A Riddle

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: A Riddle

    Phat Phil has learned 2 things,#1,an 82 game season is a lot longer than a 48 game season and #2,how to book tee times.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sportsnutty. Show Sportsnutty's posts

    Re: A Riddle

    In response to kelvana33's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Seguin was traded because the Bruins management team did not think they should be paying a player who had maturity issues off the ice and lack of production on it that much money.


     


    His stats and the Bruins record suggest they made the right move.


     


    End of story.


    [/QUOTE]

    Is it too soon for revisionist history here? Let's ask Peter Chiarelli why he traded "Sequin":


    Chiarelli made it a point to say this trade had nothing to do with any off-ice issues the Bruins were concerned about, but he did seem to question Seguin's preparedness.



    "I don't want to really play that up too much. He's a 21-year-old that played as an 18-year-old, and I think he was just a 21-year-old kid. He was maturing and growing up, and he liked to have fun like the rest of them. I don't really think it was such a big deal."


    “What you have to understand in this environment right now is the cap goes down seven million and you have to make some hard choices, hard decisions. The fact that we signed Tyler had nothing to do with us trading him,” explained Chiarelli. “There’s an opportunity to get a very good player, who’s a natural winger, and to get some good prospects and to lower your cap and then maybe to improve in the next market starting (Friday). You know what you have to manage your team, you have to manage your players, you have to manage your cap, and that was part of the reason why we made this move.”'


    Not about partying... cap, cap, cap.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: A Riddle

    The fact that we signed Tyler had nothing to do with us trading him,” explained Chiarelli.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sportsnutty. Show Sportsnutty's posts

    Re: A Riddle

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    The fact that we signed Tyler had nothing to do with us trading him,” explained Chiarelli.


    [/QUOTE]


    Correct interpretation of that statement is: "We weren't having buyer's remorse."

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: A Riddle

    They were fine with his contract.  They were fine with his regular season numbers.  They didn't need to make a difficult decision when it came to the cap.  They traded him because he sucked balls in the post season while doing his best Derek Sanderson off the ice.  He was a problem child.


    Kessel was traded because of the cap.  They couldn't offer him the money he wanted without having to re-create the roster.  


    That's the difference that you refuse to or just simply don't see.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sportsnutty. Show Sportsnutty's posts

    Re: A Riddle

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


    They were fine with his contract.  They were fine with his regular season numbers.  They didn't need to make a difficult decision when it came to the cap.  They traded him because he sucked balls in the post season while doing his best Derek Sanderson off the ice.  He was a problem child.


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


    [QUOTE]


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


    You're so frustrating to disagree with NAS. I guess you are having problems reading. In this thread, I have offered three or four instances of the GM (the one responsible for the trade) saying (through direct unedited quotes) that you're wrong in your point of view.


     


     


     


    One quote: "He was maturing and growing up, and he liked to have fun like the rest of them. I don't really think it was such a big deal."


     


     


     


    Another quote: "There’s an opportunity to get a very good player, who’s a natural winger, and to get some good prospects and to lower your cap and then maybe to improve in the next market starting (Friday). You know what you have to manage your team, you have to manage your players, you have to manage your cap, and that was part of the reason why we made this move."


     


     


     


    Yet IM the one not seeing something? You are creating some fictional narrative that Chiarelli NEVER once claimed. Tell me the kid sucked in the playoffs and was a one-zone pussbag and I'll agree with you. The GM never said it though. And calling the kid anywhere NEAR the level of Derek Sanderson is so overwhelmingly exaggerating.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: A Riddle

    "...and that was part of the reason why we made this move."


    Kessel was traded because of money, plain and simple.


    If Seguin, who was already comfortably under contract at the time of the trade, wasn't a playoff beacon of pussery on the ice and off, they would have found a way to make it work.


    But it would't work.  When your "star" needs security guards to keep him from partying until all hours during the playoffs, there's a major issue.  And they dealt with that issue.


    How much money did they save on the trade?  Seguin and Peverley out, Eriksson and Smith in.  About $3.75M.  If they really wanted to keep Seguin, if he were really worth it, they could have bought out Peverley and traded Kelly.  They could have done many things.  


    Instead, they sent him packing, a broken toy with no elves to help.  


     


     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from watchtower. Show watchtower's posts

    Re: A Riddle

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    "...and that was part of the reason why we made this move."



     


     


    .


     


     



      They could have done many things.  


     


     But they did the Right thing!  


     


     


     


     


    [/QUOTE]


     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: A Riddle

    I don't think this is really black and white regarding the cap.  I'm sure the cap was an issue, but I also agree that it was different than Kessel.  The Kessel move was not really a surprise, most of us saw it coming.  Kid wants $5 million a year, before he's really earned it, and the Bruins are close to the cap with Chara and Bergeron coming up for resigning soon.  It was too much money for Kessel and too little cap room.


    The Seguin move was pretty shocking and I don't think too many people saw it coming.  Why not?  Because it wasn't a cap necessity.  Other moves could be made besides giving up on a #2 overall pick who had wowed everyone in the league at times with raw talent.  Everyone searched for answers.  There HAD to be more to the story.  There was.  If there was some cap concern, the issues of playoff performance and the Lindsey Lohan impersonation off the ice had to seal the deal.


    I think SportsNutty's quotes seem directly relevant to the discussion, but they don't move me too much because I think they are lies.  The cap space argument here seems similar to "it's not you, it's me" when ending a relationship.  Chiarelli is being kind.  It's him.  


    Saying 'it's the cap' is a gentle break-up line so we can still be friends with Tyler, and to avoid pointing out that Seguin was smelly, impotent, drunk when the B's needed a firecracker who scores a lot.


    I don't think anyone gives up on a #2 overall pick with Seguin's talent for cap space.  He was the least desirable of the moveable parts.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from kelvana33. Show kelvana33's posts

    Re: A Riddle

    Chiarelli is not going to come out and say that the player was traded because of off ice issues, but I can't help but think that's part of the reason he was dealt.


    At the end of the day, wether Chiarelli says it or not, his off ice antics were clearly effecting his on ice production.





     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from bostonfan191646. Show bostonfan191646's posts

    Re: A Riddle

    In response to Sportsnutty's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


    They were fine with his contract.  They were fine with his regular season numbers.  They didn't need to make a difficult decision when it came to the cap.  They traded him because he sucked balls in the post season while doing his best Derek Sanderson off the ice.  He was a problem child.


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


    [QUOTE]


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


    You're so frustrating to disagree with NAS. I guess you are having problems reading. In this thread, I have offered three or four instances of the GM (the one responsible for the trade) saying (through direct unedited quotes) that you're wrong in your point of view.


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


    One quote: "He was maturing and growing up, and he liked to have fun like the rest of them. I don't really think it was such a big deal."


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


    Another quote: "There’s an opportunity to get a very good player, who’s a natural winger, and to get some good prospects and to lower your cap and then maybe to improve in the next market starting (Friday). You know what you have to manage your team, you have to manage your players, you have to manage your cap, and that was part of the reason why we made this move."


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


    Yet IM the one not seeing something? You are creating some fictional narrative that Chiarelli NEVER once claimed. Tell me the kid sucked in the playoffs and was a one-zone pussbag and I'll agree with you. The GM never said it though. And calling the kid anywhere NEAR the level of Derek Sanderson is so overwhelmingly exaggerating.


    [/QUOTE]

    He's right. You're wrong. What's chiarelli supposed to do? Come out and tell the media all of seguins flaws?

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from days-of-Orr. Show days-of-Orr's posts

    Re: A Riddle

    i guess that at the end of the day the B'S are 0 for 3 in drafting players with pix that are usually reserved for "franchise" players....


    bad luck or bad scouting?....


    “People think common sense is common - but it's not.”



     
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: A Riddle

    In response to days-of-Orr's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    i guess that at the end of the day the B'S are 0 for 3 in drafting players with pix that are usually reserved for "franchise" players....


     


    bad luck or bad scouting?....



    “People think common sense is common - but it's not.”



     [/QUOTE]

    Thornton was a great pick.  He was handled incorrectly and then was traded worse.


    You "can" get a franchise player at #5 (Kessel), but you're more likely to get an awesome player.  And they did.  The only other player worth picking at #5 (hindsight only) was Giroux.  The B's made the right pick.  The player just didn't end up being the right player for the team.


    At #2, Seguin was the consensus pick.  Every single person in the hockey world with an ounce of knowledge (read:  one ounce more than Pauly1) would have taken Seguin with that pick.  Gudbranson went third that year.  How bad would that have been!

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from RichHillOntario. Show RichHillOntario's posts

    Re: A Riddle

    In response to 50belowzero's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]


     


    What has one goal and no games left?

    TYLER SEGUIN


     


     


     


    Once again, he fails to deliver.  Six games, one goal.  That's TWO goals in his last 28 playoff games.


     


     


     


    Seguin.  You suck.


     


    [/QUOTE]

    He's really good if you can get him for a regular season hockey pool.


    [/QUOTE]

    Or set up the playoffs in a best of 82 games format.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from days-of-Orr. Show days-of-Orr's posts

    Re: A Riddle

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    In response to days-of-Orr's comment:
    [QUOTE]


     


    i guess that at the end of the day the B'S are 0 for 3 in drafting players with pix that are usually reserved for "franchise" players....


     


     


     


    bad luck or bad scouting?....


     



    “People think common sense is common - but it's not.”



     [/QUOTE]

    Thornton was a great pick.  He was handled incorrectly and then was traded worse.


     


    You "can" get a franchise player at #5 (Kessel), but you're more likely to get an awesome player.  And they did.  The only other player worth picking at #5 (hindsight only) was Giroux.  The B's made the right pick.  The player just didn't end up being the right player for the team.


     


    At #2, Seguin was the consensus pick.  Every single person in the hockey world with an ounce of knowledge (read:  one ounce more than Pauly1) would have taken Seguin with that pick.  Gudbranson went third that year.  How bad would that have been!


    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]


    agree all the right choices were made in terms of talent but trading them all within a 10-yr span raises questions....

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from NeelyOrrBourque. Show NeelyOrrBourque's posts

    Re: A Riddle

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:


     


    They were fine with his contract.  They were fine with his regular season numbers.  They didn't need to make a difficult decision when it came to the cap.  They traded him because he sucked balls in the post season while doing his best Derek Sanderson off the ice.  He was a problem child.


    You're so frustrating to disagree with NAS. I guess you are having problems reading. In this thread, I have offered three or four instances of the GM (the one responsible for the trade) saying (through direct unedited quotes) that you're wrong in your point of view.


     One quote: "He was maturing and growing up, and he liked to have fun like the rest of them. I don't really think it was such a big deal."


    Another quote: "There’s an opportunity to get a very good player, who’s a natural winger, and to get some good prospects and to lower your cap and then maybe to improve in the next market starting (Friday). You know what you have to manage your team, you have to manage your players, you have to manage your cap, and that was part of the reason why we made this move."


     Yet IM the one not seeing something? You are creating some fictional narrative that Chiarelli NEVER once claimed. Tell me the kid sucked in the playoffs and was a one-zone pussbag and I'll agree with you. The GM never said it though. And calling the kid anywhere NEAR the level of Derek Sanderson is so overwhelmingly exaggerating.


    [/QUOTE]



    He's right. You're wrong. What's chiarelli supposed to do? Come out and tell the media all of seguins flaws?


    [/QUOTE]

    Aren't you the one who claims to have inside information that he bumped ugly's with Horton's wife? So, if that is as true as you say. You really think that the Bruins would want a player that does something like that? Just asking.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: A Riddle

    In response to days-of-Orr's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    agree all the right choices were made in terms of talent but trading them all within a 10-yr span raises questions....


    [/QUOTE]

    The #1 question it raises for me is, "Why doesn't Edmonton follow the Bruins model of success?"

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Don-Bruino. Show Don-Bruino's posts

    Re: A Riddle

    Where are the Seguin riddles?


    I get sick reading and posting about him.


    Make me laugh instead, gawddamit! Tyler is good for a few laughs.


     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: A Riddle

    In response to days-of-Orr's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    agree all the right choices were made in terms of talent but trading them all within a 10-yr span raises questions....


    [/QUOTE]

    Thornton: One game away now from being the Captain of the San Jose Sharts.  Still has never won bupkiss.  Will never win Bupkiss.  Has 3 points in the series, good for 7th on his team, and none of them in the last three games trying to put the Kings to bed.  He's the worst +/- player on his team in the playoffs.


    Kessel: was having a pretty good round until he shanked his second shot on 13 and never shot par the rest of the day.


    Seguin: Ghostly for Dallas.


    Lucic: Beast.


    Bergeron: 2 time Selke winner, 30 goal scorer, 2 time Olympic gold medallist.


    Krejci: 2 time winner of the playoff scoring race.


     


    They kept the right players.  They moved guys who've proven to be deadwood.  Not the cool Al Swearengen kind, either.
    [object HTMLDivElement]

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: A Riddle

    If Swearengen played for Boston, he'd be number FU.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: A Riddle

    When Swearengen would get two minutes for slashing, it would be for slashing throats.


     


     


    Are you not entertained?!?!

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: A Riddle

    Reading his playoff stats (tm) here's what stuck out like a sore thumb more then the rest.

    4th in the league in shots........25.

    159th in the league in shooting %........4.0%.

    Perimeter goals in the playoffs are less likely then in the regular season.


     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: A Riddle

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Reading his playoff stats (tm) here's what stuck out like a sore thumb more then the rest.

    4th in the league in shots........25.

    159th in the league in shooting %........4.0%.

    Perimeter goals in the playoffs are less likely then in the regular season.



    [/QUOTE]

    Typical Seguin.  Instead of working to get a better shot or working to make a quality pass, he throws it at the net with little to no hope of scoring.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from goodnewsbears. Show goodnewsbears's posts

    Re: A Riddle

    In response to days-of-Orr's comment:
    [QUOTE]


     


    agree all the right choices were made in terms of talent but trading them all within a 10-yr span raises questions....


    [/QUOTE]

    What questions?  They keep getting better with every trade.


    ***Follow Fluto on twitter.  He's awesome.***


     

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sportsnutty. Show Sportsnutty's posts

    Re: A Riddle

    In response to NeelyOrrBourque's comment:
    [QUOTE]



    Aren't you the one who claims to have inside information that he bumped ugly's with Horton's wife? So, if that is as true as you say. You really think that the Bruins would want a player that does something like that? Just asking.


    [/QUOTE]

    Never said that. I stick to facts not hearsay and conjecture.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share