PerreaultForever

It's potentially a developing team but it still has a long way to go. Consider that Bjork, a guy who was critiqued in Boston for his defensive play and played his way out of the line up is one of our best defensive forwards. We have some solid potential now, and a better effort level, but a lot of things would have to go right for the playoffs to be a reality and a lot of the guys trending up would have to get even better.

Hey, go look at what I said in the other thread (I forget which one, maybe forwards for 2021-22) where I said I think he should stay centering the line with Skinner and VO and not be considered as Jack's right wing. Didn't want to repeat myself, but what I said there is shown to be true in this game.

I get your hyperbole, but that's not the point. There's culture and there's chemistry and there's attitude on the team and maybe, just maybe this is the right moment to move him. You get a return, you probably create cap room, and you get to move on with a new era attitude. Not trading him this off season and (potentially) losing next year would be disastrous.

Mitts dominated in face offs even. Never would have expected that.

Oh ya, and Eakin should be benched next game. It's possible, and it would send the right message.

Nice. I was hoping Tokharski could get the shut out but then again he should have stopped the last one so I guess it evens out. Not sure what we're going to do this week if Ullmark doesn't play. I think we're going to burn Tokharski out this way. Really good to see the adjustments made in a second game (as they should be) and we played much better defensively which is what we needed to do based on game one. Solid win. Samuelsson did not look out of place which is all you can ask for at this point. He could be a solid piece moving forward.

Personally, I just don't want next season to be all about Jack. Does Jack want to be here, is Jack healthy, is Jack happy, are we winning enough for Jack to want to stay. Jack Jack Jack and nothing but Jack. I think we're better off without him and to build a team where no one player stands above the rest.

We shouldn't trade VO. The real question imo is how much money does Reinhart want? If it's a lot I'd move him. With the money tied up in Skinner we cannot afford to dump over 25 million in one top line that has already proven in the past doesn't win us hockey games. Personally, and my dislike of Reinhart at times is well known so this might surprise people, I think he's looked better on that line with Skinner and VO than he did playing with Jack and I'd leave that line alone and find Jack new wingers. Skinner is all too often oblivious to where his team mates are that's his biggest weakness while Sam is the exact opposite. While he can be slow and too pensive he's very good at seeing the ice and knowing where people are and so they are perfectly matched on our second line. All too often playing with Jack both just watched Jack too much and waited for him to make the play. Matter of fact that might be part of why this Jackless team is better. With him it's all about Jack and too many people look to give the puck to Jack or let Jack do it and so on rather than doing it themselves. It's a better TEAM now and I'd hate to lose that. So then maybe trade Jack and pay Sam a reasonable amount. idk

I'm fine with that draft. I hoped for Dach but knew he'd probably be gone. Cozens was my second choice. I was actually surprised JBot picked him. Didn't seem like a JBot type player but he's everything I hoped he'd be.

cause at this point in time we don't have many players who can play defensively. he might be a fading player on his way out, but it's all we got.

On the NBC broadcast they said he might not play again this season. wtf?

lol. At least you didn't run down the Mike Milbury trades to really drive up the sarcasm 😉

You have to applaud the effort level that's for sure. We don'\t have the talent to play them the way we did. We really need to finish more checks and play better D BUT you have to love the effort and the lack of quit. Now why did we pick up Cagguila if we're not going to play him? Is he quarantined or something? I want to see if he's got anything .

Of course you can. It's called trade capital. Any team with too many good young D men will have teams lining up with offers. guess you should send them your resume.

There are some good movies already listed here (and some bad ones :)) so I will venture off the path. Wings Of Desire Down By Law Blue Velvet Apocalypse Now Irreversible Betty Blue Monty Python And The Holy Grail A Clockwork Orange Blade Runner Fargo in that order.

Just as long as E-Rod doesn't score 🙂

I don't think that's entirely true. I remember him saying we needed to get to the front of the net for example. They're not great at it, but some of them are doing it for Granato.

The first part of what you say above is BS. Best player available simply means the one they (the scouts or whoever is on the payroll doing the job) have ranked the highest. Drafting best player available and not by position for immediate need is not my idea or the idea of "ppl like me" but rather the tried and true successful philosophy of many a great GM in history. Deciding who is that player is up to their criteria, be it analytics, scouting or whatever formulas they use to rank them but it's still best available player. It's always the best plan. The second part of what you say above is simply a subjective assessment. It's a team game, and any weakness kills you so you need strength everywhere. A great D makes a goalie better and lets forwards cheat offensively, it can drive the play etc. etc. It's never just about drafting flashy goal scorers, who often falter on weaker teams when they can't play their preferred game/style. We disagree on who is the best player available in this draft, and that's a valid disagreement, but there's no need for your holier than thou attitude. You've been wrong often about the draft like all of us. imo you're dead wrong in your assessment this time.

disagree. we already argued about it in the draft thread.

Why not? The notion of drafting a player for a positional need (especially when they won't be ready for a few years) is folly. You draft the best player available and if you end up with too many at any position then you trade. The notion that we are "set" at any position is also silly imo. This team might be on a small roll, but we are far from good, and we could use upgrades at any and all positions. I don't think McCabe will be here next year. Just a feeling.

idk why, but for some reason the team quit on Kreuger, and I think that's obvious. We'd lose a game and he'd come out and say we have to do x y and z and next game team didn't do any of the three. If you're the coach, what do you do then? For some reason they're doing what Granato tells them to do. Some of those things are the same things Kreuger said they had to do better. So honestly, I don't get the extreme difference other than the obvious, and that is they simply quit on him and Adams fails in not recognizing the need for a change sooner.

Lazar scored into the empty net 🙂 He's playing really well.

Let's be fair to Tage, it was good to see him step up and sets an example for the team, but Kevin Miller is probably the toughest guy on a tough team. Good for Tage to just be there and survive. Having said that though, I don't disagree and the physical side of his game needs to keep being encouraged and developed. I don't think it's really his preferred way to play or his instinctive way to play but it should be. Finish your checks Tage, hit some people, drive the net, and drop them IF you have to, but use that size and keep building muscle. As for the Mitts line, I'd keep it together as line 3. They could grow together in that role. Unless there are big trades (Eichel, Reinhart, ?) we have to find a way to use Skinner on line 1 or 2 simply because he's here. So, if no trades, signings, etc. Something like this: Skinner-Reinhart-Olofsson Rousaleinen-Eichel-Cozens Asplund-Mitts-Thompson Eakin, Okposo whoever (I'm assuming Bjork goes to Seattle) But I expect changes.

I guess I have the minority view, but I think this is the time to move on and make the deal. There's a few reasons. 1. You've got the question of full recovery. Likely, but what if he's never quite the same? 2. The team has a new feel and a new direction without him . There seems to be a greater unity, more effort, it's more of a TEAM than a focus on individuals. There are perhaps a number of reasons for that, but if it's a culture shift driven by young players not part of the losing culture do you want to upset that or build off of it? 3. If Jack is not traded and we go back to losing next year we are sunk and it's all on him and we will get even less in return as the questions on and about him will bring up all kinds of nastiness and cancer talk and locker rooms and who knows what. It'll get ugly. 4. That no move clause. Trade before it kicks in. IDK, but the bottom line for me is I haven't liked the way this team plays (aside from the little 10 game fool ya win streak we had before) in all the years Eichel has been here and I am enjoying the hockey now. I don't want to lose that and if I'm the GM and I can save a ton of cap money for future signings and fill my prospect pool while keeping this current team as is I'm going to do it. To me it's a no brainer, unless the return offered is crap of course.

Looked like the puck caught him right in the ear which can mess you up pretty quick. Maybe it's caution because of his history and that's not a bad thing. If it's a full on concussion he might want to rethink his career for the sake of his long term health at this point. I hope he's fine as he's been showing good veteran leadership lately. Jack could learn a thing or two about that if he wants to be captain going forward.