Larry Goodenough wrote:dbr wrote:Larry Goodenough wrote:If Rome played defensively like Edler did last night, he would be under criticism today. But Edler always gets a pass.
If Rome played offensively like Edler does ever, he'd probably get his share of free passes too. But he is just not that player..
So Rome and Edler get paid $750,000 for their equal defensive work and Edler gets a $2.5 m bonus for his offensive work?
Sounds about right.
Larry Goodenough wrote:donlever wrote:dbr wrote: (Although strictly for the sake of argument, I bet you'd find a lot of NHL GMs out there happy to pay a player an extra $2.5m every year if it meant they quadrupled their offensive production..)
...and 30 of them that would gleefully pay the surcharge for Edler over Rome.
I would too.
My point is...
If we accept Edler's defensive play, then we should accept Rome's defensive play as well, as they are essentially equal this year.
If Rome's defense sucks, then Edler's sucks as well.
If Edler gets a pass because he's got offensive numbers, then Rome should get a pass because he's a cheap 6/7th. defenseman.
donlever wrote:As an aside I think most of us (the general consensus as it were) see and value what Rome can do relative to how much he makes. A few guys (Meds) have a real distaste for him and that is, of course, their perogative.
I guess a lot of the Rome discontent comes down to the fact that Ballard is to risky a player down low for AV as compared, in his opinion, to Rome and fans have an issue with Keith not getting similar opportunities to what they view those a lesser player garners.
As opposed to simple mindless "Rome bashing" as you refer to it.
Hockey Widow wrote:It must be killing AV that he has to get MAGS his games in. Looks like he made the decision to get them all in and over with. I suspect that the last few games of the season we will get a chance to see what is really on AV's mind when we see his defensive parings and I don't think MAGS starts the playoffs.
Rome is a serviceable guy for us and never gets a break on his gaffs. Nights he is invisible are good nights for him but he still doesn't get a pass. For me the Rome phobia is still anger over how Ballard has been managed on this team. But if Rome does not get suspended for 4 games in the SCF we may have been strong enough to win one more game.
We just look a lot weaker on D this year and I can't believe the loss of Ehrhoff is the only reason. Something is out of synch.
herb wrote:Like Donny has reiterated, this is a veteran team. Nothing to get worked up about. I would, however, like to see the top two lines go on a bit of a tear and light some teams up to try to get some of that swagger going before the playoffs.
Meds wrote:I suppose I can handout the compliment to Rome in that he is an upgrade on Rory Fitzpatrick.
My "real distaste" for him began last year when I would watch him fumble the puck, screw up with it at both ends of the ice, be in the wrong place at the wrong time, etc.....all while Ballard watched from upstairs. Granted, I don't know all the ins and outs and who's and why's, etc., when it comes to AV's reasons for keeping Ballard out and Rome in. However, I do know that when Ballard has played with some confidence he has far exceeded Rome's contributions. I do know that Ballard can hit as well as, and if you factor in hip checks then far better than, Rome. I know Ballard can skate circles around Rome. I know that Ballard can pass better than Rome. I know that Ballard has a better shot. I know that Ballard can skate the puck out under pressure. Rome can do none of those things. After Ehrhoff departed for greener pastures I expected that Ballard would get a shot at cracking the lineup on a regular basis and see PP time. For whatever reason Vigneault went the other way and we all watched as Rome received, at times, 17-18 minutes of ice-time, while Ballard was only alotted minutes in th 14-15 range. So obviously I assumed that Rome was under the desk on AV.....and I hate cocksuckers.....errrr.....
Lately though we have seen Rome screwing up and coming out a minus when only getting 14 minutes of TOI. Yet AV continued to let him play through it, and it wasn't until last night that he finally pulled the trigger and sat him.
I will always dislike a player that is getting ice-time and being played regularly while not improving at all when there are 3 other options available in the press-box and at least 2 of them are an upgrade and the other at least on par. Tanev is an upgrade on Rome. Ballard is an upgrade on Rome. Alberts is at least on par with Rome (I literally am scared shitless every time I see either one of them down below the other team's goalline). Now we have Gragnani, who is on par with Rome simply because his offensive zone contributions average him out overall.....however, Gragnani can take a shift on the PP, while Rome doesn't really see special team's time at either end of the ice.
I wasn't opposed to Rome when he first showed up and was #8 on the depth chart. My "distaste" for him is no different than for Raymond right now. Both of them are ineffective and/or out of position, and either doing too little or trying to do too much. This pisses me off because at the NHL level my philosophy has always been give a guy a bit of time to play through a funk, but when he doesn't, and you have other options, like a full AHL team, then give them a shot and see what happens. And when it gets to that point, well it can't get any worse than it is.
Meds wrote:Besides, I'm sure Gillis could have gotten a decent #6 making less than $2M in exchange for Ballard and the salary issues with Juice and Ehrhoff would still have been workable. I think if Gillis has ever dropped the ball during his tenure here, it was in letting Ehrhoff walk.
Hockey Widow wrote:Meds:
Ehrhoff was not in the picture to be re-signed. His camp made it clear they would not negotiate during the season and he was testing FA. MG never had a chance to really extend him before July 1st. He was offered Bieksa type of money. Exactly how much we don't know. His camp out right rejected that offer and never countered. They wanted to test the market but never countered. When the Buffalo deal came down MG had about 10 minutes to decide if he wanted to offer a comparable deal or not. He chose not too.
This assumption that if we had traded Ballard we could have kept both Ehrhoff and Bieksa is so false, unless we offered comparable to Buffalo or high 6 to 7 for a long term deal. Thats what he was after and thats not what MG was going to pay. Now trading Ballard to free up cap to get another top 4 that AV would trust is an option but not to retain Ehrhoff. it just wasn't going to happen. And I would think that if AV still does not trust Ballard and if Ballard cannot come back and help in the playoffs that his time here may be done.
But the Ballard deal did not impact on the Canucks ability to keep Ehrhoff. Ehrhoff's expectations impacted on the Canucks willingness to re-sign him. Plain and simple.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 1 guest