Member Since
August 3, 2017
Forum Posts
Posts per Day
Forum Threads
Forum: Armchair-GMSep 12 at 1:24 pm
Thread: Krug
Forum: Armchair-GMJun 24 at 2:41 am
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 25 at 12:53 pm
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>icehawk2006</b></div><div>Where do I start. I’m wondering if you’ve ever watched a game of Sharks hockey. You claim San Jose screwed another signing without any justification and you’re lecturing me on not providing evidence? What a joke. 1) Hertl has never once reached 50pts in his career and had lengthy injury history. You can’t just focus on playoffs as your starting point as a players future salary is based off of the entire body of work. His advanced stats are good but the results just don’t speak to a player who makes above $5M per season. The majority of the informed hockey world believes the type of player with this record only make just below $5M. All of the comps for Hertl’s contract make $5M or less. That’s how I know there’s a 95% probability he doesn’t make more than $5M per. Kane is getting market value at $7x7 because that’s what other GMs, some experts, and quite a few computer models said it would be. That’s based on his point production, advanced stats, and perceived market value due to his toolbox of skill. If you paid attention to hockey you would know this. 2) Trading Boedker/Martin is what other people are doing because it makes the most sense and is the most realistic, anything else is ridiculous. 3) the Sharks have specifically said Balcers isn’t ready for the NHL and will likely start on the AHL roster. By the way, this blog doesn’t require us to write a dissertation on why we are write, just say where we disagree. I just assumed you were knowledgeable Sharks fan (my bad). I explained myself this time just for fun so you might actually learn something and go do research before making ridiculous claims like “Sharks screwed another signing”.</div></div>

As you can see, I gave Hertl 5.2 million which is close to what youre saying, my point was that Kane doesnt deserve that much (compare to Pastrnak, Barkov, Huberdau or Granlund and their money).

I chose to trade Burns because i do not like his defense play, what i expected was reaction about his play which is what i asked in explanation, you just commented on everything else but man, you cant take it so seriously, maybe i should have written impossible in the name of the topic...
Well since i didnt have that much time last week i dont know what Sharks said about Balcers, I saw him 2 weeks ago few games at WC and giving him couple of games in the beginning of the season wouldnt could help him.

If you think you know so much about hockey, you wouldnt claim about yourself you are better and you undestand it more, i admit i do not have time to watch all stats and thats why i wanted you to hear some arguments to learn a bit too, not to fight about sh*t

About bad signigns, first Burns, too long term and bit too much money (and this caused Vlasic getting his money, if Burns got less, Vlasic would go for less too) Boedker - inconsistent player who is not top 6 forward (and was not by the time they signed him) in Sharks, 4 millions are too much. Martin - one year longer term, but thats not that bad.
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 25 at 4:52 am
Page 1 of 4