Cyclones Rock
Registered User
- Jun 12, 2008
- 10,591
- 6,505
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.So says the mistress of projection You are rich
Dano? Main piece for Saad was Arty, who was acquired for Nash.
He was rational. He didn't look the gift horse in the mouth.
.
Your identity is way too tied up in the fortunes of CBJ GMs. It's really an odd way for one to feel "part of the team". Go to a game. It's a much better (and sane) form of identification.
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.
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.
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).Really. The whole rest of the league. Yeah. Right. Maybe you might want to get your history straight. LOL
In reality?
What changed?
And why?
Same goes for anybody who ever thought Saad was half the player Panarin is or was.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
Maybe we just have a semantic difference w/r/t "overall" going on here.Right, you said though that "pretty much everybody thought that Panarin was the better overall player", and that's not true.
Oh, you mean the thread that included a poll that revealed 83% of votes claiming Panarin was the better player?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.
Oh, you mean the thread that included a poll that revealed 83% of votes claiming Panarin was the better player?
Oh, you mean the thread that included a poll that revealed 83% of votes claiming Panarin was the better player?
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.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.
They knew they were getting the lesser player