stardog
Been on HF so long my Myspace link is part of my p
What are the other "questionable" call ups that the Pens made?Chimaera said:There have been more than one questionable callups for each team. The Caps have been calling up all different players with no real chance at making the NHL (long term) for much of the year.
Watching today's game, part of my point has been made for me, Caron's numbers are awful. Why is he still playing?
It really doesn't matter. Season's pretty much over. Lottery will fall as it will. Pens will have 'earned the first pick' the old fashioned way, and the Caps will get one of the top 5. So... all works out.
There weren't any others. At all. Every call up other than Hussey was easily an earned one....
As for your other post, it is ironic in how you choose to interpret things. After being called the worst team in the history of the NHL, they certainly can't be accused of tanking down the stretch.
In fact, they were one of the leagues best team for the final quarter of the season.
I dont think the Caps players or coaches can be accused of tanking anything. In fact, it would be difficult to prove any teams management did the same.
HOWEVER, calling up Yeats and starting him 3 games in a row is, IMO a VERY questionable move. The case could easily be made as to the reasons behind it were embedded in failure.
All of the reasons that you listed for the Pens tanking are not questionable at all with the exception of Hussey. However, Hussey recieved 4th line minutes and wasn't playing the most important position on the team.
If this were Brochu we were talking about, and he recieved a majority of the starts down the strecth run, then you would have a legitimate and valid reason to question the motive.
Yet we aren't (talking Brochu) and he didn't (recieve any starts).
Therefor you dont have much of a leg to stand on.
I mean, I understand that you are trying to defend the Caps position, and are irritated with a certain poster here. But in doing so (defending them by questioning the Pens motives) you are basically doing the very thing which you had a problem with the other poster doing.
And then you call him hypocritical.
Just because you don't like what he has to say, dont be so audacious as to make a list of all these supposed examples of the tanking Pens, and then in the same breath say that the Caps moves are defensable. These Pens moves you cited are either just as easily defensable to even more defensable.
That is speaking out of the side of your mouth as the saying goes.
Or, if you like, the pot calling the kettle black as you put it.
You basically did the same thing that you ripped into him for doing. And I would say that it wasn;t even basically, I would say it is the exact same as what you ripped him for.
If the Pens DID try to tank, then answer this. Why on earth would they have not called up Brochu and started him? While he was called up and played only after Caron was lit up for 5 goals in a period and a half, why wasn't he started? Why didn't he start any games? Why wasn't he kept up?
The answer is because the Pens were icing the very best possible roster that they could with what they had in the system.
To suggest that the moves you pointed out were an example of a team which is trying to tank is ludicrous and wreckless.
It is also just plain wrong.
To bring up other things (Beech, Maffy, etc.) is quite absurd. Plain and simple.
I could very easily pick apart the entire argument as it is simply a false interpretation on your part, yet I do not have the time or inclination to waste on a false interpretation of the facts. However, if you would like me to, I will gladly point out where your argument becomes errounious and why it became such.
No need to thank me, that is part of what the boards are for.
And I am in no way attacking you. I am simply pointing out the obvious falacies in your reasoning.
Last edited: