it all dman here. Our d is very weak overall especially with hamhuis out. On a team with a complement of other dmen who can allow bieksa to be more sparingly used against weaker competition he would be a great asset on a 3rd pairing of a cup contender. You suggesting i am saying trade bieksa for anything is also totally inaccurate based on many of my previous posts in this and other threads. The problem is some people do not have realistic expectations on what we "have to" get in order for trading him to be worth it. The cap space alone is a big plus considering his play yhe past couple of seasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fozzy Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Wrong again. I was pointing out the error in stating that the loss to LA was caused "exclusively" by Bieksa. Maybe you should read it again. And once again you are saying it isn't Bieksa's fault that Stanton and Daniel contributed to the goals against but in the next sentence state Miller should of saved them. Just pointing out that IF Bieksa was in position Miller wouldn't be at fault right? I'm just following your logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 I guess you missed me also saying that a big part of bieksa's issues are the way he is forced to be utilized as a top 4 do it all dman here. Our d is very weak overall especially with hamhuis out. On a team with a complement of other dmen who can allow bieksa to be more sparingly used against weaker competition he would be a great asset on a 3rd pairing of a cup contender.You suggesting i am saying trade bieksa for anything is also totally inaccurate based on many of my previous posts in this and other threads. The problem is some people do not have realistic expectations on what we "have to" get in order for trading him to be worth it. The cap space alone is a big plus considering his play yhe past couple of seasons. I said nothing of the sort. My comment was in response to your claim that I wouldn't consider trading Bieksa "under any circumstance". As soon as someone shows me a circumstance that would improve the team, (and I disagree that the Cap savings alone would be an improvement) I'd be down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 And once again you are saying it isn't Bieksa's fault that Stanton and Daniel contributed to the goals against but in the next sentence state Miller should of saved them. Just pointing out that IF Bieksa was in position Miller wouldn't be at fault right? I'm just following your logic. You're not following any sort of logic. My post was made to show that several people shared the blame on those goals, thus refuting the claim that Bieksa was "exclusively responsible". BTW: I don't agree that Bieksa was out of position on Stoll's goal. As a player for almost 5 decades, I expect a forward to be covering that spot. Bieksa may have been ill-advised to try and block it, but that's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 I said nothing of the sort. My comment was in response to your claim that I wouldn't consider trading Bieksa "under any circumstance". As soon as someone shows me a circumstance that would improve the team, (and I disagree that the Cap savings alone would be an improvement) I'd be down. I guess i said that wrong. I do not think cap dumping him is a smart scenario. What i meant was a decent return PLUS the cap savings both have to be factored in when judging the potential return justifying trading him. Most on here dont consider the cap an important part of the return but it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 I guess you missed me also saying that a big part of bieksa's issues are the way he is forced to be utilized as a top 4 do it all dman here. Our d is very weak overall especially with hamhuis out. On a team with a complement of other dmen who can allow bieksa to be more sparingly used against weaker competition he would be a great asset on a 3rd pairing of a cup contender. You suggesting i am saying trade bieksa for anything is also totally inaccurate based on many of my previous posts in this and other threads. The problem is some people do not have realistic expectations on what we "have to" get in order for trading him to be worth it. The cap space alone is a big plus considering his play yhe past couple of seasons. FWIW it's worth, Bieksa plays fine in the top 4 with an appropriate defensive (and cerebral) partner (AKA Hamhuis) IMO. We have a younger "poor man's" Hammer in Tanev with Hamhuis out but then you leave no partner for Edler. The problem is a lack of top 4 NHL caliber, complimentary depth in the organization. Has been for a few years now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 I guess i said that wrong. I do not think cap dumping him is a smart scenario. What i meant was a decent return PLUS the cap savings both have to be factored in when judging the potential return justifying trading him. Most on here dont consider the cap an important part of the return but it is. I don't disagree with any of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 FWIW it's worth, Bieksa plays fine in the top 4 with an appropriate defensive (and cerebral) partner (AKA Hamhuis) IMO. We have a younger "poor man's" Hammer in Tanev with Hamhuis out but then you leave no partner for Edler. The problem is a lack of top 4 NHL caliber, complimentary depth in the organization. Has been for a few years now. Having your two top D prospects involved in serious motor vehicle accidents will do that to an organization. Thank goodness MG managed to sign Tanev, or the hole would be even more glaring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Having your two top D prospects involved in serious motor vehicle accidents will do that to an organization. Thank goodness MG managed to sign Tanev, or the hole would be even more glaring. Yup. Imagine what we'd look like even with just Bourdon right now....*sigh* RIP Luc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEON.KNEE Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 ...apelike in appearance. never been a fan of bieska's hockey playing, thought he has always been over rated... I love his grit and heart, wish he had half as much skill as those other 2 qualities, then he'd be a top 4 NHL Defenceman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 FWIW it's worth, Bieksa plays fine in the top 4 with an appropriate defensive (and cerebral) partner (AKA Hamhuis) IMO. We have a younger "poor man's" Hammer in Tanev with Hamhuis out but then you leave no partner for Edler. The problem is a lack of top 4 NHL caliber, complimentary depth in the organization. Has been for a few years now. I agree about the hole in our top 4 defensive pipeline for sure. I think Bieksa needs to simplify his game. For all the 40 point seasons i dont think he has ever been more effective as a dman than he was when he and Hamhuis paired and focused on being a true shut down pair. Having Edler and Ehrhoff to carry the load offensively made that possible though. The problem now is we have an even better shut down pair in Edler and Tanev but badly need that offensive pmd type top 4 guy that can help drive offense. Edler, Tanev, and Hamhuis should be kept imo because they are top 4 quality guys that we need. That leaves Bieksa as a 3rd pairing guy and without moving his salary we cant afford that offensive pmd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.