SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

keepcalmandbergeron

Member Since
Apr. 29, 2016
Favourite Team
Boston Bruins
Forum Posts
404
Posts per Day
0.1
Forum: Armchair-GMMar. 29, 2019 at 3:57 p.m.
Thread: If the bruins had drafted correctly
Still a bit early...

It appears that way now, but by No means do I think Senyshyn or Zboril are done. Everyone chooses to ignore the fact that the Bruins are good and have been*. There is less of a necessity to get these guys up and on an NHL roster. The Bruins have been notoriously slow at bringing their guys up. Also, to be fair - you need to praise the hell out of them for their Carlo pick. This could also be said about every team, every draft. Senyshyn is a year behind due to illness and Zboril just turned 22. Jake Debrusk is also a beast and is going to be a superstar.

At the end of the day, I think they made two mistakes. I'll take Debrusk there any day and be ok with losing out on one of the aforementioned. There is still plenty of time for this to not look as bad as it seems now. Senyshyn is McDavid fast and dmen develop slower.

* I know Winnipeg is good and has been, but it's because they were very bad and got to pick Sheifeile, Laine, Trouba and Ehlers. Speaking of Winnipeg Mark Schiefele is a perfect example. It seemed at the time and for three years the Jets had really blown that draft. They Didn't. If it were redrafted today. Schiefele would likely go #1 overall. Not saying Zboril or Senyshyn will have that arc, just that theirs isn't done yet.
Forum: Armchair-GMFeb. 25, 2019 at 7:09 a.m.
Forum: Armchair-GMFeb. 24, 2019 at 9:29 p.m.
Thread: If Stone wanted to sign
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Breakaway</b></div><div>Not enough cap space if you follow exactly what this guys thinks, but theres zero chance Backes is back, like litterally none. If the Bruins go 10% over the cap in the offseason signing Stone then they'll find a way to move Backes and it'll still be worthwhile even if it took a 1st round pick. If a rental deal was going to have a conditional 1st in it to resign Stone then why wouldn't it be smart to pair a 1st with Backes to move his total hit so you can afford Stone in UFA? You're just stating the obvious in this mock which everyone already understood; If the Bruins sign Stone than Backes has to go..... it's common knowledge on here and you should have known that by now.</div></div>

It still is not enough. Do the math. As of now they have 65m in salary already next year for 16 players. Move Backes with no retention and no salary back (good luck). 59m. 15 players. Cap is 83. That’s 24m. Stone, CMac, Carlo going to take roughly 18-21 leaving 3-6 left to sign Heinen, Cehlarik, JFK , replace Chara, Acciari, and Kampfer. Impossible. So now you have to get really creative, piss off the RFAs and low ball them, or trade Krug.
Forum: Armchair-GMAug. 22, 2018 at 2:04 p.m.
Thread: Replacing Prospects with Current Players(ceiling projections)
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Canadianape</b></div><div>this is the first thing I posted. yes I touched on the fact that I didn't like Projections. but as you can read the majority of what I wrote is telling him that noenof the prospects come anywhere near the comparisons he made and he is wrong to compare prospects to 1st/2nd line players and top pairing defenseman and top 5 goalies in the league. meaning I disagree with every single one of his projections

finally as I said to the other guy im done commenting on this. it is my <strong>OPINION</strong> that doing things on this website that are not even close to realistic is a waste of time however hes free to post whatever he wants but that doesn't mean he is protected from criticism for those posts</div></div>

As Berg said: "You can't move the goal posts to score a goal and in this case you doing it to try to win an argument in logic."

Your entitled to your opinion. No one ever robbed you of it. But then again, criticism in the form of changing the context of the original post is an exercise in futility in its own. So what are we even talking about anymore?

There's a difference between:

"I don't agree with you on any of those projections based on X reasons.."

and

"his comment maybe ignorant but he's not wrong. comparing prospects to current players is an exercise in futility and a complete waste of time. I could just as easily list all the Habs prospects and say their ceiling is the equivalent of Connor Mcdavid IMO. in every single one of your examples above there is absolutely no evidence that any of those prospects come anywhere near the potential ceilings of their corresponding player. and its not a small portion that will reach that potential its like 1 in 200 especially with the majority of the guys that you listed being 1st to 2nd line players and top pairing defenseman/ top 5 NHL goalies. not even remotely realistic"

The whole problem revolves around misinterpreting the context of OP's intent with the AGM, which I for some odd reason, seemingly understood. For something that is so virtually impossible to quantify (players future projections), let's have some fun and just speculate. That's it. Not remotely realistic? He's not saying it <em>will</em> be. (I mean I could get into the specifics about players like Pastrnak and McCavoy having pretty dead on projections but who cares at this point?)

Imagine it as If he's saying if any one of these players were to hit their max potential, this is what I'd hoped them to be. No one is saying they will all become these players. Even OP said "I realize only a small portion will realize their full potential." Maybe Pastrnak will be the only one to reach that potential out of the bunch, I mean he's technically ahead of where Kucherov was at the same age so its not even remotely close to being "not even remotely realistic". But maybe its only Acciari's comparable in DSP. Is it so absolutely proven that Acciari will never perform what DSP has thus far in his career? Come on.........You are misinterpreting "I think McCavoy will the next Doughty" with "I think if everything works out for McCavoy, he could be the next Doughty one day". He's on his way but will need to still improve every year to be Doughty but its not an impossibility.

So what exactly is <em>your</em> argument again?.........I disagree with some of his projections also but based on what his objective was, he's no more wrong than he is right. Technically.
Forum: Armchair-GMAug. 22, 2018 at 10:06 a.m.
Thread: Replacing Prospects with Current Players(ceiling projections)
Sweet jesus, I am convinced people only come here to argue the slightest things sometimes... <a href="/users/keepcalmandbergeron" target="_blank">@keepcalmandbergeron</a>

Your description was clear enough and I understood exactly what you were getting at with it from the start.

I don't necessarily agree with half the comparisons but then again its purely opinionated so who gives a flying ****......

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Canadianape</b></div><div>

<strong>Scouts and Analysts use projections to compare and contrast similarities in play styles. such as this guy................. plays like this......... guy.</strong> no analyst or Scout in the history of the league has come out and said I think this guy is gonna be the next Kucherov or Rinne or Doughty. that's a great way to destroy your credibility because 99% of the time that player is not gonna reach that projection.

also to the point of projection I do truly see them as a complete waste of time because there are hundreds of instances when a player is touted to be the next big thing and then fails miserably and also the other way around where a player becomes a top player in the league after going tin the 7th round at the draft. <strong>a projection is completely opinionated and as an analysis tool, completely useless. however if you are going to make a projection atleast make them somewhat realistic. Ex. Studnika and Frederic do not have the potential to be Ryan O'rielly or David Backes</strong>

could you imagine if a hyoung guy walked into the team ho drafted him and the first thing he is told by everybody is we expect you to be the next kucherov. talk about ridiculous expectations</div></div>


So its ok for an analyst to "compare and contrast similarities in play styles" but not for OP? All he's doing is projecting if a players potential is fulfilled and based on the style of play currently, this is potentially what he thinks they will be. No where does he say " Gabrielle is the next Gallagher and will be 100% for sure". He's simply giving his opinion on what he hopes a player can be. There is no waste of time here except for your opinions of how he shouldn't be wasting his time doing this. You have that backwards, YOU shouldn't be wasting YOUR time if you don't agree with the premise of the AGM. Not him. You aren't giving constructive criticism.

Once again so you say these projections are useless but if you do use them, at least make them realistic? Oh ok so YOUR OPINION is what can makes it realistic? See where that is very<strong> hypocritical</strong>?

So stop with psycho-analytical babble and read the description again:

Replacing Prospects with Current Players(ceiling projections)
"Borrowed this format from jassan28, thought it would be<strong> fun</strong>. In most cases I've tried to find players of the same position, handiness, back-round, style, draft position and progression.<strong> Keep in mind this is my take on their ceilings and I realize only a small portion will realize their full potential.</strong>"

For Christ's sake, you don't go to an art gallery and argue an artists own interpretation of his work.
Forum: Armchair-GMAug. 21, 2018 at 5:01 p.m.
Thread: Replacing Prospects with Current Players(ceiling projections)
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Canadianape</b></div><div>his comment maybe ignorant but he's not wrong. comparing prospects to current players is an exercise in futility and a complete waste of time. I could just as easily list all the Habs prospects and say their ceiling is the equivalent of Connor Mcdavid <strong>IMO</strong>. in every single one of your examples above there is absolutely no evidence that any of those prospects come anywhere near the potential ceilings of their corresponding player. and its not a small portion that will reach that potential its like 1 in 200 especially with themajority of the guys that you listed being 1st to 2nd line players and top pairing defenseman/ top 5 NHL goalies. not even remotely realistic</div></div>

What is the point of projections than? There is no actual proof to link a player to any projection as you say, yet scouts and analysts use it all the time......

Regardless, Its exactly for what OP said it was. <strong>For fun</strong>. There is no proof behind it, simply ones opinion. There is nothing wrong with that. You can claim every Habs prospect the next McDavid if you'd like, that is your opinion. Not one I share but can't take you opinion away. Maybe try to convince you otherwise but that's it.

The only waste of time so far has been the commentors not reading the description and going straight for the jugular on something that is supposed to be strictly opinionated.