GAME DAY: Ottawa Senators @ Pittsburgh Penguins - 7:00pm ET - Thu. Jan. 28. 2010

SeawaySensFan wrote:I can't wait to see that list!!!

PKC wrote:Trading Jason Spezza is gonna send us back to the Diddling stone age.

The player even his boosters describe as "not a key cog in the team" and "an expensive complimentary player"? LOL. I think we'll find ways.

rooneypoo wrote:

PKC wrote:Trading Jason Spezza is gonna send us back to the Diddling stone age.

The player even his boosters describe as "not a key cog in the team" and "an expensive complimentary player"? LOL. I think we'll find ways.

Get lost, I'm not a booster of anyone. I want to win, if that means keeping Spezza, then so be it, if it means trading him, then I'm all ears.

PKC wrote:Trading Jason Spezza is gonna send us back to the Diddling stone age.

I just worry about the franchise folding.

SpezDispenser wrote:

PKC wrote:Trading Jason Spezza is gonna send us back to the Diddling stone age.

Hey, don't look at me, I'm advocating keeping him - unless we get an offer we can't refuse.

He better show his worth over the next 4 months because it's been made pretty clear this team is pretty much the same with Spezza then it is without him.

N4L wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:

PKC wrote:Trading Jason Spezza is gonna send us back to the Diddling stone age.

Hey, don't look at me, I'm advocating keeping him - unless we get an offer we can't refuse.

He better show his worth over the next 4 months because it's been made pretty clear this team is pretty much the same with Spezza then it is without him.

And if he doesn't in 4 months, he's worth even less than he might be now. Risky business.

SpezDispenser wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:
Spezza isn't a negative, I'd say. But at $7 mil / 7 years, he's got to be more than than. He's got to be a positive. The fact that we do just fine without him on a consistent basis speaks volumes.

I don't know how you can get any comfort from sentences like "the team doesn't hinge on Spezza" and "he may well be the most expensive complimentary player in the NHL." That's called "damning with faint praise," my friend. Your own defences of Spezza are making the argument to consider moving Spezza all the stronger.

I never said I wasn't open to trading him, just that we could run into problems if we do depending on who we get back.

Present me a list of names that could be acquired for him and then we'll have a better idea of if he can go or not.

I don't have the time at the moment to go through an exhaustive list, but I think you probably trade Spezza for youth (you're not going to get a #1 centre in return -- that's why any team that is interested in Spezza, is interested in Spezza), and then look to the FA market to help fill the void for 2/3 years. Teams like EDM (Gagner+?), ATL if they lose Kovalchuk (Little++?), STL (probably not Macdonald, but Berglund+?), etc., might have interest.

I'm really not all that panicked at the thought of replacing Spezza with a Mike Ribiero-esque player. That's basically what we have at the moment, for all intents and purposes, but for twice the price and twice the term. I don't buy the concern about the "who's our #1 centre, then?" thing, either. This team has 3 lines that play and score on any given night, plus a mean-Donkey 4th that can also score. That's what you want -- not one big line anchored by one big centre. Fisher + Regin + mystery FA for my top 3 centres = OK with me, given that we're going to have Alfie, Michalek, Kovalev, Foligno, etc. on those wings.

PKC wrote:Trading Jason Spezza is gonna send us back to the Diddling stone age.

If that's what you call the last 6 weeks while he was gone then so be it. All things being equal, if Michalek Alfie, Volchenkov, and Neil were all still with the team while Spezza was out then I think you'd see that we would perform as well without him as with him.

If you can show me the stats that says while he is out of the line up we play like we are in the stone age then I'll buy that statement. Otherwise I think you and everyone else on this site believes, that our record without him, is just a good or maybe even better than with him.

Devo wrote:

PKC wrote:Trading Jason Spezza is gonna send us back to the Diddling stone age.

If that's what you call the last 6 weeks while he was gone then so be it. All things being equal, if Michalek Alfie, Volchenkov, and Neil were all still with the team while Spezza was out then I think you'd see that we would perform as well without him as with him.

If you can show me the stats that says while he is out of the line up we play like we are in the stone age then I'll buy that statement. Otherwise I think you and everyone else on this site believes, that our record without him, is just a good or maybe even better than with him.

The team played .500 hockey while he was gone. Which according to our record means that this team has been better this year with Jason in the lineup as opposed to not.

I know this 8-game winning streak is awesome and stuff but people forget that 2 weeks ago we were talking about blowing up our season and folding the tent.

PKC wrote:

Devo wrote:

PKC wrote:Trading Jason Spezza is gonna send us back to the Diddling stone age.

If that's what you call the last 6 weeks while he was gone then so be it. All things being equal, if Michalek Alfie, Volchenkov, and Neil were all still with the team while Spezza was out then I think you'd see that we would perform as well without him as with him.

If you can show me the stats that says while he is out of the line up we play like we are in the stone age then I'll buy that statement. Otherwise I think you and everyone else on this site believes, that our record without him, is just a good or maybe even better than with him.

The team played .500 hockey while he was gone. Which according to our record means that this team has been better this year with Jason in the lineup as opposed to not.

I know this 8-game winning streak is awesome and stuff but people forget that 2 weeks ago we were talking about blowing up our season and folding the tent.

Please don't include me in that

PKC wrote:

Devo wrote:

PKC wrote:Trading Jason Spezza is gonna send us back to the Diddling stone age.

If that's what you call the last 6 weeks while he was gone then so be it. All things being equal, if Michalek Alfie, Volchenkov, and Neil were all still with the team while Spezza was out then I think you'd see that we would perform as well without him as with him.

If you can show me the stats that says while he is out of the line up we play like we are in the stone age then I'll buy that statement. Otherwise I think you and everyone else on this site believes, that our record without him, is just a good or maybe even better than with him.

The team played .500 hockey while he was gone. Which according to our record means that this team has been better this year with Jason in the lineup as opposed to not.

I know this 8-game winning streak is awesome and stuff but people forget that 2 weeks ago we were talking about blowing up our season and folding the tent.

Dude, Alfi coming back was the turning point.

N4L wrote:

PKC wrote:

Devo wrote:

PKC wrote:Trading Jason Spezza is gonna send us back to the Diddling stone age.

If that's what you call the last 6 weeks while he was gone then so be it. All things being equal, if Michalek Alfie, Volchenkov, and Neil were all still with the team while Spezza was out then I think you'd see that we would perform as well without him as with him.

If you can show me the stats that says while he is out of the line up we play like we are in the stone age then I'll buy that statement. Otherwise I think you and everyone else on this site believes, that our record without him, is just a good or maybe even better than with him.

The team played .500 hockey while he was gone. Which according to our record means that this team has been better this year with Jason in the lineup as opposed to not.

I know this 8-game winning streak is awesome and stuff but people forget that 2 weeks ago we were talking about blowing up our season and folding the tent.

Dude, Alfi coming back was the turning point.

They played a very good game agaist New York, where Lundqvist was a star that night. He made some great saves.

Alfie returning was kind of another turning point, but I don't think it was the trigger.

N4L wrote:

PKC wrote:

Devo wrote:

PKC wrote:Trading Jason Spezza is gonna send us back to the Diddling stone age.

If that's what you call the last 6 weeks while he was gone then so be it. All things being equal, if Michalek Alfie, Volchenkov, and Neil were all still with the team while Spezza was out then I think you'd see that we would perform as well without him as with him.

If you can show me the stats that says while he is out of the line up we play like we are in the stone age then I'll buy that statement. Otherwise I think you and everyone else on this site believes, that our record without him, is just a good or maybe even better than with him.

The team played .500 hockey while he was gone. Which according to our record means that this team has been better this year with Jason in the lineup as opposed to not.

I know this 8-game winning streak is awesome and stuff but people forget that 2 weeks ago we were talking about blowing up our season and folding the tent.

Dude, Alfi coming back was the turning point.

The team won the first 2 games that Alfie missed, and also the last one. However it's true that Alfie joined the team on the trip -- perhaps he joined in for the dodgeball at Central Park. That little team bonding exercise certainly helped, as did Brodeur's start, followed by Alfie's return, then Michalek and Spezza. It kind of snowballed.

marakh wrote:
They played a very good game agaist New York, where Lundqvist was a star that night. He made some great saves.

Alfie returning was kind of another turning point, but I don't think it was the trigger.

That game of dodgeball marks the turnaround. That much should not be disputed. What I don't remember is when Alfie joined the team on the road. I believe it may have been in New York. Then, when their two goalies went down and Brodeur had to be recalled at almost the last second, the team really had nothing to look forward to. On the other hand, there was also absolutely no pressure of any expectation of a win.

Fisher also said that just before the turnaround, Clouston said in the dressing room to the guys to keep hanging on, not panic, because the turnaround is coming soon.

Now I remember some interviews after the 5 game losing streak (from Philips and FOligno I think), where they said they didn't play that bad but they needed some boucnes here and there and just focus a little bit more.

So I think they never panicked and they just believed the coach.

rooneypoo wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:
Spezza isn't a negative, I'd say. But at $7 mil / 7 years, he's got to be more than than. He's got to be a positive. The fact that we do just fine without him on a consistent basis speaks volumes.

I don't know how you can get any comfort from sentences like "the team doesn't hinge on Spezza" and "he may well be the most expensive complimentary player in the NHL." That's called "damning with faint praise," my friend. Your own defences of Spezza are making the argument to consider moving Spezza all the stronger.

I never said I wasn't open to trading him, just that we could run into problems if we do depending on who we get back.

Present me a list of names that could be acquired for him and then we'll have a better idea of if he can go or not.

I don't have the time at the moment to go through an exhaustive list, but I think you probably trade Spezza for youth (you're not going to get a #1 centre in return -- that's why any team that is interested in Spezza, is interested in Spezza), and then look to the FA market to help fill the void for 2/3 years. Teams like EDM (Gagner+?), ATL if they lose Kovalchuk (Little++?), STL (probably not Macdonald, but Berglund+?), etc., might have interest.

I'm really not all that panicked at the thought of replacing Spezza with a Mike Ribiero-esque player. That's basically what we have at the moment, for all intents and purposes, but for twice the price and twice the term. I don't buy the concern about the "who's our #1 centre, then?" thing, either. This team has 3 lines that play and score on any given night, plus a mean-Donkey 4th that can also score. That's what you want -- not one big line anchored by one big centre. Fisher + Regin + mystery FA for my top 3 centres = OK with me, given that we're going to have Alfie, Michalek, Kovalev, Foligno, etc. on those wings.

I just don't believe that Mike Fisher can be a #1 centre long-term, nor do I think Regin is ready for that pressure, despite his strong play.

wprager wrote:
That game of dodgeball marks the turnaround. That much should not be disputed. What I don't remember is when Alfie joined the team on the road. I believe it may have been in New York. Then, when their two goalies went down and Brodeur had to be recalled at almost the last second, the team really had nothing to look forward to. On the other hand, there was also absolutely no pressure of any expectation of a win.

Yeah, the Central Park dodgeball game was the turning point of the season and as far as I remember, Alfie joined them after the Rangers win.

asq2 wrote:
I just don't believe that Mike Fisher can be a #1 centre long-term, nor do I think Regin is ready for that pressure, despite his strong play.

Agreed. Mike Fisher can't be the number one at all based on how he slumped when Alfie and Spezza were down. This is precisely why I've never argued against trading Spezza, just that if it were to happen, I have specific players I would want back.