wprager wrote:
This argument (that we have too much in our top three or top four forwards) has been made many times before and Rooney and I have both shown counter-examples that at least question it, if not completely blow it out of the water.
Look, Fisher is making top-four money but producing like a bottom-3. Similarly, Vermette is making top-six money and producing (last 5 games aside) like a bottom three.
If you take their nearly 7 million combined and replace it with two guys making ~1 each and producing the same numbers, then we are not even having this discussion. And if they were producing what you expect 4.2 and 2.7 players to produce, the Sens are in a playoff spot and, again, we aren't having this discussion.
Other than that, good post.
First off, I want to thank everybody who has responded to this post. Great discussion.
Some pretty good points made here, especially about Philly, and yes, our esteemed colleague is correct.
However, as he also says, the Flyers are winning and Ottawa is not.
So does that mean it's OK to load up on the front end? IMHO, it's a dangerous strategy.
Philadelphia does have potential issues with Briere's cap impact, and has two question marks in Martin Biron and Antero Niittymäki.
Boston appears to have acheived the best balance so far in the East. Significantly, they are run by an ex-Senators executive in Peter Chiarelli.
The central question for Senators, and the one that seems to elicit the most controversy, is whether or not one of the 'Big Three' (which are becoming the 'Big Two' as Alfredsson slows down) should be traded for a package of younger, less expensive talent.
More importantly, are Jason Spezza and Dany Heatley, fundamentally, the players who will assume the leadership of the club, commensurate with their salaries?
In this respect, the contrast between the impact of Mike Richards/Jeff Carter on their team as opposed to Spezza/Heatley can be debated.
There are arguments to be made both ways, and I look forward to everyone's continuing perspectives.
:D