bernmeister
Registered User
kreider would do real damage beside mcdavid
It's not happenin but that would be sweet eye candy, esp w/correct RW.
Of that there is little doubt.
kreider would do real damage beside mcdavid
You scoff at points which shows tangible production and then attempt to use +/- as a factor to support why you feel Nieves is defensively superior. Never mind the fact he is a career +1, which you obviously didn't know. None of your argument here holds any water.
"His +/- also attests to superior defense, which is important."- You seriously said this.
Is he still fast? Double hip surgery can sap something like that REAL quick
McKenzie: - Puljujarvi has requested a trade [Part 2]
I've posted this before, but pre draft he was hyped as a responsible player by scouts too. Honestly I have no idea where the general belief he's bad defensively comes from.
Nieves has had the opportunity to display his skill since his early days in Syracuse Jr. Nationals Midget team. He had the same chance in Kent School. And in Michigan. And in Hartford. You suggesting he's never had the chance is nonsense.
He has never, ever been anything special offensively. His ceiling is a bottom 6 center. You honestly believe he'll be able to play regular shifts against guys like Crosby? Bergeron? Aho? MacKinnon? McDavid? Just stop.
It's one thing to throw a creative idea out there. Trying to force it down everyone's throats is just silly though. I honestly don't think you've watched more than a dozen games from Boo with how you're trying to describe his play.
we are done
I disagree and we will leave it at that.
If I parse your insistence on remaining contrary to the point it excludes reality to fit your narrative, we will really go on for volumes.
we will wait and see.
remember he who laughs last, laughs best
The Oilers thought Hall, Eberle, Lucic, and Puljujarvi would do damage with McDavid. Kassian will be just fine on the top line and get 20+ goalskreider would do real damage beside mcdavid
Your efforts to simply insist on the reverse of what I am saying will not be successful in the end.
Truth ultimately prevails.
A person who plays on 4th line on a bad team which has several guys in negative territory and manages not have a huge minus attached to his name deserves acknowledgment of credit for doing well under difficult circumstances.
Give that same player the ideal complementary mix and see with an open mind what happens.
While some guys (MacLeod) will not show marketedly better results with better guys because THEY do not have the skills is dif.
Nieves is not MacL.
Your insistence that he is only that is wrong.
No, actually you made the comparison between he and MaCleod, not me.
I simply said Nieves doesn't possess any skills that make him a special player.
That you are trying to invent reasons for why he should be a top ^C is silly.
You also said this stupid crap........"His +/- also attests to superior defense".
The guy is a +1 for his career, not just last season. Your quote is simply inaccurate. That isn't superior defense. Me pointing out that you are inaccurate......that is the truth prevailing.
Hajek. Rykov. Lindgren.
You don’t know what you see since they’re all prospects. Prospects who will get an opportunity on a rebuilding team.I see three bottom pairing/7th D type guys... how is that still loaded?
It’s not, a pure rental is someone who you get at the deadline and that’s it.
Because you say so? You're making up definitions based on what you think they are.
And you’re not?
I’ve never heard any of the experts refer to someone with one full year left on his deal as a “rental.”
It was a huge point of discussion on whether Karlsson was going to be a "rental" for the Sharks or not.
First sentence of this article:
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/san-jose-sharks-re-sign-erik-karlsson-1.5178164
This is a pointless argument, but to everyone saying the industry does not refer to guys with one year on their contract as a "rental", clearly Karlsson was referred to that way.
If he is not expected to sign that is the definition of a rental.
And how do any of us know this? So you’re playing semantics based on a hypothetical that we don’t have a concrete answer to?
He might want to re-sign, but I don't think there's any way the Oilers can afford him on a Hayes-esqe extension(which I assume he'll be looking for).
How did we reach the point where teams want to make trades and not assume any risk?That’s a possibility, but who really knows?
It’s just presumptuous of any of us to say that this player wants to do this or that when there’s being nothing reported.
I understand that Edmonton may not make sense, but he’s not a rental at this point. If he gets dealt at the deadline, then he absolutely is one.
How did we reach the point where teams want to make trades and not assume any risk?
How did we reach the point where teams want to make trades and not assume any risk?
How did we reach the point where teams want to make trades and not assume any risk?
I see three bottom pairing/7th D type guys... how is that still loaded?