No QO for Pirri

[The Midnight Burrito]

I never said this.

"if the core guys don't perform, we won't win anything" ≠ "we don't need depth guys" - that's a leap in the argument you made, but I never said it.

Sauce was right, you're trying too hard. The attention seeking is starting to show.

You're arguing it, like it or not. You just haven't thought it through. Also: poster posts 1,000 word manifestos, accuses others of attention seeking. Welcome to summer school at hf.

 

[Ducks DVM]

Pirri is no gem. For the right price I'd give him a shot again, but also realize it's likely you're bringing in someone later on to replace him. He has an amazing shot and not much else. Don't think he's all that comparable to Perreault or Palmieri.

He's also a tough guy to find a comparable for, due to his lack of games, but I'm guessing his team would show off his goal scoring rates, which are tremendous. ES G/60 over the last two years put's him in the same company as guys like Gallagher, Galchenyuk, Tatar, T.Johnson, Nelson and Jenner. PP G/60 and he's one of the leagues elite. Obviously more to a player than that, but tough numbers to ignore.

I know. I'd rather he re-signs Perron, but the kid is young and has one hell of a shot. Pirri is only above McGinn on the list of "oh well" for me. It's just depressing that the list is so long. And that we got a guy for a 6th who could be a PP specialist, and then don't retain him.

Meh

 

[Ducks DVM]

I never said I didn't want depth scoring. My question is, how do you plan to pay for it though?

I think what burns me is the difference between us and Chicago. Chicago keeps the core, develops young talent, then trades it for a king's ransom. We develop young talent, then let it walk away.

I'd rather trade Stoner/Bieksa and keep the talent we have. I don't trust BM to bring in a legit forward talent. Or to keep him if he does.

 

[mytduxfan*]

You're arguing it, like it or not. You just haven't thought it through. Also: poster posts 1,000 word manifestos, accuses others of attention seeking. Welcome to summer school at hf.

Fine! quote me. Where did I write "we don't need depth scoring"? Surely it's somewhere in that 1000 word manifesto I wrote.

Look, you may think you're the smartest here with those pointless quips you keep churning out (as if we give a ****), but I know what I'm arguing more then you.

P.S. If I were the one seeking attention, I'd be the one with "Ice Cream Bunny" written under my username. You're not impressing anyone kid.

 

[Paul4587]

I think what burns me is the difference between us and Chicago. Chicago keeps the core, develops young talent, then trades it for a king's ransom. We develop young talent, then let it walk away.

I saw thinking the same thing earlier. The reason they're still competitive is because they trade guys away for huge amounts of assets and always have guys ready to jump in to the roles of those who left. Bowman has made some mistakes but his asset management is very good (the Bickell trade being the exception).

 

[mytduxfan*]

I think what burns me is the difference between us and Chicago. Chicago keeps the core, develops young talent, then trades it for a king's ransom. We develop young talent, then let it walk away.

Errrr... didn't they just traded TT in order to dump Bickell? Even Bowman makes mistakes. Also, I don't think the return for Saad was that great, certainly not a "king's ransom".

CHI has only been able to cram so much scoring talent into their line-up because of that peach of a deal Keith signed (cap circumvention) and the fact that Toews, Kane, Saad, and Seabrook all flourished early in their careers whilst on very, very cheap deals. We don't have that luxury (and neither do many teams) and, when we did, we won the cup with Getzlaf and Perry on cheap ass deals.

I think what you're really frustrated about is that we don't have more young, cheap talent coming through in the form of draftees. Hence, the desire for depth scoring to replace that missing talent. I can understand that frustration. Etem was a bust, Holland didn't meet his projections, Palms didn't fit here/moved too early, etc. However, I really think we're turning a corner on that front. Cam was a good pick up, Rakell was a great 30th OA pick, Gibson is slowly getting there, Lindholm has been a revelation as was Andersen, Theodore, Ritchie, Montour, we're getting somewhere. It's just unfortunate that those guys will probably only be ready by the time Getzlaf and Perry have declined. Not really sure what BM can do on that front other then keep drafting for when Getzlaf and Perry are gone. I don't think overspending on depth scoring is the solution though, especially if it puts re-signing core players i.e. Lindholm and Rakell, at risk.

I'd rather trade Stoner/Bieksa and keep the talent we have. I don't trust BM to bring in a legit forward talent. Or to keep him if he does.

I'm 100% confident that BM feels the same way, but moving the Stoners/Bieksas of this world isn't easy and may even cost us. If BM brings in a high-end LW, I have no doubts about whether or not he'd keep them. I agree that BM lets go of depth forwards too easily, but he tends to think highly of core guys.

 

[mytduxfan*]

I saw thinking the same thing earlier. The reason they're still competitive is because they trade guys away for huge amounts of assets and always have guys ready to jump in to the roles of those who left. Bowman has made some mistakes but his asset management is very good (the Bickell trade being the exception).

I disagree. CHI totally hit the jackpot on Panarin.

 

[Ducks DVM]

Errrr... didn't they just traded TT in order to dump Bickell? Even Bowman makes mistakes. Also, I don't think the return for Saad was that great, certainly not a "king's ransom".

CHI has only been able to cram so much scoring talent into their line-up because of that peach of a deal Keith signed (cap circumvention) and the fact that Toews, Kane, Saad, and Seabrook all flourished early in their careers whilst on very, very cheap deals. We don't have that luxury (and neither do many teams) and, when we did, we won the cup with Getzlaf and Perry on cheap ass deals.

I think what you're really frustrated about is that we don't have more young, cheap talent coming through in the form of draftees. Hence, the desire for depth scoring to replace that missing talent. I can understand that frustration. Etem was a bust, Holland didn't meet his projections, Palms didn't fit here/moved too early, etc. However, I really think we're turning a corner on that front. Cam was a good pick up, Rakell was a great 30th OA pick, Gibson is slowly getting there, Lindholm has been a revelation as was Andersen, Theodore, Ritchie, Montour, we're getting somewhere. It's just unfortunate that those guys will probably only be ready by the time Getzlaf and Perry have declined. Not really sure what BM can do on that front other then keep drafting for when Getzlaf and Perry are gone. I don't think overspending on depth scoring is the solution though, especially if it puts re-signing core players i.e. Lindholm and Rakell, at risk.



I'm 100% confident that BM feels the same way, but moving the Stoners/Bieksas of this world isn't easy and may even cost us. If BM brings in a high-end LW, I have no doubts about whether or not he'd keep them. I agree that BM lets go of depth forwards too easily, but he tends to think highly of core guys.

There's a very long, very storied list of players who were traded out of Chicago for nice returns. The last one doesn't negate all the rest of them.

Also, it's not usually overspending on depth scoring. It's appropriately spending on depth scoring. All we do is cheap out on depth scoring. As a budget team, maybe we can't afford depth scoring, because of some questionable decisions on depth defenders, but his behavior shouldn't be legitimized by pretending the guys in question are overpaid.

Edit - Chicago draft picks

'10 - 10 picks, 1 1st, 4 2nd, 1 3rd
'11 - 11 picks, 2 1st, 2 2nd, 2 3rd
'12 - 8 picks
'13 - 8 picks
'14 - 9 picks
'15 - 7 picks no 1st
'16 - 9 picks no 1st
62 picks

Ducks

'10 - 8 picks, 2 1st
'11 - 7 picks, 1 1st, 2 2nd, 2 3rd
'12 - 8 picks
'13 - 5 picks
'14 - 5 picks
'15 - 7 picks
'16 - 6 picks
46 picks

 

[Duck Off]

True, trading Palms and then replacing him with Stewart was a bad move. I think the trade can be justified (Palms playoff showing alone is enough for me - I've got no time for guys looking to getting carried), but I guess you're right that BM didn't exactly replace him with anything better and probably made the team worse in picking up Stewart. Ok, you've convinced me, BM ****ed up big on the Palms trade.

Pleasure doing business with you.

Ironically I wanted Palmieri traded going into that off-season. However, I wanted him traded as part of a package for a more proven top 6 winger. I shared your frustrations about him. Obviously Murray did too. He just gets so damn caught up in future pieces that I often think it hurts the present team too much.

 

[Paul4587]

I disagree. CHI totally hit the jackpot on Panarin.

You disagree with what? Panarin was a guy they signed who was ready to come into a slot they had open after trading Sharp.

 

[mytduxfan*]

There's a very long, very storied list of players who were traded out of Chicago for nice returns. The last one doesn't negate all the rest of them.

Also, it's not usually overspending on depth scoring. It's appropriately spending on depth scoring. All we do is cheap out on depth scoring. As a budget team, maybe we can't afford depth scoring, because of some questionable decisions on depth defenders, but his behavior shouldn't be legitimized by pretending the guys in question are overpaid.

Edit - Chicago draft picks

'10 - 10 picks, 1 1st, 4 2nd, 1 3rd
'11 - 11 picks, 2 1st, 2 2nd, 2 3rd
'12 - 8 picks
'13 - 8 picks
'14 - 9 picks
'15 - 7 picks no 1st
'16 - 9 picks no 1st
62 picks

Ducks

'10 - 8 picks, 2 1st
'11 - 7 picks, 1 1st, 2 2nd, 2 3rd
'12 - 8 picks
'13 - 5 picks
'14 - 5 picks
'15 - 7 picks
'16 - 6 picks
46 picks

You'll have to give me some examples of these "king ransom" returns you're talking about,

Sharp, Saad, TT, Shaw, those are 4 recent deals where CHI did not get a kings ransom as a return.

Not sure what the significance of the picks is. Anaheim has produced more NHL players then CHI since 2007 (the drafting of Kane) and has more of them on roster. What's your point?

You disagree with what? Panarin was a guy they signed who was ready to come into a slot they had open after trading Sharp.

I disagree that "the reason they're [CHI] still competitive is because they trade guys away for huge amounts of assets and always have guys ready to jump in to the roles of those who left". CHI success has come from tanking it for years, acquiring high draft picks, drafting well with those picks and getting a top quality player in the form of Keith to sign a cap-circumventing contract. This year was the only year they've been squeezed financially and they lost Saad and Sharp and replaced them with lesser talent. Then... boom... Panarin fell in their laps.

All I'm saying is that CHI's success isn't because Bowman is some wiz GM who is somehow outplaying BM/all other GMs and replacing talent worth 5-6M per on the open market for better players getting <1M. CHI were totally noncompetitive for years and acquired high picks as a result. Having those cheap, top class, core players meant that Bowman could spend tonnes of extra cash on veteran guys like Hossa and Sharp. However, those young, highly-skilled players that go top 3 in the draft aren't available to BM or most GMs on contenders. It's easy to build a contender when you have elite level players in their prime years whilst still on ELC. Then when Bowman was first forced to get creative he had a superstar 24 year old fall into his lap and sign a ridiculously cheap contract. Again, those players are not available to any GM, let alone BM. Bowman is no better then Lou, Tim Murray or Chia. If those guys are successful, it'll all have been because they tanked it for years, got good cheap players as a result and surrounded them with more expensive veteran talent.

 

[Duck Off]

Last summer was probably Murray's worst. He made a lot of mistakes. Although it's very early, at least so far it doesn't appear that he's learned from him. In some ways, Murray is fortunate that the team started so horrendously, so that the blame could more easily be shifted to the players.

Agreed. Unfortunate, because he was set up better than he'd ever been. Not to mention having more cap space and assets at his disposal.