Pete Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 (edited) 8 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said: Hindsight doesn't apply here. Your other point comes into play if the offers are the same. Even if it did here, Drury clearly had the assets to beat a 1st rounder that might have been perceived as slightly more valuable, if he wanted to. I don't know why you're choosing to die on this hill today. The hill I'm dying on is that the 2 scenarios you've chosen as the only possible scenarios, aren't. Of course hindsight applies. If Wennberg pans out it's a steal. Since he didn't, it's now "well Dru never had faith or he's a pussy for not giving up the farm". Edited June 12 by Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albatrosss Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 12 minutes ago, Pete said: The hill I'm dying on is that the 2 scenarios you've chosen as the only possible scenarios, aren't. Of course hindsight applies. If Wennberg pans out it's a steal. Since he didn't, it's now "well Dru never had faith or he's a pussy for not giving up the farm". pans out as what? he has never been an offensive player and he is a career minus player. What did you expect from him? same with Roslovic, his highest point total ever was 45 points few years ago. was he really the best available option on RW for a cup run? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albatrosss Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 i have a confession to make: I was out of town and did not watch any of the games 4, 5, and 6. The rangers lost all of them. But then again, Drury did trade for Roslovic as a 1st line RW, so maybe it's not totally my fault? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 4 minutes ago, Albatrosss said: pans out as what? he has never been an offensive player and he is a career minus player. What did you expect from him? same with Roslovic, his highest point total ever was 45 points few years ago. was he really the best available option on RW for a cup run? Better question is what you expected. They're replacing Chytil, not Gretzky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 2 minutes ago, Albatrosss said: i have a confession to make: I was out of town and did not watch any of the games 4, 5, and 6. The rangers lost all of them. But then again, Drury did trade for Roslovic as a 1st line RW, so maybe it's not totally my fault? We have a confession too... We can tell from your takes that you don't watch games. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albatrosss Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 3 minutes ago, Pete said: Better question is what you expected. They're replacing Chytil, not Gretzky. I expected a better center who could add to the offense that the team sucked ass at 5-on-5 offensively. Maybe a more physical center to make the team more rugged. I doubt you were happy with fucking Wennberg at the trade deadline Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 26 minutes ago, Pete said: The hill I'm dying on is that the 2 scenarios you've chosen as the only possible scenarios, aren't. Of course hindsight applies. If Wennberg pans out it's a steal. Since he didn't, it's now "well Dru never had faith or he's a pussy for not giving up the farm". Nah. Hindsight does not apply because Drury didn't have access to it. There's a reason Wennberg cost less than Henrique. There's a reason Roslovic cost less than Guentzel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 1 minute ago, Albatrosss said: I expected a better center who could add to the offense that the team sucked ass at 5-on-5 offensively. Maybe a more physical center to make the team more rugged. I doubt you were happy with fucking Wennberg at the trade deadline Considering they had 2 spots to fill with Chytils LTIR money, I was fine with it at the time. Didn't work out. They went and got all stars last season, and it didn't work out. The season before they got players who worked out and they still lost. It's almost like winning is hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 (edited) Just now, BrooksBurner said: Nah. Hindsight does not apply because Drury didn't have access to it. There's a reason Wennberg cost less than Henrique. There's a reason Roslovic cost less than Guentzel. You are entire argument is predicated on hindsight. So it applies. But we'll agree to disagree because you don't leave room for anything else. Edited June 12 by Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LindG1000 Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 29 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said: Hindsight doesn't apply here. Your other point comes into play if the offers are the same. Even if it did here, Drury clearly had the assets to beat a 1st rounder that might have been perceived as slightly more valuable, if he wanted to. I don't know why you're choosing to die on this hill today. Of course hindsight applies here. How does it not? It's June and we're talking about a date over three months in the past with full knowledge of the outcomes and far more knowledge than we had in the moment. It's almost impossible to not introduce hindsight here. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albatrosss Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 4 minutes ago, Pete said: We have a confession too... We can tell from your takes that you don't watch games. you got it all wrong, bud. i watch all games except when i'm away. Unlike you, of course who goes by stats rather than watching games Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LindG1000 Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 3 minutes ago, Albatrosss said: I expected a better center who could add to the offense that the team sucked ass at 5-on-5 offensively. Maybe a more physical center to make the team more rugged. I doubt you were happy with fucking Wennberg at the trade deadline Look, given they dealt with Columbus and with exemplary hindsight, I'd rather have had them pony up a little more for Boone Jenner than to go after Wennberg. But I did think Wennberg checked a clear box, and he did until we needed the depth scoring to chip in. Somehow, neither of these guys did the trick even though they're both career half-a-point guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 1 minute ago, Albatrosss said: you got it all wrong, bud. i watch all games except when i'm away. Unlike you, of course who goes by stats rather than watching games Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Pete said: You are entire argument is predicated on hindsight. So it applies. But we'll agree to disagree because you don't leave room for anything else. Nope. All that matters is what the thought process was during the trade deadline days. Henrique, Guentzel, Duclair, Monahan, Lindholm...were all the talk. Rightfully so. They were better players. Fantasy land to think otherwise. Edited June 12 by BrooksBurner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LindG1000 Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 2 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said: Nope. All that matters is what the thought process was during the trade deadline days. Henrique, Guentzel, Duclair, Monahan, Lindholm...were all the talk. Rightfully so. They were better players. Fantasy land to think otherwise. All of the bold were on teams eliminated before we were, and Henrique has been almost immaterial to the Oilers. It's almost like the players available for specific price ranges at the deadline are ancillary/auxiliary players who don't often move the needle all that much, so perhaps overpaying for these guys is a fool's errand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooksBurner Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 7 minutes ago, LindG1000 said: Of course hindsight applies here. How does it not? It's June and we're talking about a date over three months in the past with full knowledge of the outcomes and far more knowledge than we had in the moment. It's almost impossible to not introduce hindsight here. We aren't doing some retrospective here where the Rangers chose 1B instead of 1A. It was clear at the time that the Rangers missed on all of the top targets. The retrospective will be if the picks and prospects they clutched onto make it worth a half-assed deadline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albatrosss Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 10 minutes ago, Pete said: Considering they had 2 spots to fill with Chytils LTIR money, I was fine with it at the time. Didn't work out. They went and got all stars last season, and it didn't work out. The season before they got players who worked out and they still lost. It's almost like winning is hard. Winning is hard and that's why you try and get the best possible assets to succeed. Wennberg and Roslovic were not the best possible players to get. But to each his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LindG1000 Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 Just now, BrooksBurner said: We aren't doing some retrospective here where the Rangers chose 1B instead of 1A. It was clear at the time that the Rangers missed on all of the top targets. The retrospective will be if the picks and prospects they clutched onto make it worth a half-assed deadline. You just posted five minutes ago a list of players that you deemed better than what we got. Make up your mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 1 minute ago, BrooksBurner said: Nope. All that matters is what the thought process was during the trade deadline days. Henrique, Guentzel, Duclair, Monahan, Lindholm...were all the talk. Rightfully so. They were better players. Fantasy land to think otherwise. Duclair had 27 points in 56 games for a bottom feeder. Roslovic had 23 in 40 for a bottom feeder. This is what I mean about you making up a narrative and clinging to it no matter what. That's why it's pointless to try and have a conversation with you. Let's say for the sake of argument Drury offered a first for Henrique, hung up, Verbeek spoke to Edmonton and got their first and took it, then called back Drury and said he made a different deal elsewhere. You're telling me it's completely impossible that that happened? Yet in your reality It's that he just didn't want to offer the first... The only thing that's fantasyland here is that you think you have all the information, and you don't. You're basing your opinions on assumptions and clinging to those assumptions as if they're fact because they reinforce an opinion that you already hold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 2 minutes ago, BrooksBurner said: We aren't doing some retrospective here where the Rangers chose 1B instead of 1A. It was clear at the time that the Rangers missed on all of the top targets. The retrospective will be if the picks and prospects they clutched onto make it worth a half-assed deadline. Sure. But you're assuming you know why they missed, because Drury didn't offer the best package he could either because (1) he was a stingy idiot or (2) didn't believe in the team. Surely you can understand there are realities outside of those two that you're totally dismissing, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albatrosss Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 9 minutes ago, LindG1000 said: Look, given they dealt with Columbus and with exemplary hindsight, I'd rather have had them pony up a little more for Boone Jenner than to go after Wennberg. But I did think Wennberg checked a clear box, and he did until we needed the depth scoring to chip in. Somehow, neither of these guys did the trick even though they're both career half-a-point guys. Boone Jenner or someone of that ilk would've been a home run get. Wennberg never checked a box. he's a career minus player and an offensive bust who doesnt really bring anything to the table, who was traded to play on a checking line. I'm not as pissed at getting Wennberg than trading for Roslovic to play 1st line RW. In hindsight Othmann might have been better on that line than Roslovic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albatrosss Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 12 minutes ago, Pete said: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LindG1000 Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 Just now, Albatrosss said: Winning is hard and that's why you try and get the best possible assets to succeed. Wennberg and Roslovic were not the best possible players to get. But to each his own. There's something to be said for the approach we use though. We needed a mid six wing and a 3c. We got a mid six wing and a 3c. The Canucks went and got a top 6 C when they probably needed a defender. The Jets went and got a mid six C when they probably also needed a defender or two The Canes went and got a first line player and Evgeny Kuznetsov when they needed a goalie and/or a player that does literally anything but forecheck. Heck, last year we needed a 3c and a mid six wing and we went out and got two top 6 wings. That worked out amazingly well. Sometimes you just gotta fill the need you have. And sometimes, you just gotta stay healthy. As you said - winning is hard, but it's a lot easier when you're not trying to fit round pegs into square holes with six weeks to figure it out before the shit hits the fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LindG1000 Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 Just now, Albatrosss said: Boone Jenner or someone of that ilk would've been a home run get. Wennberg never checked a box. he's a career minus player and an offensive bust who doesnt really bring anything to the table, who was traded to play on a checking line. I'm not as pissed at getting Wennberg than trading for Roslovic to play 1st line RW. In hindsight Othmann might have been better on that line than Roslovic I'm going to be in the minority here but we brought in Wennberg to be a shutdown C who can chip in offensively. History suggests he's real good at that - sure, he's a career minus, but he's played for the BJs and the Kraken. I'd guess it isn't hard to be a career -100 playing for those two teams, and he's a -22. Wennberg did the shutdown thing. He did not chip in offensively even though he probably should have had a few, and the fancy stats suggest that line was real hard to play against in the playoffs. We're all just coming at this from the perspective of knowing now that being possession monsters without someone picking up the offensive slack wasn't enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 10 minutes ago, Albatrosss said: Winning is hard and that's why you try and get the best possible assets to succeed. Wennberg and Roslovic were not the best possible players to get. But to each his own. If you were cold and went into a store to buy a hoodie, You don't buy a $500 hoodie to wear once just because you're cold. That's number one. Number two is you're assuming that he didn't offer as much as he possibly could to get the players he wanted without decimating an already thin pipeline, and GM's just chose other packages instead. Thirdly you're assuming you're working with all the information, and we're not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now