New York Islanders: Lou Lamoriello Discussion

[MJF]

Yes, I guess I am assuming that, in that I don't see Kekalainen losing his job this offseason.

Sure, could happen. Heck, maybe he even had a directive from above "Go all-in and hope it works, 'cause otherwise you're outta here".

But I almost gotta think that alone the balls to pick Dubois over Puljujarvi a few summers back has bought him a good bit of good faith.

The guy who may be under more pressure is Tortorella, who already had plenty of material to compete with and now has all that much more.

I expect Tortorella to take the first fall. When things start spinning out of control on him he doesn’t have a way to calm things down. He ends up pouring gasoline on the fire.

 

[Chapin Landvogt]

Getting a better top six option without giving up a piece of value to our future?
Good luck, teams give away good players for junk all the time.

Other teams managed that.

And I’m completely against trading away futures to ensure that this roster got into the playoffs.

Trading futures just to get in ensures the cycle of mediocrity. I’m glad Lou agreed with that.

Futures, as in picks rounds 2-4 which you could perhaps recuperate by moving other assets you won't be incorporating into the fray?

Ahhhh, then you got your wish.

Enjoy what we're watching now.

Build to ensure deep playoff runs and a real chance to win a championship.

You don't get what I'm saying, do you?

By standing still and swallowing the calculated risk that the team may slip out of this year's playoffs due to two vital issues that needed tweaking, perhaps with just one player, Lou WAS risking setting back the master plan to build a program that ensures deep playoff runs and a real chance to win a championship.

That's the correct long-term goal, and making the playoffs this season was a key ingredient to that plan after being 1st in the Metro at the All-Star break.

Amazingly, some fans seem to think "making the playoffs this year thanks to a tweak" and "building a team primed for regular deep playoff runs" are mutually exclusive concepts.

 

[12Dog]

Other teams managed that.



Futures, as in picks rounds 2-4 which you could perhaps recuperate by moving other assets you won't be incorporating into the fray?

Ahhhh, then you got your wish.

Enjoy what we're watching now.

Build to ensure deep playoff runs and a real chance to win a championship.[/QUOTE]

You don't get what I'm saying, do you?

By standing still and swallowing the calculated risk that the team may slip out of this year's playoffs due to two vital issues that needed tweaking, perhaps with just one player, Lou WAS risking setting back the master plan to build a program that ensures deep playoff runs and a real chance to win a championship.

That's the correct long-term goal, and making the playoffs this season was a key ingredient to that plan after being 1st in the Metro at the All-Star break.

Amazingly, some fans seem to think "making the playoffs this year thanks to a tweak" and "building a team primed for regular deep playoff runs" are mutually exclusive concepts.[/QUOTE]

Tweak? Who were you adding?
That sounds like a Snow move, trade a pick for Prince or Davidson
What team acquired a difference making player without giving up a decent asset?
If that deal was out there, I’m pretty sure Lou would’ve made it.
You want to trade future 2’s and 3’s for who?
Lee, Toews, Mayfield, Pelech, Cizikis, all drafted after the first round. You want to risk missing the chance to draft the next ones? For a tweak?

 

[periferal]

If you haven't read this article already, you must. Just a great look at Lou's tenure with the Leafs - The moves he made, what philosophies they reveal, and how he graded out...


The Complete Reign of Lou Lamoriello


Let’s look at what Lou Lamoriello has done in his time as Leafs GM, and evaluate it.

By Acting the Fulemin@ATFulemin Mar 7, 2018, 8:00am ESTSHARE

Photo by Jonathan Daniel/Getty Images

The rumour, as reported by Chris Johnston on CBC during the March 3rd outdoor game, is that Lou Lamoriello will not be the General Manager of the Toronto Maple Leafs next season. He might be pushed upstairs into an advisory role. He might surprise us all and stay on.

But as the trade deadline has now passed, it’s possible the Tomas Plekanec trade was the last major move Lou made in his tenure running Toronto. In that time he’s seen the Leafs rise from dead last to a playoff team to a fringe Cup contender. How much of that is Lou’s doing? How should we evaluate his time running the franchise?

We’re going to look at every significant trade, signing, and draft, and rate them on three categories:

• How significant was it? Did this make a big difference in impacting the team and its future prospects?
• How difficult was it? Was it a gimme, or did it require some real management finesse?
• How good was it? How has it turned out?

https://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2018/3/7/17084810/the-complete-reign-of-lou-lamoriello-so-far-toronto-maple-leafs-gm-trades-drafts-signings

 

[Bird Boys]

Trotz saving this guy's bacon

 

[Doshell Propivo]

Trotz saving this guy's bacon

It's a good thing Trotz hired himself.

 

[Bird Boys]

Are you saying hiring Trortz was savyy move only lou could make? I was thinking even Garth could have made that move.

 

[MJF]

Are you saying hiring Trortz was savyy move only lou could make? I was thinking even Garth could have made that move.

Garth would never actually make that move. He would never hire a high profile coach who would threaten his position.

Strike One.

 

[IslandersFan17]

Are you saying hiring Trortz was savyy move only lou could make? I was thinking even Garth could have made that move.

Not so much to do with being savvy, but more of having the reputation and clout to lure a guy like Trotz.

You think Trotz would have wanted to work hand-in-hand with Snow?

 

[Doshell Propivo]

Are you saying hiring Trortz was savyy move only lou could make? I was thinking even Garth could have made that move.

There were TONS of coaches available during Garth's 12 year reign. Yet we ended up with Scott Gordon, Jack Capuano and Doug Weight. No, Garth Snow would NOT have hired Trotz.

Lou is the man in charge of hockey ops. The buck stops with him. He deserves all the credit in the world for turning this thing around. As does Trotz. I was skeptical of the moves myself this summer. And I was hoping for a deadline acquisition. But you can't argue with the results. And the guys he's brought in have had an impact.

So far so great in the Lou regime.

 

[PK Cronin]

Garth would never actually make that move. He would never higher a high profile coach who would threaten his position.

Strike One.

Trotz would've made sure Snow got a fake number. Zero chance they even talk about the job.

 

[BTrotts19]

Garth would never actually make that move. He would never higher a high profile coach who would threaten his position.

Strike One.

And Barry doesn't even pick up the phone

 

[Seph]

Other teams managed that.

Futures, as in picks rounds 2-4 which you could perhaps recuperate by moving other assets you won't be incorporating into the fray?

By standing still and swallowing the calculated risk that the team may slip out of this year's playoffs due to two vital issues that needed tweaking, perhaps with just one player, Lou WAS risking setting back the master plan to build a program that ensures deep playoff runs and a real chance to win a championship.

That's the correct long-term goal, and making the playoffs this season was a key ingredient to that plan after being 1st in the Metro at the All-Star break.

Amazingly, some fans seem to think "making the playoffs this year thanks to a tweak" and "building a team primed for regular deep playoff runs" are mutually exclusive concepts.

I have a question here. Which teams have actually improved their top 6 on the ice since making a trade for 2-4 picks?

I mean, I assume you're referring to he Dzingel, Nyquist, Zuccarello and Johansson trades. But Columbis went from 3.20 GPG to 2.40 after the deadline, San Jose's GPG dropped from 3.62 before Nyquist to 3.08 afterwards, and Zuc and Mojo have 3 points total combined since being traded. So I'm not really sure who you are referring to. I suppose you could argue Hagelin, but with no 3rd rounder, we'd likely have to offer Calgary's 2nd to beat Washington's offer, which seems like a significant overpayment for a guy who had fewer points on the season than Andrew Ladd did at the time.

Also worth noting that we already have a number of draft picks to recoup for this summer as is, with no 3rd or 4th round pick thanks to the Davidson and Hamonic trades. Going down to 0 picks in rounds 2-5 make things a lot more difficult, especially when you look at the moveable assets we have. And we'd likely have to give up picks in the next year's draft to boot, which puts us in an even worse position.

 

[Chapin Landvogt]

I have a question here. Which teams have actually improved their top 6 on the ice since making a trade for 2-4 picks?

I mean, I assume you're referring to he Dzingel, Nyquist, Zuccarello and Johansson trades. But Columbis went from 3.20 GPG to 2.40 after the deadline, San Jose's GPG dropped from 3.62 before Nyquist to 3.08 afterwards, and Zuc and Mojo have 3 points total combined since being traded. So I'm not really sure who you are referring to. I suppose you could argue Hagelin, but with no 3rd rounder, we'd likely have to offer Calgary's 2nd to beat Washington's offer, which seems like a significant overpayment for a guy who had fewer points on the season than Andrew Ladd did at the time.

I have thought about this as well.

But the question here is not "Who should Lou have gotten that made sense - and has since been good for his new team?"

It's about the seasoned and savvy Lamoriello attempting to do something in the only two departments that visibly needed an upgrade. It's about him sending a message to the locker room and fanbase, that he recognizes something that could be the ultimate difference and is at least going to address it.

Because the counter question to what you're asking above is naturally, "Have the Isles improved their power play turnout and top 6 production - the two areas that needed help - since the deadline after not making a trade, much less one involving 2nd-4th round picks?"

The answer there is that these departments have actually even worsened.

Also worth noting that we already have a number of draft picks to recoup for this summer as is, with no 3rd or 4th round pick thanks to the Davidson and Hamonic trades. Going down to 0 picks in rounds 2-5 make things a lot more difficult, especially when you look at the moveable assets we have. And we'd likely have to give up picks in the next year's draft to boot, which puts us in an even worse position.

Yes, only 5 picks this summer and three are in rounds 5-7. A bit bleak.

But I think I pointed out that I was referring to future 2nd-4ths. Not picks from this summer.

Again, it's not what we fans could have done or envisioned as being possible. It's about what the seasoned and savvy Lamoriello could have done. At the end of the day, no attempt was made to improve areas of visible weakness and now they've become an even heavier detriment over the stretch run.

But hey, Lou will certainly see now who can and simply cannot bring it when the money is on the line.

A summer of change awaits us.

 

[Seph]

I have thought about this as well.

But the question here is not "Who should Lou have gotten that made sense - and has since been good for his new team?"

It's about the seasoned and savvy Lamoriello attempting to do something in the only two departments that visibly needed an upgrade. It's about him sending a message to the locker room and fanbase, that he recognizes something that could be the ultimate difference and is at least going to address it.

Because the counter question to what you're asking above is naturally, "Have the Isles improved their power play turnout and top 6 production - the two areas that needed help - since the deadline after not making a trade, much less one involving 2nd-4th round picks?"

The answer there is that these departments have actually even worsened.

If that isn't the question, then I am unclear on your statement that other teams improved their top 6 while only giving up 2nd-4th round picks.

And my understanding is that he did attempt to do just that, but the guys he felt would make a legitimate improvement to the team cost too much in terms of assets to be worthwhile, especially in what he viewed as an evaluation year. Personally, I think giving up too much would have a larger negative effect on creating a yearly contender than otherwise.

But that isn't the counter question if you're looking to build a yearly contender. No one is claiming it made us a better team this year -- though as pointed out, it's very possible the exact same slide in scoring would've happened even if we'd made a trade when you look at the 4 trades that fit your description of adding a top 6 player for 2-4 picks. The issue is whether keeping those assets to be used in the future will be more useful in making the team a yearly contender than making any of the available trades.

Yes, only 5 picks this summer and three are in rounds 5-7. A bit bleak.

But I think I pointed out that I was referring to future 2nd-4ths. Not picks from this summer.

Again, it's not what we fans could have done or envisioned as being possible. It's about what the seasoned and savvy Lamoriello could have done. At the end of the day, no attempt was made to improve areas of visible weakness and now they've become an even heavier detriment over the stretch run.

But hey, Lou will certainly see now who can and simply cannot bring it when the money is on the line.

A summer of change awaits us.

I must have misread that then if you did not mean picks from this summer, but that only increases the number of picks we have to give up in 2020 and beyond to try to beat out any offer that includes a 2019 2nd pick (which was all of them other than Dzingel). Which leaves us a lot more limited in what we can do at future deadlines when the team is hopefully more competitive.

But overall, I don't really get your logic here. I'm not talking about what I envisioned or what I could have done, I'm talking about the trades that actually happened that fit what you described -- i.e. the deals we actually know to have been possible. It seems odd to me to theorize there was another player available out there that was likely to make a legit improvement to the top 6 whose GM was willing to trade it for 2020 2-4 draft picks and that no other GM thought to make an offer on, and then blast Lou for not making said theoretic deal.

Sometimes the right deal isn't there. And forcing a deal when you can't find the right deal will IMO more often lead to deals that'll leave you worse off in the longrun. But I do agree that we'll see some changes this summer, and hopefully that's where the real improvement comes.

 

[Chapin Landvogt]

If that isn't the question, then I am unclear on your statement that other teams improved their top 6 while only giving up 2nd-4th round picks.

Ok, rather simple.

There were teams who were successful in getting players like Johansson or Brassard for 2nds thru 4ths. Heck, Colorado paid a 3rd and got Brassard and a 6th in return.

It's not about if THOSE teams improved their top 6.

It's that BOTH of these guys would have been an improvement for OUR top 6 (as sad as that statement may be to some).

In other words, for my liking, BOTH of these guys would have been a calculated attempt to give Barzal a better winger than he currently has AND add a player who could be better than a Ladd/Clutterbuck/Beauvillier for the power play. Both have had a history of playing successfully on the PP.

I'm not gonna bother talking about what's come of them since or how they're working out with other teams.

It would have been a calculated attempt at addressing the most pressing issues for a very reasonable price - one that would in no measurable way scathe the long-term build to regular contending, IMHO.

And my understanding is that he did attempt to do just that, but the guys he felt would make a legitimate improvement to the team cost too much in terms of assets to be worthwhile, especially in what he viewed as an evaluation year. Personally, I think giving up too much would have a larger negative effect on creating a yearly contender than otherwise.

Others already asked this. I touched up on my statement as I saw that my meaning didn't come through clearly.

I didn't mean that Lou didn't attempt to look for a trade somewhere. Staple mentioned that Lou was pretty much only swinging for a big fish.

I meant that ultimately, no body was brought in as an attempt to add a 6th top 6 forward and improve the power play.

But that isn't the counter question if you're looking to build a yearly contender. No one is claiming it made us a better team this year -- though as pointed out, it's very possible the exact same slide in scoring would've happened even if we'd made a trade when you look at the 4 trades that fit your description of adding a top 6 player for 2-4 picks. The issue is whether keeping those assets to be used in the future will be more useful in making the team a yearly contender than making any of the available trades.

If you make the type of deal I mentioned above, that generally has no measurable affect on your ability to continue building a yearly contender. Or does THAT set back the whole plan?

I hardly think so.

I'm thinking that a more effective stretch run to ensure the post-season with a positive vibe letting the fanbase feel that our boys can actually make a bit of noise once there would ultimately be a better stepping stone for the move towards becoming a yearly contender.

I've also mentioned that you can recoup such picks at later junctures, as many, many GMs do. And our club is currently filled with assets that, at some point, are not going to be part of the plan for Lamoriello, so they can be used for just that purpose at a later juncture. Heck, guys like Hickey and Ho-Sang may be used for just that already this summer?!?

But overall, I don't really get your logic here. I'm not talking about what I envisioned or what I could have done, I'm talking about the trades that actually happened that fit what you described -- i.e. the deals we actually know to have been possible. It seems odd to me to theorize there was another player available out there that was likely to make a legit improvement to the top 6 whose GM was willing to trade it for 2020 2-4 draft picks and that no other GM thought to make an offer on, and then blast Lou for not making said theoretic deal.

Two things:
- I expect Lou to be much more capable of finding answers than we fans can sit here and theorize about. If anyone is pulling a rabbit out of the hat, it's him. He sees and knows different things than we do.
- It's about recognizing that there's a clear-cut weakness worth addressing and seeing that the GM attempts to address it in an actual subtle, cost-efficient move. It sends a message. It let's people - if not just those in the locker room - know that when the team is already this close, something will be attempted to deal with the issue while barely scratching the long-term plan.

Sometimes the right deal isn't there. And forcing a deal when you can't find the right deal will IMO more often lead to deals that'll leave you worse off in the long run. But I do agree that we'll see some changes this summer, and hopefully that's where the real improvement comes.

The bolded goes without saying, right? I don't think anyone with an inkling of understanding about this club and what's been going on here over the past 12 months is saying Lou should have done a "3rd for Davidson, just because" type of move.

But I refuse to believe that there wasn't a reasonable move to be made that at least attempted to deal with the clear-cut deficiency to a degree greater than the 0% that Lou put towards that endeavor.

And when a team has such a clear issue heading into the deadline, and nothing is done to address it, then it actually exacerbates in futility after the trade deadline (to the point where our actually reaching the playoffs is in question), then yes, that doesn't speak in favor of the GM's decision to not take action.

Quite the opposite.

 

[Barzy96]

I would love to go after Ryan Nugent Hopkins in the summer. Package Leddy and a prospect and lock up our second centre postition. Then go hard at Panarin as a winger for Barzal.

Having this down the middle would look so good:
Barzal
Nuge
Nelson
Zeek

 

[Seph]

Ok, rather simple.

There were teams who were successful in getting players like Johansson or Brassard for 2nds thru 4ths. Heck, Colorado paid a 3rd and got Brassard and a 6th in return.

It's not about if THOSE teams improved their top 6.

It's that BOTH of these guys would have been an improvement for OUR top 6 (as sad as that statement may be to some).

In other words, for my liking, BOTH of these guys would have been a calculated attempt to give Barzal a better winger than he currently has AND add a player who could be better than a Ladd/Clutterbuck/Beauvillier for the power play. Both have had a history of playing successfully on the PP.

I'm not gonna bother talking about what's come of them since or how they're working out with other teams.

It would have been a calculated attempt at addressing the most pressing issues for a very reasonable price - one that would in no measurable way scathe the long-term build to regular contending, IMHO.

I still have no idea how you can say with any confidence these guys would be improvements to our top 6 when Brassard has 3 points for Colorado and Mojo has 1 point for Boston. Despite not being able to score for these teams, they'd be the answer to our offensive issues? I mean, anything is possible, but it hardly seems likely that they'd be doing any better for us.

Others already asked this. I touched up on my statement as I saw that my meaning didn't come through clearly.

I didn't mean that Lou didn't attempt to look for a trade somewhere. Staple mentioned that Lou was pretty much only swinging for a big fish.

I meant that ultimately, no body was brought in as an attempt to add a 6th top 6 forward and improve the power play.

Right, but that's my point. He is only looking for legitimate upgrades. Giving up assets to bring in some guy who stands an off chance at improvement just for the appearance of having made a attempt isn't Lou's style, nor should it be IMO.

If you make the type of deal I mentioned above, that generally has no measurable affect on your ability to continue building a yearly contender. Or does THAT set back the whole plan?

I hardly think so.

I'm thinking that a more effective stretch run to ensure the post-season with a positive vibe letting the fanbase feel that our boys can actually make a bit of noise once there would ultimately be a better stepping stone for the move towards becoming a yearly contender.

I've also mentioned that you can recoup such picks at later junctures, as many, many GMs do. And our club is currently filled with assets that, at some point, are not going to be part of the plan for Lamoriello, so they can be used for just that purpose at a later juncture. Heck, guys like Hickey and Ho-Sang may be used for just that already this summer?!?

Compared to setting back the plan by the wrong message you believe was sent to the lockerroom? Yes, I do think 2-4 picks have more real value. Lou's handling of the team's attitude and culture is the area I trust his expertise on the most. In general, I never think it's a bad message to send to a team that you believe in them enough that they can work through and solve their problems on their own. That you think they're so helpless that you'll take any old guy on the off chance he might help IMO sends a notably worse message.

Yes, I know you said that, I just think you are over estimating the trade value of Hickey and Ho-Sang. I'd be surprised if we could get more than 5th rounder for either.

Two things:
- I expect Lou to be much more capable of finding answers than we fans can sit here and theorize about. If anyone is pulling a rabbit out of the hat, it's him. He sees and knows different things than we do.
- It's about recognizing that there's a clear-cut weakness worth addressing and seeing that the GM attempts to address it in an actual subtle, cost-efficient move. It sends a message. It let's people - if not just those in the locker room - know that when the team is already this close, something will be attempted to deal with the issue while barely scratching the long-term plan.

Of course he does, but that still doesn't mean he can force GMs to give up players they don't want to for prices they aren't interested in. That's not a realistic take on how a negotiation works. It ignores that if you can't find a deal you like, the smart thing to do is to walk away. It ignores that finding the right deal often takes time.

The bolded goes without saying, right? I don't think anyone with an inkling of understanding about this club and what's been going on here over the past 12 months is saying Lou should have done a "3rd for Davidson, just because" type of move.

But I refuse to believe that there wasn't a reasonable move to be made that at least attempted to deal with the clear-cut deficiency to a degree greater than the 0% that Lou put towards that endeavor.

And when a team has such a clear issue heading into the deadline, and nothing is done to address it, then it actually exacerbates in futility after the trade deadline (to the point where our actually reaching the playoffs is in question), then yes, that doesn't speak in favor of the GM's decision to not take action.

Quite the opposite.

It should go without saying, but I still feel it needs to be said here.

 

[WangMustGo]

I would love to go after Ryan Nugent Hopkins in the summer. Package Leddy and a prospect and lock up our second centre postition. Then go hard at Panarin as a winger for Barzal.

Having this down the middle would look so good:
Barzal
Nuge
Nelson
Zeek

100% agreed Nuge is a good 2nd line center and would fit right in. Another guy id love for the middle 6 is Ferland. He plays a heavy game, good defensively, and on faceoffs. He would be great in Trotz system

 

[Mr Misunderstood]

If you don't believe that the culture change (no beards, low numbers, "attention to details" approach) that Lou brings to an organization has not had an effect on a team that has performed greater than the sum of its parts...you're out to lunch.

 

[Frankie41987]

If you don't believe that the culture change (no beards, low numbers, "attention to details" approach) that Lou brings to an organization has not had an effect on a team that has performed greater than the sum of its parts...you're out to lunch.

I personally don't like the numbers and beard thing. I understand that's Lou's thing and it works for him, I just don't like it.

 

[Chapin Landvogt]

I still have no idea how you can say with any confidence these guys would be improvements to our top 6 when Brassard has 3 points for Colorado and Mojo has 1 point for Boston. Despite not being able to score for these teams, they'd be the answer to our offensive issues? I mean, anything is possible, but it hardly seems likely that they'd be doing any better for us.

And I have no idea how you can state that as if those players would have automatically brought the exact same stat line here as there.

Here, they'd be playing under Trotz. They'd have a role next to Barzal or Nelson. They'd be getting PP time on a PP desperate for someone to make a difference.

Their entire role as a hockey player could be completely different than it is with the teams that acquired them. So too could the results.

That said, I think we can both agree that we've reached the point in this discussion where we're going in circles.

There are valid reasons to feel Lou should have attempted to deal with these weaknesses at the deadline and there are valid reasons to feel he was fine, or even wise, to stand pat and leave the rest of this season to the men in the locker room.

Shoulda coulda woulda, I have to think any passionate fan following this team right now and rooting it into the playoffs and beyond has got to be disappointed with the further downward spiral of the PP since the trade deadline (1-for-37 at the moment) and the lack of adequate top 6 forward options combined with being shutout 3 times in five games right in the most important and character-testing phase of the season.

It's natural. Because we want to cheer for this team and we want to see it succeed. And for a long while, it was succeeding.

And it's natural in this situation - shaking and nervous about whether our boys can find a way to ensure a PO spot - to ponder whether the choice made at the deadline, namely to add 0% from the outside to a team that had several spots needing some help, was ultimately the right decision.

 

[Seph]

And I have no idea how you can state that as if those players would have automatically brought the exact same stat line here as there.

Here, they'd be playing under Trotz. They'd have a role next to Barzal or Nelson. They'd be getting PP time on a PP desperate for someone to make a difference.

Their entire role as a hockey player could be completely different than it is with the teams that acquired them. So too could the results.

I'm not assuming anything. You're the one making the assumption that they'd improve our top six. But if you want to get into that, no, I would not predict that they'd do better if they came to an offense starved team with a poorly coached powerplay, a glut of wingers and playing under a new system that has already seen the majority of forwards on the team see statistical regression while playing under it this season.

I can't say for sure they wouldn't, especially since they aren't doing it with better offensive teams, I don't see a lot of reason to assume they'd be able to do it on our team. But the question you ask yourself when you consider a trade isn't whether it's possible they'd improve the team, it's whether the likelihood of improvement and amount of that improvement is worth what you're giving up in assets. Giving up assets on unlikely gambles in hopes it fixes the problem is much more Milbury than Lamoriello, IMO.

That said, I think we can both agree that we've reached the point in this discussion where we're going in circles.

There are valid reasons to feel Lou should have attempted to deal with these weaknesses at the deadline and there are valid reasons to feel he was fine, or even wise, to stand pat and leave the rest of this season to the men in the locker room.

Shoulda coulda woulda, I have to think any passionate fan following this team right now and rooting it into the playoffs and beyond has got to be disappointed with the further downward spiral of the PP since the trade deadline (1-for-37 at the moment) and the lack of adequate top 6 forward options combined with being shutout 3 times in five games right in the most important and character-testing phase of the season.

It's natural. Because we want to cheer for this team and we want to see it succeed. And for a long while, it was succeeding.

And it's natural in this situation - shaking and nervous about whether our boys can find a way to ensure a PO spot - to ponder whether the choice made at the deadline, namely to add 0% from the outside to a team that had several spots needing some help, was ultimately the right decision.

Again, you keep using the word attempted. He did attempt. Just because the attempt wasn't the attempt you wanted to see doesn't mean the attempt wasn't made. He just has different ideas of what will and will not improve the team than you do. And that's fine. But the thing I find odd, is that though you acknowledge Lou is more savvy and knowledgeable about this sort of thing than you or I, that you still assume he knows less about what is best for this team in the longrun than you do. If you have so much confidence in his ability to find the right deal to improve the team, why do you also have no confidence in his ability to know when the right deal isn't there?

I know you're a passionate fan and I respect your knowledge as a poster. At the end of the day, we've vastly outplayed expectations already this season, so anything else we accomplish is gravy for me, as long as we continue to improve moving forward. Lou has a hell of a track record, and with no deals made that really improved other teams, I trust his judgement that the right deal wasn't there. As it stands, I'm fine with giving the guys the chance to go in with the same team that's exceeded expectations all season to see what they can do, and then retool in the offseason based on those results. If they miss the playoffs, that sucks, but it's still been a hell of a season for an evaluation year, and that gives me a lot of optimism for the future.

 

[Chapin Landvogt]

I'm not assuming anything. You're the one making the assumption that they'd improve our top six. But if you want to get into that,...

Again, you keep using the word attempted. He did attempt. Just because the attempt wasn't the attempt you wanted to see doesn't mean the attempt wasn't made. He just has...

Oh for cripes sake...

Did Lou attempt to improve our weaknesses by the trade deadline by actually BRINGING IN A FLESH AND BLOOD BODY WITH A TRACK RECORD INDICATING THAT SAID PLAYER COULD TAKE A TOP 6 ROLE ON THIS TEAM WHILE ALSO HELPING ON THE POWERPLAY???

No.

Very simple.

It didn't happen!

Have the Islanders struggled since the Trade Deadline with EXACTLY THOSE UNADDRESSED WEAKNESSES BEING RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THOSE STRUGGLES?

Yes. Emphatically.

As such, the non-attempt to actually address those weaknesses with a real live ice hockey player is proving to be a fail.

No more, no less.

We can quite with the "but he tried" crap.

Over and out.

 

[12Dog]

Oh for cripes sake...

Did Lou attempt to improve our weaknesses by the trade deadline by actually BRINGING IN A FLESH AND BLOOD BODY WITH A TRACK RECORD INDICATING THAT SAID PLAYER COULD TAKE A TOP 6 ROLE ON THIS TEAM WHILE ALSO HELPING ON THE POWERPLAY???

No.

Very simple.

It didn't happen!

Have the Islanders struggled since the Trade Deadline with EXACTLY THOSE UNADDRESSED WEAKNESSES BEING RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THOSE STRUGGLES?

Yes. Emphatically.

As such, the non-attempt to actually address those weaknesses with a real live ice hockey player is proving to be a fail.

No more, no less.

Over and out.

He didn’t attempt to upgrade the top 6?
Funny, I thought I read reports he was in on Stone.
Because he didn’t get him, doesn’t mean he didn’t ATTEMPT to get him
Unless you have information to the contrary?