Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
And I’m saying that Weegar, Tanev, Andersson, Kylington, Zadorov, Stone is still an improvement over Tanev, Andersson, Hanifin, Kylington, Zadorov, Gudbranson. It’s not like anyone was thrilled with Zadorov or Gudbranson at the start of the season, there were articles calling them terrible through training camp, so I’m not sure what good counting out Stone/Mackey/Valimaki does.
The top end of our defensive core has been improved so much so that we could afford to lose some in the middle or bottom end of it. It wouldn’t be switching it back to where it was defensively, and obvious the improvement at C would remain untouched, so I don’t get it really. There’s also always the chance you swing a 2nd line scoring RW and a Kylington/Zadorov/Gudbranson level guy in a Hanifin move. Not everything has to be one for one.
And again, not that we have to. Not that we’ll be screwed if we don’t. But that we’re in a position where it would make sense. Simple as that.
No one who has read my posts would reasonably come to that conclusion, given the number of times I’ve reiterated the same point to make it clear (see above). Some people just want to argue in circles, I guess?
|
I disagree that there is much if any improvement over the two sets of D pairings in the bolded. How do you see it as an improvement?
You're suggesting Hanifin is a middle or bottom pairing Dman? I am guessing I have misunderstood - but Hanifin is 1 or 2 Dman on most teams.
If we lose Hanifin and gain a winger of equal value, that is IMO making the team worse. The D pretty much goes back to what it was last year, and the RW position would be closer to what it was last year - I don't imagine we would get anyone near Tkachuk's value. So the compared to last year we would have similar D, stronger C, slightly weaker RW - OR - we stand pat, and we have stronger D, stronger C, weaker RW... I prefer the latter, seems like a team better built to contend. Especially a Sutter team - I think we'll be very hard to score on.