|
Post by Bslegion on Aug 15, 2015 0:05:52 GMT
Can we please kill this idea right now? I swear to God I'll lose my mind if "maybe Lucic will come back to Boston next summer" becomes the new "if they trade Kelly".
what if he does? it's his home, you know ? smells a lot like a H O M E T O W N - D I S C O U N T
|
|
|
Post by #4 Bobby Orr! GOAT! on Aug 15, 2015 0:27:09 GMT
Kelly for Lucic is that what you mean NAS.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2015 0:30:47 GMT
I think they're onto something on the loser board. Bring back the clown. He's only 38 BTW.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2015 1:22:57 GMT
Can we please kill this idea right now? I swear to God I'll lose my mind if "maybe Lucic will come back to Boston next summer" becomes the new "if they trade Kelly". Kelly and the Fatman together again! WOOOOOO!
|
|
|
Post by NAS on Aug 15, 2015 2:24:32 GMT
Can we please kill this idea right now? I swear to God I'll lose my mind if "maybe Lucic will come back to Boston next summer" becomes the new "if they trade Kelly".
what if he does? it's his home, you know ? smells a lot like a H O M E T O W N - D I S C O U N T
BSL, you are the WORST!!!
|
|
|
Post by punisher13 on Aug 15, 2015 6:36:47 GMT
I don't think Bergeron is a superstar either. I love his game and all that he does, but superstar? Last year, he regressed back to 23 goals, despite playing in 81 games. That's 1 more than Loui Eriksson and 1 less than Brad Marchand. And Mr. Intaglibes was a +2 -- a good deal worse than the likes of Lucic (13), Pastrnak (12), and Reilly Smith (7). He was one of many underachievers last season, regressing in almost every category. I'm not trying to pin the Bruins failures on him, or badmouth the guy at all, but let's face the facts. He was a leader of a team that performed well below expectations last year, and his value and production (while generally very good) did not reach superstar status by any metric. And I'm probably talking about my favorite Bruin here... You and I may have had this discussion before......I would lean towards superstar. And yes, I grew up watching superstars of 80s and 90s. The game has changed immensely - mainly based on the miraculous shift in the goaltending position and it's advancements in coaching, athleticism (use of at the position) and equipment. And oddly you would think that would make goal scorers more important, but several NHL GMs and commentators have said they would start their teams with Kopitar, Toews or Bergy. And I think part of that is because if Malkin, Getzlaf, Stamkos, and even Ovechkin are not scoring, they may not bring much else to the game. Maybe that is a sad regression to the mean (and indicates that the only non-goalie superstar is Crosby - with Doughty and Weber in the mix) - but that is the way the league is now.
|
|
|
Post by kelvana33 on Aug 15, 2015 7:08:51 GMT
I don't think Bergeron is a superstar either. I love his game and all that he does, but superstar? Last year, he regressed back to 23 goals, despite playing in 81 games. That's 1 more than Loui Eriksson and 1 less than Brad Marchand. And Mr. Intaglibes was a +2 -- a good deal worse than the likes of Lucic (13), Pastrnak (12), and Reilly Smith (7). He was one of many underachievers last season, regressing in almost every category. I'm not trying to pin the Bruins failures on him, or badmouth the guy at all, but let's face the facts. He was a leader of a team that performed well below expectations last year, and his value and production (while generally very good) did not reach superstar status by any metric. And I'm probably talking about my favorite Bruin here... You and I may have had this discussion before......I would lean towards superstar. And yes, I grew up watching superstars of 80s and 90s. The game has changed immensely - mainly based on the miraculous shift in the goaltending position and it's advancements in coaching, athleticism (use of at the position) and equipment. And oddly you would think that would make goal scorers more important, but several NHL GMs and commentators have said they would start their teams with Kopitar, Toews or Bergy. And I think part of that is because if Malkin, Getzlaf, Stamkos, and even Ovechkin are not scoring, they may not bring much else to the game. Maybe that is a sad regression to the mean (and indicates that the only non-goalie superstar is Crosby - with Doughty and Weber in the mix) - but that is the way the league is now. The goaltending position, their equipment, advances in coaching. I would add players equipment, players laying out in front of shots at a much higher rate than they did in the 80's and 90's have all played a role. Perhaps just as significant of an impact is the salary cap. Crosby is the best player on the planet. I wouldn't call Bergeron a superstar, same with Weber and Kopitar. Below Crosby but ahead of them I would have players like Ovechkin, Stamkos, Perry, Tavares,Seguin, Toews,Kane,Doughty and Karlsson.
|
|
|
Post by dezaruchi on Aug 15, 2015 9:24:07 GMT
I can't think of a better way to compare players than to see them go head to head over the course of a 7 game NHL playoff series. Bergeron has held his own or even bested some of the game's biggest "superstars". Give him whatever label you see fit but to me, he's one of the first guys I pick when I'm trying to ice a winning lineup.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Aug 15, 2015 14:43:34 GMT
I'm hoping the word "Hilarious" and the phrase "Conspiracy Theory" suggest to most that I'm not seriously thinking this is a possibility.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Aug 15, 2015 14:47:17 GMT
what if he does? it's his home, you know ? smells a lot like a H O M E T O W N - D I S C O U N T
BSL, you are the WORST!!! You really need to stop publicizing the things that will cause you to commit [board] suicide. You're making it too easy. Like your own Ed Snowden.
|
|
|
Post by kelvana33 on Aug 15, 2015 15:20:59 GMT
I can't think of a better way to compare players than to see them go head to head over the course of a 7 game NHL playoff series. Bergeron has held his own or even bested some of the game's biggest "superstars". Give him whatever label you see fit but to me, he's one of the first guys I pick when I'm trying to ice a winning lineup. That is well said. While posting my response above I hesitated when typing that I wouldn't consider Bergeron and Kopitar superstars because when the playoffs start, those two would be at the top of anyones list.
|
|
|
Post by bostonfan191646 on Aug 15, 2015 15:40:38 GMT
Anyone that says "but there was going to be an offer sheet," is an absolute moron. What you're saying is that a team will want to sign a player to a bad contract, long term. And youre an idiot
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on Aug 15, 2015 15:41:48 GMT
In my mind being a superstar means you have hit a pretty rare air. It used to be used when mentioning Howe, Hull, Orr, Gretzky, Lemieux, and most recently Crosby. They were otherworldly players who by definition and the eye test were head and shoulders above the rest. The term then got used to include Yzerman, Dionne, Messier, Sakic, Bourque, Ovechkin, Malkin etc.
Now, it seems any player that has won an NHL award trophy has elevated himself into superstar status. While all of the latter players can definitely be considered stars, the definition of superstar is saved for the best of the best, imo. If not , then the term has become watered down hyperbole. Different people, have different criteria for this category.
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on Aug 15, 2015 15:47:09 GMT
Anyone that says "but there was going to be an offer sheet," is an absolute moron. What you're saying is that a team will want to sign a player to a bad contract, long term. And youre an idiot Is this on the right thread? Maybe the Hamilton thread?
|
|
|
Post by bostonfan191646 on Aug 16, 2015 3:38:02 GMT
Anyone that says "but there was going to be an offer sheet," is an absolute moron. What you're saying is that a team will want to sign a player to a bad contract, long term. And youre an idiot Is this on the right thread? Maybe the Hamilton thread? Read the first post.
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on Aug 17, 2015 0:13:00 GMT
Is this on the right thread? Maybe the Hamilton thread? Read the first post. Ok,got it.
|
|
|
Post by bostonfan191646 on Aug 17, 2015 3:33:51 GMT
Apologies though. Normally I would quote it so the context would be easy, but I don't quote nite.
|
|
|
Post by stevegm on Aug 17, 2015 12:35:24 GMT
So.... The original question was simple.
"ARE THE BRUINS REALLY BETTER"
Despite 5 pages of response, it's pretty obvious the group is more comfortable taking the discussion in another direction. Any direction. Those that did, pretty much all posted like they were auditioning for the Bruin PR Director position. The strongest language...either way, could be broken down to "optimistic", or 'tough to be optimistic". Kind of sissified if you ask me. And since I'm including my own earlier contribution as being too vague, I'll go again.
No. That's where I'm at now. I'm fine with moving players, but if one is looking to improve, one usually likes to consider an upgrade over what went out. I see an upgrade in physicality, but the #1 need imo, was scoring more/winning more. When I see Lucic, Yeti, Smith, Hamilton, Paille, Campbell, Backup, and about 2.8 in capspace out...vs Belesky, Hayes, and Rinaldo in...I see an alarming decline in talent. Yes, the Bruins have acquired a good number of 1st round picks and prospects, which are worth a lot...but as far as the next 82 games...they're not worth much except trade bait. One or more could step up, make the team and contribute greatly...but highly unlikely. Team, trumps talent, in certain applications, but usually the preference is to replace players with better players. At least in your own mind. There is a bit of cap space left, and that's good, but the team still has to sign 2 or 3 more players just to have a reasonable roster size. That won't leave enough to bring in a player of considerable notoriety without more going out. That leaves all of these valuable 1st rounders. They can certainly be turned into huge immediate assets, if the Bruins see fit, but the downside is, there has to be cap space available, to accommodate the stud coming back. Without more subtraction that's a toughie. Although the deals the Bruins have made, unquestionably netted value, that value imo is not in the now, but in the future. IMO, the now hasn't been fully addressed yet. If what we currently have(minus 3 entry level markers) is what we go to the deadline with, it's going to be tough to top 96 points
|
|
|
Post by The OC on Aug 17, 2015 13:20:21 GMT
So.... The original question was simple. "ARE THE BRUINS REALLY BETTER" Despite 5 pages of response, it's pretty obvious the group is more comfortable taking the discussion in another direction. Any direction. Those that did, pretty much all posted like they were auditioning for the Bruin PR Director position. The strongest language...either way, could be broken down to "optimistic", or 'tough to be optimistic". Kind of sissified if you ask me. And since I'm including my own earlier contribution as being too vague, I'll go again. No. That's where I'm at now. I'm fine with moving players, but if one is looking to improve, one usually likes to consider an upgrade over what went out. I see an upgrade in physicality, but the #1 need imo, was scoring more/winning more. When I see Lucic, Yeti, Smith, Hamilton, Paille, Campbell, Backup, and about 2.8 in capspace out...vs Belesky, Hayes, and Rinaldo in...I see an alarming decline in talent. Yes, the Bruins have acquired a good number of 1st round picks and prospects, which are worth a lot...but as far as the next 82 games...they're not worth much except trade bait. One or more could step up, make the team and contribute greatly...but highly unlikely. Team, trumps talent, in certain applications, but usually the preference is to replace players with better players. At least in your own mind. There is a bit of cap space left, and that's good, but the team still has to sign 2 or 3 more players just to have a reasonable roster size. That won't leave enough to bring in a player of considerable notoriety without more going out. That leaves all of these valuable 1st rounders. They can certainly be turned into huge immediate assets, if the Bruins see fit, but the downside is, there has to be cap space available, to accommodate the stud coming back. Without more subtraction that's a toughie. Although the deals the Bruins have made, unquestionably netted value, that value imo is not in the now, but in the future. IMO, the now hasn't been fully addressed yet. If what we currently have(minus 3 entry level markers) is what we go to the deadline with, it's going to be tough to top 96 points You seem to think anyone who is positive about the team is doing "Bruin PR". Saying someone is a sissy because they don't agree with you is closed minded and sad. The part you miss in your evaluation of your team is the mid-season influx of Spooner, Pastrnak, Talbot and Connolly. These guys came in and surpassed existing roster players pushing them out. Paille and Campbell won't be missed because by the end of they year they were in the press box. Compared to last year, the early season lineup looks like, and if the new player represents more or less goals scored based on last season: Lucic = Beleskey More +4 Smith = Hayes More +6 Griffith = Pastrnak More +4 Soderberg = Spooner More (projected) +9 pace Kelly = Connolly More (projected) +11 pace Paille = Talbot Less -1 Campbell = Kelly More +1 Gagne = Rinaldo Less -2 Hamilton = Krug More +2 Krug = Irwin Even (projected) 0 You seem to be suffering from "reverse homerism" where you're putting too much value on the loved players who left, and not giving enough credit to the new guys. Looking solely at the changes based on last season's numbers, you're looking at around 34 extra goals. Of course, no one is going to do exactly what they did last year. Spooner may take a step back, Beleskey might have had a career year in '14-'15. But just as likely is Connolly playing a bigger role and scoring more with more minutes. And if you take away their initial call-ups, both Spooner and Pastrnak scored at a 60 point pace. The team looks not only more physical and balance, but also more offensively capable. The biggest factors, of course, remain Krejci, Chara and Seidenberg returning to form. If they do, the team should be measurably better than last year.
|
|
|
Post by stevegm on Aug 17, 2015 14:06:03 GMT
So.... The original question was simple. "ARE THE BRUINS REALLY BETTER" Despite 5 pages of response, it's pretty obvious the group is more comfortable taking the discussion in another direction. Any direction. Those that did, pretty much all posted like they were auditioning for the Bruin PR Director position. The strongest language...either way, could be broken down to "optimistic", or 'tough to be optimistic". Kind of sissified if you ask me. And since I'm including my own earlier contribution as being too vague, I'll go again. No. That's where I'm at now. I'm fine with moving players, but if one is looking to improve, one usually likes to consider an upgrade over what went out. I see an upgrade in physicality, but the #1 need imo, was scoring more/winning more. When I see Lucic, Yeti, Smith, Hamilton, Paille, Campbell, Backup, and about 2.8 in capspace out...vs Belesky, Hayes, and Rinaldo in...I see an alarming decline in talent. Yes, the Bruins have acquired a good number of 1st round picks and prospects, which are worth a lot...but as far as the next 82 games...they're not worth much except trade bait. One or more could step up, make the team and contribute greatly...but highly unlikely. Team, trumps talent, in certain applications, but usually the preference is to replace players with better players. At least in your own mind. There is a bit of cap space left, and that's good, but the team still has to sign 2 or 3 more players just to have a reasonable roster size. That won't leave enough to bring in a player of considerable notoriety without more going out. That leaves all of these valuable 1st rounders. They can certainly be turned into huge immediate assets, if the Bruins see fit, but the downside is, there has to be cap space available, to accommodate the stud coming back. Without more subtraction that's a toughie. Although the deals the Bruins have made, unquestionably netted value, that value imo is not in the now, but in the future. IMO, the now hasn't been fully addressed yet. If what we currently have(minus 3 entry level markers) is what we go to the deadline with, it's going to be tough to top 96 points You seem to think anyone who is positive about the team is doing "Bruin PR". Saying someone is a sissy because they don't agree with you is closed minded and sad. The part you miss in your evaluation of your team is the mid-season influx of Spooner, Pastrnak, Talbot and Connolly. These guys came in and surpassed existing roster players pushing them out. Paille and Campbell won't be missed because by the end of they year they were in the press box. Compared to last year, the early season lineup looks like, and if the new player represents more or less goals scored based on last season: Lucic = Beleskey More +4 Smith = Hayes More +6 Griffith = Pastrnak More +4 Soderberg = Spooner More (projected) +9 pace Kelly = Connolly More (projected) +11 pace Paille = Talbot Less -1 Campbell = Kelly More +1 Gagne = Rinaldo Less -2 Hamilton = Krug More +2 Krug = Irwin Even (projected) 0 You seem to be suffering from "reverse homerism" where you're putting too much value on the loved players who left, and not giving enough credit to the new guys. Looking solely at the changes based on last season's numbers, you're looking at around 34 extra goals. Of course, no one is going to do exactly what they did last year. Spooner may take a step back, Beleskey might have had a career year in '14-'15. But just as likely is Connolly playing a bigger role and scoring more with more minutes. And if you take away their initial call-ups, both Spooner and Pastrnak scored at a 60 point pace. The team looks not only more physical and balance, but also more offensively capable. The biggest factors, of course, remain Krejci, Chara and Seidenberg returning to form. If they do, the team should be measurably better than last year. you want to know what's "close minded and sad"?
"Stupid", is close minded and sad. Twisting very simple, straightforward comments, into something not even remotely close.....is close minded and sad.
I didn't say, or infer, "anyone who is positive, is doing Bruin PR". I clearly stated that "virtually everyone" was soft peddling. Those pro, as well as those con. I didn't say, or infer anyone was a "sissy", because "they didn't agree with me". What I did "clearly state", was that the majority ducked the topic, and those that didn't, were vague(see sissified) in not more strongly saying where they were at.
If you had an ounce of brains, you'd have noticed I included myself in that category to boot.
Now we have that cleared up, lets go to your analysis. On page 1 of this thread, you suggest some positives, and your opinion that if the marquee defense isn't right up to par, nothing else matters, and the Bruins will be on "the outside come April". On page 5 you're saying "should be measurably better".
Nice.
And of by the way, "this part I'm missing", who exactly did Connolly "push out". Seems to me he didn't even play til about the last week of the schedule, or am I just being a reverse homer in coming to that conclusion.
Instead of interpreting what everyone else is saying..."ass backwards", maybe you can just stick to topic, and pray your own conclusions make a little more sense..
|
|
|
Post by The OC on Aug 17, 2015 14:15:33 GMT
you want to know what's "close minded and sad"?
"Stupid", is close minded and sad. Twisting very simple, straightforward comments, into something not even remotely close.....is close minded and sad.
I didn't say, or infer, "anyone who is positive, is doing Bruin PR". I clearly stated that "virtually everyone" was soft peddling. Those pro, as well as those con. I didn't say, or infer anyone was a "sissy", because "they didn't agree with me". What I did "clearly state", was that the majority ducked the topic, and those that didn't, were vague(see sissified) in not more strongly saying where they were at.
If you had an ounce of brains, you'd have noticed I included myself in that category to boot.
Now we have that cleared up, lets go to your analysis. On page 1 of this thread, you suggest some positives, and your opinion that if the marquee defense isn't right up to par, nothing else matters, and the Bruins will be on "the outside come April". On page 5 you're saying "should be measurably better".
Nice.
And of by the way, "this part I'm missing", who exactly did Connolly "push out". Seems to me he didn't even play til about the last week of the schedule, or am I just being a reverse homer in coming to that conclusion.
Instead of interpreting what everyone else is saying..."ass backwards", maybe you can just stick to topic, and pray your own conclusions make a little more sense.
You're so mean with your comments. It really hurts my feelings when you say I don't have an ounce of brains Stevie. And just like anything else by me that you comment on, you're unable to understand basic English. I'll try to keep my responses short with you so you can follow. When I have multiple lines you only read some of them. So my opinion is: If Chara and Seidenberg are back to form, the Bruins will be better. If they are not, Boston will most likely struggle to make the playoffs. Your #1 and 2 defense are two of the very most important players on the team, especially when your #1 is Chara, the guy you are built around. My expectation is that Seidz will be back to 95% at least of what he was at his best, basing it on him being 34 and his strong play toward the end of the year. Chara I'm a little more nervous about since he's pushing 40, his injuries actually happened last year and he's also that much more important to the team. I believe he can do it, but we'll have to see in camp.
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Aug 17, 2015 14:19:07 GMT
"Despite 5 pages of response, it's pretty obvious the group is more comfortable taking the discussion in another direction. Any direction. Those that did, pretty much all posted like they were auditioning for the Bruin PR Director position. The strongest language...either way, could be broken down to "optimistic", or 'tough to be optimistic". Kind of sissified if you ask me."
You have to be one of the most passive-agressive posters on a discussion board I have ever seen.
What you wrote there is exactly what you are now denying.
Holy Ted Cruz!
|
|
|
Post by The OC on Aug 17, 2015 14:26:41 GMT
And of by the way, "this part I'm missing", who exactly did Connolly "push out". Seems to me he didn't even play til about the last week of the schedule, or am I just being a reverse homer in coming to that conclusion.
Oh, specifically to Brett Connolly, here's a link to the box score of the last game of the season: bruins.nhl.com/gamecenter/en/boxscore?id=2014021225Brett played 17 minutes, that's top-6 ice time. And overall he averaged 14:21 TOI with Boston. They've brought him in to move into a top-9 role. Generally speaking that's why you give up two 2nds for a former top-10 pick who's playing at a 20-goal pace.
|
|
|
Post by bostonfan191646 on Aug 17, 2015 15:26:25 GMT
So.... The original question was simple. "ARE THE BRUINS REALLY BETTER" Despite 5 pages of response, it's pretty obvious the group is more comfortable taking the discussion in another direction. Any direction. Those that did, pretty much all posted like they were auditioning for the Bruin PR Director position. The strongest language...either way, could be broken down to "optimistic", or 'tough to be optimistic". Kind of sissified if you ask me. And since I'm including my own earlier contribution as being too vague, I'll go again. No. That's where I'm at now. I'm fine with moving players, but if one is looking to improve, one usually likes to consider an upgrade over what went out. I see an upgrade in physicality, but the #1 need imo, was scoring more/winning more. When I see Lucic, Yeti, Smith, Hamilton, Paille, Campbell, Backup, and about 2.8 in capspace out...vs Belesky, Hayes, and Rinaldo in...I see an alarming decline in talent. Yes, the Bruins have acquired a good number of 1st round picks and prospects, which are worth a lot...but as far as the next 82 games...they're not worth much except trade bait. One or more could step up, make the team and contribute greatly...but highly unlikely. Team, trumps talent, in certain applications, but usually the preference is to replace players with better players. At least in your own mind. There is a bit of cap space left, and that's good, but the team still has to sign 2 or 3 more players just to have a reasonable roster size. That won't leave enough to bring in a player of considerable notoriety without more going out. That leaves all of these valuable 1st rounders. They can certainly be turned into huge immediate assets, if the Bruins see fit, but the downside is, there has to be cap space available, to accommodate the stud coming back. Without more subtraction that's a toughie. Although the deals the Bruins have made, unquestionably netted value, that value imo is not in the now, but in the future. IMO, the now hasn't been fully addressed yet. If what we currently have(minus 3 entry level markers) is what we go to the deadline with, it's going to be tough to top 96 points You seem to think anyone who is positive about the team is doing "Bruin PR". Saying someone is a sissy because they don't agree with you is closed minded and sad. The part you miss in your evaluation of your team is the mid-season influx of Spooner, Pastrnak, Talbot and Connolly. These guys came in and surpassed existing roster players pushing them out. Paille and Campbell won't be missed because by the end of they year they were in the press box. Compared to last year, the early season lineup looks like, and if the new player represents more or less goals scored based on last season: Lucic = Beleskey More +4 Smith = Hayes More +6 Griffith = Pastrnak More +4 Soderberg = Spooner More (projected) +9 pace Kelly = Connolly More (projected) +11 pace Paille = Talbot Less -1 Campbell = Kelly More +1 Gagne = Rinaldo Less -2 Hamilton = Krug More +2 Krug = Irwin Even (projected) 0 You seem to be suffering from "reverse homerism" where you're putting too much value on the loved players who left, and not giving enough credit to the new guys. Looking solely at the changes based on last season's numbers, you're looking at around 34 extra goals. Of course, no one is going to do exactly what they did last year. Spooner may take a step back, Beleskey might have had a career year in '14-'15. But just as likely is Connolly playing a bigger role and scoring more with more minutes. And if you take away their initial call-ups, both Spooner and Pastrnak scored at a 60 point pace. The team looks not only more physical and balance, but also more offensively capable. The biggest factors, of course, remain Krejci, Chara and Seidenberg returning to form. If they do, the team should be measurably better than last year. I'm really optimistic too, but I think. You should have just cut out your projections and written the bottom two paragraphs. The goals don't mean that much to me, for example, Krug over hamilton, and belesky over lucic. Cmon, Lucic and hamilton are the two better players there. Conversely I'll take talbot over Paille any day of the week. Dallas scored a half goal more per game, and they were horrible.
|
|
|
Post by The OC on Aug 17, 2015 16:30:49 GMT
You seem to think anyone who is positive about the team is doing "Bruin PR". Saying someone is a sissy because they don't agree with you is closed minded and sad. The part you miss in your evaluation of your team is the mid-season influx of Spooner, Pastrnak, Talbot and Connolly. These guys came in and surpassed existing roster players pushing them out. Paille and Campbell won't be missed because by the end of they year they were in the press box. Compared to last year, the early season lineup looks like, and if the new player represents more or less goals scored based on last season: Lucic = Beleskey More +4 Smith = Hayes More +6 Griffith = Pastrnak More +4 Soderberg = Spooner More (projected) +9 pace Kelly = Connolly More (projected) +11 pace Paille = Talbot Less -1 Campbell = Kelly More +1 Gagne = Rinaldo Less -2 Hamilton = Krug More +2 Krug = Irwin Even (projected) 0 You seem to be suffering from "reverse homerism" where you're putting too much value on the loved players who left, and not giving enough credit to the new guys. Looking solely at the changes based on last season's numbers, you're looking at around 34 extra goals. Of course, no one is going to do exactly what they did last year. Spooner may take a step back, Beleskey might have had a career year in '14-'15. But just as likely is Connolly playing a bigger role and scoring more with more minutes. And if you take away their initial call-ups, both Spooner and Pastrnak scored at a 60 point pace. The team looks not only more physical and balance, but also more offensively capable. The biggest factors, of course, remain Krejci, Chara and Seidenberg returning to form. If they do, the team should be measurably better than last year. I'm really optimistic too, but I think. You should have just cut out your projections and written the bottom two paragraphs. The goals don't mean that much to me, for example, Krug over hamilton, and belesky over lucic. Cmon, Lucic and hamilton are the two better players there. Conversely I'll take talbot over Paille any day of the week. Dallas scored a half goal more per game, and they were horrible. I think the specific mention of goal output from last year's roster and this year's roster is very relevant, since Stevie was being condescending and saying that the new roster has less ability to score goals. Note that I wasn't listing my projections for the coming season, but the actual output from last year. I think Lucic is better than Beleskey, but it's an undeniable fact that Lucic only scored 18 goals last year. I think Hamilton has a higher ceiling going forward than Krug, but I'd argue that Krug was better last year. In the very least he was better in the role that was given him, since Hamilton was asked to play a much more challenging role on the team in the top pairing. I think Lucic is going to tear it up this year and put up around 60 points while hitting everything in sight. I think Hamilton is going to take another step forward in '15-16, score more, and probably work out a lot his defensive lapses. But that's not the point here. The question is "are the Bruins better this year than last", NOT "would the Bruins this year be better with Hamilton and Lucic in the lineup?" The answers to those questions could be very different. For the team to be improved, Beleskey doesn't need to be better than Milan Lucic, he just needs to play better than Lucic did last year. Since Milan had one of his worst seasons ever, I think he can do that. Smith could have a great rebound year too and put up 65 points. But last year he only had 13 goals, so even if Hayes scores 15 this year and throws the body, Boston is a better team for it year on year and it doesn't matter what Reilly does in Florida.
|
|