JohnC

Isn't that better than wasting away in a franchise stuck in the muck of its own incompetency? I'm happy for Kyle and his family. The lack of graciousness here is unappealing.

You are missing the point by distorting my point. No need to respond. It's pointless.

The Capitals made the playoffs last year, and we did not. I don't particularly care about goal differentials. You either make the playoffs or you don't. They did, and we didn't. As you indicate, the bar for Washington is low. Yet, it is higher than our bar. As I said in the prior post, the Capitals are in the process of making the transition from aging players out to steadily infusing the roster with younger players. What has made the transition even more challenging is trying to maintain a credible team in order to support Ovie in his record pursuit. As you well know, it's a tough process for the fans to endure. Yet, they are doing it without hitting the bottom. That's something that we haven't done.

Washington is in a delicate situation where it is trying to make the transition from old to new by steadily bringing up their high-end prospects. As you point out, Ovie's pursuit of Gretzky's goal scoring is a complicating feature to that transition. If there wasn't an Ovie record consideration, I could see the Capitals dealing Strome for young players. What the Capitals have done demonstrable better than the Sabres is to stay competitive while also making the transition from old to younger.

For a 2/3 C you will have to give up more than you are indicating. For a 3C, I agree with you that it would be too much. Strome is more of a 1/2 C. If available, he's not going to be cheap.

Would you be interested in trading with Washington for Dylan Strome? Maybe cost you a #1, Savoie and Krebs or Joki?

The Caps ended the season with Charlie Lindgren being their #1 goalie with Kuemper the backup. They believe that Dubois can be rehabilitated and become their #2 center. One of their other centers, Strome, might be available. Strome is the caliber of center who I believe can be a 2/3C. Dowd is more of a 4C. He can be acquired for a reasonable price.

No, I'm not saying what you think I said. Of course, if you can get better players at a reasonable, if not better, price, they should do so. I would extend that line of thinking for any player on the roster. If you can get a better player at a similar or lesser price, then get the better player.

Thanks for both of your responses. Based on @Brawndo's comment that he wants to be assured of a NHL roster spot, I would say no thanks. I would rather use our first-round pick as an asset to be parlayed for a NHL ready player.

How good is McCroarty? Where would he rate in our prospect pool?

I would be extremely disappointed with another year of no playoffs. If the team makes the playoffs and is then quickly dispatched, I won't be totally satisfied or dissatisfied. The bottom line for me has to be making the playoffs first and then go on from there.

The GM hasn't made any transactions yet. So why be so dour about what you expect him to do? Your zealotry about Krebs and Joki is perplexing. Whether either of them or both of them stays or go will not have a major bearing on how the team does. So why gets so frenzied over marginal issues? How is the GM going to handle this offseason regarding the reworking of this roster, especially the bottom portion? I don't know. I respectfully recommend you wait a little longer before you unload your fuselage of criticisms for actions that may or may not happen. It wasn't that long ago when you were insistent that Mitts and UPL were lost causes and should be summarily dispatched. You were wrong. Very often patience is a virtue.

You are working too hard to depress yourself. Take a chill pill and give yourself a lift. You are right that it is not inconceivable that Savoie ends up on the roster and that Krebs and Joki get re-signed. But those transactions don't translate into a catastrophe. Loosen up and relax. You may end up being surprised how this offseason actually turns out.

I don't want to belabor a point that I already just made. As I just said it is rare that there is ever unanimity on any issue. Will some people consider a Skinner transaction controversial? Probably so. However, overall, I don't see a Skinner move having much of an effect on the fanbase.

I'm not saying that he is wrong. I'm simply saying that I don't see a buyout of Skinner or trade as being very controversial. That's my view. If you want to say for a faction of the fanbase it would be controversial, then it's likely to be. But it is rare that there is ever any unanimity on any transaction.

You misread and over interpreted my post.

https://www.tiktok.com/discover/muscle-guy-walking-around-beach

A Kane deal would rev up this somnolent fan base.

What's so controversial about a decision to buy-out or trade Skinner? A sizeable majority fans desire it. The controversy would come into play if he was kept.

The both of us agree that Skinner does not fit the profile of a player that Lindy prefers. However, I'm confident in saying that no coach inherits a team in which all the players are the players the coach would want if starting from scratch. Is Skinner in Ruff's or the organization's long-term plans? It' safe to say no. But even if that's the case that doesn't mean that for the short-term (this season) keeping him in an altered role isn't the best option for now. It seems to me that I value his primary talent of scoring goals relative to his liabilities more than most people here do. My sense (opinion) is that the GM will soon be making a number of moves. Will they be blockbuster type moves? I don't think so, but they probably will go beyond tinkering. As a hockey fan this is a period of time where there is a lot of speculation before transactions take place. We shall see.

There is no need to apologize for one's assessment. The point I was making that especially with young players such as Mitts, Tage and UPL very often patience is the right course of action. I realize that the Skinner scenario is an altogether different situation.

The GM has repeatedly stated that his focus is primarily going to be on the lower half of the roster. My reading of his many comments since the season ended is that he is more than satisfied with the upper half of the roster. There will be deals but odds are it won't involve a blockbuster deal. However, he needs to bring in a 2/3 C player to replace Mitts.

The majority of people want to see me impeached. And there is a radical faction that would love to see me hung upside down with a noose around my balls. 😆 A large faction of the same rowdy crowd a few years ago wanted to see Mitts and UPL gone because they fervently believed that they were a lost cause and a drag on the roster. They were wrong. What the both of us are saying is that until there is a better option he adds value to this roster. Right now, flaws and all, he is still one of our best goal scorers.

I agree with you that Benson is the type of player who can play on any of the top three lines. Mitts was a similar player that he could fit in at C or W on any of the top three lines. That's an invaluable attribute to have. It's going to be intriguing to see if Benson can make a quantum leap in his second year. He's a youngster who has a mature game. How can anyone not like him?

The comparison between Skinner and Satan don't resonate with me. A couple of years ago, Granato spoke on WGR about Skinner handling his demotion when Krueger was the coach. Clearly, Skinner didn't fit the model of a player he preferred. His minutes and role were severely diminished. The former HC said that after being demoted, Skinner was one of the hardest practice players on the team. The point I'm making is that he's not the type of person who will become a negative influence on the team even when as a player his role is diminished.