Yeah, the Carolina's D caused him to miss pucks from mid ice. Always love these insightful, intelligent, well thought out posts.
For those not keeping track at home... note the plural. Note how nobody is correcting him.Yeah, the Carolina's D caused him to miss pucks from mid ice. Always love these insightful, intelligent, well thought out posts.
Ahh yes the backhanded insult to the defense. Nah, can't be that Darling is a hot steaming pile of Fido pudding, no the defense has to be to blame for his inability to live.
Darling's value is a bag of pucks, and even then the Canes would need to add 3 shots of bourbon to get it done.
Yeah, the Carolina's D caused him to miss pucks from mid ice. Always love these insightful, intelligent, well thought out posts.
Better than what's already supposed to be a great young blueline?I'd introduce Darling to Benoit Allaire and never look back, but it's a good thing I'm not in charge of the Rangers.
In other words, I do believe Darling can "work things out" or he'd just be better behind a better blue line; currently, the Islanders (nor the Rangers, for that matter) do not fit that bill.
And it's not like those were the only ones, seemingly any time the puck would be loose in the crease on even the most benign looking play seeing him attempt to cover it was like watching a cat trying to catch a laser pointer... and just about as successful.
He looked great and poised to me.
He would have been the MVP if it wasn’t for our forwards never scoring.
Also if you trade for Darling, you get his sister’s hot takes.
He is the best possible goalie to dress as your #1 if your goal is to tank the entire season away.I went back and reviewed the exchange between myself and the other poster and it almost seems like you guys intentionally missed the point. The poster I was responding to said:
Better than what's already supposed to be a great young blueline?
If you take issue with a "backhanded insult to the defense," it would more effective to take up your criticism with the appropriate poster. My contention was that at worst (assuming he really was as bad as advertised) he helps the Islanders tank if Tavares is gone.
I could totally see that. I just think the response you and BBA quoted were taken out of the context in which they were intended.He is the best possible goalie to dress as your #1 if your goal is to tank the entire season away.
Hell... the Isles could have Tavares, and with Darling you're challenging for top lottery odds.
Fair enough, as was stated above, we get a little testy over the "if ____ is so good, why haven't they _____". We literally hear that during any thread in here as justification on why literally any player we are talking about sucks.I could totally see that. I just think the response you and BBA quoted were taken out of the context in which they were intended.
I went back and reviewed the exchange between myself and the other poster and it almost seems like you guys intentionally missed the point. The poster I was responding to said:
Better than what's already supposed to be a great young blueline?
If you take issue with a "backhanded insult to the defense," it would more effective to take up your criticism with the appropriate poster. My contention was that at worst (assuming he really was as bad as advertised) he helps the Islanders tank if Tavares is gone.
I was trying to argue (implicitly) that the quality of Carolina's blueline seems to be recognized well enough not to be terribly controversial, so laying his performance at the feet of any blueline to make him workable as a starter seems a little suspect (as the gaffes mentioned in this thread attest to). I think we also disagreed with respect to what the Islanders approach for next season could be, although that's tangential to the responses that my post engendered.In post #17, I addressed your question about "what's already supposed to be a great young blueline." I'll admit that I barely watch the 'canes, so idk if their blueline is actually good, or just hyped to be good, based on pedigree. I really don't know.
would the blackhawks take him back at %50 retention? Hawks need a good backup, and Darling seemed to play well in their system
would the blackhawks take him back at %50 retention? Hawks need a good backup, and Darling seemed to play well in their system
I was trying to argue (implicitly) that the quality of Carolina's blueline seems to be recognized well enough not to be terribly controversial, so laying his performance at the feet of any blueline to make him workable as a starter seems a little suspect (as the gaffes mentioned in this thread attest to). I think we also disagreed with respect to what the Islanders approach for next season could be, although that's tangential to the responses that my post engendered.
Well, thank heavens for the $1m retained....Price 1mil retained to Carolina for Darling, Kuokkanen, Roy, Carrick and 2019 1st.
Price 1mil retained to Carolina for Darling, Kuokkanen, Roy, Carrick and 2019 1st.
We can add 4 or 5 more contracts if needed.
Is that you bern?