On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 19:16:34 GMT, bluedog DeleteThis @cyberramp.net (Bluedog)
wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 14:48:56 GMT, Llama <nobody DeleteThis @nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>
<snip>
>
>>After getting rid of their top two defensemen, the Stars are going to
>>need solid goal tending.
>
>Are you saying that Sydore was one of our top two defensemen? I'd have
>to disagree with that. The top two were Hatch and Zubie. Sydor has
>also begun to fall off quite a bit, so outside of the first two, it
>was a toss-up after that.
>
Correction: "fter getting rid of two of their top 4 defesemen....."
I agree, Zubie was #2. Now he is the #1. Matvichuk has become the #1
'stay-at-home' defenseman.' It will interesting to see who becomes
the minute leader. It's hard to replace a player who is +40 and
averages 30 minutes a game.
>
>> If you think Tugnutt looked bad with Sydor
>>and Hatcher in front of him, wait until you see him with Sweeny and
>>Erskine in front of him....
>
>
>OTOH, he backstopped the Penguins just fine. Not exactly a team known
>for defensive prowess.
>
He was younger then too. Boucher looked pretty good in Philly too,
but he was not too hot in Phoenix a few years later.
>
<snip>
>> Next
>>thing you know, they surrounded themselves with "yes" men who know
>>much less than their predecessors.
>
>
>I don't consider Armstrong a yes man at all. I think he's done a great
>job with the circumstances he's been given, which are arguably worse
>than what Gainey had to deal with.
>
Jones' staff is/was a bunch of 'yes' men. Hicks has had much better
success at getting guys who 1) know their business and 2) who tell him
what they think. However, he still calls the shots and sometimes he
makes some big goofs. Like bringing in Lemieux.
>
> Hicks appears to have learned this
>>less with baseball, that's why he brought in some baseball people and
>>listened to them when they said "you need to trade Gonzales and
>>Palmerio, and keep young talented players. So, Hicks wants to try
>>the same thing with his hockey team.
>
>
>I think this is definitely part of it, but I also think it has a lot
>to do with 1) Hick's other business struggling, 2) An attempt to get
>rid of the hockey team to cut expense that failed, and 3) he vastly
>inflated the total salary base of the Stars trying to make them more
>attractive as a buy. This achieved the opposite effect, and he was
>stuck holding the bag with all the salary.
>
I can not figure out why Hicks wants to dump the team that won him a
championship and 'can' do it again, and wants to retain the team that
will probably never win a penant. IIRC, the Rangers/Senators team is
now the only team in MLB that has never won the championship. Last
year, the team lost $40M. Losing that much money and being in last
place in the standings despite having the 3rd highest payroll tells me
that the hockey Rangers = baseball Rangers.
>
>>
>>The problem with the Stars is that Armstrong is not a hockey guy. He
>>made some gutsy decisions early on in his career that looked bold and
>>perhaps like some smart moves, like trading Rucinsky for Malhotra, but
>>many of the other moves (like the Arnott trade) have not panned out so
>>well.
>
>
>Langenbrunner had been given every chance in the world to prove
>himself here and, other than a brief flash in the 1999 playoffs,
>didn't do that. The kept wanting him to be a scoring winger for the
>2nd line, and he kept proving he couldn't do that. I don't have any
>problem with trading him, but I think they should have gotten a lot
>more for him than McKay and a 1st Rounder.
>
After Langenbrunner had a breakout year early, expections were high
for him. The expections returned when he had a stellar playoff run in
99 (which incidentally was coupled with being reunited with his best
friend and linemate, Joe Nieuwendyk, who ended up winning the Conn
Smythe. They had chemistry which is something that Hitchcock never
seemed to grasp or want to keep together on a consistent basis. That
said, I'm not so sure that Langenbrunner + Nieuwendyk > Arnott + McKay
and 1st round pick. In hind sight, it's easy to say that given the
fact that, as I said earlier, Joe and Jamie hoisted the Cup last
season and we fans in Dallas only saw it on television. Hey, Grant
Marshall had a great playoff run too, scoring his first playoff goal
in something like 40 playoff games.
>
>>He lost a lot of credibility with the players on the way he
>>handled Langenbrunner,
>
>
>There certainly does seem to be a repeating pattern of complaints
>about Armstrong's style - a style that is repeatedly being portrayed
>as toe-crunching.
>
He reminds me of Bobby Clarke. However, Clarke has the players
respect because he can also crunch your body.
>
>> and some of the deals he is doing now is
>>starting to make me wonder if he really knows what he is doing.
>
>
>I willing to give him a lot of leniency at this point due to the
>difficulty of what he's having to handle. It's not easy dealing with
>an owner that's done a 180 on spending, the upcoming CBA, and stupid
>contracts put together by the previous GM (Turgeon).
>
I'm not so sure how much responsibility Army had as the Assistant GM
under Gainey. He may have more prints on this team and the deals than
what appear to be his doings. It may be unfair to place all the blame
on Army, but right now, his administration is rating around a C. The
ONLY thing negative I ever recall saying about Gainey prior to Turgeon
was the deal with Turek....which turns out now to not be such a bad
deal. Then the final year, Gainey made some really awful deals in an
attempt to load the team with the best possible free agents.
Unfortunately, guys like Audette never fit in and Turgeon still is
strugling to find his place and contribute. If Turgeon comes on
strong this year and has an opportunity to be played with Young
consistently, the two of them could be the scoring threat that they
once were. Or they could become the Grump Old Men II.
>
>> Hicks
>>has clearly demonstrated that he does not know what he is doing
>>(letting Hull go because he only wanted to give him a 1 year deal,
>>letting Hatcher go without even making an offer,
>
>
>Huh? They made several offers over the course of a year.
>
They made one offer at the beginning of the 2002-03 season.
Allegedly, they said that if he turned it down, they would go after
some other free agents and would not be able to make any more offers
until after the playoffs were over. Although Hatcher wanted to talk
money throughout the year, nothing was done until after the Stars were
eliminated. Then, the only discussion that they had with Hatcher's
agent was to tell him that they would not do a multi-year deal. There
never was any discussion of money in the year 2003. Hatcher signed
with Detroit for the same money that the Stars offered at the begining
of the 2002 season.
>
>> signing Turgeon and
>
>>Geurin to high dollar deals with no trade clauses).
>
>
>I have no problem with the contract they gave Guerin. He's a premier
>player, and it's very difficult to find a true power forward in this
>league anymore. What I have a problem with is trying to get rid of
>Guerin after Hicks realized he was stuck with having to keep the
>Stars.
>
I had a problem with them shopping Guerin while he was recovering from
an injury. If management wants to get the best from players, they
have to treat them better. Again, Armstrong reminds me of Clarke and
the way he treated Lindros while Lindros was recovering from a serious
head injury.
>I think Hicks has failed as an owner much more on the Rangers side of
>things.
>
NO DOUBT. That's why he should sell the Rangers and stick to
something that he does pretty well at.
>> Stay informed about: What's up with Armstrong? 
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
