Thorny

My bad. Reading comp fail.

@DarthEbriateAgree. Also, the Vesey comment was in jest. Whenever someone says, oh well, it was only a 3rd, I think about how it affects our potential to offer sheet. Not that we or anyone would, anway, I guess.

Nagano was so crippling to the hockey culture psyche here for a while. Always found it kinda funny it was "my" goalie that delivered all the woe.

I have that VHS somewhere hahahaha

On a side note, I don't think that 2000-2001 Avs team gets enough credit in "all-time teams" talk. They won the cup against a near-dynastic Devils team, WITHOUT Peter the great playing the majority of the playoffs. Sakic, Forsberg, Tanguay, Drury, Hejduk, Blake, Bourque, Roy... The '01-'02 Red Wings are frequently in that convo and that Avs team more less took them down the previous year.

And I love Forsberg. People are probably aware I love Sid, and Forsberg is the closest stylistic comparable, to me. I've long compared the two. Legs like tree trunks. Oh, the power.

Agree with all that but it doesn't make my point any less accurate.

That's fair. I think I just took issue with the wording of your original statement: "Sakic over Forsberg was Canadian media/fandom creation IMO, just like Roy or Brodeur over Dom." I'm sure some Canadian bias fed in, but you worded that too absolutely. A valid argument can be made that Sakic was better, full stop, it doesn't require a Canadian/Canadian media bias. Those lists that had Toews ahead of Malkin - THAT'S Canadian bias.

Bob Cole's call makes it. "They're gonna get a break here, and it's gonna be Joooooe Sakiccc.......SCORES! Gggggeeeeeeeeo! Sakic!"

You also forget I'm biased because of that huge goal he scored in the 2002 Olympics, gold medal game vs USA 😉 Not really, Sakic was the captain for a reason. There's weight on that bone, whereas the media creation comment I don't think is fair. Forsberg IS underrated, but the rub is that Sakic was, too.

For whatever reason, he's painfully blind to the idea we need another big-time C. How many centres has the guy added in 3 years? Is Lazar the best C he's added? He just doesn't get it- that's why I say it won't happen, it's firmly in the "have to see it to believe it" category. The man entered into the 18-19 season with Berglund as his second best C, and he probably thought it was Mittelstadt. It's not even truly about trading ROR, it's that he legitimately thought we didn't need to fill the hole. Don't know him personally. But he's an team-building idiot. The writing is already on the wall with all the organization's "We expect Kahun to be a long-term centre" comments just before the shut down. Those were well placed comments, and they were setting the expectation. All the comments about how he expected more goals from Vesey, Sheary, Johansson, blah blah. He doesn't think we need a C to maximize Skinner, he expects our wingers to score at their career high, every year, and elevate the centres. He gave Skinner 9 million expecting he'd elevate a non 2C into being a 2C. That was the plan - he fired his bullet. He's going to ask him to do it again.

Doesn't Sakic lead the list of all-time playoff OT goals? Sakic was a bigger one-game player. If clutch exists, no one was more clutch. I still take Sakic.

I thought the trade was supposed to be the same in a relative sense. If the question is, hey, would you trade Dahlin for someone better than Dahlin? The answer is, well yes. As for Barrie, definitely.

Two of those players are replacement level or below. Sheary and Vesey are dime-a-dozen. Yes, completely irrelevant adds without the building blocks above them stabilized. It's not about adding players like that. They can be grabbed from the trash heap or as UFAs at any time. It's about having a solid 3 lines above so, at best, Vesey is playing in a 4th line role, and players like Frolik and Sobotka don't see the roster, at all, for even a minute of action. You don't reach critical mass by adding bottom line/bottom 6 players. You reach critical mass by adding top 6 players so fringe top 6 players play on the lower lines. Botterill thinks if you add enough bottom 6ers, enough will develop into top 6 players, surely. And that if you acquire enough left shot, left wing potential 15 goal men, one will adequately play 2C. He's out to lunch.

Wait, in what way?