Jump to content


Photo

Simon Despres Thread


  • Please log in to reply
145 replies to this topic

#26 letsgoducksdotcom

letsgoducksdotcom

    Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,702 posts

Posted 19 March 2015 - 09:25 AM

I'm still trying to find what flaw PIT saw in him that we didn't. To me, this guy has looked like he could be a legitimate top pairing guy.

 

I don't see a flaw yet either. It's going to be interesting to see what happens when Vatanen is back ....



#27 ducksalltheway

ducksalltheway

    Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,649 posts

Posted 19 March 2015 - 09:27 AM

Despres will sit. 0 chance they will admit that BM screw up with Stoner.

#28 RGS_Quack93

RGS_Quack93

    Destiny is Heart, Sacrifice and Passion

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,634 posts
  • Location:Mission Viejo, CA

Posted 19 March 2015 - 09:30 AM

For me, there is still a question of "does he have it between the ears?" He sees the ice very well, moves the puck and plays physical when he needs to but has taken some questionable penalties like that 2nd man in last night.

 

Stoner had a hell of a game last night. Makes it that much harder to make that decision when all your dmen are doing their jobs and doing them well. I wont complain with either Stoner or Despres sitting though.



#29 letsgoducksdotcom

letsgoducksdotcom

    Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,702 posts

Posted 19 March 2015 - 09:31 AM

Despres will sit. 0 chance they will admit that BM screw up with Stoner.

 

 

That's what I think will be interesting. We'll see. 


For me, there is still a question of "does he have it between the ears?" He sees the ice very well, moves the puck and plays physical when he needs to but has taken some questionable penalties like that 2nd man in last night.

 

Stoner had a hell of a game last night. Makes it that much harder to make that decision when all your dmen are doing their jobs and doing them well. I wont complain with either Stoner or Despres sitting though.

 

 

Everyone else will!



#30 dctrjayyy

dctrjayyy

    3rd Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 927 posts
  • Location:Anaheim

Posted 19 March 2015 - 09:52 AM

We have a lot of good D men. No true #1 and a coach that isn't defensive minded but we have a lot of talent there.



#31 TroyLoney

TroyLoney

    The franchise's first captain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,970 posts

Posted 19 March 2015 - 09:56 AM

 

 

Is this REALLY the day you want to be saying "I TOLD YOU SO"?

 

So.....no? You're not ready yet? OK. I'll wait.



#32 letsgoducksdotcom

letsgoducksdotcom

    Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,702 posts

Posted 19 March 2015 - 10:07 AM

 

So.....no? You're not ready yet? OK. I'll wait.

 

 

I'm ready to say that so far from what I've seen he's a better player than Lovejoy. But at one point people were arguing Dan Sexton was Corey Perry. I'd like to see more of him before I pronounce him forever the better player is all. 



#33 TroyLoney

TroyLoney

    The franchise's first captain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,970 posts

Posted 19 March 2015 - 10:46 AM

 

 

I'm ready to say that so far from what I've seen he's a better player than Lovejoy. But at one point people were arguing Dan Sexton was Corey Perry. I'd like to see more of him before I pronounce him forever the better player is all. 

 

OK. I'll wait. From "if he's so damn good why would the Penguins give him to us for Lovejoy?!?" to "from what I've seen he's a better player than Lovejoy" is quite a leap in two weeks.



#34 ducksalltheway

ducksalltheway

    Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,649 posts

Posted 19 March 2015 - 10:50 AM

People need to realize GM and coaches made a lot of bad decisions. The "if he was so good why they traded him" is a very fragile argument.

#35 ducks4adam98

ducks4adam98

    Quack

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,005 posts
  • Location:Seattle, WA

Posted 19 March 2015 - 11:22 AM

Fragile? Please. If someone walks up to you on street and hands you the keys to their Honda Accord probably the first thing you will say is "what's wrong with it"?



#36 TroyLoney

TroyLoney

    The franchise's first captain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,970 posts

Posted 19 March 2015 - 11:26 AM

Fragile? Please. If someone walks up to you on street and hands you the keys to their Honda Accord probably the first thing you will say is "what's wrong with it"?

 

The Penguins didn't call up Bob Murray and say, "You want Simon Despres?" They called and asked for Ben Lovejoy. We asked for Despres in return and got him. Bit different than the analogy you are making here.



#37 ducks4adam98

ducks4adam98

    Quack

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,005 posts
  • Location:Seattle, WA

Posted 19 March 2015 - 11:28 AM

 

The Penguins didn't call up Bob Murray and say, "You want Simon Despres?" They called and asked for Ben Lovejoy. We asked for Despres in return and got him. Bit different than the analogy you are making here.

 

It may have been a poor analogy, but I believe "too good to be true" is usually true. It's not weird or a "fragile argument" to mention it.



#38 TroyLoney

TroyLoney

    The franchise's first captain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,970 posts

Posted 19 March 2015 - 11:40 AM

 

It may have been a poor analogy, but I believe "too good to be true" is usually true. It's not weird or a "fragile argument" to mention it.

 

It insinuates that we were offered something that was too good to be true, though, and that's not the case. Saying it was a bad trade or that you are unsure of it purely because "if he is as good as people say they wouldn't have traded him to us" is a pretty weak argument to make and the last two weeks have proven that. We don't miss Lovejoy one bit, Despres is everything he was advertised to be and sometimes GMs make really bad trades. The Hurricanes sent Jack Johnson and Oleg Tverdovsky to the Kings for Eric Belanger and Tim Gleason (also Rutherford). The Ducks just took advantage of his over-emphasis on playoff experience.



#39 ducksalltheway

ducksalltheway

    Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,649 posts

Posted 19 March 2015 - 11:45 AM

The problem is people always assume the other side is being smart/rational. That's the fragile part. You're assuming they are making a good evaluation of what they have. They have more information to make that evaluation, of course, but that alone does not create a good evaluation.
And you cannot compare evaluating talent ( there's no universal way to do it) vs looking if a machine is still working.

#40 letsgoducksdotcom

letsgoducksdotcom

    Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,702 posts

Posted 19 March 2015 - 12:16 PM

 

OK. I'll wait. From "if he's so damn good why would the Penguins give him to us for Lovejoy?!?" to "from what I've seen he's a better player than Lovejoy" is quite a leap in two weeks.

 

 

You know what? It's not as big a leap as "Gibson has not been sharp lately" to "who is saying Gibson hasn't been good lately" in 24 hours.

 

I HAVE NOT CHANGED MY OPINION AT ALL. I admitted then that I had not seen enough of Despres to understand why they gave him up for a middling guy like Lovejoy. I never said he sucked or was bad or any such thing I wondered aloud then and I still wonder what on earth Pittsburgh was thinking.

 

I have now seen him play what, a half dozen games with the Ducks. He looks almost like our best defenseman in those 6 games. I'm still figuring him out. 


People need to realize GM and coaches made a lot of bad decisions. The "if he was so good why they traded him" is a very fragile argument.

 

I still suspect he was prone to bad penalties or had a problem in the room or something. 

 

BTW the thing for me was not "why did they trade him"  but "why did they trade him for Lovejoy". Lovejoy was practically playing his way out of our lineup. 



#41 TroyLoney

TroyLoney

    The franchise's first captain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,970 posts

Posted 19 March 2015 - 12:17 PM

 

It's ok to admit I was right when I am, isn't it?



#42 letsgoducksdotcom

letsgoducksdotcom

    Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,702 posts

Posted 19 March 2015 - 12:19 PM

 

It insinuates that we were offered something that was too good to be true, though, and that's not the case. Saying it was a bad trade or that you are unsure of it purely because "if he is as good as people say they wouldn't have traded him to us" is a pretty weak argument to make and the last two weeks have proven that. We don't miss Lovejoy one bit, Despres is everything he was advertised to be and sometimes GMs make really bad trades. The Hurricanes sent Jack Johnson and Oleg Tverdovsky to the Kings for Eric Belanger and Tim Gleason (also Rutherford). The Ducks just took advantage of his over-emphasis on playoff experience.

 

 

It's not a weak argument at all. It's a sensible one. This is a horrible trade for Pittsburgh and trying to figure out why they would do it is natural. 


The problem is people always assume the other side is being smart/rational. That's the fragile part. You're assuming they are making a good evaluation of what they have. They have more information to make that evaluation, of course, but that alone does not create a good evaluation.
And you cannot compare evaluating talent ( there's no universal way to do it) vs looking if a machine is still working.

 

Well maybe that is the explanation in this case. Somehow they didn't appreciate that Despres is already better than Lovejoy. I'd be floored to learn that the management team in Pitt understands and evaluates talent worse than you and Troy, but it's possible. 



#43 TroyLoney

TroyLoney

    The franchise's first captain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,970 posts

Posted 19 March 2015 - 12:20 PM

 

 

It's not a weak argument at all. It's a sensible one. This is a horrible trade for Pittsburgh and trying to figure out why they would do it is natural. 

 

I guess we've really reached a point where we cannot ever admit when someone else is right. That's sad.



#44 letsgoducksdotcom

letsgoducksdotcom

    Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,702 posts

Posted 19 March 2015 - 12:24 PM

 

It's ok to admit I was right when I am, isn't it?

 

Troy, I admit you were right that Despres is for reall. But I wasn't WRONG by wondering why in the blue f*** Pitt made this trade. I think that is a normal reaction, and would be even more of a normal reaction for someone that has seen Despres play as much as you have. 


 

I guess we've really reached a point where we cannot ever admit when someone else is right. That's sad.

 

No I think we've reached a point where you are going way overboard in multiple threads. 



#45 RGS_Quack93

RGS_Quack93

    Destiny is Heart, Sacrifice and Passion

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,634 posts
  • Location:Mission Viejo, CA

Posted 19 March 2015 - 12:26 PM

I can understand wanting to see the guy play more before making or having a final opinion. 

 

Personally, I think TL was right. Despres seems to be head and shoulders above Lovejoy. PIT wanted Lovejoy because of his veteran presence and Despres was expendable because of PITs blueline depth with guys like Matta.

 

That said, why was Despres the odd man out? Like LGD said, there has to be some reason why PIT decided to trade the guy, but what the hell is it? For me, it looks to be bad penalties which goes into poor decision making. Everything else, so far, looks good.



#46 letsgoducksdotcom

letsgoducksdotcom

    Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,702 posts

Posted 19 March 2015 - 12:28 PM

So you called this thread back up after our big win last night for the sole purpose of getting me to admit you were right about Despres, and I was wrong and I have to admit I was wrong and you were right or else *I* am the sad one?



#47 TroyLoney

TroyLoney

    The franchise's first captain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,970 posts

Posted 19 March 2015 - 12:33 PM

Questioning why Pittsburgh made the trade is legit. Using that as the reason you refuse to believe me when I say the guy is good and we won the trade is not. You dismissed my opinion (based on having watched Despres many times) simply because you hadn't seen him play and thought there's no way Pittsburgh would make that trade if I were correct. Now that he has proven me correct the question still remains but who cares? That's the Penguins problem. This guy is good for us right now and he's going to be here for a long time to come.

 

Fowler

Lindholm

Vatanen

Despres

 

Gibson in net

 

That's a very solid backend to build around for the next decade.


I can understand wanting to see the guy play more before making or having a final opinion. 

 

 

That's the source of my animosity in this. I have seen him play a lot and that's why I was so happy with the trade. I then get told by people who haven't seen him play that I must be wrong and it bothers me.

I'm not saying I know more about hockey than any of you but I would bet I watch more hockey than any of you and I often feel like my knowledge of the rest of the league is dismissed. That's on me, though, and will never change. Once my balls drop maybe I won't bruise so easily over it.


Personally, I think TL was right.

 

Thanks. :)



#48 HockeyHeaven

HockeyHeaven

    Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,607 posts
  • Location:Irvine, CA

Posted 19 March 2015 - 02:38 PM

...

That's the source of my animosity in this. I have seen him play a lot and that's why I was so happy with the trade. I then get told by people who haven't seen him play that I must be wrong and it bothers me.

I'm not saying I know more about hockey than any of you but I would bet I watch more hockey than any of you and I often feel like my knowledge of the rest of the league is dismissed. That's on me, though, and will never change. Once my balls drop maybe I won't bruise so easily over it.

 

 

I take it back, Troy.  You are not a p*y!!!

 

I always thought that the talk on Despres before he was even in the league was that he had all the tools.  That along with his youth and Lovejoy's age/talent and the Ducks depth on D made it a smart move for Bob.

 

I think the Pens got "Fowlered".  Glad the Ducks didn't.....

 

Maybe he made a pass at Crosby's girlfriend.



#49 ducksalltheway

ducksalltheway

    Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,649 posts

Posted 19 March 2015 - 03:16 PM

Pens got Fowlered. A nice way to resume the whole discussion.

#50 rollingdux

rollingdux

    Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,549 posts
  • Location:So Cal!!!
  • Interests:Hockey!

Posted 19 March 2015 - 03:43 PM

Hasn't there been a couple of articles where PiT was tired of the off ice issues with him?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users