Jump to content

ruxpin

Member
  • Content Count

    22,084
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    371

Everything posted by ruxpin

  1. I agree with you in the way you frame it, but I think I view the team with rosier glasses. I actually think we're simply stabilizing the defense away from being a threat. But I'm really not in favor of blowing huge holes in the roster to do it. Certainly not Sanheim. And, really, not someone like Patrick or even Laughton or some of the others. I don't really like even talking about Frost in an Ekholm deal. Like you, when we wade into trading such names, I want looking term. And in the case of either Ekholm or Savard, I don't want either one to resign. I like Savard
  2. It's all good. That's the way I took it. What's amazing is that we're this far into the season and I was still asking the question. LOL
  3. LOL! He is! Yeah, on Buffalo I'd consider Montour. Okay, so Blue Jackets. That changes the algebra on Savard, right? First, they obviously won't go for Gus. I don't think so, anyway. If they will, jump on it. Same offer as I errantly said when I was drunk and had Buffalo in my mind. But you're right that it might take Ghost, which I'm fine with if but for the expansion draft. But what the heck, go with it. Seems to me that Columbus should probably do whatever it can to get either young centers and/or picks. But if they're willing to go with
  4. I like your conditions. Yeah, usually I would say, "Ghost won't do it," but since this is Buffalo I'd say go for it Ghost + a 4th that becomes a 3rd if we make it to the finals (or semis). You could possibly do 3rd to a 2nd, I suppose. I'm not ordinarily in a rush to toss away draft picks, but I'm not that bullish on this year's draft, so do what you have to do. The only problem with doing Ghost is I wouldn't mind keeping him to expose to Seattle. I wonder if Gus instead and make the pick condition contingent upon whether Buffalo is able to
  5. Not really much to see here, huh? I'm sure the board will have additions by the time we get to the deadline, but right now kind of meh. From a a Flyers perspective, they've been involved in Ekholm rumors, but in some ways I'd prefer Savard. Player vs. Player, it's Ekholm all day every day for me. But Savard would be cheaper in terms of what is going out, we wouldn't be saddled with his contact next year, and he's a right handed shot so could slide next to Provorov better. Not a fan of him on the top pair, but it's not horrible. I'd prefer Montour. Luckily, with Buff
  6. I totally never saw it. Nor the apparently 50,000 NHL articles that led with it.
  7. Oh, I didn't think it was directed at me. Since I'm wrong so much, I just figured I'd take the opportunity to point out when it's an instance where I'm only "probably wrong."
  8. Not really relevant to his point. Keep in mind that this was about the division (and projecting with the theoretical idea of these divisions remaining the same) and that it would be difficult to break in unless someone comes down. It also is apparently with the theoretical idea that none of the teams will ever age. But I love the question asking him if he thinks the Flyers will beat Toronto. LOL Wow: "Unless they prorate, not even the 80s Oilers would beat the Leafs this year!" If you're asking me, either Boston or Philly could beat Toronto. I don't think an
  9. I suspect this is actually fairly accurate. I'd fire the coach TODAY.
  10. I wasn't one of those gnashing teeth. Don't get me wrong, when I first saw the name I was like, "wait, who?" Obviously, I had preferences at that pick. But when I looked into scouting reports and explanation, etc., I was like, "yeah, okay. You have the opportunity to gamble a little with your second pick in the first round." I think I wanted Rasmus Sandin with that pick--who by the way is the only player in the next 10 picks (I think) who has made it to the AHL, let alone the NHL (cup of coffee). So, I'm not panicked yet about O'Brien's progress, but I'm doubting he turns
  11. @WordsOfWisdom, I'd recommend seeking medical help now while you still have a chance Run, Forrest; Run!
  12. Yeah, I think you're right about the forward preference. They're a mess up front but for the life of me I can't figure out why. If they are going into rebuild mode, that will work. But if they're looking to retool on the fly, I don't know that he fits that bill -- especially injured.
  13. For my money, Farabee is untouchable. The guy is going to be a star (full disclosure: there were other people I wanted to pick in that draft and wasn't happy at the time. I realized the next season that I was wrong). That leaves Patrick and Laughton. Patrick is actually not playing horribly, though he couldn't find the net if he started out inside of it. I'd move Laughton despite being one of the seeming few who actually likes what he brings. I still think the Raffl idea could work so long as it's supplemented with a pick or some other B prospect.
  14. I don't put anything together. I pick things up; I put them down.
  15. No offense, but you really are taking a page out of @CoachX's NAK dislike here. It's okay, we all have that player. From my POV, it's not substantiated, but again, we all have that player (or players....or coaches, in my case). I think mine is Voracek. V could have a 6 point game and I swear to you I will complain about the stupid pass that sent the puck the other way.
  16. Yeah, I have no particular dislike for Ekholm. I think the pairings @mojo1917 listed would really stabilize some things. Even if you did move Myers up next to Provorov and put Ekholm with Sanheim. I'd be good with that too. Frost: I'm not as high on him as I was previously, but it's really a shame he got hurt this year, because with them toying with Patrick on the wing, this would seem to be have been his year to show he can play center in this league (or move HIM to wing). All that said, I'm not opposed to including Frost in a deal. I'm just not sure I'm the
  17. JEFF BLASHILL He is most deserving. My hesitation crowing him the "next" is that if they were going to fire him, why haven't they yet? JOHN TORTORELLA They need a change, but I'm not sure Columbus' management has come to the same conclusion. If they haven't, I'm not sure what's left to convince them. Setting the employee lounge on fire? Wrong coach for the wrong crew at this point. The carousel of goalie issues isn't helpful and not his fault, but I agree with you on the shelf-life thing. RALPH KRUGER Man, I wouldn't be stunned. That's the MO in Buffalo:
  18. It's the bolded where we disagree. I think Sanheim is better than what you're saying, and Eckholm is a 2nd pairing defenseman and has been for quite awhile. He'd be nice to have next Provorov for stability, but he's not a must have. If I'm involving Sanheim or Myers in something, it had better be a "must have." He's good. He's not great. And now he's 30. I'm not trading that kind of package for him, and certainly not the 1st round picks talked about elsewhere.
  19. I'm not at all interested in including Sanheim. Not for a 30-year old defenseman. Nope, not doing it. I'd really be opposed to that, actually. I know you have a thing with Sanheim, but I completely disagree with it. I would think about the rest of it, but I still think they need a forward in this.
  20. Agreed. It seems to me it's top heavy and with pieces that don't seem to fit cohesively. Within that, there's top-heavy pieces that aren't performing for various--but alarmingly similar--reasons (Hall & Skinner). And then surrounded by people who are unable to step up either by ability or by affect of the contagion from the non-performing "stars." I don't know how the coach or the GM get out of this, actually. They've steered the organization into a hostage situation in which they have huge contracts with players that know they aren't going anywhere and know
×
×
  • Create New...