Make my point? The point is as clear as a sunny day. I will lay it out for you again.

What high hopes do they have for Allison and Ratcliff. Define what that means.
- furio16

There really should be no hope for Allison at this point. If he can't stay on the ice due to his constant barrage of injuries he is worthless. Not much else to say. And he can't play a soft game cause he will be worthless playing that way. Not a good situation there at all if I may say so. I still want Chuckles fired. Thanks!

What argument? Not asking for an essay. You made a clear cut statement. Point is clear as my piss.

No wonder you get mocked on these boards on a frequent basis.
- furio16

First, see a doctor.

Second, your point will be clear when you say what your point is.

First, see a doctor.

Second, your point will be clear when you say what your point is.
- SuperSchennBros

You are by far just a straight up dope. Not even an entertaining dope.

You enjoy the sunny day and don't forget to apply sunscreen if you will be outside.

There really should be no hope for Allison at this point. If he can't stay on the ice due to his constant barrage of injuries he is worthless. Not much else to say. And he can't play a soft game cause he will be worthless playing that way. Not a good situation there at all if I may say so. I still want Chuckles fired. Thanks!
- Phillywhiteout

Couldn’t have said it better myself. I don’t know what’s so hard to understand. Allison would likely be a main stay right now if not for injury in possibly a middle six role. Ratcliffe looked like he could be a useful fourth line player or first call up last season. And yet somehow I’m expected to properly explain in detail the difference between expectations and high expectations to a guy with nothing better to argue about on a Saturday morning.

You are by far just a straight up dope. Not even an entertaining dope.

You enjoy the sunny day and don't forget to apply sunscreen if you will be outside.
- furio16

I live in Michigan and it’s very cloudy here today.

I'm guessing(obviously can only speculate) the last 4 years of the Coots deal will be a serious burden to this team. He has lots of mileage on his body already and has a history of nagging injuries. And now he is coming off back surgery. If they get 4 good years out of him it may be a minor miracle. Terrible signing in my eyes. I'd rather have had him at a higher cap hit for a shorter term. Then when he inevitably breaks down you're done with him.
- Phillywhiteout

His contract the day he signed became a burden for present and the future. He never was or will be worth it

It is not clear as you preach a draft and develop approach. What good is that approach going to be for Couterier while still in his prime?

- furio16

Of course my position is clear. I stated that I believe it is imperative to keep Couturier as a player so younger players are slotted properly. Not rushed and Couturier makes players he plays with better. I've made that perfectly clear. The only way it isn't clear is if you have a reading comprehension issue. Which is seems you have in this conversation and the one with SSB

Of course my position is clear. I stated that I believe it is imperative to keep Couturier as a player so younger players are slotted properly. Not rushed and Couturier makes players he plays with better. I've made that perfectly clear. The only way it isn't clear is if you have a reading comprehension issue. Which is seems you have in this conversation and the one with SSB
- MJL

No comprehension issue here. You always just dance around and rarely answer any question directed to you, that is your MO. A Mr. know it all.

So then to set the record straight you think Chuck should be building around couturier?

Couldn’t have said it better myself. I don’t know what’s so hard to understand. Allison would likely be a main stay right now if not for injury in possibly a middle six role. Ratcliffe looked like he could be a useful fourth line player or first call up last season. And yet somehow I’m expected to properly explain in detail the difference between expectations and high expectations to a guy with nothing better to argue about on a Saturday morning.
- SuperSchennBros

You said they have high expectations for each player. Meaning the present tense.

Saying Allison likely would have (past tense) and Ratcliff possibly 4th line is not high expectations as we sit here today. Then again to you that may very well define high expectations.

You are clearly the village idiot.

I live in Michigan and it’s very cloudy here today.
- SuperSchennBros

Hamtramck?

No comprehension issue here. You always just dance around and rarely answer any question directed to you, that is your MO. A Mr. know it all.

So then to set the record straight you think Chuck should be building around couturier?

- furio16

Whether I answered or whether you find the question sufficiently answered are two different things. The question of why I think the team should've kept Couturier has been sufficiently answered and the record set multiple times. End of story. Time to move on.

Whether I answered or whether you find the question sufficiently answered are two different things. The question of why I think the team should've kept Couturier has been sufficiently answered and the record set multiple times. End of story. Time to move on.
- MJL

End of story because you refuse to answer a direct question. Your MO

Still waiting for you to provide a dollar amount you think Couturier would have received had he tested free agency since you said he is underpaid.

You are clearly the village idiot.
- furio16

You're the poster who couldn't understand the difference between saying a player was playing on the 4th line and calling a player a 4th line player.

You're the poster who couldn't understand the difference between saying a player was playing on the 4th line and calling a player a 4th line player.
- MJL

He said ND was Oskars replacement. Did he not?

ND is a 4th line player is he not?

Couturier is a steal at 7.75M a year. He is a 30 goal 70 point players who at his best is dominant defensively and at 5 on 5 hockey. Can put up that production while playing against top lines. He makes every player who plays with him better.



Of course due to longevity and career, the edge would go to Bergeron. Bergeron is probably going into the hall of fame. 5 time Selke winner and Cup winner. Couturier has only come into his own the last 5 years or so. However if we would look at both players at their peek individually. There isn't a huge divide.



The Couturier contract is a good contract. The only issue is how he recovers from his back injury. That decision is not one of the contracts that is the issue with this team.

As usual, your post here is completely empty. Just uninformed opinion that is not backed up by anything.
- MJL

Per usual. Coots only came into his own last 5 years or so?

He played major role early in career defensive role so there goes that

His career high is 76 points. Nice but not close to elite or really even top end. And his average even the last 5 years or so at peak are slightly better than good.

Nothing that warrants a 8 year almost 8 mil contract even under the best of circumstances let alone age production breaking down.


It’s a horrible contract.

With that said yes on a great team maybe you can absorb a contract like that. If loaded with young cheap top talent

He said ND was Oskars replacement. Did he not?

ND is a 4th line player is he not?
- furio16

Actually what he said is this

"Well it’s a good thing Chuck essentially replaced Oskar Lindblom with Nicolas Deslauriers."

You obviously didn't get what he meant along with the touch of sarcasm. He was criticizing the buyout and removing a better and more talented player and adding a lesser talented stiff. That is what he was saying. He was criticizing the GM.

Per usual. Coots only came into his own last 5 years or so?

He played major role early in career defensive role so there goes that

His career high is 76 points. Nice but not close to elite or really even top end. And his average even the last 5 years or so at peak are slightly better than good.

Nothing that warrants a 8 year almost 8 mil contract even under the best of circumstances let alone age production breaking down.


It’s a horrible contract.

With that said yes on a great team maybe you can absorb a contract like that. If loaded with young cheap top talent
- Stayin alive

Nobody, myself included has stated that Couturier is an elite player.

Every post you make is nothing but rhetoric and without a single point to substantiate and support your opinion. Your posts are essentially worthless.

Players who score in Couturier's range that he produced for 4 straight seasons make what he is making and more.

You said they have high expectations for each player. Meaning the present tense.

Saying Allison likely would have (past tense) and Ratcliff possibly 4th line is not high expectations as we sit here today. Then again to you that may very well define high expectations.

You are clearly the village idiot.
- furio16

I’m sorry that I misspoke, when you expect a perfectly painted picture. How small is your world to pick at such a small detail?

He said ND was Oskars replacement. Did he not?

ND is a 4th line player is he not?
- furio16

Oh my god, this is unbelievable…



Stupid is, as stupid does I guess

I give up

Actually what he said is this

"Well it’s a good thing Chuck essentially replaced Oskar Lindblom with Nicolas Deslauriers."

You obviously didn't get what he meant along with the touch of sarcasm. He was criticizing the buyout and removing a better and more talented player and adding a lesser talented stiff. That is what he was saying. He was criticizing the GM.
- MJL

I didn't even respond to that post you just showed.

This what he said in response to my post. You conveniently left that out.


"You really don’t get it. Lindblom is out, out of the organization. Nic D is in and Nic D will play. Nic D will be on the fourth line where Lindblom was. We already had Cates here. Cates can very well win a spot, it could happen but he hasn’t yet. Nic D’s spot is secure."

Oh my god, this is unbelievable…



Stupid is, as stupid does I guess

I give up
- SuperSchennBros

You should. Go post elsewhere.

I’m sorry that I misspoke, when you expect a perfectly painted picture. How small is your world to pick at such a small detail?
- SuperSchennBros

Small detail when you said they have high expectations. How is that a small detail? That is a main detail.

Small detail when you said they have high expectations. How is that a small detail? That is a main detail.
- furio16

There is always a high expectation in a limited prospect pool to play in the best hockey league in the world.

You should. Go post elsewhere.
- furio16

Oh, are we telling people where they can post now?

I didn't even respond to that post you just showed.

This what he said in response to my post. You conveniently left that out.


"You really don’t get it. Lindblom is out, out of the organization. Nic D is in and Nic D will play. Nic D will be on the fourth line where Lindblom was. We already had Cates here. Cates can very well win a spot, it could happen but he hasn’t yet. Nic D’s spot is secure."
- furio16

It's the same thing. Nothing was left out. Again, he was criticizing the GM for the moves. You incorrectly tried to turn it into a debate on whether Lindblom was a 4th line player. Again, his premise was simple. He was criticizing the GM for removing a more talented player and bringing in a stiff. His point is valid. Instead, for some reason you're having difficulty following conversations and ultimately calling him the village idiot when it's actually the other way around today.