Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
Sign in to follow this  
super_dave_1

The great size debate

Recommended Posts

rem, I completely get what you preach, and I love Marner's skill, but should he be left for us vs whomever,i'd have to know the collective mindset of my group. If Skinner is on the trade block, than Ive got to strongly push for that trade before I take Marner(and I think you indicated that as well). If that's not going to happen, than I go Provorov.

Now, if you ask whether I risk a trade down to make that happen, ergo, is he a stretch at #5, I'm just not sure I'd do that and risk losing out on him.

The concept of "best player available" you brought up, linked to "to fit team need", in my mind are 2 separate issues. As I frequently find in life, these are relative terms, much akin to saying something "is not fair". AKA, all ranking this year's players agree, there are only 2 BPA's, thus all others are debatable. On the national scene, Strome/Marner/Hanafin are the CONSENSUS next tier, but are they really?

In summary, I'm ready to put this all behind us and make the pick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still not sure who you'd pick. Coastal if you put it elsewhere twice, my bad. I read nearly everything you've written, but I can't remember that. So it would be nice to see a name one more time rather than searching for it.  SD, I think your response is well thought out, just points out how tricky it is when the actual players are on the board, since I don't think you said who you'd pick.

 

I can tell you that I've made this point about 4 times: I am not saying that the entire size debate is about the #5 pick. But at this moment for this team it is really the relevant debate. Outside of whether or not to pick Marner, for this team there is no other side to the argument. We all want to get bigger and harder to play against. The only remaining theoretical debate is not whether size matters, but how MUCH it matters and how much it may or may not be overvalued. Which is great, keep debating it, but not as directly relevant in my opinion to this issue as the Marner question is.

 

It comes to a head w/ Marner at #5 if he's there. And the theory goes out the window and you have to actually make a pick of superskill smallish vs less but still skilled big. That puts the debate right on a platter and in front of our GM to make the actual call on it.

 

Seems that is a bit trickier. And far more interesting to me.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still not sure who you'd pick. Coastal if you put it elsewhere twice, my bad. I read nearly everything you've written, but I can't remember that. So it would be nice to see a name one more time rather than searching for it.  

 

Once again, the BPA (Rem that's what I put out there twice in my reference above).  That would include Hannifin, Strome, AND Marner, and could potentially include others.

 

Sorry if that sounds like I'm dodging your question, but I'm not.  I've also stated I'm not one to get too hung up on an individual player, and rely on the brain trust to do what's best for the team.

 

My "preference" is Hannifin (which is what I have posted all along), and I personally think he will be there for the taking at #5, and if so, I hope the Canes won't hesitate to pull the trigger.

 

If they go in another direction, I'll support it.

Edited by coastal_caniac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rem, I obviously think size matters more than you do.  I don't think it's so cut and dry that Marner's skill will translate into NHL success.  That being said, I think it comes down to a lot more than Marner or bust at 5.  There are several guys that have gotten love lately as the 5th best available.  I think it would be a shock if only one of Strome, Marner, or Hanifin are gone when the Canes pick.  For my tastes, I jump all over Strome or Hannifin, but Marner's size does concern me and I'd have to study really hard with him, Crouse, Provorov, and Rantanen (and maybe another guy or two).  GMRF can not afford to step up to the plate and whiff on this one.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I can see more of a whiff possible with Marner.  The risk/reward is big on a player like this.

Edited by super_dave_1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. I appreciate the responses. It is vague though. I get it, it is a tough decision. I get why it is annoying I keep bringing it back to that issue w/ Marner, mainly because it kind of requires a choice (Francis will not be able to go up to the podium and list 5 guys that he could pick) but I do think that crystalizes this debate. BTW I do not in any way feel that I have a lock on the best pick in that case. I get the idea that Marner's size is a fair point, and his recent concussion history too. Given our own team experience w/ smaller guys, and especially Skinner's problems w/ softness and concussions . That's why I propose considering moving Skinner if Marner is the pick.

 

I pick Marner, but I do this against my feeling along with you guys and others that we need to get grittier and tougher, I just feel that he is not Skinner In that he is far from soft and plays both ends of the ice, and is the kind of guy you just rarely get even at #5. I wish we had somehow lost our way to Eichel, and I would prefer Strome and Hanifin, but if it is Marner or "other" I have to suppress my size issue and go take that guy. That's me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No problem, but I don't see the vagueness you refer to....

 

It's been clearly articulated that if Marner is the BPA at #5, then pick Marner.

 

You seem to continue to come back to why we SHOULD pick Marner.  Some of us aren't willing to go there because we aren't privy to the Canes draft board, therefore we tend to speak more generally.

 

But it's still an opinion, just like yours.

Edited by coastal_caniac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, maybe I'm been missing the key link that if Marner is the BPA you take him. I think that's where we're getting off track. Ideally I'd be interested in your opinion on who is the BPA from the choices, ie: who would you pick (knowing that we are not scouts, GMs' etc) after all  you have said you would pick Hanifin so you are willing to say on that one, but re the size debate you are clear that you would not pass on Marner just due to size. I think some would.

 

Even BPA can have some room for vagueness though. In most instances people refer to BPA vs position, especially in other sports where there are more positions. But it could also mean most skilled at the position vs team need on say size or toughness.

 

Of the non Hanifin/Strome guys, Marner is pretty widely accepted as the most skilled player available. I submit he is occasionally ranked or mocked lower than that exactly due to the size issue. So some scouts and mock drafters have Crouse ahead of Marner and Barzal, fully admitting that there is a big skill gap, but that the size and toughness factor overrides and makes Crouse the BPA at that pick.

 

Yes, we go round and round on this a bit. Like most, I can't wait for the actual pick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anybody is off track.  Rem, you are sure Marner is the BPA and will take him no matter what.  The rest of us internet GM's aren't so sure and are deferring to the staff.  It isn't trying to be vague. 

 

If it isn't all about Marner, why do you keep harping on him being the choice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if it keeps coming back to Marner because the topic is so difficult to quantify without specific examples?  If so, probably some of what would fit just as well or better in the 2015 NHL Entry Draft thread ends up in here.  Seems like the two threads almost unavoidably overlap . . .  

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SD.  I was referring to me and Coastal maybe talking past each other a bit. I think I get his position better, but it still is unclear to me how it would specifically affect his opinion, or yours, on who you would actually pick at if Marne is there at #5. I guess the answer is "not sure". Fair enough, but the hypothetical may well be the actual choice and offers the chance to go all in on size as the main issue.

 

It's fine to say I'm harping on Marner, but I was asked what I would do, who I would pick. Marner is very widely mocked and ranked in the top 5. The plurality of mocks actually have him as our pick. I'm not just forcing him into the discussion. But I'm pretty sure you get that I feel that the size vs skill debate could be crystalized with this pick and that I respect other points of view on that choice, or even just punting it to the Canes scouts. As always, I am not a scout, but none of us are to my knowledge.

 

Does any one here feel that with the possible exception of Strome and Hanifin, there is anyone more talented and skilled left in the draft than Marner? If so, fine. If you don't have an opinion on that, then fine, but really there is a pretty clear consensus on that by most scouts and mock draft publishers.

 

Tell me if any of these statements are false:

 

1. Our draft decision at #5 may very well come down to Marner vs someone not named Hanifin or Strome. (the field).

2. The vast majority of scouting reports, and mock drafts have Marner ranked ahead of the field.

3. Most who rank Marner below someone from the field have him there based on the size issue entirely.

4. Marner's only detraction listed by scouts is size and his concussions. Not toughness, not defense, not compete, nothing else: only size and size related injury risk perception.

5. No one on this board has ever suggested that this team does not need to get bigger and grittier.

6. No one on this board has ever said size doesn't matter at all.

7. Due to #6 and #7, the only real debate is the extent to which size matters. Does the NHL overvalue size? When does skill trump size?

 

Number 7 is almost perfectly crystalized by who we pick at #5 if Strome and Hanfin are gone (the prevailing opinion by mock drafters).

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look up Sven Bartschi in the 2011 draft. Similar size. Ranked 7th. It could go either way. Yes, the only knock on Marner is his size, but that's a sizable knock. Heck, look at Ryan Murphy. If he was 6'2" and 210 lbs, do you think he would still be trying to solidify a spot on the team?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great discussion, all.

 

wxray, I get what you're trying to say re Kane and Skinner, but with all due respect, it completely ignores the larger (no pun intended) point that some have made here: If the TEAM plays soft, skilled small guys won't get the time and space they need to do that voodoo that they do so well. 

 

I've never been impressed by Eric Staal's rep as an iron man because to me, an iron man is a guy who takes it, dishes it out and is going to dress unless his leg is broken - in two places. Bobby Hull. Stan Makita. Rocket Richard. More recently, the entire roster of the Boston Bruins.

 

Eric neither dishes it nor takes it. And he's big. So he's my first citation in support of my prior post on this thread: Size doesn't matter, heart does.

 

As to the speed versus size thing and which RF might give top priority, the answer (again, just me talking) is the same: Without heart, you can be the best/fastest skater on the ice and it won't mean a darned thing.

 

The Carolina Hurricanes' problem since 2010 has been the heart-ectomy it suffered when Roddy left the ice. Because he's still "on the team" along with RF, who has heart of like magnitude, I have to believe (if I'm gonna keep following this team) that "heart" tops brain trust's the priority list, especially with field marshall Peters directing the troops.  

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I told myself I was going to stay out of this.

 

I think the one thing that's plagued the Hurricanes as far as drafting is drafting for need vs future.  No example was more evident than the recent scouting article on Justin Faulk.  In it, it was said that Carolina went into the first round specifically looking to draft a scorer, and the 2nd round they specifically wanted to target a defenseman.  Even though it worked out well that one year, how many other times has the Hurricanes gone into a draft with this mentality and it hasn't worked out?  

 

Ultimately, this team is not going to look like the one we currently have 2-3yrs from now, and drafting while an important part of building a contender, isn't the only part.  The Staals may or may not be here, Semin will probably be gone, jury's still out on Skinner.  These guys may get traded for current team needs while players we draft.  So having said these things, it's important to draft the best player available as opposed to drafting position.  

 

The latest flow in this thread is now questioning rather Marner would be the bpa at #5.  First there's the general consensus around the hockey world that after McDavid/Eichel, the next three are Strome/Hanifin/Marner with debate on the order.  Very few mock drafts have any of the three ranked below #5.  Crouse has been ranked as high as 4th in some mocks, but the majority have him ranked around 8th.  As far as Rantanen, most have him ranked well in the bottom half of the top 10, one even having him ranked as low as #19.  Provorov has generally been ranked lower than Marner on most mocks, but I've said before Provorov is the one player outside of Strome/Marner/Hanifin that i'd feel completely comfortable drafting at #5.  Assuming Strome/Hanifin are gone, none of the other guys in the top of the draft are being compared to elite players like Marner is.  Crouse gets Lucic comparisons, Provorov get projected as a top 4 dman, Rantanen get projected as a top 9 forward.  Marner gets compared to Patrick Kane, similar to McDavid gets compared to Crosby, and Eichel getting called the greatest american prospect since Kane.  Kane is a 3-time champion as well as olympic medalist.  There's been talk of so many teams trying to trade up to get a chance to draft the guy, as well as teams ahead of us, I just hope we aren't seeing something these other teams are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are always exceptions to any rule. There are lots (arguably far more) exceptions of big guys who flamed out. And it makes sense. Everyone wants the big guy. The smaller guy goes in with points against him. GM and scouts have to ignore that and pick the smaller guy, but w/ the bigger guy it is easier to just pick him.

 

Again though and please read this: I would agree w/ team need being a driving force outside of the #5 pick. At that level the talent is just too good this year, with this player. The reason I keep bringing him up is that he is the exception. Outside of him I would do everything possible to get size/toughness.

 

I personally (clearly, since I've been saying it over and over again) feel that Marner is an exceptional talent. Boychuk, Murphy, and others ranked even as high as #7 are not in that category. The last guy (other than McDavid) to put up Marner numbers was Kane himself. That includes a lot of #1 overall picks. Marner is a #1 overall kind of talent in my opinion, (based mostly on reading scouts and his numbers), in many draft years. It is just too much talent in this one case to pass up. Get the size elsewhere.

 

I could be wrong. Also, to Top's point, Marner is said to have huge heart and compete.

 

So, me, remkin, non expert would take Marner and then make moves to make the rest of the team bigger and tougher around him. If the return were there, the first move I'd make would probably be Skinner for a bigger grittier player either up front or dman.

 

But again, I get it that others may feel differently. I think you can trade skill for size easier than the other way around and Skinner would be a great example. Could we not move Skinner for a less prolific, bigger, rougher, winger? Probably.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look up Sven Bartschi in the 2011 draft. Similar size. Ranked 7th. It could go either way. Yes, the only knock on Marner is his size, but that's a sizable knock. Heck, look at Ryan Murphy. If he was 6'2" and 210 lbs, do you think he would still be trying to solidify a spot on the team?

 

That argument always has a counter.  There's always bigger players drafted high that don't pan out either, which in my opinion is exactly the point.  Anybody draft pick can either do worse than projected, better than projected, or about the same.  Ryan Murphy was a top 5 prospect in his draft, a teammate of Skinner's who was drafted and won the Calder a year ahead of him who is also "undersized" and was drawing comparisons of Karlsson (who's very close to Murphy's size).  Murphy's main issue so far hasn't been his size, but rather his consistency and defensive positioning.  I felt like the end of the year he improved on both of those, but I felt it came at the expense of his offense.  He's only 22yrs old, so I wouldn't throw in the towel yet.  I feel if he was 6'2 200lbs it wouldn't be any different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That argument always has a counter.  There's always bigger players drafted high that don't pan out either, which in my opinion is exactly the point.  Anybody draft pick can either do worse than projected, better than projected, or about the same.  Ryan Murphy was a top 5 prospect in his draft, a teammate of Skinner's who was drafted and won the Calder a year ahead of him who is also "undersized" and was drawing comparisons of Karlsson (who's very close to Murphy's size).  Murphy's main issue so far hasn't been his size, but rather his consistency and defensive positioning.  I felt like the end of the year he improved on both of those, but I felt it came at the expense of his offense.  He's only 22yrs old, so I wouldn't throw in the towel yet.  I feel if he was 6'2 200lbs it wouldn't be any different.

 

That was the point I was making.  You can't say that a player is going to be a success or failure based solely on size, skill, speed, scoring, etc. at the next level.  It's a combination of all.  A few here keep saying that Marner will be the next Kane, and all I'm saying is that it isn't a sure thing.  There are busts in every draft.  There are surprises in every draft. 

 

When Murphy turns into Karlsson, I'll be happy.  That jury is still out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was the point I was making.  You can't say that a player is going to be a success or failure based solely on size, skill, speed, scoring, etc. at the next level.  It's a combination of all.  A few here keep saying that Marner will be the next Kane, and all I'm saying is that it isn't a sure thing.  There are busts in every draft.  There are surprises in every draft. 

 

When Murphy turns into Karlsson, I'll be happy.  That jury is still out.

 

There's more to Marner than just being compared to Kane because of similar builds.  He's putting up 2ppg in the best amateur league in the world.  The only people that can say they've done that in the draft are McDavid and Strome.  Also he is seen as someone who plays a complete game in all three zones.  If he were 6'2 200lbs, he'd probably get compared to McDavid or Tavares.  I'm just curious as to what knocks do you have on Marner that doesn't include his size?  Where does he rank in your opinion in the draft?  I'm not saying he's going to be the next Kane, but he has a higher ceiling then other forwards in the draft.  That in my opinion is what makes him the bpa assuming Strome/Hanifin are gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great discussion, all.

 

wxray, I get what you're trying to say re Kane and Skinner, but with all due respect, it completely ignores the larger (no pun intended) point that some have made here: If the TEAM plays soft, skilled small guys won't get the time and space they need to do that voodoo that they do so well. 

 

I've never been impressed by Eric Staal's rep as an iron man because to me, an iron man is a guy who takes it, dishes it out and is going to dress unless his leg is broken - in two places. Bobby Hull. Stan Makita. Rocket Richard. More recently, the entire roster of the Boston Bruins.

 

Eric neither dishes it nor takes it. And he's big. So he's my first citation in support of my prior post on this thread: Size doesn't matter, heart does.

 

 

Top Shelf, totally agree.

 

I was just wise-guy short on that post.  It is beyond skill.  Kane may get on nerves by his antics, but the guy has a certain toughness not spoken about much.   And yes, there is the team support.  Point taken.  The guy has played in 116 out of a possible 117 playoff games.  He came back from a bad injury this season with surprising grit and fearlessness.  He's not liked by most fan bases.  There's a reason for that.

 

Toews approaches toughness from a different, complementary angle.  And he's played in 117 out of a possible 117 playoff games.

 

I will say that the Blackhawks have benefited from extremely good collective health these last 6 years.  Is it luck?  Is it the types of players?  Is it training?  I don't know.  I do know that some of these guys have been strategically held out of games while dinged up, at the right time.  (Last year comes to mind for both Kane and Toews.)  About the only dumb injury has been Crawford's concert injury this year.

 

Contrast to the Canes who seemingly can't get past July 15th each year without a severe, season impacting injury.  Semin?  Staals?  Skinner?  Ward?  It has been a disaster.

 

I cannot help but think that part of this is the type of player intentionally selected by the Hawks.  It has to be part of the equation.  I mean, these guys are getting injured in the off-season for Pete's sake!

Edited by wxray1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great discussion, all.

 

wxray, I get what you're trying to say re Kane and Skinner, but with all due respect, it completely ignores the larger (no pun intended) point that some have made here: If the TEAM plays soft, skilled small guys won't get the time and space they need to do that voodoo that they do so well. 

 

I've never been impressed by Eric Staal's rep as an iron man because to me, an iron man is a guy who takes it, dishes it out and is going to dress unless his leg is broken - in two places. Bobby Hull. Stan Makita. Rocket Richard. More recently, the entire roster of the Boston Bruins.

 

Eric neither dishes it nor takes it. And he's big. So he's my first citation in support of my prior post on this thread: Size doesn't matter, heart does.

 

As to the speed versus size thing and which RF might give top priority, the answer (again, just me talking) is the same: Without heart, you can be the best/fastest skater on the ice and it won't mean a darned thing.

 

The Carolina Hurricanes' problem since 2010 has been the heart-ectomy it suffered when Roddy left the ice. Because he's still "on the team" along with RF, who has heart of like magnitude, I have to believe (if I'm gonna keep following this team) that "heart" tops brain trust's the priority list, especially with field marshall Peters directing the troops.  

 

I get your point but part of your post did give me a chuckle. Given that Staal is reported to have played on a broken foot for parts of last season, "is going to dress unless his leg is broken - in two places" might not have been the best example to use. I know, a broken foot is different from a broken leg, but still . . . :grin:

 

Now that you mention it, I'm pretty sure Francis did specifically mention heart/ character up front when he was talking about what he was looking for in Canes players going forward (along with speed and size).

 

That was the point I was making.  You can't say that a player is going to be a success or failure based solely on size, skill, speed, scoring, etc. at the next level.  It's a combination of all.  A few here keep saying that Marner will be the next Kane, and all I'm saying is that it isn't a sure thing.  There are busts in every draft.  There are surprises in every draft. 

 

When Murphy turns into Karlsson, I'll be happy.  That jury is still out.

Two thoughts regarding prospect comparisons to established NHL players.

 

Although it's rarely spelled out, I think an assumption inherent to most such projections are the words "potential ceiling". That takes into account the uncertainty that comes with any prospect.    

 

I suspect part of the reason for comparisons to established players is a limitation in the language we use to describe a players potential. That and efficiency. "A potential Patrick Kane" is much more efficient than "Has exceptional hockey sense. Is as good as it gets in the playmaking department and he's a deadly shooter, too. Has superb stickhandling skills. Makes his teammates around him better. Is supremely confident in his abilities. Has a strong, explosive skating stride."  (I stole that scouting report of Kane from TheHockeyNews).  

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Now that you mention it, I'm pretty sure Francis did specifically mention heart/ character up front when he was talking about what he was looking for in Canes players going forward (along with speed and size).

 

 

 

That is a good point. I remember that too. It was heart and character that I believe he mentioned first, then speed, then, if all else equal, size.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He specifically said he wanted players that lived to come to the rink and put in the work to make themselves the best player on every shift.

Or... The Anti-Semin.

Rem, why are you so sure that Marner is the exception? I guess you have more insight than the ISS final rankings that have Crouse 5th and Marner 6th.

Edited by super_dave_1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for adding RF's comment, guys. Now that it's been posted I remember it too. 

 

You are right Lake, a foot is different, and I take your point that Eric tried to play with it. But Eric trying to play hurt is no different than Eric playing healthy: I just don't see much drive, certainly not Brindy or Francis-grade drive. Was it success at too young an age? Was it too much ($$) too soon? I don't know, and my interest in trying to figure it out went away about three years back.

 

I think the Ryan signing is extremely interesting, especially given that he is a center. BP has now brought in three guys he's seen and liked during their development (Malone, Nesty and Ryan) and has apparently answered the question he asked publicly in Feb or March, whether Nesty was going to be a C or W. I don't see Ryan, at 28, spending one minute in CLT; he's here to make the roster and, I'm guessing, center the second line (assuming both Staals skate on the first), buying Rask time to learn the C job as the third line center, so he can learn from the bench as well as on the ice. Of course, Peters may have already decided that Rask is ready for second-line duties, and feel Ryan is a solid third liner.

 

Very interesting signing indeed - and it's way too early for this, but if BP is thinking in terms of forming top lines based on player age/ number of games skated, we could be looking at:

 

Staal-Staal-Semin (Gerbs if the buyout happens)

Skinner-Ryan-Nesty

Lindy-Rask-Terry

Malone-McC-Dwyer

 

Again, with Ryan and Rask inverted depending on BP's feelings about Rask's readiness.

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Top Shelf, totally agree.

 

I was just wise-guy short on that post.  It is beyond skill.  Kane may get on nerves by his antics, but the guy has a certain toughness not spoken about much.   And yes, there is the team support.  Point taken.  The guy has played in 116 out of a possible 117 playoff games.  He came back from a bad injury this season with surprising grit and fearlessness.  He's not liked by most fan bases.  There's a reason for that.

 

Toews approaches toughness from a different, complementary angle.  And he's played in 117 out of a possible 117 playoff games.

 

I will say that the Blackhawks have benefited from extremely good collective health these last 6 years.  Is it luck?  Is it the types of players?  Is it training?  I don't know.  I do know that some of these guys have been strategically held out of games while dinged up, at the right time.  (Last year comes to mind for both Kane and Toews.)  About the only dumb injury has been Crawford's concert injury this year.

 

Contrast to the Canes who seemingly can't get past July 15th each year without a severe, season impacting injury.  Semin?  Staals?  Skinner?  Ward?  It has been a disaster.

 

I cannot help but think that part of this is the type of player intentionally selected by the Hawks.  It has to be part of the equation.  I mean, these guys are getting injured in the off-season for Pete's sake!

Agree, and you can extend that (intentional selection) to every team in the West - which is why I am doubly glad Peters is here.

 

East tough and West tough are two different things, and if you're an East team building toward the Cup, you've got to remember that.

 

Chicago had every reason to be worn down and show it. But they've kept young enough, despite six years of dominance, that even the toughness it takes to get through the Western playoffs didn't faze them. The only thing that might is the salary cap - but I'm pretty sure their player development folks are way out in front of that, too. Sharp and whoever else they have to dump have earned a vacation, and they will probably get it. Which, for any Western Conference player, means a few years in the East.

 

We really should just call it the Junior Circuit, already. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. Sharp and whoever else they have to dump have earned a vacation, and they will probably get it. Which, for any Western Conference player, means a few years in the East.

 

We really should just call it the Junior Circuit, already. 

 

I've been resistant to the whole West vs East thing, but sometime this year, I've come around to that thinking.  And it was confirmed after this Cup.  The first thing out of the Bolts were their litany of injuries.  Haven't heard a peep about them from Chicago.  Granted, alcohol and euphoria may not be leaving any time for the whining.  But still...

 

Vacation in the East.  Not as crazy as I used to think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...