There is no player who has been a supreme leader at the age of 20 without a really strong leadership group to support and mentor.
Having no captain is the exactly right move at this point. Eichel isn't there yet, and it remains to seen will he get there without that support group. ROR and other vets have simply been failures there. Handing the C to a guy like ROR, who is who is, would have been a fatal sign. "Hey, despite the fact that you have been in the league for almost a decade, and have failed to be a leader in both organisation, we hand you the C, because we simply lack better candidates". Yeah, that makes sense...
So failing as a leader is defined in wins?
Absolutely no-one who has watched the games could say anything like that. There isn't probably clearer consensus on this board on any other topic than the fact that Kane/Eichel don't work optimally (despite the fact they're producing).
You're confusing the topics. Kane/Eichel don't work optimally together. That's very true. But they do produce ES offense together. It's imply that the other 90% of the game, is garbage.
But what you say doesn't make sense from the statistical pov neither.
Eichel's w/o stats simply show, that Eichel's line has been more productive without Kane and even under worse deployment.
Eichel w/ Kane
GF 2,62, OZ% 64,41
Eichel w/o Kane
GF 2,96, OZ% 42,59
Kane w/o Eichel
GF 0.67, OZ% 46.67 (yeah, it's definitely Kane inflating and not the other way around...)
Sure, the sample size is not 50/50, it's about 1/4. It's still telling enough given the difference.
Man... i love how how you pin ball on sample size.... lol
Maybe... include last season for a better sample size? Uh oh... your narrative might break...
But hey... sure, taking away the 2nd highest ES Goal Scorer in the NHL over the last 12 months... won't affect Eichel... because he's a superstar, on a 63 point pace....
I absolutely love how the same players, who are direct reasons for Larsson's/Reinhart's failures become the reasons why Eichel produce. If there has ever been an agenda....
I don't know what you're referencing
This post is comical. I mean, I used a lot of energy and time to repeatedly tell you the premises of the negotiations... And still you don't get those...
You wasted a lot of energy regurgitating an argument that I fully understood, and completely disagreed with. I said numerous times that I was fully aware and prepared for the likely outcome, and then I argued with fact as to why it was a stupid way to go. Not that it wasn't possible and not that it wasn't likely... but that it was dumb. And here we are... In a 3rd season, where Eichel will score at around a Pastrnak level at best, while we will pay him 33% more.
We would've been far better off letting him play the season, and play FOR 80 million. Instead we get to watch him coast... The risk that Eichel would perform to a level that would've coast us MORE than 80 million, wasn't a risk at all.... like I said... that would've been a BENEFIT. I would LOVE for Eichel to be playing his ass off for a mega contract... I'd give that player 12 million.
It was a strategic failure. A simple minded approach. And it has backfired. We will never get the young star playing AND developing in a contract season. We flushed that development and opportunity down the toilet for what? Potentially saving 1 or 2 million per year in cap space?
Moronic.
I think we will keep seeing this narrative for a long time. It's the only "logical" way to explain themselves how they were so out-of lunch regarding the contract negotiations. And it doesn't seem to matter how many times you explain it, it's hard to kill. Just like the "draft for need narrative". It's because it is agenda driven.
There was nothing out to lunch about understanding the entirety and simplicity of the argument for the contract Eichel got, and simply disagreeing with it.
You are reframing the past. I never argued that Eichel WOULDN'T get 10 per. I argued that it was dumb to do that. And here we are.
And dont think its forgotten... how you hedged every possible position with nonsense like:
"less than 8.5 is unlikely, 8.5-9.5 is possible, 9.5 to 10.5 most likely, greater than 10.5 possible"
My memory is better than yours
