What's truly embarrassing is people who actually believe re-signing an over the hill league minimum player with a rapidly diminishing skillset for 2 years is somehow a good plan for this team . There is a whole world of ELC eligible players out there who are as good as he is now and will only get better instead of getting older and slower , but hey you keep drinking the Dubass kool aid there pal and we'll see you typing the same dumb shyte next year after yet another first round exit . You are of course among the same group that swore the rest of us were stupid and wrong to want to stay the course of the 5 year internal rebuild instead of signing John Tavares because he was so special and was going to bring is the cup right away , How has that worked out Mr Einstein ? I suppose I will be stupid and ignorant if I don't want to re-sign him as well eh ? The idea is to get better every year not swap mediocre for mediocre then convince yourself it's an upgrade .
Noooo, Sport. Again. You either don't understand the context of the actual player in question or the context of his value relative to our overall goal, which includes outlier value to supplement the rest of a (hopefully) competitive roster. What you refer to as "a good plan for this team" isn't - and more importantly can't be - isolated to signing a fantastic deal for Mark Giordano.
As for signing Giordano to $800K after his playoffs being Kool-Aid...Can we just have a moment of honesty and clarity here and have you confess that you didn't actually watch the playoffs? Because your take is just so completely uninformed about Mark Giordano that we're left with two options: You watched the playoffs and didn't get what Giordano brought, or you simply didn't watch the playoffs and you're criticizing the signing on the basis of a hope that Giordano being older is the given your Dubas biad tirade needs...
...which by the way is another flavour of Kool-Aid.
This is my favourite baseless quote btw: "You are of course among the same group that the rest of us were stupid and wrong to want to stay the course of the 5 year internal rebuild of John Tavares..."
Oh...no...I...wasn't, Sport. In fact, if archives are still accessible, I might have been among the first to question the possibility of the signing, noting Don Cherry's observation that more than one alpha dog in the room might be trouble.
That's the first point. The second is, I know of no "group" who positioned with Tavares to guarantee an immediate Cup. I know of a majority who believed his signing was important for our depth. That he brought obvious cache and that (in a pre-Covid cap climate) we were electing to sign an in his prime top 20 C to help with Matthews' development.
The obvious third point is, your uninformed and baseless premise completely falls apart. You're asking questions you want to have integrity because you imagine them to be real. But that's not an indication of your mind at work, it's your imagination at play.
And if as you note the idea is to get better year over year, then at least for the regular season and the eye test in the playoffs, your imagination is going to have to work a heck of a lot harder to demonstrate that a record setting season, a new individual goal-scoring record, and a pretty convincing case that we held the defending Cup champs over the precipice was achieved in spite of the man you claim has done the opposite.
