Okay, coolness. My primary objection is just that, up until that last sentence just now, I'd yet to see you say anything about Werenski in any context other than comparing him unfavorably to Murray. It's possible I missed such things before, but you've been historically consistent enough in mentioning Murray seemingly every time that Werenski is being discussed that eventually folks just assume you can't stand Werenski.
Well, since Werenski came into the league, their careers and
the players are inherently connected. Being right next to each other on the 'depth chart', playing the same position, and being essentially the 2 guys "fighting" over being able to play on the top pair with a Norris contender is a big connection and affects both players and the team significantly. And lets not act like I'm the only person to compare the 2 guys. The only thing different with me is that I've always seen it as Murray > Werenski. Is
THAT the
issue?? Because, I don't remember you coming to the defense of Murray the last few years when people have been
comparing him unfavorably to Werenski (and Nutivaara "recently"), to put it lightly
.
Its not my fault I was right about Murray. And please lets not act like I cant talk about each player separately. I've already said I wanna keep Werenski, that he is a TOP TIER
offensive defenseman. Murray is still a better all around player.
Okay, here's the thing. If they're truly as awful as is being asserted about them, you're not going to get anything valuable in a trade. They have to have value to another team to return useful assets. When you've got an asset like that, one's thought shouldn't be "dump this guy". It's "why is this guy not working out", figure out why, figure out if that guy might have anything that might be valuable to another team, and then, before trying to trade, asking yourself if that something might still be valuable to your team.
In Wennberg's specific case, I think there's several somethings that are still valuable to this team that he provides. That said, I'm well aware you disagree, although I can't fathom what the basis for your disagreement is.
You love to repeat that constantly. What I (and others) are saying when we "want" to trade 1 of these guys is that they have
more value to some other teams than what they bring to the CBJ. Or we could use them to bring in a player or players that could be of better use or
more valuable to the CBJ. You completely (
purposely?) ignore the concept of packaging multiple assets to acquire a better player or the concept of team "FIT", or chemistry, or the future or "big picture". All different teams are at different stages of "development" and what their "overall plan" is. Its the reason
why there are 3 for 1 trades, or a superior 30 year old player is traded for a 23 year old guy with "potential", or a kid on a ELC.
With Bob, its more certain than Panarin, that he's NOT coming back. This season has not been good for him. Look at how many losses he has. Even if you don't want to believe Weekes about the behind the scenes stuff and it affecting the TEAM/locker room, and you want to downplay his comments and body language at the beginning of the year about "
HIS plans", you cant ignore the losses and the TERRIBLE games he's played consistently all year, going all the way back to preseason.
Without going into detail too much on what I see wrong with Wennberg in general or his "fit" on the CBJ, I just think the team, even though they don't have
many issues scoring, could use another "shooter" or "scorer", something Wennberg obviously isn't. We have many better passers and are a better passing team than they have shooters and shoot as a team. And yes, you have to give to get. And out of all the "younger" forwards with some value, I would rather look to deal Wennberg over Jenner, Bjorkstrand, Anderson.
Something being sarcastic does not exempt it from criticism, or from the allegation that it's a negative influence.
Well
it is exempt when the criticism and allegations are based on the sarcastic comment
not being sarcastic, and/or the allegation actually being LITERALLY the complete opposite of what was being "said". Not to mention 1 of the "criticisms" essentially contradicted another "criticism", while actually "confirming" 1 of the things they were attempting to criticize.
That said, just because someone has criticisms about something doesn't mean they're about to conclude that we're better off without that something, or that they feel the negatives outweigh the positives. (Which is something I imagine you ought to well know, given that you're evidently not as much of a Werenski hater as is occasionally assumed.
)
This is all related to the people who said we would never get or be better if we traded Nash and got "lesser" players back, and said the same thing when we traded our "best offensive player" in Johansen when we already weren't a "good" offensive team. Why are
good or promising players EVER traded? If somebody only listened to you, they would believe trades, good players or not, never occur. Like many things you attempt to pass off, its not true. Many people are saying the team needs some sort of change or shakeup. Now, I don't know if you do, but what are the possibilities? That would bring a "change" or a return that would HELP the team?
There's two ways to make that point. One is pointing out that it was a fantastic save, and that we've seen plenty of that from him, and that it's reason for hope. The other is to say "it's better than the other guy". A healthy discourse has a good mix of both, not exclusively one or the other. You're pretty heavy on the latter.
Again, just like comparing Murray and Werenski, or Dubois and Wennberg, do you not see
WHY they are or should be compared? Its called a 'depth chart'. And again, either going back to this EXACT situation, or nearly EVERY GAME, lets not act like I am the only person comparing the 2. MOST of the time its people BASHING Korpisalo, and subsequently "hype" Bob, but that's ok right, because it goes along with your thinking?
Its essentially only you who continues to attempt to push this.
