Discussion in 'Columbus Blue Jackets' started by Double-Shift Lasse, Jan 4, 2019.
So says the mistress of projection You are rich
"I know you are but what am I" is not a counterargument. You seem happy to insist that I never find fault with GMs, despite plenty of historical evidence to the contrary. If you're going to debate, please debate with me, not Bizarro Viqsi.
Anisimov was a solid piece, but Dano was the bell cow
If Jarmo saw it as a "gift horse" it would be to his credit, the rest of the league was busy debating which player was better. Try and get the history right, please.
You might try purchasing a mirror the next time you're out.
Every long-tenured GM will have their share of good moves and bad moves (yes even Chiarelli, and even Yzerman). If you've already decided whether a move is good or not by looking at who is making the move, then you're just well.. prejudiced.
Here comes Carolina into the race
Really. The whole rest of the league. Yeah. Right. Maybe you might want to get your history straight. LOL
Same goes for anybody who ever thought Saad was half the player Panarin is or was.
Both of you don't have it right.
Actually that should read, "all 3 of you"
Enh. There was a debate; it just wasn't as extreme as major major is suggesting. Pretty much everybody thought Panarin was the better player overall; the debate was over 1) whether or not he'd continue to score as well as he would without a legend like Patrick Kane next to him (as we well know, he did even better), and 2) his ostensible one-dimensional nature and whether or not it'd drive Torts up a wall (in hindsight, he's been fantastic on the backcheck). Saad, meanwhile, wasn't seen as a big scorer, but was very effective 5-on-5, and seen as a model of consistency, always scoring just over 50 points (until after the trade, of course).
Basically, the way it went was that Panarin was acknowledged as better, but folks thought it was close because Panarin was ostensibly a "one-way" guy being magnified by Kane, while Saad was a consistent two-way guy. Then, of course, Panarin took off on his own and displayed excellent defensive skills and Saad's consistency went straight to hell, and the debate ended up looking really absurd in hindsight.
I said Anisimov > Saad from "day 1".
Anisimov > Saad > Wennberg
Now and at their hypothetical "prime" or "best".
Only a true Saad fanboy would ever think otherwise and compare him to Panarin.
He got traded by Chicago and couldn’t get comfortable in one spot. They got a solid piece in anisimov, who they wanted, but they also wanted the potential of dano and insisted on him over Rychel IIRC
Huh? You don't believe me? I have always loved Anisimov and hated Saad.
You can use the search function. I wish I had comments from my "old" name.
What "pretty much everybody thought" was that Panarin was definitely more talented. I heard it said many times to the effect that Saad was the guy who was going to help you win more when it matters. It wasn't just that Bowman went insane, Blackhawks fans, who knew both players best, were saying it.
They were, but that was based on the "two-way versus one-way" difference I already made reference to. They were responding as though Panarin was a skilled passenger.
My recollection of the league-wide consensus was Chicago gained a longer term contract that fit their future salary cap situation but the Jackets got the better, more talented player. Saad was considered top six solid, Panarin a difference-maker.
Right, you said though that "pretty much everybody thought that Panarin was the better overall player", and that's not true.
No, there wasn't a consensus. As far as "top-six" "difference maker" etc... many pointed out that both players had the same good 5v5 scoring rates and that the offensive edge was on the PP. Some doubted that Panarin would be a difference-maker - Kane got all the credit.
Here's a thread from October 2017 "Panarin vs Saad". I don't remember the thread, but the contours of the debate are similar to what I was recalling.
Maybe we just have a semantic difference w/r/t "overall" going on here.
Oh, you mean the thread that included a poll that revealed 83% of votes claiming Panarin was the better player?
Yes, that one. A lot of those votes came in December 2017 (the poll is still open now actually), but either way that kind of vote is indicative of two players who are kind of close. I saw a Panarin vs Kane thread yesterday that is similarly lopsided (in Patrick Kane's favor). That doesn't mean that Kane is seen as vastly better than Panarin, it means that most people have at least a small preference for Kane. It's debatable which player is better, I happen to prefer Panarin for his all-around game.
When we have a near-consensus on which player is better, the poll result is more like 99-1.
Don't you know that it takes 99%-1% to form a consensus. Get with it.
Chicago knew that they wouldn't be able to afford Panarin due to cap considerations. They knew they were getting the lesser player, but Saad could be kept in line with their cap and they were granting the wishes of Toews to have him back.
This does explain why they were willing to do the deal, but it doesn't support the "and therefore Kekalainen gets no credit whatsoever for it" followup conclusion that prompted this debate.
I had to look it up - the consensus processes that I've been a part of define consensus as agreement by all. There is consensus, consensus minus one, etc.., kind of silly. But I'm seeing now that "consensus of opinion" usually just means a majority of opinion. In that sense you could say there was a consensus that Panarin was the better player. It was nonetheless hotly debated.
I'd love to see a source on this other than your own certainty. A large minority thought Saad was better and it's possible the team that acquired him also had that view.
All I'll say is that I'm glad the CBJ aren't moving forward with a 1-2 punch of Wennberg-Saad on their 2nd, or god forbid, their 1st line.
Separate names with a comma.