That's a good source (I also recommend evolving-hockey and moneypuck for specific stats for comparison, especially when xG is involved because each seems to value shot, likely from cutting off the locations, differently, but Corsica is my go to).
I do know what primary points per 60 means, that's one stat that I don't remember you ever citing and I don't know why being about 300th in the league in one stat (albeit an important one) in a small sample overrides a guy having subpar in possession stats and I don't know why you got his CF% (again in a small sample) wrong or why you look there instead of xGF% if you have Corsica at your fingertips. If you wanna say MacEachern is a solid 4th liner that is thought of too much as a fringe guy that's a solid point that I would absolutely give you, but he's not middle 6. He's below average per possession stats and his primary point rate has him 9th-10th on an average team in scoring. That's a 4th line guy, maybe a 3rd line guy on a bad team (and again I actually like McEachern so I hate that you've had me feeling like I'm putting him down to add some sanity here)


nah I just said I go there if you don't believe me that I actually like MacMac a lot. They aren't a source


I do and if you did you would not only cite the correct CF% but you would look at relative CF%, xGF% or especially relative xGF% or better yet realize that the sample is too small to appeal to those as authoritative and add them in as evidence with some sanity adjustments/observations


I do think he's worth a 1st and Kostin yes, but more importantly you think Kostin is a better prospect than Kyrou, or Bokk? And with your souring on the KHL you think a guy who has only shown tools (which Gusev has in spades) and success on European ice (against much lesser competition in much smaller samples) is great but Gusev is not because he's . . . only skated on European ice? Again logical consistency would help you a lot more than trying to rip on people who clearly are not as below you as you want them to be. Kostin is a great prospect because he's young and toolsy but he's raw has hell and has shown nothing but being in over his head (which is fine because you can be patient thanks to his youth but leaves a pretty damned high bust rate and rapidly declining reasonable upside as he doesn't progress), Gusev, while a totally different style of player, is most likely NHL ready, even toolsier, and much lower risk in spite of also coming from European ice. Kostin plus a back of the first (around where you get a Kostin and think that's a steal) is not a horrible price to pay for that. It's certainly cheaper than a top 4 defender and actually makes sense with Vegas's cap


One, again with your logical inconsistency, Macmac is only 25 and thus ready to break out but Gusev is over the hill at 27 so a players prime is . . 26? and only that year is worthwhile? Anyway the pull with Gusev is while there is certianly risk (as there is with any KHL player or any player who hasn't played in the NHL for that matter) the risk is low for having never played in the NHL and the upside is high but the risk itself still makes or a cheap trade/signing (like only a first and Kostin and a 2 year $8M contract). Also remember again since we're on your logical inconsistencies you wanted to trade Blais, Macmac and Eddy for Gusev. Do you think Kostin and a (almost definitely late plus you can protect it) first is worth more than a top 4 defender a middle 6 guy and Blais (all of which is based on your assessments of Eddy and MacMac)? If so maybe this is just a long exercise in "all of my teams prospects are hall of famers and all the other teams prospects are busts" type homerism and all of the logical inconsistencies and emotions are drawn from the cognitive dissonance to maintain that. That would be terribly annoying and you gotta calm down on the prospects, but at least that makes sense in an explaining your actions sort of way. If not, p[lease dude, logical consistency, it's a thing, do it

quote=BeastModeUnknown;998941]you say Sanford isn't good[/quote]
nah Sanford is good but he's a 25ish point guy who is great in flashes and turns into a ghost for months at a time. Gusev could easily be better than that and Sanford would still be the first guy to fill in if Kyrou can't make the jump or anyone gets hurt


he was our worst defender before his injury (although some of that is Gunnarsson and Bortuzzo being underappreciated but it was also Eddy being below average). He may be great like he was a couple of years ago, but at this point we don't know if that Eddy was ral and this was just a down year and then late injury, or if this year pre-injury Eddy was real and that was just a flash in the pan/ I'm not saying I feel strongly that either one is right or wrong, and I like big, physical stay at home defenders, I'm just that we can't bank on either so Eddy is not some proven top 4 defender. Also I thought we dropped that a while ago other than me giving you that point and wondering why you would want to dump that for Gusev if Gusev sucks because you hate logical consistency


Jesus dude get over this bad strawman nonsense. The fact that I don't like over-inflating the specific Blues you want to over inflate doesn't mean I'm secretly a Vegas fan. You're the one with Reaves as your avi BTW. And yes I loved the blown kiss moment and Ryan's years here, but he's been gone for two years here. His replacement, Sunqvist broke out this year and is now a part oft eh Blues cup winning team that Reaves isn't. If your not a Vegas fan update your avi. Or was this all one long irrational exercise in you living in Reaves vicariously through Kostin and that's why you over-inflate Klim and hate Gusev not being cheaper?


uh, change that to say middle 6 and me to you. Oh also I corrected and sobered your one bad statistical point while adding good empirical points about MacMAc being a 4th liner/fringe guy (and I didn;t say just fringe, he's between 4th line and fringe, but why would someone being as emotional and obtuse as you've been care about that detail, huh?)


How can you say that looking at his actual CF%, his relative CF%, his xGF%, or his relative xGF%, all of which I cited for you? and how are you arguing that his points were suppressed because he was banished to the 4th line, but he looked good because he played the second line? And a middle 6 guy isn't a terrible thing to be, it's a very good player to be, hence why I want likely middle 6 guy Gusev, as I assume you do in spite of your comments based on your trade proposal


uh, it was the middle of December when everyone was downing the Blues, they were on the rise in the middle of January and we were all excited about Binnington and mad he wasn't handed the starting job more blindly because we were all fed up with Allen. Did you miss this season? Because it was fun and we were all saying stuff tat looks dumb now in December, it was a rough start, don't act like you were the one dude who never lost faith, but the roller coaster of emotions was what made it feel extra special (that and it was finally a cup for the Blues). Also I did not rag on the Blues after every playoff loss but where would we be without you lobbing any strawman accusation you can on me to make yourself feel because I don't know I guess I must have peed in your cheerios without realizing it


I don;t even use facebook but assuming this means a dumb message board wouldn't "The Blues prospects and fringe players are all the best and better than people realizes and anyone who doesn't think that or think that the Blues can throw together whatever trade they want in spite of another team's need or cap situation is an idiot Blues hater secret fan of the other team who doesn't watch hockey or understand how good all of the players are" be the notion of the message board and not "maybe the Blues 4th line/fringe guys are 4th line/fringe guys and if you want a low risk high reward European prospect, a high risk/medium reward European prospect and a late first are a fair cost, especially when the team getting rid of the low risk high reward guy is doing so because they're cap strapped, bplus it would benefit our team"?


I would absolutely recommend self reflection because there's this phenomenon called projection where you say something that is bad about you is true about someone else even though it is either less true or not true about that someone else, and you are projecting hard here. I would also strongly recommend logical consistency. Since neither the logical consistency or the self reflection are very likely, going our own separate way sounds great