SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

TN71

Member Since
Mar. 11, 2018
Favourite Team
Montreal Canadiens
Forum Posts
204
Posts per Day
0.1
Forum: Armchair-GMNov. 26, 2019 at 11:45 p.m.
Forum: Armchair-GMAug. 11, 2019 at 3:17 p.m.
Forum: Armchair-GMAug. 4, 2019 at 9:06 p.m.
Thread: Fowler
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>mytduxfan</b></div><div>What an incredibly short-sighted statement. Brooks is an impressive kid, but he's has 0 NHL games. The jump from WHL to AHL is steep, let alone from WHL to NHL. I mean, we have Sam Steel, who posted 50 goals and 131 pts in the WHL in 2017, won CHL top scorer, won WHL top scorer, was WHL player of the year and was a 1st team All-star. We think he'll turn out into a nice 2C. Meanwhile, your less impressive player, with weaker credentials, playing a position that is much harder to predict is going to surpass Fowler, an NHL level, top 4 D-man any day of the week with the ability to play as a complimentary top pairing D alongside a legit 1D. Yeah, good luck with that. Absolutely ridiculous, but just another classic case of potential &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; actual player playing in the NHL.

The going rate for a player of Fowler's ability is replacement roster player + young, high potential prospect + 1st. We literally just traded Montour, a far lesser player than Fowler, for 2 of those things.

P.S. I don't care if you'd prefer to keep Brooks over trading him for Fowler. I think that would be the best thing for MTL, tbh. What irritates me is your suggestion that (a) Fowler is bad because he had 23 pts - the whole team sucked this year because of RC and pts isn't exactly a good metric to judge D-men, and (b) Brooks will probably end up better than Fowler - the high likelihood being he won't.</div></div>

Please watch some of Josh Brook's games. He is a great right shot defenseman who is amazing in the D Zone and great in the O Zone. We also have Romanov on the left side coming up. Dont really need Fowler.
Forum: Fauteuil - DGJul. 21, 2019 at 12:05 a.m.
Thread: 2019
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>habitantlecolon</b></div><div>it's easy to be confused when you look at a team like the old 1234 units of old era. here i've made the best suitable combination to be sure to create a real contender in 2019.</div></div>

But is it worth throwing away our future? We don’t need to be contenders next year because our prospect pool is amazing. In 2 or 3 years, we could be the serious contenders. You sign Joel Edmundson, but how can Romanov fit in on the 1st pairing in a couple years? You then have to choose between trading Mete, Chiarot or Edmundson and their value goes down because teams know you want to trade them. You’re also stuck with no cap space to sign Domi, KK, Poehling, Gally, Danault, Tatar, Petry, etc in 1 or 2 years.
Forum: Armchair-GMJul. 5, 2019 at 7:08 p.m.
Thread: GardinerPuljujarvi
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>natze</b></div><div>If it comes to overall abilities, maybe you're right. But Kulak/Reilly are better shutdown Ds and (as already mentioned by SCGLisme) Mete is waiver exempt.
Can't see lines are messed up...where, why?
In an ideal world you would get Alzner's and Weise's contracts off the book. But while this will not happen the idea was strengthen top 4 D and add a young player that may become a potential steal. If it doesn't pan out, you're not stuck with an overpaid veteran.
In addition, I think a full season w/ Mete-Juulsen in the AHL will help both getting desperately needed consistency. Have to admit that I don't feel very confident about Mete as a reliable future top 4 D. - But may the Hockey Gods prove me wrong! :awesome</div></div>

And about the lines, first of all, no 4th line LW. Second, you shouldn’t break the most consistent line the Habs has last year, Tatar-Danault-Gally. Third, just looking at the way he dominated in dev camp, Poehling NEEDS a spot on the team. Also, Armia and Lehky are slightly overpaid.
Forum: Armchair-GMJul. 5, 2019 at 7:03 p.m.
Thread: GardinerPuljujarvi
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>natze</b></div><div>If it comes to overall abilities, maybe you're right. But Kulak/Reilly are better shutdown Ds and (as already mentioned by SCGLisme) Mete is waiver exempt.
Can't see lines are messed up...where, why?
In an ideal world you would get Alzner's and Weise's contracts off the book. But while this will not happen the idea was strengthen top 4 D and add a young player that may become a potential steal. If it doesn't pan out, you're not stuck with an overpaid veteran.
In addition, I think a full season w/ Mete-Juulsen in the AHL will help both getting desperately needed consistency. Have to admit that I don't feel very confident about Mete as a reliable future top 4 D. - But may the Hockey Gods prove me wrong! :awesome</div></div>

First, Mete has played big shutdown minutes beside Weber so I wouldn’t necessarily question his reliability on defence. His offensive consistency has to improve but that comes with experience. The problem is that without Mete, there is no left handed puck moving dmen. As seen in the playoffs, Gardiner cannot be trusted and Kulak and Chiarot are not really puck movers. You therefore have to rely solely on Petry to move the puck.