• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

Radulov

CH1 said:
You're definition is way too limiting. Basically, the guy has to be a star player that's younger than 28.
Click to expand...

Star player, yes. Under 28 preferably for forwards, because as I've pointed out, offensive production almost always dips by the time they hit 30, with the exception of HHOF talent players (who also happen to be core members of all their teams, btw).

The same doesn't necessarily apply to d-men, as they can still be very good players even if their production drops.
 
GGpX said:
So is everyone else, apparently.

How some could even suggest Jeff Petry & Arturri Lehkonen are core players honestly boggles my mind. I can get why some people want to argue Radulov is, there's a discussion to be had. But, I mean...
Click to expand...

I have no idea how you could consider your number 3 (maybe soon number 2) dman locked up long term not part of the core.
 
GGpX said:
So is everyone else, apparently.

How some could even suggest Jeff Petry & Arturri Lehkonen are core players honestly boggles my mind. I can get why some people want to argue Radulov is, there's a discussion to be had. But, I mean...
Click to expand...
Top 6 fwds. Top 4 d. Number 1 d. Thats core to me. (If a player truly fits that description)

So petry is a clear top 4 d. Thats core
Radulov is a first line wing. Thats core.

Lehkonen is not a true top 6 guy yet (though he could be) so not core yet.

Danault is not a true top 6 c so not core.
 
GGpX said:
Let's play a game in theory-

Raise your hand if you'd like to have Claude Giroux and his contract for free. $8,275M for five more seasons after this one! Just turned 29! Was still good for 58 points, despite being a > PPG player 3 years ago and seeing his point totals go down in incréments of nearly 10 every year since!

...Anyone?
Click to expand...

:seeya:
 
Habsy said:
I didn't say hate. I said like much. Maybe getting asphyxiated is your thing, who knows?
Click to expand...

Surely.

If Price asked for $12M x 8 years on his next contract and if I was GM, I wouldn't give it to him based on a series of probabilities, you'd come back to the same conclusion I assume?
 
GGpX said:
Surely.

If Price asked for $12M x 8 years on his next contract and if I was GM, I wouldn't give it to him based on a series of probabilities, you'd come back to the same conclusion I assume?
Click to expand...

Price isn't getting anywhere near 12 without a cup win. I could see $10M though.
 
GGpX said:
Sure. You pay for absolute elite talent and make use of players in their prime at great value. You don't give your great young talent bridge deals, you give them long term deals right after their ELCs and you end up with players like Roman Josi, a top-5 d-man in the NHL, making $4M until he turns 31.
Click to expand...

Unless your RNH , Myers , Bogosian , Eberle . Sure you win more than lose with no bridge deals but there are duds .
 
GGpX said:
Why would he be one? Was Vanek a "core" player when we acquired him too? I was probably the only poster here that didn't want to re-sign him, especially not at the ridiculous amounts some here wanted. Three years later and three teams later, I've been proven right.

I hold no bias towards him, I simply refuse to analyse this based on emotions. History tells me that there's a much greater chance this blows up in our faces than not.
Click to expand...

Both of us never wanted term for Vanek , I didn't want him back at all . Agreed on Radu , not going long term with him and get burned . Problem is 31 and 67 are in that same age bracket where production may start declining so add them with 47 on massive term deals it could be ugly having 3 of them . This idea to deal with it later is problematic cause when it hits you in the head your in the mess of trying to move players with no trade clauses hindering moves .
 
After last night's game, I would rather keep Radulov and trade away Pacioretty. Salary problem solved!
 
Habsy said:
Price isn't getting anywhere near 12 without a cup win. I could see $10M though.
Click to expand...

Maybe he should start stealing us games....because if we give our goalie 10M, then we surely will have nothing left to spend on forwards
 
Hoiles said:
After last night's game, I would rather keep Radulov and trade away Pacioretty. Salary problem solved!
Click to expand...

You do understand that Rangers are concentrating on his line....especially Max. They don't miss a chance to hit him and he's always got a man on him.

That's the playoffs....you try to shut down the opposing top player. Rangers have had lucky bounces for goals....like Nash's goal
 
Rolex said:
You do understand that Rangers are concentrating on his line....especially Max. They don't miss a chance to hit him and he's always got a man on him.

That's the playoffs....you try to shut down the opposing top player. Rangers have had lucky bounces for goals....like Nash's goal
Click to expand...
The game winning goal was on Max - his unwillingness to physically engage was front & center for everyone to see.
It's the most basic of plays, take the man at the point, u don't cheat in the playoffs. When u don't score, and I agree the focus on Max makes it very difficult to do so, u have to find other ways to contribute starting with elevating intensity & work ethic - a warrior mentality.
 
Sal_Butera said:
The game winning goal was on Max - his unwillingness to physically engage was front & center for everyone to see.
It's the most basic of plays, take the man at the point, u don't cheat in the playoffs. When u don't score, and I agree the focus on Max makes it very difficult to do so, u have to find other ways to contribute starting with elevating intensity & work ethic - a warrior mentality.
Click to expand...

I don't think it was that, he attempted a poke of the puck and miss, had he succeeded he was on a 2-1 with Radulov, but he missed. I don't think it was an unwillingness to engage physically, he had speed and is able to make that play more often than not. I don't blame him on bit for that goal, it was a play at the blue line with 4 other Habs behind him.
 
Habsy said:
So we're back to trading Max now? Seriously?
Click to expand...

I know right, stupidity has no limits.

Sorry for the others, but Max is not going anyway, especially with that amazing contract of his. I don't care, you can't get a better score than him at his current price.
 
Guibs said:
I know right, stupidity has no limits.

Sorry for the others, but Max is not going anyway, especially with that amazing contract of his. I don't care, you can't get a better score than him at his current price.
Click to expand...

Meh, it's sports, where stupidity and intelligence are irrelevant.

I was of course exaggerating in my previous post, but you can't say this guy isn't irritating to watch in the post-season. Also, technically the Habs have several players making less money than him who have more goals and points in this playoffs right now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top