Rob_Zepp Posted July 6, 2017 Share Posted July 6, 2017 13 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: We have enough place holder as someone else once said... With Goldobin, Boeser, Granlund, Baertschi in the lineup though - it would necessarily mean that someone like Goldobin is bumped down/out of the lineup - and creates even more of a bottleneck with guys like Virtanen, Dahlen, Molino, Gaunce, (perhaps Rodin). I'm sorry didn't realize you weren't smart enough to figure the meaning of that on your own? Are you 10 years old? Great mature responses! You are a joy to have a discussion with. Pretty sure I know why you face palmed yourself. Enjoy whatever it is you enjoy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GB5 Posted July 6, 2017 Share Posted July 6, 2017 9 hours ago, Hutton Wink said: He's back trending in the right direction, and Higgins didn't fall off until after his injury in his 30th year. There's risk with any UFA signing. "4 years of Eriksson would have been better than 6" too, but you weren't going to get him for that. That's the way UFA works, and again, 3 years is NOT the end of the world. The alternative is you do not sign UFAs, or you get bottom-of-the-barrel quality scrubs. Yeah, that's pure straw, especially when you try to frame it in what you call "hard facts". McDavid at $10mil would have been better, too. If you want to talk "spiteful", why not comment on all the complaining when he "throws away picks" or "signs for too much" when time and the FACTS end up proving he did well in assessing value? Of course then comes the perfectionism, where if he doesn't acquire and sign every single player to absolute market value or less he needs to be mocked, roasted, called incompetent, and fired. Translation: don't sign him at all. Again, you have your choice -- either sign UFAs or you do not. That or sign pure scrubs at minimum. 1 hour ago, Hutton Wink said: And that's where those of us who tired of watching Megna and Chaput all year very much disagree. The way it stands now, if we were to again lose several guys (Dorsett, Rodin, Gudbranson) to serious injury we'd be seeing the likes of Goldobin/Virtanen/Holm take their place. Megna, Boucher, and Chaput waived to Utica. You get lots of pluses from me (always) I like to be able to watch a competitive team play hockey whereas the young guys can develop properly as professionals and make the big team when they are actually good enough to do so instead of being forced to be inserted in the lineup and we become the Oilers/Avalanche with a 10 year rebuild. I am happy with this signing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreyHatnDart Posted July 6, 2017 Share Posted July 6, 2017 On 2017-07-04 at 10:21 AM, J.R. said: If Hank's gone, he just might be in ours next year. In 2-3 years, maybe there's competition for that spot. In that case one moves to wing. Or you run with two 'offensive' lines as we appear to plan to this year or you trade Gagner to solve any 'problem'. Assuming we don't already have a C that takes a massive step forward very quickly, I foresee a much more balanced lineup in the next 2 years as opposed to "someone stepping in for Henrik". Until hopefully Petterson arrives, I think we'll be aiming towards a forward group similar to Nashville/Columbus, a balanced group that can all score on every other given night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainLinden16 Posted July 6, 2017 Share Posted July 6, 2017 15 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: If you can't draw the conclusions together i gave you more credit that you deserved. I stated why a two year deal was better (aka a minor mistake). People couldn't handle it and needed to feel the need to try and justify it. Hence if you started up a thread listing the mistakes, you'd see how many white knight come to the defense. You think people provide factual evidence? People provide an opinion based on best outcome/ hopeful scenarios. The homerism is getting out of hand on this board, you'd have thought we've won back to back cups or something, not have bottom finishes in 3 of the last 4 years. This mgmt group is more than worthy of it's fair share of criticism, it seems like people just can't handle it. It shows how your opinion tends to be wrong. Feel free to argue page after page again in the off season. nah i'd rather teach you some wisdom of the sport. eventually you'll get there. y'all be crazy...no need for the message board spat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainLinden16 Posted July 6, 2017 Share Posted July 6, 2017 12 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: We have enough place holder as someone else once said... With Goldobin, Boeser, Granlund, Baertschi in the lineup though - it would necessarily mean that someone like Goldobin is bumped down/out of the lineup - and creates even more of a bottleneck with guys like Virtanen, Dahlen, Molino, Gaunce, (perhaps Rodin). I'm sorry didn't realize you weren't smart enough to figure the meaning of that on your own? Are you 10 years old? I am not sure where this whole argument stands, and I know its not good form to interject into the middle of it. I assume that the Gagner signing is not sitting well with Foppa. We need a play making center. The way I see it is that Sutter (face-offs, defense, shot) and Gagner (passing, vision, creativity) together are a 1st line center. We don't have another playmaking center. All the kids are wingers. I am a big proponent of Ganger as the center and Sutter as the RW with Sutter playing center in the defensive zone and taking face-offs. They mutual solve each others problems. This is the Sutter fix in my mind more than anything else. We are the 29th ranked team in the NHL. We don't need a playoff shutdown line so put Sutter on RW and lets get on with it. You are always a proponent for ice time for the kids to let them build confidence and figure it out. That is a strategy not an axiom. I like it, but you have to realize that this is not the only way to develop a team or individual players. I know this is horribly cliché but there is that Detroit model of leaving them in the slow cooker until the meat falls off the bone. You can put it on the grill at 500-600 degrees F and burn it by leaving it on a little too long. It is more risky, in terms of meat at least, to just put into the fire. You really cant do a slow cooker wrong. McCann and Virtanen needed maturity and humility before hitting the show they should've been in the minors. Horvat excelled at being put into the fire. There is no 100% right answer here. It is a stylistic and strategic preference. But I would say it is safer to develop players slowly. Either way I don't think this argument deserves the animosity it is creating. Messier sure...Marchand fine...Keith/martin/Doughty absolutely, but not this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted July 6, 2017 Share Posted July 6, 2017 Why did TSN 1040 hire Botchford? He goes on how Gagner was a terrible idea. I get that he's not a fan of Canucks management. But he doesn't blast Toronto for signing Marleau for $6.25 million and a NMC for 3 years? You don't like that we signed him for 3 and wanted 2 fair enough. When they interviewed the reporter from Columbus, he raved about Gagner. Basically saying Columbus would have loved to have signed him for around $2 million. But $3.15 for 3 years, without a NMC. Are folks just looking for something to be critical about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted July 6, 2017 Share Posted July 6, 2017 49 minutes ago, CaptainLinden16 said: I am not sure where this whole argument stands, and I know its not good form to interject into the middle of it. I assume that the Ganger signing is not sitting well with Foppa. We need a play making center. The way I see it is that Sutter (face-offs, defense, shot) and Ganger (passing, vision, creativity) together are a 1st line center. We don't have another playmaking center. All the kids are wingers. I am a big proponent of Ganger as the center and Sutter as the RW with Sutter playing center in the defensive zone and taking face-offs. They mutual solve each others problems. This is the Sutter fix in my mind more than anything else. We are the 29th ranked team in the NHL. We don't need a playoff shutdown line so put Sutter on RW and lets get on with it. That's my point, we aren't going to win that much, we have a number of players with one year left on there waiver eligibility, This year is the perfect year to see where they are at, since next year it's either in the NHL or likely get claimed. I'd rather attempt to develop these players into NHLer's now while they can be sent back rather than next year when we are forced to keep them on the club. 49 minutes ago, CaptainLinden16 said: You are always a proponent for ice time for the kids to let them build confidence and figure it out. That is a strategy not an axiom. I like it, but you have to realize that this is not the only way to develop a team or individual players. I know this is horribly cliché but there is that Detroit model of leaving them in the slow cooker until the meat falls off the bone. You can put it on the grill at 500-600 degrees F and burn it by leaving it on a little too long. It is more risky, in terms of meat at least, to just put into the fire. You really cant do a slow cooker wrong. McCann and Virtanen needed maturity and humility before hitting the show they should've been in the minors. Horvat excelled at being put into the fire. The thing is, development needs to be progressive, people always say that you can't do anything wrong by letting kids "overcook in the minors" but it can stall a kids growth, People love stating this but that's only because it's not as black and white. If a kids who had potential to be a top line wingers overcooks in the AHL, gets his development stalled and never amounts, people just write that off as he was never good enough. We're ok stating the belief that some players need a change or a fresh start in order to break out, why does that exclude competition levels. When you peak at a level, you need to be giving opportunity to grow at the next. Very few players come into the NHL as polished players. The fact that we're not going to be really competing means it's the perfect time to shelter some of these players and ease them into the NHL pace. Jake and McCann were thrown into the fire, "either produce at the NHL level or sit" we couldn't afford rookie mistakes costing us games and hurting our playoff hopes. had we been more patient with them and worried less about the team results and focussed on their development, they might be farther ahead than they are today. 49 minutes ago, CaptainLinden16 said: There is no 100% right answer here. It is a stylistic and strategic preference. But I would say it is safer to develop players slowly. Either way I don't think this argument deserves the animosity it is creating. Messier sure...Marchand fine...Keith/martin/Doughty absolutely, but not this... You're right, there is no 100% answer, every prospect is different and needs to be handled differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob_Zepp Posted July 6, 2017 Share Posted July 6, 2017 2 hours ago, CaptainLinden16 said: I am not sure where this whole argument stands There is no argument as it takes more than one party. This petulant fellow seems to be both confused (face palming himself) and incapable of seeing a depth move without strings as simply that. All is fine in that the hate for Canuck management is strong with a few and it would be disappointing to see some of those ever say anything constructive. It is all entertaining and speculative and if any of the UFA players prove to be great value as players or assets for trade, that will be long forgotten as the next negative rant will have taken hold. All good fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted July 6, 2017 Share Posted July 6, 2017 3 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said: There is no argument as it takes more than one party. This petulant fellow seems to be both confused (face palming himself) and incapable of seeing a depth move without strings as simply that. All is fine in that the hate for Canuck management is strong with a few and it would be disappointing to see some of those ever say anything constructive. It is all entertaining and speculative and if any of the UFA players prove to be great value as players or assets for trade, that will be long forgotten as the next negative rant will have taken hold. All good fun. What is the overall goal of signing someone like Gagner? Seems like every sports writer is trying to figure that out, but only the select few CDC members are smart enough to figure out the master plan. As far as haters. i've been one of JB's biggest supporters, but that doesn't mean i have to agree with every decision made. People can state mirco arguments like help our PP, provide more depth, but what is the goal on the Macro level? Is it to push us into playoff contention or is it as simple as making the team slightly more competitive? To me and a lot of other hockey minded people, there doesn't seem to be a marco goal in mind, it's far closer to play things day by day and hope for the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainLinden16 Posted July 6, 2017 Share Posted July 6, 2017 2 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said: There is no argument as it takes more than one party. This petulant fellow seems to be both confused (face palming himself) and incapable of seeing a depth move without strings as simply that. All is fine in that the hate for Canuck management is strong with a few and it would be disappointing to see some of those ever say anything constructive. It is all entertaining and speculative and if any of the UFA players prove to be great value as players or assets for trade, that will be long forgotten as the next negative rant will have taken hold. All good fun. I don't think Foppa hates Jim. Or at least I hope he doesn't, as I like Foppa, and am in love with Jim. Hahahhaha From what I know, he was a pro-hockey player at a minor level. I say that with only the outmost respect as I have certainly never amounted to that in terms of sport. If you understand that then you can see that he would be biased towards giving young players a chance. I mean how frustrating would be to be in the AHL or ECHL and there is a career minor leaguer at 32 taking icetime from you when you have potential to be better. I would be more biased towards giving the kids a chance too if I had gone through that. Now I don't know if that is the case, but one could assume that strong convictions come from somewhere. Also its not a wrong opinion on its own. I think you are more likely to create a star player by having them playing the NHL first and letting them ride out their mistakes. The Sedin's got that from Crawford. I remember how mad everyone was about the sisters not having earned their ice time. I am not saying that this is the way everyone should be developed, but to just say that all kids should be in the AHL for 4 years or whatever extended period is wrong. Elite offensive players need to play with other talented players in order to maintain their skill level. I don't want a team of only 200 ft responsible hockey players. I want Pavel Bure sitting a center ice ready to score 60 in a season. I want to see Sedinery. I want to be ENTERTAINED!!!! hahahaha. I prefer offensive hockey, and it cant definitely slow down the progress of an offensive player to spend too much time in the minors. I am really excited about this season because Jim got us all these shinny new toys! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainLinden16 Posted July 6, 2017 Share Posted July 6, 2017 Just now, ForsbergTheGreat said: What is the overall goal of signing someone like Gagner? Seems like every sports writer is trying to figure that out, but only the select few CDC members are smart enough to figure out the master plan. As far as haters. i've been one of JB's biggest supporters, but that doesn't mean i have to agree with every decision made. People can state mirco arguments like help our PP, provide more depth, but what is the goal on the Macro level? Is it to push us into playoff contention or is it as simple as making the team slightly more competitive? To me and a lot of other hockey minded people, there doesn't seem to be a marco goal in mind, it's far closer to play things day by day and hope for the best. So this asset management thing that everyone talks about. Horribly misunderstood by hockey fans by the way. In order to maximize the value of your asset. It actually has to be valuable. SURPISE!!!! That means you have to win games and have your players rack up individual stats. Otherwise, nobody wants your garbage. The way you do that is by putting as competitive of a product as possible on the ice. You can then trade players who outperform for the season at the trade deadline or at the end of the season. It's a lot easier to get a good deal for Tanev if we are on the brink of the playoffs than as the 29th best team in the league. Hitting the lottery is way harder than improving the trade value of your veteran players by playing a more competitive roster. You also played competitive sports at a high level. Loosing sucks a lot. You don't want to be on a team when all you do is loose, and you go into every game expecting to. I can never see the logic of this argument ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob_Zepp Posted July 6, 2017 Share Posted July 6, 2017 5 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: What is the overall goal of signing someone like Gagner? Seems like every sports writer is trying to figure that out, but only the select few CDC members are smart enough to figure out the master plan. As far as haters. i've been one of JB's biggest supporters, but that doesn't mean i have to agree with every decision made. People can state mirco arguments like help our PP, provide more depth, but what is the goal on the Macro level? Is it to push us into playoff contention or is it as simple as making the team slightly more competitive? To me and a lot of other hockey minded people, there doesn't seem to be a marco goal in mind, it's far closer to play things day by day and hope for the best. Once again, he is a placeholder and a free (no asset involved) asset without strings. If you need it translated to a language you understand Google can help. If you don't like that plan, fine. But it is that simple. I am not all that sure it will work but unlike you, happy to see how it works out and then opine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob_Zepp Posted July 6, 2017 Share Posted July 6, 2017 8 minutes ago, CaptainLinden16 said: I don't think Foppa hates Jim. Or at least I hope he doesn't, as I like Foppa, and am in love with Jim. Hahahhaha From what I know, he was a pro-hockey player at a minor level. I say that with only the outmost respect as I have certainly never amounted to that in terms of sport. If you understand that then you can see that he would be biased towards giving young players a chance. I mean how frustrating would be to be in the AHL or ECHL and there is a career minor leaguer at 32 taking icetime from you when you have potential to be better. I would be more biased towards giving the kids a chance too if I had gone through that. Now I don't know if that is the case, but one could assume that strong convictions come from somewhere. Also its not a wrong opinion on its own. I think you are more likely to create a star player by having them playing the NHL first and letting them ride out their mistakes. The Sedin's got that from Crawford. I remember how mad everyone was about the sisters not having earned their ice time. I am not saying that this is the way everyone should be developed, but to just say that all kids should be in the AHL for 4 years or whatever extended period is wrong. Elite offensive players need to play with other talented players in order to maintain their skill level. I don't want a team of only 200 ft responsible hockey players. I want Pavel Bure sitting a center ice ready to score 60 in a season. I want to see Sedinery. I want to be ENTERTAINED!!!! hahahaha. I prefer offensive hockey, and it cant definitely slow down the progress of an offensive player to spend too much time in the minors. I am really excited about this season because Jim got us all these shinny new toys! I played too and have my thoughts but try to keep my personal inability to be a career NHL player out of my observations. I know what it is like to be a touted prospect and get less than a full chance but I also know that the older I get now that it was easier to blame others for me not being quite good enough than it was to realize that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted July 6, 2017 Share Posted July 6, 2017 2 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said: Once again, he is a placeholder and a free (no asset involved) asset without strings. If you need it translated to a language you understand Google can help. If you don't like that plan, fine. But it is that simple. I am not all that sure it will work but unlike you, happy to see how it works out and then opine. And he was the only place holder? There weren't other place holders willing to sign 1 or 2 year depth deal? How many place holders do canucks need? Oldnews seemed to agree with my line of thinking less than a month ago. Here i'll post it again. "With Goldobin, Boeser, Granlund, Baertschi in the lineup though - it would necessarily mean that someone like Goldobin is bumped down/out of the lineup - and creates even more of a bottleneck with guys like Virtanen, Dahlen, Molino, Gaunce, (perhaps Rodin)." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainLinden16 Posted July 6, 2017 Share Posted July 6, 2017 16 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: And he was the only place holder? There weren't other place holders willing to sign 1 or 2 year depth deal? How many place holders do canucks need? Oldnews seemed to agree with my line of thinking less than a month ago. Here i'll post it again. "With Goldobin, Boeser, Granlund, Baertschi in the lineup though - it would necessarily mean that someone like Goldobin is bumped down/out of the lineup - and creates even more of a bottleneck with guys like Virtanen, Dahlen, Molino, Gaunce, (perhaps Rodin)." The perception of the bottleneck is if you really think that none of these players have real potential. I contend that growth is uneven and somewhat sporadic. We are taking 6 shots in the hope that one or two lands. Its a quantity game. If they are all the same and simply need to be watered to grow evenly into 2nd line hockey players then fine get rid off all of the vets. It's my understanding that some of these players will never amount to much and some will be very solid maybe even great players. Competition will flush that out. If someone wilts under the pressure then probably not a good playoff performer for whenever we get there, as that is the goal right? We are the most injured team in the history of sports too, so I don't mind a player coming up from the minors and playing 50 games rather than starting with the big club right off the bat. That all being said, I would love to spitball Virtanen, Goldobin and Hutton into McKinnon or something cool like that. One can dream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted July 6, 2017 Share Posted July 6, 2017 32 minutes ago, CaptainLinden16 said: So this asset management thing that everyone talks about. Horribly misunderstood by hockey fans by the way. In order to maximize the value of your asset. It actually has to be valuable. SURPISE!!!! That means you have to win games and have your players rack up individual stats. Otherwise, nobody wants your garbage. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. Players can rack up points on garbage teams and still get to value. 32 minutes ago, CaptainLinden16 said: The way you do that is by putting as competitive of a product as possible on the ice. You can then trade players who outperform for the season at the trade deadline or at the end of the season. It's a lot easier to get a good deal for Tanev if we are on the brink of the playoffs than as the 29th best team in the league. It's there any evidence to support that? Teams don't care about what place a players team was, they care about the value the player brings. leafs were able to get 2 second round picks for Polak, a first and a prospect for franson and santo despite being at the bottom. If we are on the bubble, we are more likely to keep tanev than to trade him. 32 minutes ago, CaptainLinden16 said: Hitting the lottery is way harder than improving the trade value of your veteran players by playing a more competitive roster. You also played competitive sports at a high level. Loosing sucks a lot. You don't want to be on a team when all you do is loose, and you go into every game expecting to. I can never see the logic of this argument ever. It's not about tanking, it's about progressing. Canucks are going to loss no matter what. gagner isn't going to solve that issue. We have players that are unknowns with high potential. I'd much rather find out for sure what we have in them, than to see that ice time go to Gagner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted July 6, 2017 Share Posted July 6, 2017 7 minutes ago, CaptainLinden16 said: The perception of the bottleneck is if you really think that none of these players have real potential. I contend that growth is uneven and somewhat sporadic. We are taking 6 shots in the hope that one or two lands. Its a quantity game. If they are all the same and simply need to be watered to grow evenly into 2nd line hockey players then fine get rid off all of the vets. It's my understanding that some of these players will never amount to much and some will be very solid maybe even great players. Competition will flush that out. If someone wilts under the pressure then probably not a good playoff performer for whenever we get there, as that is the goal right? We are the most injured team in the history of sports too, so I don't mind a player coming up from the minors and playing 50 games rather than starting with the big club right off the bat. That all being said, I would love to spitball Virtanen, Goldobin and Hutton into McKinnon or something cool like that. One can dream. There value today wont get that type of return. Shelter them in the NHL, inflate their NHL numbers and Bingo. AHL numbers don't hold much in value, at best your getting back a reclamation project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted July 6, 2017 Share Posted July 6, 2017 42 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: And he was the only place holder? There weren't other place holders willing to sign 1 or 2 year depth deal? How many place holders do canucks need? Oldnews seemed to agree with my line of thinking less than a month ago. Here i'll post it again. "With Goldobin, Boeser, Granlund, Baertschi in the lineup though - it would necessarily mean that someone like Goldobin is bumped down/out of the lineup - and creates even more of a bottleneck with guys like Virtanen, Dahlen, Molino, Gaunce, (perhaps Rodin)." Weak. Don't quote me out of context attempting to use my post to qualify your opinion, particularly when you're misrepresenting my position. You cherry picked that quote (didn't even quote the post itself - either to avoid the notification or the fact you've taken it out of context) from the Ryan Spooner discussion. Spooner and Gagner are not equivalent assets, not by a longshot. My point in not being too keen on the Spooner option was that he is necessarily a winger at this point - very weak faceoff guy (38%) - and as such would be displacing a young winger - you'll notice that every player I listed there is a winger (whereas Gagner is likely to push Chaput down a spot). Spooner is a left handed winger, and doesn't represent the same kind of powerplay option that Gagner does. And finally, as an RFA, his rights would have cost something, whereas Gagner is an asset free UFA. Gagner is a viable center - and moreover is right-handed, unlike Spooner - meaning he's both a better powerplay option - and he could be used as a bottom six center - in which case he could actually enhance the production of a young winger or two - like Goldobin or Virtanen, Gaunce - in a similar role to the one he played in Columbus. You just never know when to stop. I wasted enough time in this thread on a 'discussion' with you and won't be wasting any more after this (so have your patented, tedious, dog-on-a-bone last word and be done with it) - but don't attempt to take an out of context quote of mine (which you necro'd from a dead thread from May lol) to prop up a weak opinion of your own, in an entirely different context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainLinden16 Posted July 6, 2017 Share Posted July 6, 2017 26 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. Players can rack up points on garbage teams and still get to value. It's there any evidence to support that? Teams don't care about what place a players team was, they care about the value the player brings. leafs were able to get 2 second round picks for Polak, a first and a prospect for franson and santo despite being at the bottom. If we are on the bubble, we are more likely to keep tanev than to trade him. It's not about tanking, it's about progressing. Canucks are going to loss no matter what. gagner isn't going to solve that issue. We have players that are unknowns with high potential. I'd much rather find out for sure what we have in them, than to see that ice time go to Gagner. I do think that defense isn't absolutely objective and quantified through points. So for an offensive player to be traded it may even benefit to be on a bad team with less structure, but for a good defensive player I would say that it would help to be a on a good team. I don't have any specific evidence to back it up, but I would say that it is intuitively correct. You don't see a lot of teams trading away players at the deadline or at the end of the season when they are on the brink of being a playoff team; but that is precisely what they should be doing if they were truly asset managing. As again the goal is to win the cup not make it into the 8th seed. I am fairly positive that Nashville would've received a massive offer for say Ekholm at the trade deadline. I don't agree that we are going to lose no matter what. Nothing stays still. Teams decay. Again improvement isn't linear. Regression isn't either. Boeser or Goldobin or even Virtanen could score 40 next year. That makes everything else irrelevant as that would make us a playoff team. I also think you are unfairly riding Gagner. I think he is a good player, and he is a playmaking centerman. That is important when most of our young players are wingers. Goldobin, Boeser, and Virtanen aren't going to hit max potential playing with Grindy McGrinderson (Sutter, whom I love as a RW). The Sedins need a very specific player, and Bo is a lot more of a playmaker than I ever though; but I would still contend that Ganger is the best type of centerman to develop our young wingers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted July 6, 2017 Share Posted July 6, 2017 Just now, oldnews said: Weak. Don't quote me out of context attempting to use my post to qualify your opinion, particularly when you're misrepresenting my position. You cherry picked that quote (didn't even quote the post itself - either to avoid the notification or the fact you've taken it out of context) from the Ryan Spooner discussion. Umm look above the post of mine you minus.....Entire quote in all it's glory. Just now, oldnews said: Spooner and Gagner are not equivalent assets, not by a longshot. My point in not being too keen on the Spooner option was that he is necessarily a winger at this point - very weak faceoff guy (38%) - and as such would be displacing a young winger - you'll notice that every player I listed there is a winger. He's also left handed, and doesn't represent the same kind of powerplay option that Gagner does. And finally, as an RFA, his rights would have cost something, whereas Gagner is an asset free UFA. Spooner was talk about being moved for a player we were going to lose in ED in the first place. Spooner at 25 years old 62% ozone starts. 38.9 FO% 14:06 ice time, 39 points, 11 goals (-8) Gagner at 25 years old 65% ozone starts. 47.5%, 17:15 ice time, 41 points, 15 goals, (-28) Just now, oldnews said: Gagner is a viable center - No he isn't.... He's never been over 50% in the draw and tort felt his position wasn't strong enough to play center so he put him on the wing. Just now, oldnews said: and moreover is right-handed, unlike Spooner - meaning he's both a better powerplay option - and he could be used as a bottom six center - in which case he could actually enhance the production of a young winger or two - like Goldobin or Virtanen, Gaunce - in a similar role to the one he played in Columbus. With what roster spot is that? Goldy and Jake will be in Utica because gagner took their spot. Just now, oldnews said: You just never know when to stop. I wasted enough time in this thread on a 'discussion' with you and won't be wasting any more - but don't attempt to take an out of context quote of mine (which you necro'd from a dead thread from May lol) to prop up a weak opinion of your own, in an entirely different context. So in conclusion, gagner is a right handed shot, slightly better FO% where both are more suited to play wing, both soft, both need sheltered minutes with high PP opportunity..... Completely not equivalent assets.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.