|
Post by folatre on Jan 27, 2016 21:35:47 GMT -5
Seventeen, I did not hear McKenzie comment about Markov. He may not draw a first round offer, but plenty of smart GM and coaches around the league know Markov is capable of playing reasonable even strength minutes (15 per night) and power play (another 3-4 minutes in typical game), to avoid penalty killing and back to back to games. If Andrei Markov is willing to depart and pursue the Cup, there is surely a second rounder available.
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jan 27, 2016 21:42:52 GMT -5
You could try evaluating the next pick taken theory, but it doesn't take into consideration that which is impossible to statistically measure: best player available vs. drafting for need. Teams employ different strategies depending on where they draft and the round. If it's a later round, I suspect most teams are drafting for need. If a team really needs to augment a certain area they may overlook a 'bpa' in favor of someone they think fills a glaring need better. That difference in philosophy can make comparison difficult. Without comparing who was pick 50 and pick 55, an example of a scenario where a guy might slide because teams are drafting for need, you merely gauge the probability of each pick being successful.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 27, 2016 21:46:52 GMT -5
my head is spinning just reading this discussion.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jan 27, 2016 21:47:27 GMT -5
Seventeen, I did not hear McKenzie comment about Markov. He may not draw a first round offer, but plenty of smart GM and coaches around the league know Markov is capable of playing reasonable even strength minutes (15 per night) and power play (another 3-4 minutes in typical game), to avoid penalty killing and back to back to games. If Andrei Markov is willing to depart and pursue the Cup, there is surely a second rounder available. I'm thinking of Malakhov, and how we got a solid return for him from a team looking for a strong 3d pairing D - having him on the 3d pairing meant the Devils didn't have to play the top 4 quite as much, and Markov could be invaluable in an equivalent role on a team with a lack of depth in terms of quality D.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 27, 2016 21:49:51 GMT -5
Seventeen, I did not hear McKenzie comment about Markov. He may not draw a first round offer, but plenty of smart GM and coaches around the league know Markov is capable of playing reasonable even strength minutes (15 per night) and power play (another 3-4 minutes in typical game), to avoid penalty killing and back to back to games. If Andrei Markov is willing to depart and pursue the Cup, there is surely a second rounder available. I did. he made sense. big contract, another year, aging player, cap not going up much if at all . . . and Markov has played like crap lately. dreams of dumping Pleks, Eller, Emelin, whoever for high draft picks and players are big dreams.
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jan 27, 2016 22:19:16 GMT -5
Seventeen, I did not hear McKenzie comment about Markov. He may not draw a first round offer, but plenty of smart GM and coaches around the league know Markov is capable of playing reasonable even strength minutes (15 per night) and power play (another 3-4 minutes in typical game), to avoid penalty killing and back to back to games. If Andrei Markov is willing to depart and pursue the Cup, there is surely a second rounder available. I did. he made sense. big contract, another year, aging player, cap not going up much if at all . . . and Markov has played like crap lately. dreams of dumping Pleks, Eller, Emelin, whoever for high draft picks and players are big dreams. Doesn't have to be high picks, just younger, cheaper players. Maybe even for a 2nd and an overpaid, Rene Bourque-type contract in return to make the trade work. A lot of teams go from pretender to contender if you add Plek or Markov to them...
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 27, 2016 22:29:26 GMT -5
But we had the third greatest probability of success in that draft. That's where weighting each pick comes in. The probability of success in a given year is also affected by depth of the talent pool. If more than one draft comes into play, you have to do something to equate different years in order to compare success or failure from year to year and team to team. If a team picks top three 5 years in a row you can't compare them to a team picking in the 20s on average over the same period without equating their probability of success. In other words, who's doing the most with the least. There are successful player all over the board every year, that's not the analysis. The analysis is the likelihood a team picks a successful player in the position they've been seeded. That's why saying there are such a number of teams who've got more players that have played x number of games than Montreal is a huge generalization and one that goes to serve an agenda. I work with people who have Masters degrees in statistics, they consult with a psychometrician, and I see processed data on a regular basis. Without getting into specifics, we can't compare project x to project y without equating them. That means taking each piece of a project and valuing it. It produces a scaled score that can be compared from one project to another. It's a big undertaking, and any time a piece of a project changes you have to value that new piece. The result could change the scaled score for the whole project. Each project is a draft. Each pick is 'scaled'. If every team had an equal chance in the draft, the #1 pick wouldn't mean anything. I'm well aware. That's why I said to develop a formula ... I develop weighted formulas all the time for rating roads, for ranking and budgets. The only thing that would have to be agreed on is the criteria to analyze (round selected, games played, goals, etc) and the weights of each. Then you add up all the picks in that year to get an overall score .... A later round pick with less points might rate higher depending on the weights of the rounds, for example.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 27, 2016 22:34:03 GMT -5
You could try evaluating the next pick taken theory, but it doesn't take into consideration that which is impossible to statistically measure: best player available vs. drafting for need. Teams employ different strategies depending on where they draft and the round. If it's a later round, I suspect most teams are drafting for need. If a team really needs to augment a certain area they may overlook a 'bpa' in favor of someone they think fills a glaring need better. That difference in philosophy can make comparison difficult. Without comparing who was pick 50 and pick 55, an example of a scenario where a guy might slide because teams are drafting for need, you merely gauge the probability of each pick being successful. That's irrevelant .... If they drafted on need or BPA and it's a bust of a pick, it's a bust of a pick. If it's successful, it's successful, ... You could have three condition codes for positions (F, D, G)
|
|
|
Post by folatre on Jan 27, 2016 22:55:43 GMT -5
I agree on Plekanec and Emelin being largely untradeable unless onerous contract came back to Montreal.
But I believe the market would evaluate guys like Eller and Desharnais differently. Desharnais contract is not an albatross. It expires in 2017; and 3.5 million USD is not an enormous sum for a 45-50 point guy in a low scoring league. The return would be very modest, obviously. But the point is for Bergevin to learn after four seasons and see Plekanec and Desharnais 1-2 down the middle is not viable and to remove Therrien preference from the equation. For me the return is not the issue, to make a long overdue decision about which small "offensive" centre stay/go is the issue.
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 27, 2016 23:10:29 GMT -5
For what it is worth... TSN's Scott Cullen has developed his own value system of each specific pick over a ten year time frame. He valued each selection into a class of player based on the players 4 best years. 10 was an elite talent ..down to 1 bring a bust. Then I guess he took the average of the scores to get a value for each individual pick. He found that the 5th pick was slightly more successful than the 4th pick , and the worse pick to have in the first round was obviously 30th, but the next worse was 15th.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jan 27, 2016 23:16:19 GMT -5
Seventeen, I did not hear McKenzie comment about Markov. He may not draw a first round offer, but plenty of smart GM and coaches around the league know Markov is capable of playing reasonable even strength minutes (15 per night) and power play (another 3-4 minutes in typical game), to avoid penalty killing and back to back to games. If Andrei Markov is willing to depart and pursue the Cup, there is surely a second rounder available. I think from watching Andrei's play the last couple of weeks, its understandable that he's not drawing any interest and that can change in a moment if someone on a contending game is injured. A problem that won't go away, though, is his contract. If this was his final year, there'd be a lot more interest. He signed the contract after turning 35, so it falls into that CAP category where you if forms part of your cap whether he retires or not. Unfortunately, and as some people suggested when the contract was signed (not me) 3 years was more than we should have offered. Once again, we had no one to replace him (much like Pleks) so Berg was between a rock and a hard place and hoping Markov would last 3 years. He might, but only if used more sparingly, I think. And yes, there my be someone willing to go with that final year, if they feel they're close enough to a Cup this year. And they need CAP space, of course. A second rounder may also be possible, if they need a guy like Markov badly enough. Heck, within a better system he could still be really good.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jan 27, 2016 23:23:19 GMT -5
But we had the third greatest probability of success in that draft. That's where weighting each pick comes in. The probability of success in a given year is also affected by depth of the talent pool. If more than one draft comes into play, you have to do something to equate different years in order to compare success or failure from year to year and team to team. If a team picks top three 5 years in a row you can't compare them to a team picking in the 20s on average over the same period without equating their probability of success. In other words, who's doing the most with the least. There are successful player all over the board every year, that's not the analysis. The analysis is the likelihood a team picks a successful player in the position they've been seeded. That's why saying there are such a number of teams who've got more players that have played x number of games than Montreal is a huge generalization and one that goes to serve an agenda. I work with people who have Masters degrees in statistics, they consult with a psychometrician, and I see processed data on a regular basis. Without getting into specifics, we can't compare project x to project y without equating them. That means taking each piece of a project and valuing it. It produces a scaled score that can be compared from one project to another. It's a big undertaking, and any time a piece of a project changes you have to value that new piece. The result could change the scaled score for the whole project. Each project is a draft. Each pick is 'scaled'. If every team had an equal chance in the draft, the #1 pick wouldn't mean anything. The method I've always wanted to try would be to compare one team's drafted players to the players taken with the very next pick, each and every draft. It only works for comparing the team in question to a random combination of other team drafting, with the same talent on the table, minus the guy we actually picked. In theory, the team picking first should be better than the team picked with the next picks... That's a reasonable theory. As blny says, scaling is necessary. For example, what if team picking 20 needs a forward really badly and picks one and team #21 picks a dman who turns out better. Is that the scouting department's failure? Some years (2008 for example) there are a ton of great defensemen chosen and not so many good forwards. Does one have to 'scale' the picks by position too? That would turn into a Monte Carlo simulation problem or worse. Can one compare scouting staffs that way? I don't know. PS. That's just for you, Franko.
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jan 27, 2016 23:26:31 GMT -5
Seventeen, I did not hear McKenzie comment about Markov. He may not draw a first round offer, but plenty of smart GM and coaches around the league know Markov is capable of playing reasonable even strength minutes (15 per night) and power play (another 3-4 minutes in typical game), to avoid penalty killing and back to back to games. If Andrei Markov is willing to depart and pursue the Cup, there is surely a second rounder available. I'm thinking of Malakhov, and how we got a solid return for him from a team looking for a strong 3d pairing D - having him on the 3d pairing meant the Devils didn't have to play the top 4 quite as much, and Markov could be invaluable in an equivalent role on a team with a lack of depth in terms of quality D. Sorry, PTH, I replied to folatre above before reading this post. That's exactly the scenario where we might move Markov, even for a 3rd rounder or better if the other team needs him badly
|
|
|
Post by del on Jan 27, 2016 23:51:45 GMT -5
IMO there are least three factors that go into comparing draft success. You can't blindly compare teams without taking these factors into consideration. 1. Establish a formula that equates probability of success for each draft position, 1 through 200 and something. 2. Over an established period, determine a team's average drafting position. Make adjustments if picks are traded (should decrease overall probability of success). 3. Weight each draft in terms of depth. Comparing a weak draft year to a deep one is next to impossible without doing so. Only then can you realistically compare teams. You'd expect a team drafting high in every round to have the greatest number of kids who make it to the NHL and play a minimum number games. Then, it's a matter of comparing the teams that drafted immediately before and after you. If a team hits a home run one year (after your pick) it's a statistical anomaly. If that team is behind you every year, and they're consistently drafting better ... From 2008-12, Montreal had 4 first round picks. They traded away their first in 08. If you take overall draft position for their first pick in each year and average it out, that's 23rd overall. Someone else can do the probability of success for drafting 23rd over all 5 years in a row. [/quote] So my wife asked me to day for my opinion ... should she wear her red shoes or her green shoes to the 1910 FruitGum Company reunion concert tonite. So being the cerebral kind of guy I am, sort of much like you .... I told her you can't blindly compare shoes without taking these factors into consideration. 1. You need to divide (or not) the null factum of red/green by the finite quantum probability of p45's decay algorithm based on the rectal scale of the last earthquake we had here in Vancouver 2 Then apply Pizza Factory's quark pepperonic entropy theorem to account for the delay of earth's albedo and increased gastric discomfort for Jan 27,2016. 3. Establish the mean weight of each shoe, multiply that number by your height, subtract the date of your birth and ignore the fact that they both make you look fat. I gave her my final, unequivocal answer.....no!
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Jan 28, 2016 1:35:35 GMT -5
Does she have the typical number of pairs of shoes as the average woman? Too many?
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jan 28, 2016 1:49:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jan 28, 2016 6:34:26 GMT -5
For what it is worth... TSN's Scott Cullen has developed his own value system of each specific pick over a ten year time frame. He valued each selection into a class of player based on the players 4 best years. 10 was an elite talent ..down to 1 bring a bust. Then I guess he took the average of the scores to get a value for each individual pick. He found that the 5th pick was slightly more successful than the 4th pick , and the worse pick to have in the first round was obviously 30th, but the next worse was 15th. It may be irrelevant in terms of whether or not the pick is successful, but it isn't if you try an compare a single pick to the one taken after it. Somewhere in there falls the variable of BPA vs need. That would be incredibly complicated to try and include in the measurement.
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jan 28, 2016 6:36:11 GMT -5
Not remotely surprised that he'd pick Boucher. I want Stanley Cups on the bench. He doesn't have one.
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jan 28, 2016 6:39:09 GMT -5
But we had the third greatest probability of success in that draft. That's where weighting each pick comes in. The probability of success in a given year is also affected by depth of the talent pool. If more than one draft comes into play, you have to do something to equate different years in order to compare success or failure from year to year and team to team. If a team picks top three 5 years in a row you can't compare them to a team picking in the 20s on average over the same period without equating their probability of success. In other words, who's doing the most with the least. There are successful player all over the board every year, that's not the analysis. The analysis is the likelihood a team picks a successful player in the position they've been seeded. That's why saying there are such a number of teams who've got more players that have played x number of games than Montreal is a huge generalization and one that goes to serve an agenda. I work with people who have Masters degrees in statistics, they consult with a psychometrician, and I see processed data on a regular basis. Without getting into specifics, we can't compare project x to project y without equating them. That means taking each piece of a project and valuing it. It produces a scaled score that can be compared from one project to another. It's a big undertaking, and any time a piece of a project changes you have to value that new piece. The result could change the scaled score for the whole project. Each project is a draft. Each pick is 'scaled'. If every team had an equal chance in the draft, the #1 pick wouldn't mean anything. I'm well aware. That's why I said to develop a formula ... I develop weighted formulas all the time for rating roads, for ranking and budgets. The only thing that would have to be agreed on is the criteria to analyze (round selected, games played, goals, etc) and the weights of each. Then you add up all the picks in that year to get an overall score .... A later round pick with less points might rate higher depending on the weights of the rounds, for example. You can't just weight the round though. You have to weight the whole draft. Otherwise, you can't compare the 20th pick from one year to the next. Without weighting each draft, the 20th pick would have the same probability of success every year and we know that isn't true.
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jan 28, 2016 6:58:29 GMT -5
If we can't find takers for Eller and DD, I'm content buying them out. Well, "willing" might be a better word. It frees up $4.65 million for next year. That's money for towards a legit scoring player. It forces a season of Galchenyuk at center, hopefully with that scoring threat. It's not ideal, but imo it's better than keeping them around at this point.
Desharnais buyout is $3.5 million x .67 = $2.345 million / 2 years = $1.175 million (against cap each of next two years)
Eller buyout is $7.0 million x .67 = $4.70 million / 4 years = $1.175 million (against cap each of next 4 years).
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jan 28, 2016 8:07:22 GMT -5
Interesting comments on TSN 690 this morning ... Elliott Price(?) was questioning the talent pool and coaching at the AHL level ... he pointed out that Sylvain Lefevbre has his players focusing on a grinding strategy at the expense of scoring goals ... that's how the talent in the organization is being developed ... they went onto compare the Leafs to the Habs in about three years ... Toronto has a progressive coach and loads of talent in the AHL (the Marlies are the cream this year) ... conversely, Montreal is going in a different direction ... never thought I'd see this happen to our club ... IMO, Pacioretty/Galchenyuk/Gallagher are the only top-line guys we have ... Plekanec is a 2nd-line centre, while the rest of the team are 3rd/4th line pluggers ... won't talk about the defence corps other than, they look like they have no system whatsoever ... anyway, I don't have the solution, but the guys this morning are only now talking about some of the things we've been talking about for almost two seasons, and why not ... the team was winning ...
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Willie Dog on Jan 28, 2016 8:27:25 GMT -5
Interesting comments on TSN 690 this morning ... Elliott Price(?) was questioning the talent pool and coaching at the AHL level ... he pointed out that Sylvain Lefevbre has his players focusing on a grinding strategy at the expense of scoring goals ... that's how the talent in the organization is being developed ... they went onto compare the Leafs to the Habs in about three years ... Toronto has a progressive coach and loads of talent in the AHL (the Marlies are the cream this year) ... conversely, Montreal is going in a different direction ... never thought I'd see this happen to our club ... IMO, Pacioretty/Galchenyuk/Gallagher are the only top-line guys we have ... Plekanec is a 2nd-line centre, while the rest of the team are 3rd/4th line pluggers ... won't talk about the defence corps other than, they look like they have no system whatsoever ... anyway, I don't have the solution, but the guys this morning are only now talking about some of the things we've been talking about for almost two seasons, and why not ... the team was winning ... Cheers. I heard that too Rick, I got quite discouraged... the Leafs have hope? I mean real hope... that is bad for every fan of every Canadian NHL team. They are absolutely right, Lefebvre is doing to our prospects the same thing MT is doing with the big team... The house needs to be cleaned out completely, except Waite.
|
|
|
Post by Willie Dog on Jan 28, 2016 8:30:07 GMT -5
Not remotely surprised that he'd pick Boucher. I want Stanley Cups on the bench. He doesn't have one. But if Boucher brings in Larry to work with the D, then I am fine with that. Boucher did plenty with not much in Tampa. we have talent that has been abused and mismanaged and has been forced to play in a manner not suited to their ability or talent. I would give Boucher a shot with Larry on the big team and Ducharme calling the shots in St. John's.
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jan 28, 2016 8:34:04 GMT -5
Interesting comments on TSN 690 this morning ... Elliott Price(?) was questioning the talent pool and coaching at the AHL level ... he pointed out that Sylvain Lefevbre has his players focusing on a grinding strategy at the expense of scoring goals ... that's how the talent in the organization is being developed ... they went onto compare the Leafs to the Habs in about three years ... Toronto has a progressive coach and loads of talent in the AHL (the Marlies are the cream this year) ... conversely, Montreal is going in a different direction ... never thought I'd see this happen to our club ... IMO, Pacioretty/Galchenyuk/Gallagher are the only top-line guys we have ... Plekanec is a 2nd-line centre, while the rest of the team are 3rd/4th line pluggers ... won't talk about the defence corps other than, they look like they have no system whatsoever ... anyway, I don't have the solution, but the guys this morning are only now talking about some of the things we've been talking about for almost two seasons, and why not ... the team was winning ... Cheers. The Marlies may be leading the AHL, but a closer examination of their roster shows that their two leading scorers - the guys driving the bus - are career minor leaguers. TJ Brennan and Mark Arcobello are never going to be NHL mainstays. Nylander is a very good piece. Leipsic and Leivo are decent, but not spectacular. There's a lot of AHL experience on that roster.
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jan 28, 2016 8:34:46 GMT -5
Not remotely surprised that he'd pick Boucher. I want Stanley Cups on the bench. He doesn't have one. But if Boucher brings in Larry to work with the D, then I am fine with that. Boucher did plenty with not much in Tampa. we have talent that has been abused and mismanaged and has been forced to play in a manner not suited to their ability or talent. I would give Boucher a shot with Larry on the big team and Ducharme calling the shots in St. John's. I'd be good with that, but still favor Crawford.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jan 28, 2016 8:55:51 GMT -5
Interesting comments on TSN 690 this morning ... Elliott Price(?) was questioning the talent pool and coaching at the AHL level ... he pointed out that Sylvain Lefevbre has his players focusing on a grinding strategy at the expense of scoring goals ... that's how the talent in the organization is being developed ... they went onto compare the Leafs to the Habs in about three years ... Toronto has a progressive coach and loads of talent in the AHL (the Marlies are the cream this year) ... conversely, Montreal is going in a different direction ... never thought I'd see this happen to our club ... IMO, Pacioretty/Galchenyuk/Gallagher are the only top-line guys we have ... Plekanec is a 2nd-line centre, while the rest of the team are 3rd/4th line pluggers ... won't talk about the defence corps other than, they look like they have no system whatsoever ... anyway, I don't have the solution, but the guys this morning are only now talking about some of the things we've been talking about for almost two seasons, and why not ... the team was winning ... Cheers. The Marlies may be leading the AHL, but a closer examination of their roster shows that their two leading scorers - the guys driving the bus - are career minor leaguers. TJ Brennan and Mark Arcobello are never going to be NHL mainstays. Nylander is a very good piece. Leipsic and Leivo are decent, but not spectacular. There's a lot of AHL experience on that roster. Be that as it may, the Marlies are winning and that has a lot to do with player development, IMHO ... Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jan 28, 2016 8:56:43 GMT -5
Interesting comments on TSN 690 this morning ... Elliott Price(?) was questioning the talent pool and coaching at the AHL level ... he pointed out that Sylvain Lefevbre has his players focusing on a grinding strategy at the expense of scoring goals ... that's how the talent in the organization is being developed ... they went onto compare the Leafs to the Habs in about three years ... Toronto has a progressive coach and loads of talent in the AHL (the Marlies are the cream this year) ... conversely, Montreal is going in a different direction ... never thought I'd see this happen to our club ... IMO, Pacioretty/Galchenyuk/Gallagher are the only top-line guys we have ... Plekanec is a 2nd-line centre, while the rest of the team are 3rd/4th line pluggers ... won't talk about the defence corps other than, they look like they have no system whatsoever ... anyway, I don't have the solution, but the guys this morning are only now talking about some of the things we've been talking about for almost two seasons, and why not ... the team was winning ... Cheers. I heard that too Rick, I got quite discouraged... the Leafs have hope? I mean real hope... that is bad for every fan of every Canadian NHL team. They are absolutely right, Lefebvre is doing to our prospects the same thing MT is doing with the big team... The house needs to be cleaned out completely, except Waite. They also pointed out Lefebvre's record (actually, that's the second time they've brought that up this week) ... the bascially called him a loser ... Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jan 28, 2016 9:07:03 GMT -5
Seventeen, I did not hear McKenzie comment about Markov. He may not draw a first round offer, but plenty of smart GM and coaches around the league know Markov is capable of playing reasonable even strength minutes (15 per night) and power play (another 3-4 minutes in typical game), to avoid penalty killing and back to back to games. If Andrei Markov is willing to depart and pursue the Cup, there is surely a second rounder available. I did. he made sense. big contract, another year, aging player, cap not going up much if at all . . . and Markov has played like crap lately. dreams of dumping Pleks, Eller, Emelin, whoever for high draft picks and players are big dreams. That's what I heard, too ... McKenzie stated there is no market for Markov ... Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jan 28, 2016 9:11:18 GMT -5
I did. he made sense. big contract, another year, aging player, cap not going up much if at all . . . and Markov has played like crap lately. dreams of dumping Pleks, Eller, Emelin, whoever for high draft picks and players are big dreams. Doesn't have to be high picks, just younger, cheaper players. Maybe even for a 2nd and an overpaid, Rene Bourque-type contract in return to make the trade work. A lot of teams go from pretender to contender if you add Plek or Markov to them... BobbyMac suggesting that a 2nd would be a stretch. just reporting on the reporter.
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jan 28, 2016 9:14:43 GMT -5
I heard that too Rick, I got quite discouraged... the Leafs have hope? I mean real hope... that is bad for every fan of every Canadian NHL team. They are absolutely right, Lefebvre is doing to our prospects the same thing MT is doing with the big team... The house needs to be cleaned out completely, except Waite. They also pointed out Lefebvre's record (actually, that's the second time they've brought that up this week) ... the bascially called him a loser ... Cheers. The Grand Plan? At this point a game plan for the next game would be refreshing. Stay the course when the course is really do nothing. Stay the course is not the plan when you are headed in the wrong direction. Bring up a fourth liner from St. John's and sit him in the press box while gathering frequent flyer miles from Air Canada. Trade for an All Star, not Shrek, a real all star. In reality, the players are not all that bad. It takes a really bad coach to make them that bad!
|
|