cccsberg

SeniorMembers
  • Content count

    2,377
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

cccsberg last won the day on September 9 2016

cccsberg had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

245 Excellent

About cccsberg

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

4,756 profile views
  1. Absolutely NO for Reaves. We need speed and skill. We have some great, skilled prospects, missing the management team willing to put the best team on the ice, period. Here's hoping we hear about our new coach this week. If they cannot/do not trade Brouwer put him on waivers and send him down to the AHL in the first wave of demotions.
  2. Like the thinking. How would Mangiapanne-Shore-Dube/Poirier 4th line look? Keep Lazar and Hathaway as extras, or not? Poirier and Shinkaryk might be better extras? Move Foo and Klimchuk in with Jankowski, trade Bennett & Brodie for Marner+ Trade Stone and Brouwer. Max out speed and accountability....
  3. Right now what do we have for LW? Gaudreau, check. Tkachuk, check. Both of whom I bet could/have played RW at various points... but, I digress. Bennett (if he doesn't get traded), check. Then a bunch of possibilities for 4th LW. To me there are multiple options for Mangiapanne and for a team looking for skill/scoring upgrades he should be right at the top of our list for getting onto the team. Personally I'd be looking at trading Bennett and putting Mangiapanne with Jankowski, but in reality there are so many options for differing line-ups until the coaches are set for next year and a few other things get settled it doesn't really matter. Just bring in the best players we can for both the long and short-term. I don't really need to know all the answers yet, its just hard to justify bringing in an over-priced short-term "solution" by giving up futures that could well be a long-term 10 year solution.
  4. Why would anyone give up ~10 years of Mangiapane for 1 year of Spezza? Hard to imagine.....
  5. Just because a coach can put a player in any position and the player “can” play there, doesn’t mean he can play there. Outside of about a dozen games I don’t believe Brouwer was ever effective, even on the 4th line.
  6. Like these even better. No matter the final configuration, there will be questions.
  7. This looks like a big improvement over any line-up this season. Worth a try, especially with new coaching.
  8. Mac, You agree with the way it played out with personnel but not with results. Don’t you think there is a connection? Virtually every AHL guy that got called up “earned it” prior to the call, as well as deserved to play when called instead of sitting to allow games for Bartkowski... Brouwer, Stajan... do we really need to go over the same things again and again? The essence of the Warrener comment is playing the best players vs best development, and individual player motivations. Sure there are valid arguments each way, but to me if there is no valid competition from below it breeds complacency, which is just what Warrener said. I think you can make a strong argument it has in fact happened with the Flames.... just another thing that needs to be addressed.
  9. No, disagree 100%, Warrener is right on. When you reward incompetence/poor play while at the same time ignoring stellar play at lower levels you are responsible for the attitudes of complacency that develop.
  10. I would say both Bennett and Jankowski have better D, are faster and Jankowski, at least has similar hockey sense.
  11. Brouwer, Jagr, Stewart, Glass, Bartkowski...
  12. M Mony & Gaudreau are great on O but poor in D. Why not slide Mony to 1RW and insert either Bennett or Jankowski as 1C? You end up with more speed and better D while maintaining the O combo?
  13. I probably wouldn’t trade either one as well. I just think you may have to break them up or move Monahan to 1RW for the betterment of the team overall.
  14. I fully agree there are other more urgent needs to address, but here’s a question for consideration. If you build incrementally but in your estimation the maximum potential of the guys you’ve got is, say two playoff rounds and that’s it is it better to address the core first to obtain a core that potentially can win it all even if it means a big change in thinking? Or, do you just focus on the obvious even though you’re pretty sure those changes won’t REALLY make a difference in the long run, but hey, you tried? Kind of like “Corsi Management”, you do a lot of stuff, are active, build a team in ways that other successful teams are built but ultimately are shocked to find out those things do not really matter and you’ve failed to identify and address the true needs of the team?
  15. No, put fBennett with Backlund...