Gino's Knuckle wrote:
I never stated that you insulted me. But your condescension isn’t appreciated.
Then you should have said that.
What you said was "keep it civil" (it was quite civil) and "Lay off the pejoratives" (there weren't any),
I dont doubt I was condencending given how terrible your over all argument has been in this thread.
My apologies on that it can be dificult to avoid at times....
Think I made it pretty clear that my discussion with respect to the team’s softness/lack of grit was in response to someone else’s commentary – that isn’t discrepant, it is just a side topic. Not sure how much more clear I can be with that. I guess we can have separate threads for every different thought, but that seems a little excessive to me.
AGAIN, these things do not exist in a vacume....
If you think they lack the grit to win in the playoffs, why the hell do you care about trading Grabner ???
And like I said, my discussion regarding the “softness” or “lack of grit” was in response to another poster. i.e. side argument. Would you see more logic were I to, as noted above, immediately start a new thread dealing with that side-topic rather than debating it in the same thread in which it was brought up?
What does this even mean?
Are you saying that because you didn't direct the argument at me that it somehow doesn't count and I cant point out the major discrepancy in your logic here?
I agree he is soft. My point was and is and will continue to be that the dimension I feel he brings is worth the trade-off on a team which is already “soft” or “not gritty enough”. You can work on the grit in other moves.
Why would a team that (your statement) "lacks the grit to win" ever consider bringing in a forward who is less gritty and produces fewer points then the forwards currently on the roster.
I'm not sure how manny times I can repeat myself here.....
Top teams do not have soft, defensively irresponsible, 32 point forwards in their top6. If they have players like that they cant wait to replace them.
Hell Chris Higgens is fantastic defensively, plays with a ton of grit, outscored Grabner by over 25%, despite playing in a less ofensive role.
Michael Grabner got 32 points last year while playing in the NYI's top 6,,,,, he simply would not have kept his spot on the roster last season so his trade was 100% moot...
With his performance last season he absolutism would have been waived, his inclusion in the Ballard trade is simply not relevant.
We would not and could not have kept him on the roster and it quite hilarious to see a poster wax poetic about our lack of grit and toughness and then moan about not keeping Grabner....
Since you didn’t seem to get it the first time, let me repost:
Gino's Knuckle wrote: Just because I think the team needs to get tougher does not equate to my requiring that every movement of the team be about toughness. I think we all understand that you can have a general movement toward something (i.e. increasing toughness), without making every move solely on the basis of that goal (i.e. making a trade that might not get you closer to that specific target but one which you feels increases your overall talent etc.). Every move a team makes is in some senses a trade-off. In my opinion keeping Grabner would have been trade-off that I would have preferred (that is not to say I wouldn’t have made other moves to compensate for toughness).
Oh I get it completely....
Patrick Kane doesn't make us tougher but if the Hawks want to send him our way I am all for it.
The problem is we aren't talking about a world class player like Kane, we are talking about Grabner who is at best a supplementary player.
If Kane were a 32 point player I would want nothing to do with him, but because he is a better offensive player then everyone not named Sedin it makes perfect seance to add him, even if you believe the team lacks toughness.
If you can add a guy who is a very clear offensive upgrade to your top6 then it makes sense, but Grabner posted worse numbers then most of our top9 forwards last seasons so again, why on earth would we add a soft player who brings less grit and less offensive production then our current players?
As for the “avoided” point, did you actually watch the beating they took from Boston? Or from LA? Maybe they weren’t “soft” but they sure as hell weren’t gritty enough.
I saw a team that played with more grit then 3 of the best western conference teams, racked up a pile of injuries, flew a gazillion miles, and just didn't have enough left against a very tough Boston team.
I was as disappointed as anyone, but at the end of the day the team killed themselves to win it all last year and they got with in an eyelash.
To claim the same group is "soft" and doesn't have what it takes to win in the playoffs is utterly ridiculous and you should be embarrassed to be a part of the fans who take that position.