tas Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 (edited) 2 hours ago, TopChed said: 4m in the pressbox isn't helping your team. If you have 4m spectating youve managed the cap poorly. not if you're first in the league and your team is rolling in spite of that. if you can afford to stick $4m in the press box without it hurting your team. it's because you've managed the cap well. edit: it's like saying spending a 1st rounder on a questionable deadline rental is bad asset management even if that player helps you win a cup. Edited February 13 by tas 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopChed Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 14 minutes ago, tas said: not if you're first in the league and your team is rolling in spite of that. if you can afford to stick $4m in the press box without it hurting your team. it's because you've managed the cap well. edit: it's like saying spending a 1st rounder on a questionable deadline rental is bad asset management even if that player helps you win a cup. No don't be silly. Sitting 4m in the pressbox is not good mgmt. Period. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tas Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 17 minutes ago, TopChed said: No don't be silly. Sitting 4m in the pressbox is not good mgmt. Period. incorrect. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baratheon Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 4 minutes ago, tas said: incorrect. Both of you are partially correct and partially incorrect. Having 4M in the press box NOT hurt you is a result of good cap management. But it also means that you weren't perfect. Sitting 4M is not ideal no matter how you slice it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tas Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 13 minutes ago, Baratheon said: Both of you are partially correct and partially incorrect. Having 4M in the press box NOT hurt you is a result of good cap management. But it also means that you weren't perfect. Sitting 4M is not ideal no matter how you slice it. nobody is ever perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baratheon Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 4 minutes ago, tas said: nobody is ever perfect. And nobody ever claimed that as far as I can see. The point stands 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tas Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 51 minutes ago, Baratheon said: And nobody ever claimed that as far as I can see. The point stands which point though? I never claimed it was perfect asset management. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baratheon Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 6 minutes ago, tas said: which point though? I never claimed it was perfect asset management. My point that you responded to. I did not claim it was possible to be perfect. I simply don’t think that you can point to the imperfection and call it a good thing. You both still seem to be partially correct/incorrect. No biggie! That’s fairly common in a good debate! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 1 hour ago, TopChed said: No don't be silly. Sitting 4m in the pressbox is not good mgmt. Period. Actually it’s smart. If there is injury (in the playoffs) there’s a very good player to step up. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tas Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 18 minutes ago, Baratheon said: My point that you responded to. I did not claim it was possible to be perfect. I simply don’t think that you can point to the imperfection and call it a good thing. You both still seem to be partially correct/incorrect. No biggie! That’s fairly common in a good debate! I understand what you're saying, and where you're coming from is totally reasonable, but I still don't feel like I was "partially incorrect" because I never claimed perfect cap management, I merely said that being able to afford to park a highly paid player in the nosebleeds without ill effect is the result of good cap management, not bad cap management. which is correct. but I was frankly bored with this topic after like my first post here so I'm happy to walk away now and never come back. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baratheon Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 7 minutes ago, tas said: I understand what you're saying, and where you're coming from is totally reasonable, but I still don't feel like I was "partially incorrect" because I never claimed perfect cap management, I merely said that being able to afford to park a highly paid player in the nosebleeds without ill effect is the result of good cap management, not bad cap management. which is correct. but I was frankly bored with this topic after like my first post here so I'm happy to walk away now and never come back. BREAKING NEWS! THE VANCOUVER CANUCKS HAVE ACQUIRED CHRIS TANEV! tas - “Oh ffs…” Haha! Jk jk! 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzle Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 3 hours ago, TopChed said: Sure but adding Tanev so you can plunk 1 of Zad, Cole Soucy in the bleachers would be GM's cap mismanagment. Dear lord I would love to go into the playoffs with that level of d depth. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopChed Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 2 hours ago, Dizzle said: Dear lord I would love to go into the playoffs with that level of d depth. Sure if there wasn't a cap that would be great. But wouldn't it be better to have another 4m FWD on the ice? Instead of a 4m d in the stands? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tas Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 10 minutes ago, TopChed said: Sure if there wasn't a cap that would be great. But wouldn't it be better to have another 4m FWD on the ice? Instead of a 4m d in the stands? be specific. which forward and how? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopChed Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 2 minutes ago, tas said: be specific. which forward and how? A player on the ice > one in the press box Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tas Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 Just now, TopChed said: A player on the ice > one in the press box only if there's an upgrade available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopChed Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 Just now, tas said: only if there's an upgrade available. Any player playing > one not playing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tas Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 Just now, TopChed said: Any player playing > one not playing. are you suggesting they wouldn't be icing a full forward group? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopChed Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 This is a retarded argument capital R. I'm not going to lose anymore brain cells. Sitting 4m in the press box is retarded. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tas Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 2 minutes ago, TopChed said: This is a retarded argument capital R. I'm not going to lose anymore brain cells. Sitting 4m in the press box is retarded. hooboy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrJockitch Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 Toronto should just send 3 first rounders for Tanev and Markstrom and whatever it takes to make the money work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 (edited) 8 hours ago, TopChed said: 4m in the pressbox isn't helping your team. If you have 4m spectating youve managed the cap poorly. No, if you can ice a winning team and still have the depth to have a legit NHLer in the press box for a while at the end of the season and injury insurance and available to you in the playoffs when there is no cap… that is excellent cap management. We generally go through 13 defencemen in a season due to injuries and call ups. Saying having a guy in the press box who can step up isn’t helping your team is just plain wrong. It could be the difference between going deep in the playoffs and being sent golfing after the first round. Edited February 14 by Provost 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 5 hours ago, TopChed said: No don't be silly. Sitting 4m in the pressbox is not good mgmt. Period. Move Myers. Problem solved. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NHL97OneTimer Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 41 minutes ago, aGENT said: Move Myers. Problem solved. No. Myers has actually been good this season and can step up when we're down a guy or two in a game. We'll need his size in the playoffs too. I've never liked his contract, but this season has shown that with appropriate coaching and systems, he can still be quite effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NHL97OneTimer Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 Throwing a crazy idea out here......but do we need Tanev? I'm all for bringing Tanev to this group, but I'm not thinking it's necessary and I worry about the cap issues this team will have next year, not to mention the assets that we would give up. I'm really loving the physicality of the D this year and so I'm not sure who you remove to add Tanev. With Soucy and Zadorov to come back, we're not in a bad place. But more importantly, Juulsen deserves to be on the team.....his improvement this year has been excellent. Is Tanev better than Juulsen? Yes. But he's not a liability and his performance per salary hit is perfect for the club right now. When the playoffs start, team toughness will be important and the D group we have right now (minus Hughes) all provide a healthy dose of physicality. Adding Tanev would benefit in some areas, but would reduce the team toughness factor. Unless there's a major injury before the trade deadline, I'd prefer to add Tanev in the off-season if we lose a solid D in the summer. Then we're not creating a bigger cap issue and we're not giving up picks or prospects. Besides, this group deserves to play in the playoffs as currently built. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts