Any chance Hartnell goes?

[aziz]

"flip sarcasm" is quite different than using "hyperbole" to "make a point"

yes, well done, they are quite different. "sarcasm" is saying the opposite of what you literally mean to make a point. "hyperbole" is exaggerating what you literally mean to make a point.

similarly, however, if a person insists on interpreting either literally, they both become wildly inaccurate statements. i shall illustrate for you:

presented with the following:

sarcasm: no, it isn't stupid to paint your Ferrari pink and put hello kitty stickers on it.

truth: it absolutely is stupid to paint your Ferrari pink and puck hello kitty stickers on it (looking at you, rux).

hyperbole: good lord, i'll bet that car has a ******

truth: a Ferrari does not have anything resembling a ****** (also looking at you, rux), nor would i wager money on the idea.

interpreted literally, one would think that radoran thinks highly of painting Ferrari's pink and putting hello kitty stickers on them, and that would think that aziz lacks a basic understanding of automotive and biological principals and anatomy.

both make a point using rhetorical devices. neither is invalid until some pig headed person comes along and insists on applying a strict literal^a interpretation to the statement.

finally, nice trick with the missing paragraph. message received regardless. i should point out that i don't have similar tools, and all my edited posts are marked as such, and are never edited significantly after the fact for primary content.

edit change log: changed "literally" to "literal" at note ^a

Edited July 8, 2013 by aziz

[radoran]

Yes, but my outright sarcasm is almost always denoted with a so that people don't have to figure out if I'm saying what I really mean or I'm backtracking after having said it.

And then you have things that are actual facts - which still don't fit your even altered, non-hyperbolic premise.

Like JLC "projecting" to a 40 goal (65 point) season in 02-03 when Lindros was in New York before getting a broken freaking foot. Yes, just 65 points, but that's a 40 goal season (projected) at 35 - without Lindros. We can use the same stats you were referencing, right?

The foot is his third major injury in four years after missing six games in five and a half seasons since being acquired.

Also corresponds pretty succinctly with a "drop off" in production that still had a guy scoring 20 goals and fifty-plus points in each of the next two seasons at age 37.

It's not like he was a Pascal Dupuis to Lindros' Crosby - which is a possible comparison I think you were looking for.

Yeah, it's a sore spot, as my fellow UVM alum JLC is widely known to be my #1 favorite hockey player ever and when it is insinuated that he was a complete joke reliant on one guy - no matter what context - I'll take issue and correct the record.

It's hockey, after all.

[CoachX]

@aziz

For what its worth, I understand completely what you said (NOT SARCASM) and agree with you (ALSO NOT SARCASM).

To bring this full circle, and back to my original question about the possibility of moving Hartnell, I would ask this question.... would the be better off keeping Read, or Hartnell?

From one fan's opinion, I would be happeir if the team moved Hartnell for anything, and kept Read or any other promising young offensive player who might have to go. I would also rather have Lecavilier at his age and contract, than Hartnell.

[aziz]

@radoran

Yes, but my outright sarcasm is almost always denoted with a so that people don't have to figure out if I'm saying what I really mean or I'm backtracking after having said it.

you needn't. we know. you don't actually like pink ferrari's with hello kitty stickers. it is good, i guess, that you make double sure, but i'm ok using the device and assuming the audience is with it enough to come along with me. or at least understand what is really being said. i mean, obviously my intention was not to say that hartnell and leclair's production dropped to 0g/0a.

i do submit, however. my comparison and disrespectful exaggeration did not give enough credit to leclair. or hartnell, for that matter. or, maybe the better way to phrase it is i took too much credit from them. john leclair was a for-real 50-55 point guy all by himself, and a hell of a hockeyplayer, especially once all the not-on-the-scoreboard aspects of his game and personality are taking into account. hartnell, too, is a very good player to have on a team, and represents more than just his offensive output, which...even at 50 points is a far way from nothing.

the point i very indelicately was trying to make was the offensive spike that came while playing with particular players. there are people today who think it possible verging on likely that hartnell is going to threaten 70 points again, and i don't believe it is going to happen. the extra 20 points came from his time with jagr, came largely because of jagr. similarly, there are people who look back at leclair and figured him for a 100 point scorer. which he was. but only when he was working with lindros.

It's not like he was a Pascal Dupuis to Lindros' Crosby - which is a possible comparison I think you were looking for.

it was a similar dynamic, though pascal dupuis is no john leclair. rob brown with mario was another one. though, again, rob brown couldn't hold a candle to leclair. still, he was a 50-ish point guy who hit 115 skating with mario. living in pittsburgh at the time, everyone there gave brown full credit for the achievement, but it was mario that made it happen.

again, the point was not to disrespect leclair, the point was to illustrate players who were especially productive in a specific dynamic. as related to the conversation that spawned the point, "hating on hartnell" has little to do with any particular problem with the player himself, everything to do with a cap hit based on numbers from one of those specific dynamics, one that was no longer in play.

i applauded leclair when he got that big contract. he earned it by taking the continuous beating in front of the net for years on the cheap. were it a capped league at the time, though, i would have been very unhappy.

Yeah, it's a sore spot, as my fellow UVM alum JLC is widely known to be my #1 favorite hockey player ever and when it is insinuated that he was a complete joke reliant on one guy - no matter what context - I'll take issue and correct the record

and i apologize. my statement was overly harsh. my intention was to reference the stark production difference during and after lindros, but i didn't mean to take everything away from leclair. obviously, the statement "every bit of his production {goes}" fails to not take everything away. went overboard there. leclair wasn't my favorite player, but i was a fan nevertheless. a damned good hockey player and a ton of character, he was an extremely positive influence on the team for a long time.

[aziz]

To bring this full circle, and back to my original question about the possibility of moving Hartnell, I would ask this question.... would the be better off keeping Read, or Hartnell?

better off keeping read, no question, though...that has more to do with hartnell's contract and cap hit than anything else. for some reason i can't really explain, i'm not a big read fan. hartnell brings a lot of intangibles to the table that read seems to lack. from what i've seen. regardless, hartnell's cap hit is way way too high, and his NMC adds to the problem.

which brings me back to the initial point of the thread. no, no possibility of hartnell going anywhere. his cap hit is so obviously out of touch with his production, that very very few teams would be interested. certainly none that are bumping against the ceiling. the NMC says they are likely the only ones hartnell would allow a trade to, so....he's gonna stay for a long time. that isn't all bad, but it isn't all good, either.

Edited July 9, 2013 by aziz

[Claude Monet]

You could say the same about Gagne. He had his career years playing with Forbserg in terms of points and goal scoring. WIthout Forsberg, he was still a very good offensive player, but nowhere near the same sniper he became with Forsberg.

Some players have great chemistry when playing together, and in a lot of cases, one of them creates better players around him regardless of who they are, and the other one benefits from such a player.

With a healthy Giroux and emerging Voracek, it's not outside of the realm of possibility for Hartnell to hit 30-35 goals this year, many of them the garbage variety. The league is catching on to the patented hashmark one-timer from Giroux, but I'm sure they'll develop new tricks.

My money, though, is on Hartnell never again reaching 50 points. I hope he proves me wrong

Blasphemy!! Gags greatest line was with JR at center and Williams on the other wing