Polaris922 Posted June 3, 2015 Author Share Posted June 3, 2015 Clarke needs to stfu.that article is bitchy and whiny , I can't believe I wasted my time on it.my feelings about this echo @ruxpin 's . Chicago's big 3 are better than Pittsburgh's big 3 when it comes to winning; Peyton Manning was great but would you take him over Tom Brady who has all the rings and married a super model ?That's just it... The "big three" is pointless. They're very similar stats wise. Supporting cast, however, is the difference. Toews gets a lot of credit and should, but he's had his playoff slumps too. Difference is secondary scoring makes up for it when he does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Difference is secondary scoring makes up for it when he does. Nothing against Pittsburgh, but a better defense and arguably a better coach has also helped. I think most of the time I'd take Fleury over either Niemi or Crawford, but in the playoffs.... this year aside (I thought Fleury played well this year) I'd take Crawford. Point understood about core vs. core. It's just that when it comes to "go" time, Kane, in particular, comes up big. Toews too. Crosby does seem to get rattled and Malkin seems to really disappear. No knock on Crosby/Malkin intended, and with the understanding that supporting case is a great point, I'd personally take Toews/Kane first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pilldoc Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Nothing against Pittsburgh, but a better defense and arguably a better coach has also helped. I think most of the time I'd take Fleury over either Niemi or Crawford, but in the playoffs.... this year aside (I thought Fleury played well this year) I'd take Crawford. Point understood about core vs. core. It's just that when it comes to "go" time, Kane, in particular, comes up big. Toews too. Crosby does seem to get rattled and Malkin seems to really disappear. No knock on Crosby/Malkin intended, and with the understanding that supporting case is a great point, I'd personally take Toews/Kane first. I can't say it any better than this.....thank you. and as Rux put it...this is not a knock on Crosby or Malkin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 I said Malkin tends to disappear. It's not necessarily fair because there have been stretches where he has carried the team while the rest of the team disappears. So my comment is just eye test and may be arguably wrong, but it just seems at "go" time (facing elimination or in possible clinch game) Crosby seems rattled or disinterested and Malkin looks like Kovalev. And for Kane...he could have a bad game but suddenly score off the goalie's foot from the end board or get the bounce in OT or whatever. And Toews goes and gets his team up 2-0 or whatever a leader does when it's zip up or go home. Not always. Obviously there's 3 years in the last 5 that they didn't win. But odds vs. odds, not to beat a dead horse (it's glue already): Toews and Kane. Polaris...what I wish we could magically do is put Toews/Kane on this year's Pens team and put Crosby/Malkin on the Hawks. Due to supporting cast and also, especially, due to injury, I don't think the Pens fair much better. What I'd be interested in is what difference it makes (better, less, no difference) with Crosby/Malkin on the Hawks. I don't know how that'd go to even try to guess/predict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notfondajane Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Clarke needs to stfu. that article is bitchy and whiny , I can't believe I wasted my time on it. my feelings about this echo @ruxpin 's . Chicago's big 3 are better than Pittsburgh's big 3 when it comes to winning; Peyton Manning was great but would you take him over Tom Brady who has all the rings and married a super model ?Peyton is not a cheater! Speaking just for me yes I would! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted June 3, 2015 Author Share Posted June 3, 2015 @ruxpinMalkin almost always disappears first round. I've pointed that out repeatedly going back to the great Couturier debate. It's like he needs a warmup round or something. I've never understood that. Of course this year he stated non-existent in the International games after the Rags knocked them out too so who knows?No doubt defense played a part too. Seabrook and Keith are far better than Martin and Lovejoy. Lol. But that's just all in my supporting cast point to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B21 Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 @ruxpinMalkin almost always disappears first round. I've pointed that out repeatedly going back to the great Couturier debate. It's like he needs a warmup round or something. I've never understood that. Of course this year he stated non-existent in the International games after the Rags knocked them out too so who knows?No doubt defense played a part too. Seabrook and Keith are far better than Martin and Lovejoy. Lol. But that's just all in my supporting cast point to me. Forget the core or the supporting cast. Biggest edge for the Hawks? Quennville > Bylsma/Johnston. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 @ruxpinMalkin almost always disappears first round. I've pointed that out repeatedly going back to the great Couturier debate. It's like he needs a warmup round or something. I've never understood that. Of course this year he stated non-existent in the International games after the Rags knocked them out too so who knows?No doubt defense played a part too. Seabrook and Keith are far better than Martin and Lovejoy. Lol. But that's just all in my supporting cast point to me. Oh yeah. I was just kind of reinforcing your "supporting cast" thing with that part. Because clearly there's something to that. Inarguably, really. And you have said the Malkin thing many times. I'll testify to that. And you're right. Which goes to my personal preference for Toews/Kane in the playoffs vs. Crosby/Malkin. For sake of argument, let's call Toews/Crosby a wash. Maybe even Kane/Malkin is a wash. But somehow Toews/Kane > Crosby/Malkin for me. I still would love the bizzaro world experiment where those two pairs switch places and see what shakes out. I still think your "supporting cast" thing comes up to bite Toews/Kane in the butt in Pittsburgh but I'm not positive I'd put money on Chicago with Crosby/Malkin at the front. I really do think Crosby gets rattled or disinterested (they're opposing concepts, I think, so not at the same time). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarsippius Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Yaaaaaaawn..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 The bottom line my indeed be, the two superstar system does not work long term in the NHL. It does not leave enough money for a supporting cast. The Pens have found this out....the Hawks will get a better idea next year. One thing for sure, in the years leading up to signing the second star, you had DAMN well better have drafted REAL strong to fill the gaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyercanuck Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 The bottom line my indeed be, the two superstar system does not work long term in the NHL. It does not leave enough money for a supporting cast. The Pens have found this out....the Hawks will get a better idea next year. One thing for sure, in the years leading up to signing the second star, you had DAMN well better have drafted REAL strong to fill the gaps. It works (see Chicago) You just need to be able to draft well. Shero didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 @flyercanuck Well, Chicago may have got their cups out of it...and who knows, maybe one more, so yeah, guess you could say it worked, but the long term thing, that is looming right around the corner...where they must rip their team's core apart and decide which star to ship out of town. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyercanuck Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 @jammer2 It definately seems more of a short term thing, unless you can continually bring in good cheap young talent. The Hawks have easily been the best at doing that so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B21 Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 @flyercanuck Well, Chicago may have got their cups out of it...and who knows, maybe one more, so yeah, guess you could say it worked, but the long term thing, that is looming right around the corner...where they must rip their team's core apart and decide which star to ship out of town. This is the 8th season of the Kane/Toews/Keith "era". 7 playoff appearances... 2 Cups (and looking like a 3rd)... 2 other trips to the Conference Finals... That's not long term success? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 @flyercanuck Look no further than the deadline deal bringing in Vermette, two game winners in the past 3 games....a good solid investment. If anyone can get the Hawks through this, it's Bowman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 This is the 8th season of the Kane/Toews/Keith "era". 7 playoff appearances... 2 Cups (and looking like a 3rd)... 2 other trips to the Conference Finals... That's not long term success? Of course it is....just pointing out it all seems to be coming to an end. I mean, if you could do it all over, would you still have Malkin and Crosby on the same team, and continually struggle with the wingers and depth...the Penguins have not exactly helped themselves out with offensive drafting either, perhaps it works out if you hit a few home runs in the goal scoring dept at the draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B21 Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Of course it is....just pointing out it all seems to be coming to an end. I mean, if you could do it all over, would you still have Malkin and Crosby on the same team, and continually struggle with the wingers and depth...the Penguins have not exactly helped themselves out with offensive drafting either, perhaps it works out if you hit a few home runs in the goal scoring dept at the draft. Maybe. They "retooled" before and it worked. Keep the core. Recycle the supporting. As @flyercanuck pointed out, that requires good drafting, development and the occasional low cost gem off the scrapheap. The Pens lack of success drafting and developing forwards is what has hurt them. Would I still have Malkin and Crosby all over? Of course. There are ways to make both "options" work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 @B21 The other thing to consider is....average players are making a move on the 9 and 10 million dollar players....Jeff friggin Petry just got 6 mill a year, so maybe, when putting that into the proper context, the 2 star system is not that bad....you have to consider, trading a Malkin and freeing up that cap space would not net you two star players, just to slightly better than average players, especially when factoring in these CRAZY numbers we are about to see coming July 1st. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notfondajane Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Maybe. They "retooled" before and it worked. Keep the core. Recycle the supporting. As @flyercanuck pointed out, that requires good drafting, development and the occasional low cost gem off the scrapheap. The Pens lack of success drafting and developing forwards is what has hurt them. Would I still have Malkin and Crosby all over? Of course. There are ways to make both "options" work.We have to keep our draft picks. Some guy named Jim Rutherford keeps trading them away thus far! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pilldoc Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 We have to keep our draft picks. Some guy named Jim Rutherford keeps trading them away thus far! Are you sure it is not Homer in disguise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notfondajane Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Are you sure it is not Homer in disguise? at this point I'm not sure?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B21 Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 @B21 The other thing to consider is....average players are making a move on the 9 and 10 million dollar players....Jeff friggin Petry just got 6 mill a year, so maybe, when putting that into the proper context, the 2 star system is not that bad....you have to consider, trading a Malkin and freeing up that cap space would not net you two star players, just to slightly better than average players, especially when factoring in these CRAZY numbers we are about to see coming July 1st. Or one "star" - figure the going rate for a top notch winger is $6,000,000? That leaves $3,000,000 to spend on ??? Heck, 2/3 of the 30 NHL teams had $3,000,000 in cap space when the season ended. The problem is that the "next" contract almost always has to be higher than the "last" contact. Getzlaf and Perry get $8.5 million? Malkin must be worth $9.5 million. So Kane and Toews must deserve $10.5 million. Cue $11 million for Stamkos. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. Problem is, the cap doesn't keep up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 @B21 Safe to say, 10 mill does not get you what it did just 3 or 4 short years ago....pretty sure you could not even recieve a 10 mill deal until last year, but you know what I mean. The line is greying between the stars and the superstars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 The line is greying between the stars and the superstars. As long as GMs want to continue to screw themselves over with these Finger/MacDonald/Petry type deals, the line is going to get blurrier. I'm thinking someone comes along like Moneyball and changes the dynamic. Used to be you got big money OR length. Now guys are getting insane length AND insane money. Two insanes don't make a sane. When you add in NMC/NTCs, all shreds of sanity are torn away. The problem is that the teams continue to act in the SAME ways that caused the last three lockouts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyercanuck Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.