[Trade] Toffoli to Flames for 2022 1st *, 2023 5th, Heineman, and Pitlick

[Radio]

Gitch sounds sticky and gross...something that would come out of Edmonton. That's probably what the smell is, a gitch pond.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by jjgallow

Our goalie was hot last year, yes. For the one year. It didn't eliminate our defensive needs, it just covered them up.

I started a thread on Weegar too on another forum, at the time of the trade. Didn't think people could bare it here.

I have my thoughts on Markstrom too but there is enough evidence on D that it's not needed.

Hanifin, Hanifin, Hanifin.

Hanifin.

They have Rasmus. That is all.


Their forward lines were completely gutted and revamped in the off-season. People said Monahan wasn't a two-way player. Those people were wrong.

Our forward line got older. Quite a bit older. It shows, particularly defensively. Other players who were two-way players dropped off and become 0-way players, like Lucic, which was expected at his age and what is expected to happen when you bump up your team age for short term gain.

The bolded just isn't true.

I was quoting the chance level they give up, not the goals they give up. Markstrom was great, but the team in front of him was top 5 in the league.

This year they're 7th despite a really rough November.

Team defense is far from this team's issue.

Odd angle to attack.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

https://www.waywordradio.org/gonch/

Wiktionary gives a slightly more specific version with location:

Well, that was surprisingly unhelpful to the debate. Seems clear that spelling it with an O is just wrong though.

[memphusk]

What about Gunch?

[Johnny Makarov]

Ugh. this talk is starting to feel moist.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Geeoff

i would say gitch or gotch with a t not an n

I don't even.

Although the spelling of your username is making more sense now.

[PepsiFree]

I just say panties

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Sasky variation.

Probably a bunnyhug then

[jjgallow]

Originally Posted by Bingo

The bolded just isn't true.

I was quoting the chance level they give up, not the goals they give up. Markstrom was great, but the team in front of him was top 5 in the league.

This year they're 7th despite a really rough November.

Team defense is far from this team's issue.

Odd angle to attack.

Not everything is cut and dry with stats. Sutter teams always rank well there, but not all Sutter teams are winners.

I mean I'm fine if you want to just blame Markstrom and it's not a shock as he's only ever had one hot season like that in his entire career and he's not getting any younger. Again the arguement is that we had needs defensively and in net.

But, for a Sutter team to be successful they can't just be "good" at preventing chances. I mean that's the whole point of having a Sutter coached team. Doesn't mean you actually have defensemen.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by jjgallow

Not everything is cut and dry with stats. Sutter teams always rank well there, but not all Sutter teams are winners.

I mean I'm fine if you want to just blame Markstrom and it's not a shock as he's only ever had one hot season like that in his entire career and he's not getting any younger. Again the arguement is that we had needs defensively and in net.

But, for a Sutter team to be successful they can't just be "good" at preventing chances. I mean that's the whole point of having a Sutter coached team. Doesn't mean you actually have defensemen.

Those stats are decently cut and dried.

So they rank well in not giving up much, but they don't have defensemen. And "we had needs defensively" is an argument?

If they prevent, but don't win, don't they need better forwards?

Is this just the case of wanting to get a rise out of everyone and just spewing thoughts without much support?

[kipperiggy]

Originally Posted by Geeoff

i would say gitch or gotch with a t not an n

I thought gonch with an n is what the gitch goes on...

[jjgallow]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Those stats are decently cut and dried.

So they rank well in not giving up much, but they don't have defensemen. And "we had needs defensively" is an argument?

If they prevent, but don't win, don't they need better forwards?

Is this just the case of wanting to get a rise out of everyone and just spewing thoughts without much support?

They need a future, is what they need. Whether they need forwards or not is really besides the point because there isn't any Stanley Cup for them this year, they've traded away most of their picks/prospects, and most of their forwards are in their 30's on disaster contracts. This trade was a part of that. Someone on here joked about losing two first rounders, they forget the role this trade and subsequent contract had in losing a first rounder with Monahan too.

It's pretty obvious that people will just blame the goalie, that's hockey fans 101. It's also kind of irrelevant, the problem runs quite deep. It's past a strict positional issue.

If you think I'm just trying to get a rise out of people you may want to go back and have a quick look at the standings.

[bigpete]

Very acceptable: Gonch, ginch

Somewhat acceptable: Gitch

Unacceptable: Gotch

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by jjgallow

They need a future, is what they need. Whether they need forwards or not is really besides the point because there isn't any Stanley Cup for them this year, they've traded away most of their picks/prospects, and most of their forwards are in their 30's on disaster contracts.

It's pretty obvious that people will just blame the goalie, that's hockey fans 101. It's also kind of irrelevant, the problem runs quite deep.

If you think I'm just trying to get a rise out of people you may want to go back and have a quick look at the standings.

So they need scoring and Toffoli isn’t going to help that, but Toffoli is actually good at scoring it turns out, so they actually need defence and goaltending. Ok.

But they have goaltending, sort of, but they also don’t, but it’s also easy for hockey fans to just blame the goalie (hockey fans 101). So they need goaltending, but you shouldn’t blame the goaltending, or… it’s ok for you to say we need goaltending, but if people say it’s the goalie, they’re just being hockey fans 101. Ok.

And they need defence, but the defence is actually good at what the defence is supposed to do, so they need a defence that actually does more than what a defence is supposed to do, they need a defence that does what forwards are supposed to do, so they ACTUALLY need a future…

Pretty straightforward argument you’ve made, can’t see why anyone would disagree.

[jjgallow]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

So they need scoring and Toffoli isn’t going to help that, but Toffoli is actually good at scoring it turns out, so they actually need defence and goaltending. Ok.

But they have goaltending, sort of, but they also don’t, but it’s also easy for hockey fans to just blame the goalie (hockey fans 101). So they need goaltending, but you shouldn’t blame the goaltending, or… it’s ok for you to say we need goaltending, but if people say it’s the goalie, they’re just being hockey fans 101. Ok.

And they need defence, but the defence is actually good at what the defence is supposed to do, so they need a defence that actually does more than what a defence is supposed to do, they need a defence that does what forwards are supposed to do, so they ACTUALLY need a future…

Pretty straightforward argument you’ve made, can’t see why anyone would disagree.

Read the first four words in the paragraph you quoted.

It's becoming obvious to a lot of people now. If it's not obvious to you yet, save it...look at it next year.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by jjgallow

Read the first four words in the paragraph you quoted.

It's becoming obvious to a lot of people now. If it's not obvious to you yet, save it...look at it next year.

I don’t need to read them, I wrote them.

Toffoli helps scoring, so you’re saying they don’t need defence or goaltending, they need even MORE scoring?

Yeah, great.

[Badgers Nose]

Trading futures to get Toffoli made sense last tear as this team looked poised to challenge for the cup. He was a player coveted here by many for years, and in addition to a steady goal scoring record he has the experience of deep playoff runs.

The expected offence hasn’t materialized. And the the team had a heart transplant last offseason that is still showing signs of rejection meaning that a deep playoff run is unlikely.

I’m not going to crap on the trade or the GM for this. You make the best decision at the time with the info you have. Leave the rest to time travelling hind sighters.

[jjgallow]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I don’t need to read them, I wrote them.

Toffoli helps scoring, so you’re saying they don’t need defence or goaltending, they need even MORE scoring?

Yeah, great.

1. still missing the 4 words

2. when you quote a paragraph, you aren't the writer of that paragraph you quoted.

[genetic_phreek]

If we are to flip Toffoli now, what would be his value? We need everyone to score more goals so I don't think one individual is going to set us back as much.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by genetic_phreek

If we are to flip Toffoli now, what would be his value? We need everyone to score more goals so I don't think one individual is going to set us back as much.

Probably a 1st at the deadline.
But I see the only way that happens is if they are way out of it. Which isn't likely.
They are trying to win now. They aren't half-in. They are all in.
That may night be the right thing, but that's where this organization is.