The All Purpose Thread | Relevant Rivalries

[Ryder71]

Just want to point out that you'd probably have much better conversations if you weren't so damn condescending towards everyone who disagrees with you even a little bit

I'm not trying to be condescending, I just find it hard to believe that some here are ok with our blue line depth. This is a legitimate and viable issue. I can't be the only one who sees this. Or is outraged by it. JR on the Friday before the deadline acknowledged it after getting Brassard, so I can't believe in a three day period he couldn't get anyone. It just defies logic! He aimed too high and got too involved with the Rags and didn't have enough time to get a depth defensemen. That is absurd.

 

[NMK11]

I'm not trying to be condescending, I just find it hard to believe that some here are ok with our blue line depth. This is a legitimate and viable issue. I can't be the only one who sees this. Or is outraged by it. JRon the Friday before the deadline acknowledged it after getting Brassard, so I can't believe in a three day period he couldn't get anyone. It just defies logic!

I think everyone here recognizes our blue line depth is probably one of if not our biggest weakness. But its also not as bad as it was last year where Hainsey was playing top pairing minutes and Mark Streit played in a few post season games. If theres one thing JR isnt its gunshy. If there was a trade he could have made I feel like he would have done it. The bigger issue going into the TDL was our center depth which is frankly more important than defensive depth. If he could have addressed both Im sure he would have, but if you have to pick you grab the center at the expense of your bottom pairing D every day and twice on Sunday.

No one is disagreeing with our blue line depth being a problem, but no one is going to be outraged when were headed into the playoffs with the deepest forward depth weve had of any of our recent runs and with a better top 6 D than last year.

 

[HandshakeLine]

I similarly find it hard to believe that people here really buy into that whole "insider" thing/anonymous rumor posts, but hey, whatcha gonna do? We all got our vices.

 

[Ogrezilla]

I'm not trying to be condescending, I just find it hard to believe that some here are ok with our blue line depth. This is a legitimate and viable issue. I can't be the only one who sees this. Or is outraged by it. JR on the Friday before the deadline acknowledged it after getting Brassard, so I can't believe in a three day period he couldn't get anyone. It just defies logic! He aimed too high and got too involved with the Rags and didn't have enough time to get a depth defensemen. That is absurd.

everybody would rather we have an extra D. But outraged is strong. He made moves that made us better. We aren't perfect, but we are a damn good team. Better than we were before the deadline. Better than we were last year imo. So could we have been better? I think so. But does that outrage me? No. JR and this team have just done too much good lately for me to be outraged at this point. We don't know what moves were available. Maybe people wanted too much. Maybe we didn't like the guys available. I don't know. You don't know. I do know that our team got better. I know it has weaknesses, namely D depth. But what team doesn't have weaknesses?

 

[Ryder71]

No one is disagreeing with our blue line depth being a problem, but no one is going to be outraged when were headed into the playoffs with the deepest forward depth weve had of any of our recent runs and with a better top 6 D than last year.

We had better depth last year although we we didn't have the high end talent. But depth and talent are two different things. That team was worse in transition but I would definitely favor that team as far as killing penalties, blocking shots and preserving the lead. And Letang this season has been very very inconsistent.

 

[Ryder71]

everybody would rather we have an extra D. But outraged is strong. He made moves that made us better. We aren't perfect, but we are a damn good team. Better than we were before the deadline. Better than we were last year imo. So could we have been better? I think so. But does that outrage me? No. JR and this team have just done too much good lately for me to be outraged at this point. We don't know what moves were available. Maybe people wanted too much. Maybe we didn't like the guys available. I don't know. You don't know. I do know that our team got better. I know it has weaknesses, namely D depth. But what team doesn't have weaknesses?

The thing that infuriates me the most is that we got a guy the caliber of Brassard and couldn't keep Cole or add some such player. Which logically is the harder get? Guys like Cole or Hainsey are not untouchables. Brassard clearly is the higher mountain to climb, that's the part that disturbs me. You can climb Mount Everest, but you can't complete a 5K walk.

 

[Peat]

I don't see much difference in Hunwick/Corrado as depth than Ruhwedel/Streit tbh. Obviously Corrado going down put a hole in that but they weren't to know at the time.

 

[Ryder71]

I don't see much difference in Hunwick/Corrado as depth than Ruhwedel/Streit tbh. Obviously Corrado going down put a hole in that but they weren't to know at the time.

I do, Corrado and Hunwick are dumpster fires. Ruhwedel and Streit while unremarkable weren't liabilities.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

"Outraged" and "infuriated" are pretty strong words for your favourite team's GM not making one move at the deadline that you wanted but still coming out a net positive.

 

[Ogrezilla]

I do, Corrado and Hunwick are dumpster fires. Ruhwedel and Streit while unremarkable weren't liabilities.

Streit was absolutely a liability

 

[Ryder71]

Streit was absolutely a liability

Not as bad as Hunwick, no, not even close. And I don't even like Streit.

 

[Ogrezilla]

Not as bad as Hunwick, no, not even close. And I don't even like Streit.

Disagreed.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

That said, I do miss Cole. He was basically a 2nd pairing quality defenseman that we had the luxury of playing on the 3rd pair. Underrated offensively and in transition too.

 

[Ryder71]

That said, I do miss Cole. He was basically a 2nd pairing quality defenseman that we had the luxury of playing on the 3rd pair. Underrated offensively and in transition too.

Reliable on the PK as well, particularly on a 5 on 3.

 

[Tom Hanks]

The thing that infuriates me the most is that we got a guy the caliber of Brassard and couldn't keep Cole or add some such player. Which logically is the harder get? Guys like Cole or Hainsey are not untouchables. Brassard clearly is the higher mountain to climb, that's the part that disturbs me. You can climb Mount Everest, but you can't complete a 5K walk.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

That said, I do miss Cole. He was basically a 2nd pairing quality defenseman that we had the luxury of playing on the 3rd pair. Underrated offensively and in transition too.

Oh, I agree. It's not about Cole, and more about the fact I think adding Brassard to the bottom six goes a lot further to bolstering this roster than keeping Cole would have done.

It would be kind of like adding Kucherov at the expense of Maatta. Sure, it would hurt the defense a bit losing him, but see ya, Olli, and welcome Nikita.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Oh, I agree. It's not about Cole, and more about the fact I think adding Brassard to the bottom six goes a lot further to bolstering this roster than keeping Cole would have done.

It would be kind of like adding Kucherov at the expense of Maatta. Sure, it would hurt the defense a bit losing him, but see ya, Olli, and welcome Nikita.

I think what irks is that it seemed unnecessary. Cole was basically on the outs over a personality clash and we had less effective players to shed salary with.

But yeah, getting Brassard was such a coup that it really dwarfs the Cole issue.

 

[Ryder71]

Oh, I agree. It's not about Cole, and more about the fact I think adding Brassard to the bottom six goes a lot further to bolstering this roster than keeping Cole would have done.

It would be kind of like adding Kucherov at the expense of Maatta. Sure, it would hurt the defense a bit losing him, but see ya, Olli, and welcome Nikita.

But Cole didn't have to be traded though. You're presenting it as if we couldn't get Brassard without moving Cole. And I don't believe that to be the case.

In the Kucherov scenario, you'd have to give up Maatta plus a heck of a lot more. It's two different things.

 

[Ogrezilla]

I think what irks is that it seemed unnecessary. Cole was basically on the outs over a personality clash and we had less effective players to shed salary with.

But yeah, getting Brassard was such a coup that it really dwarfs the Cole issue.

but would less effective players have been accepted in the trade? Maybe, but maybe they wanted Cole. I mean Vegas wanted Reaves, so it's not always so easy to predict what other teams want.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

But Cole didn't have to be traded though. You're presenting it as if we couldn't get Brassard without moving Cole. And I don't believe that to be the case.

And you have evidence that this is the case? Seems like speculation to me. Who else would Ottawa have taken beside from Cole? Remember, they used him to flip to another team for draft picks. So if you say Hunwick, I doubt Ottawa saw any value in him for them to flip elsewhere.

That's also ignoring the fact that Cole and Sullivan seemed to be butting heads, so it's not a surprise Cole had to be the one to go.

 

[Ryder71]

And you have evidence that this is the case? Seems like speculation to me. Who else would Ottawa have taken beside from Cole? Remember, they used him to flip to another team for draft picks. So if you say Hunwick, I doubt Ottawa saw any value in him for them to flip elsewhere.

That's also ignoring the fact that Cole and Sullivan seemed to be butting heads, so it's not a surprise Cole had to be the one to go.

What did OTT get for Cole? A 3rd and a throwaway propect? You're telling me we couldn't do better than that? Or just offered them a 2hd rounder instead? Come on.

To act as if Cole was integral to Ottawa in that trade is just being silly. They wanted to milk us for more assets. And a 2hd rounder would have been a better return as opposed to what they actually got. And if you had to trade Cole you use a 2hd or 3rd and get somebody, Benn or whoever, but you don't stand pat.

 

[Peat]

And you have evidence that this is the case? Seems like speculation to me. Who else would Ottawa have taken beside from Cole? Remember, they used him to flip to another team for draft picks. So if you say Hunwick, I doubt Ottawa saw any value in him for them to flip elsewhere.

That's also ignoring the fact that Cole and Sullivan seemed to be butting heads, so it's not a surprise Cole had to be the one to go.

Ottawa could have taken the picks they flipped him for and we could have traded salary elsewhere.

 

[HandshakeLine]

Ottawa could have taken the picks they flipped him for and we could have traded salary elsewhere.

Except JR has said that there were no takers.

I get that we have rumors and stuff to the contrary, but unless they're from a reputable source, I'm going to go with what we at least can verify.

 

[Tom Hanks]

Ottawa could have taken the picks they flipped him for and we could have traded salary elsewhere.

We would have had to trade salary first though which might not have been so easy.

Then while you do that you take the risk Brassard gets traded to another team while that happens.

 

[Ogrezilla]

What did OTT get for Cole? A 3rd and a throwaway propect? You're telling me we couldn't do better than that? Or just offered them a 2hd rounder instead? Come on.

To act as if Cole was integral to Ottawa in that trade is just being silly. They wanted to milk us for more assets. And a 2hd rounder would have been a better return as opposed to what they actually got. And if you had to trade Cole you use a 2hd or 3rd and get somebody, Benn or whoever, but you don't stand pat.

if we could find those other trades to move salary