So revisiting a debate with a poster based on new evidence is a dunk attempt? I thought you were that poster which is why I tagged you, but I didn't know if you were in fact that poster which is why your tag was followed by a question mark. Why is this so hard to understand? And why are you so angry?
Player Discussion Filip Hronek - Pt. 2
- Thread starter Vector
- Start date
So revisiting a debate with a poster based on new evidence is a dunk attempt? I thought you were that poster which is why I tagged you, but I didn't know if you were in fact that poster which is why your tag was followed by a question mark. Why is this so hard to understand? And why are you so angry?
I'm not angry. It was a dunk attempt. I'm stating what it was. You just refuse to admit it.
Watching Hronek try to shoot the puck these days, I think Canuck-watchers might be on to something. He just doesn't have the power in his shot that he had at one time this season.
And a lingering wrist issue could be culprit. It hampers him out there but isn't bad enough to take him out of the lineup.
And a lingering wrist issue could be culprit. It hampers him out there but isn't bad enough to take him out of the lineup.
Nucker101
Foundational Poster
- Apr 2, 2013
- 21,340
- 17,016
This is pretty bad since Jfresh charts usually overrate players who play with elite linemates.
Jovofan
Registered User
He might not be as bad as he's shown the past few months, he might not be as good as he was the first few months, but I don't think that something in between is worth the money it'll take to bring him back. I don't want to see Hronek on the team next year (yes a lot of it is frustration with his abysmal playoffs) because I feel other players have stepped up and made themselves more priority re-signs than he has.
The fact that he is an RFA means we can deal him to recoup some picks that we've traded away this year to restock the cupboards a bit. I feel the money it would take to re-sign him would be better spent on bringing Lindholm back and insuring that Zadorov and Joshua don't walk.
Tanev may not have the offensive upside of Hronek but I think he brings a much more reliable presence defensively which I feel is more important and he could bring it for far less cap space invested.
I'm trying my best not to start fantasy booking the off-season while we're still playing but it's hard not to, especially with each passing game when Lindholm and Zadorov continue to play incredible hockey at the most important time of the year. Trying to think of what management might do with these assets is nearly as stressful as the games themselves because I hate the thought of watching these guys playing key roles and envision them walking in less than two months.
The fact that he is an RFA means we can deal him to recoup some picks that we've traded away this year to restock the cupboards a bit. I feel the money it would take to re-sign him would be better spent on bringing Lindholm back and insuring that Zadorov and Joshua don't walk.
Tanev may not have the offensive upside of Hronek but I think he brings a much more reliable presence defensively which I feel is more important and he could bring it for far less cap space invested.
I'm trying my best not to start fantasy booking the off-season while we're still playing but it's hard not to, especially with each passing game when Lindholm and Zadorov continue to play incredible hockey at the most important time of the year. Trying to think of what management might do with these assets is nearly as stressful as the games themselves because I hate the thought of watching these guys playing key roles and envision them walking in less than two months.
He's not even really trying to shoot much. It's a pretty obvious tell there's a physical limitation.
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2007
- 29,135
- 16,906
the thing that worries me is that as far as i recall, our coaching staff never even tried to see what would happen if hronek was given the chance to anchor his own pair
I wonder if it has anything to do with his season ending shoulder injury last year
Both shots and attempts are at about half of what they were in the regular season.
It's incredibly obvious that something is up with him, and it lines up completely with the reports of a heavily taped wrist/hand and the fact that he was one of the injured/rested guys in Game 82.
I think he's actually skated and competed well in these playoffs and has been on the ice for very few goals despite playing a lot of minutes against McDavid ... but good god it looks like every ounce of his puck skills have deserted him with whatever is ailing him.
Honestly, I find the term "dunking" on someone to be kind of cringe, so I don't use the term. So maybe I don't appreciate the appropriate use of the it, but for clarity, you think revisiting a debate with a poster based on new evidence is a dunk attempt? I don't really see what the issue is in revisiting debates when new evidence becomes available. Frankly, I think that's just good practice and increases the quality of discourse on this forum.
Again, here is the initial post that you have taken so much issue with:
"The puck is dying on his stick in the offensive zone. Someone on here (@bossram?) about how Hronek enabled Hughes to be so good offensively……and this really hasn’t been true in the playoffs."
Yes. Good, reasoned debate in the face of new evidence is good.
What you did was a clearly just to dunk. Written in the form of, "hey _____, remember this thing you said, it's wrong!"
You are really missing the point though. At the time, and perhaps even still now, the initial thought that Hronek's game has enabled Hughes' offensive play made some sense. It was consistent with the eye test and much of the stats although there was a debate as to how much this was in fact the case. But as the regular season progressed and certainly in the playoffs that really hasn't been the case so its worth rethinking whether that initial point is true or not. Now, of course, Hronek does look injured, so I am not saying the initial point is definitely wrong, but new evidence is available and we should consider it.
The point I made is relevant to the continual debate as to how important Hronek is to Hughes' performance. And in fact, this debate will continue and become even more important in the analysis of whether to re-sign Hronek and for what price. So to characterize my post as merely just pointing out that someone is wrong really misses the point and is perplexing. But you have been quite defensive in this whole exchange so I don't really know what's going on on your end.
You could have made all these valid points without trying to do a dunk first.
It was a dunk attempt. Just own it man. That was the purpose of the tagging. If you wanted to write out these points, you could have done so. You did not.
I did make the point in the initial post by stating that the puck was dying on Hronek’s stick and that Hronek was not enabling Hughes in the way some have previously argued he had earlier in the season.
But you really seem to think that bringing up new evidence that may question earlier arguments is somehow trying to “dunk on” people (and I guess should be frowned upon or something?). This is a message board for discussion hockey. I think you need to rethink your philosophy here.
You wrote two lines. You didn't really bring up much evidence. The purpose was to dunk and go, "hey _____, you're wrong!"
That's what it was. Own it man.
So now there is some threshold of how many points, and how comprehensive I have to be, for it not be "dunking" on someone? Listen to yourself, this is getting absurd. The point I made in the initial comment was valid, and didn't have to be any more thorough. The reason why it was so short is because I was on my phone. You are being ridiculous.
van should just sit him out if his injury is hampering his ability to shoot. hasnt done squat since round 1. through 10 games. i rather put friedman in and move big z up with hughes.
At this point if management decisions make him trade bait he is worth enough to get a good return no loss if he turns into a player or more that fit fill depth needs
How does a qualifying offer work? Hronek's is only $5.28 million. Can we force him to accept his QO if we can't agree to terms otherwise?
Might it be worth signing Hronek to his QO, rather than trading his RFA rights, if he is demanding outlandish money for his next contract? His RFA rights might not be worth that much after this playoffs and his contract demands.
Might it be worth signing Hronek to his QO, rather than trading his RFA rights, if he is demanding outlandish money for his next contract? His RFA rights might not be worth that much after this playoffs and his contract demands.
norrisnick
The best...
- Apr 14, 2005
- 29,468
- 14,078
He'd go to arbitration, so no. It would still only be a 1yr deal, but likely solidly more than $5.2M.
Slapshot_11
Registered User
- Aug 30, 2006
- 7,358
- 2,028
cut him loose. was horrible throughout the playoffs. only saw his clapper once tonight in a game 7. where were those in earlier games? at least he could have helped supported quinn hughes with his contributions. hughes is injured and we will know in a few days what or which body part was broken.
Last edited:
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
-
-
Game 5 Winner wins Walter Cup - Minnesota @ Boston ( Lowell, MA )Wagers: 5Staked: $1,500.00Event closes- Updated: