Your version of "paraphrasing' is interesting, to say the least.
I said it was possible, but not likely - I certainly never said "inconceivable".Your version of "paraphrasing' is interesting, to say the least.
I said it was possible, but not likely - I certainly never said "inconceivable".
Skidooboy
Registered User
Cateful Sip, you sound like me. Clearly we are irrational in our dislike of this player, because..... Well some people just say We are.
Polar Vortex
Registered User
- Jul 4, 2012
- 917
- 370
Romang67
BitterSwede
Cateful Sip, you sound like me. Clearly we are irrational in our dislike of this player, because..... Well some people just say We are.
Some people just say you are? I'd say people arguing against you in the other thread provides ample reasoning for saying that you were being irrational. In fact, I'd argue that you were the one with the "just because" reasoning in that discussion.
Skidooboy
Registered User
Please illuminate me.
Tell me what he does that's so good.
What exactly he brings to the team.
It isn't points. It isn't leadership. So what is so irreplaceable about this guy?
Why should we put so much time and effort into him?
I reiterate he's been called difficult to play with, he doesn't score, he rarely makes a big game breaking play, rhe staff are always talking about how hard it is for him to adapt to the NA game, but lots of others have followed a similar path to the NHL but didn't have his growing pains....
So seriously, what is it you see?
Romang67
BitterSwede
He was a damn fine possession player before he left for the KHL. Lately, he has been picking up that part of his game again. If he's a good possession player, why would we not want him on a lower line, so as to have a 3rd or 4th line that can step out on the ice and not get hemmed in their zone shift after shift?
Not every player will be a great scorer or a great leader. A good defensive player is still a good defensive player. Why would you not want a good possession player on a lower line for a change? Instead of the Pelusos, Thorburns and Slaters of this world?
sipowicz
The thrill is gone
- Mar 16, 2011
- 31,754
- 41,497
Cateful Sip, you sound like me. Clearly we are irrational in our dislike of this player, because..... Well some people just say We are.
I haven't seen what others think they see in him since 2011, Chevy's ability to evaluate talent is suspect!
Romang67
BitterSwede
I don't want to get rid of Burmistrov because I thought he could become more than he is. If we have a better option for as much money, we replace him. If we don't, we shouldn't get rid of him just because we wish he were Tarasenko. The whole "he should be better by now, which is why we should get rid of him" line of reasoning doesn't make sense to me, as it's not a plan at all.
If he, next season, looks more like he did in 2015 than he did in 2016, we should probably not re-sign him. If he, on the other hand, is a good defensive player without being a gamebreaker or a leader, why would we get rid of him if we can sign him for cheap?
In general, my views on what we should do with the team boils down to:
1. Keep players if we don't have good options that will improve the team immediately or in the future.
2. Get rid of players if we can replace them with players that will improve the team immediately or in the future.
3. Keep players way past when it's reasonable if Sip is complaining about them, cause they WILL turn it around.
If he, next season, looks more like he did in 2015 than he did in 2016, we should probably not re-sign him. If he, on the other hand, is a good defensive player without being a gamebreaker or a leader, why would we get rid of him if we can sign him for cheap?
In general, my views on what we should do with the team boils down to:
1. Keep players if we don't have good options that will improve the team immediately or in the future.
2. Get rid of players if we can replace them with players that will improve the team immediately or in the future.
3. Keep players way past when it's reasonable if Sip is complaining about them, cause they WILL turn it around.
The bolded is the problem, people think that because of his draft position he should be some kind of superstar, but he's not paid like one and he's not played like one. If we can upgrade the roster with someone better I'm all for it, but there's several players that would get pushed off before him.
JetsFan815
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2012
- 19,249
- 24,444
Romang67
BitterSwede
People are still fighting instead of celebrating a huge loss for the Tank.
You try spending the first day of your Spring Break watching online videos about Exception Handling, then you can tell me that I shouldn't procrastinate.
Skidooboy
Registered User
I don't want to get rid of Burmistrov because I thought he could become more than he is. If we have a better option for as much money, we replace him. If we don't, we shouldn't get rid of him just because we wish he were Tarasenko. The whole "he should be better by now, which is why we should get rid of him" line of reasoning doesn't make sense to me, as it's not a plan at all.
If he, next season, looks more like he did in 2015 than he did in 2016, we should probably not re-sign him. If he, on the other hand, is a good defensive player without being a gamebreaker or a leader, why would we get rid of him if we can sign him for cheap?
In general, my views on what we should do with the team boils down to:
1. Keep players if we don't have good options that will improve the team immediately or in the future.
2. Get rid of players if we can replace them with players that will improve the team immediately or in the future.
3. Keep players way past when it's reasonable if Sip is complaining about them, cause they WILL turn it around.
And my point is that Burmistrov is easily replaceable. With guys in our own system.
With players that are already adapted to the North American game, who don't need "special understanding" from the coach and GM. Guys who are cheap or cheaper with better ELC status.
all Burmi does is fill cap space and a roster spot someone else could probably fill better.
i don't want to get rid of burmistrov because i thought he could become more than he is. If we have a better option for as much money, we replace him. If we don't, we shouldn't get rid of him just because we wish he were tarasenko. The whole "he should be better by now, which is why we should get rid of him" line of reasoning doesn't make sense to me, as it's not a plan at all.
If he, next season, looks more like he did in 2015 than he did in 2016, we should probably not re-sign him. If he, on the other hand, is a good defensive player without being a gamebreaker or a leader, why would we get rid of him if we can sign him for cheap?
In general, my views on what we should do with the team boils down to:
1. Keep players if we don't have good options that will improve the team immediately or in the future.
2. Get rid of players if we can replace them with players that will improve the team immediately or in the future.
3. Keep players way past when it's reasonable if sip is complaining about them, cause they will turn it around.
View attachment 88905
View attachment 88907
View attachment 88909
Last edited:
JetsFan815
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2012
- 19,249
- 24,444
You try spending the first day of your Spring Break watching online videos about Exception Handling, then you can tell me that I shouldn't procrastinate.
You mean catch the exception, log a cryptic message and move on like nothing happened
Romang67
BitterSwede
tntkid
Fire Maurice & Chevy
We did not need or want those points.
Lets be like Buffalo and Edmonton and prosper from sucking.
Lets be like Buffalo and Edmonton and prosper from sucking.
Romang67
BitterSwede
You mean catch the exception, log a cryptic message and move on like nothing happened
I like to think of myself as a reasonable and trusting person.
I'm assuming that my code will run, and the user won't make stupid mistakes.
Edgar Halliwax
aka Marvin Candle
Yea... I'm sure that Connor kid is going to be a bust - just like Ehlers. Chevy can't evaluate talent at all
Kamo
Registered User
- Jul 10, 2011
- 390
- 310
Yea... I'm sure that Connor kid is going to be a bust - just like Ehlers. Chevy can't evaluate talent at all
Exactly, all we get is a player picked at 17th because we made the playoffs, who probably should of gone top 5. Terrible evaluation of talent.
sipowicz
The thrill is gone
- Mar 16, 2011
- 31,754
- 41,497
Yea... I'm sure that Connor kid is going to be a bust - just like Ehlers. Chevy can't evaluate talent at all
Yup, signing Pavs and Stu to contract extensions was a stroke of brilliance because Chevy could tell after two seasons that both were potential All-Stars!
Skidooboy
Registered User
My pick from day 1 was Petan.
Or DeLeo, Or Kosmachuck.
Or kept Tulisty, or Stempniak.
There were plenty of options.
pucka lucka
Registered User
Yea... I'm sure that Connor kid is going to be a bust - just like Ehlers. Chevy can't evaluate talent at all
Kicked Chiarelli's fanny...
Chiarelli traded away his chance to draft Connor (or Barzal) for Griffin Reinhart and a 2nd.
When someone wanted to trade up for Connor, this is what Chevy said...
