Impossible to explain to somebody who never played the position

In terms of ability, Murray is simply vastly superior, like Mrazek is superior to me

In terms of ability, jagr is still a 1st line nhler, but his body isnt capable of doing it anymore, therefore he is not good or better than someone who can produce better results.
But apparently it's impossible to explain to someone who has never played the position

Tbh both are on equal footing, minus the fact that Murrays contract is a little more inflated. Both have been either inconsistent, injured or both over the past 3 years and last year both were waived without being claimed. Other than the fact that Matt Murray won 2 cups and is 2 years younger, their values are about the same. In theory, if the Leafs send back cash to pay the difference a trade makes sense in a few ways, especially due to the fact that Dubas and Keefe love their Soo guys lol.

The Murray statue is going up next to the kallgren statue.

Well I have played hockey for 3+ decades, and other sports at a high level too when I was younger. So yes I understand all that, of course as it was MY point, not yours... until now apparently lol

Like it is the case every single time, another discussion with you going nowhere. Let's just stop quoting each other. I can take 100% of the blame if you want, as long as we don't exchange anymore...



Yeah, I think the difference is Murray has been "damaged" for a longer period of time. I only had one knee surgery 7 years ago and even though I don't even feel any pain, it just contributed to me "growing older", I never been able to play at the same level as before. Murray's injury history is reminiscent of Rick DiPietro and Pascal Leclaire. Goalies with great ability but can't stay healthy to save their lives. I would bet that Mrazek's history is nothing in comparison

I personally wouldn't trade Mrazek for Murray if I was the Leafs, well unless the Sens retain a good chunk of Murray's AAV, then it would be changing a risk for another risk but who could pay up more. They'd be banking on Murray getting healthy before the playoffs and staying healthy all the way (which would be miraculous but you never know). If the Sens retain 50%, then Murray's AAV would be 3.125 (better than Mrazek at 3.8) but then the Sens would want an incentive to do that

Just for fun and fantasy talk, you know what I would do?

Matt Murray (50% retained)
Connor Brown
7th OA pick

William Nylander
Peter Mrazek
25th OA pick

Leafs get a 25th to 7th OA pick boost, swap Nylander for Brown and swap Mrazek for Murray

I think I'll make an ACGM for that, curious to see what people think

I have also played hockey for a very long time, at a pretty high level too. My point was that your point is nonsense and pretending that 'playing the position ' means anything when evaluating players is just an excuse for people who cant back up their arguments with facts.
And if you dont want to engage any more then stop engaging. Good lord dude, you whine about pissing contests with wet pants and now you're complaining about engagement when you're knocking on my door.

My point is "nonsense"... lol your last message you basically said the exact same thing I have tried to explain you in several posts...

and double lol at ME being someone "who cant back up their arguments with facts"... I mean, I have been exaggerating with too many facts for so long

Seriously, whatever, just don't quote me or I'll just have to put you on ignore like a LOT of people must have done already. I actually would venture to say that you must hold the record for this on this website

Yeah, it's almost like i was using your example against you to show you how silly it was.
Good job not engaging btw