- png, jpeg
- Recommended minimum size 800px by 800px
- Maximum size: 1MB
Watches no games
Jul 5, 2017
2nd Favourite Team
Jul 3, 1994
Posts per Day
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Skyraider112</b></div><div>If you think Hronek is a bottom pair D man and that Risto shouldn't even play in the NHL then you may need some down time to re-evaluate......</div></div>
You're right. Your insights have swayed my opinion, I now agree with you.
Like it's so lazy you don't even present an argument. I don't even know what to tackle here. I guess since you automatically assume guys are fine just cause they have a few points, here are some things to consider:
Never evaluate points in a vacuum. Ristolainens point totals are heavily dependant on him playing on PP1, him playing with Eichel, and him playing 23+ minutes many nights. Any player would score some in those situations. We aren't actually interested in how much Ristolainen scored, but how much he scored compared to what we *expect* a player to score in that situation.
*EVEN* if Ristolainen were to score above expectations, how does that compare to at what rate offense flows back in his direction meanwhile? How do you effectively measure this? If you watched a single minute of Ristolainen you'd know he's extremely prone to blunders, to pointlessly tracking players behind the net, to trying to get physical and getting circumvented, to passing straight into turnovers on what should be breakouts, and the list goes on and on. Any model has him as one of the worst players in the league over the past decade, period, because of those reasons. Ristolainen does not only score below expectation, he wildly increases scoring in his teams direction.
Hronek is just a little bit like this - his numbers are inflated because Detroit doesn't really have anyone else, but his play doesn't have the same large net negative impact.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>gretzkyghosts</b></div><div>We can moan about poor drafts even more my friend.
Tim Murray the GM I love to hate the most.
He past on Draisaitl and took Reinhart, and past on Sergachev and took Nylander.
At least Reinhart appears to have developed finally, but Nylander is good AHL player.
Then Sweeny passing on Barzal, not once, not twice, but three times to pick DeBrusk, Senyshyn and Zboril.
I think we are pretty much in agreement on this trade, it is an over payment, DeBrusk will bounce back but in the end Buffalo will have more practice pucks, while Boston will be in the playoffs for the next 5 years.
Give me your feed back.
I do not like Hall and Eichel on the same line.
I think Cassidy should keep he Bergeron line together
Marchand Bergeron Pasternak
Haula Eichel Smith
Hall Coyle Foligno
Hall and Eichel do not need each other to play well they make their line mates play better.</div></div>
Yeah GM's actively trying to outbrain themselves is probably the most frustrating aspect to watch as a fan. Like you have 3 picks. You can pick the guy and get two guys you sneakily like.
I cautiously agree in the sense that you can get better deals - like half of that package should easily land you a Hertl who'd be amazing on this Bruins team. But again, if you push me on it, especially with Grzlcyk replaced by Carlo or so, I'd pull the trigger. But yeah, Grzlcyk and DeBrusk aren't just any throw-ins. I was gonna say DeBrusk probably wasn't that bad of a pick in that spot even in hindsight - Barzal is good but Connor that a lot of people would've liked there is overrated imo, but then I realized what a crazy draft that was.
Honestly I'd specialize them more. Eichel and Pasta for the O-zone starts /and Eichel carrying pucks if necessary) and Hall with the defensive duo to have one of the best puck winners along with two of the best guys going the other way. My biggest issue though isnt where anyone of them plays really though, its seeing Haula anywhere in that lineup. He'll cause me so much frustration this season.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>gretzkyghosts</b></div><div>It is such a pleasure to hear words of wisdom on this site.
You mention O'Reilly to the Blues.
When the trade was made, nearly every pundit thought it was a good deal for both teams.
On January first after the trade the Blues were so excited with the trade, they were discussing breaking up the team at the TDL.
Six months later they are holding the cup.
But you also mentioned the Thornton trade.
In past 15 years or so, I would say Boston has lost three trades by wide margins.
Of course the Thornton deal, but what do they have to show for Wheeler and Seguin?
About the same as the Sabres have from losing Kane, O'Reilly and Lehner.
Three players that the Sabres gave up multiple picks and former first round picks to obtain.
Now have Thompson to show for all of those trades.
I could even add Kessel to the Boston ledger.
Initially it looked as Boston won the trade by a wide margin getting Seguin and Hamilton, but where are they now?
While Kessel got to hoist two cups.
So for Buffalo the past 10 years they have lost both ends of the trades.
When they got the best player in the deal and when they traded that player away.
Boston on the other hand, trades away great players and still manages to be in cup contention every year.
Buffalo is the laughing stock of the league now, it all started when Pegula took over the team.
I imagine when the dust settles the Sabres will have bucket of pucks to show for trading Reinhart, Ristolainen and Eichel.
The same one Boston has for trading away, Thornton, Wheeler and Kessel.
The difference is Buffalo has practice puck, while Boston pucks are from the Stanley Cup playoffs.</div></div>
Yeah. I do think there are a lot of difficult concepts in here to grapple with as well. On O'Reilly for example, I just disagreed with popular opinion even then. Stl was shafted by goaltending for a while when they were playing pretty well and I created mocks trading Mittelstadt for Tarasenko - how crazy would that have been. But no, instead the typical defensive fan goes "my prospect will become great, no player I could trade for is as good" until the trade actually happens and then they flip.
And this brings me to my next point, cause you lay it out really well. The Bruins have made TERRIBLE decisions, potentially more than any winning franchise this millenium (although Chicago comes to mind). But they've been lucky. And I'm the first fan to recognize that. The front office of the team I prefer makes terrible decisions. Getting Dougie and Seguin? No thanks, I'll flip that for more senseless mid-round picks, think I won big in Brandon Carlo, and in reality let the same core players we got lucky with picking late in the first, in the second and in the 3rd round carry the team.
And one has to remember - even if there are Brad Marchands, or more recently Brayden Points or whatever past the first round, or players like Pasta late in the second;
NOBODY KNOWS WHO THEY ARE. IF THEY DID THEY WOULDNT GO IN THE 2-3RD ROUNDS.
Like this is not a consistent strategy. If you over time accumulate, or trade aging players or for bad contracts, you can gather enough to make it likely at least some turn into NHLers. Arizona might have something to show for their like 8 3rd rounders next year, but Buffalo probably won't for giving up Taylor Hall.
BUT, I was really appreciated with what they got for Ristolainen. Good on them.