In article <1993Apr23.063205.26192@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> nlu@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) writes: >In article <1993Apr22.212219.23130@iscnvx.lmsc.lockheed.com> spiegel@sgi501.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Spiegel) writes: >>In article <1993Apr21.234022.2880@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> nlu@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) writes: > >>	I said Gund will have to open his *CHECKBOOK*, I didn't say give up >>	any draft picks or promising talent.  If we could have gotten >>	Murphy for the $2M great, but I agree the Sharks shouldn't give >>	up young talent or early round draft picks.  I listed Chelios et al >>	only to indicate the *TYPE* of player I think the Sharks need to pick  >>	up.  The rules on signing free agents less than 30 years old puts >>	a big restriction on what the Sharks can pick up.  However, I do >>	believer they need to pick up some players who will add toughness >>	to the team. > >But you have to remember that you're unlikely to get any real quality free >agents who do not require compensation.  The Sharks tried, with Makarov, who >was probably the top of the class among non-compensation free agents, but even >he probably wouldn't have helped too much. > 	Don't expect to get top quality, just some toughness.  I don't 	view Makarov as a player who would add toughness.  >>>Size hopefully won't be much of a worry next year.  Alexander Cherbayev and >>>Michal Sykora have agreed to multi-year contracts, and it appears that Mike >>>Rathje will also sign soon.  All three are pretty big. >> >>	Size alone isn't enough.  We all know how much fear Kolstad (6-6) >>	struck in the eyes of opponents NOT! > >Well, Rathje and Sykora are both highly touted prospects, unlike Kolstad... >And Cherbayev was initially supposed to play for the Russian WC Team.  (Anybody >know what happened there?)  That means that he's likely to be good enough. >  	Nelson, you're confusing skill and toughness.   >>>McGill/Hammond -> Johan Garpenlov.  Would you really rather have those two >>>instead of Johan? >> >>	By your logic then you enjoy having Falloon and Ozolinsh on  >>	injured reserve? > >By your logic then you think that if the Sharks had kept McGill and Hammond >that you can guarantee that Falloon and Ozolinsh wouldn't have gotten hurt? >(Think again; there was a chance that McGill would have caused Ozolinsh to get >stuck at KC, and as you know, Hammond is worthless, and McGill is almost >worthless.) > >>>Well, Wilson, maybe, but I don't think Falloon and Ozolinsh were really >>>injured on cheapshots. >> >>	who said they were?    > >If they weren't then, I don't see any justification that having McGill and >Hammond around would prevent their injuries.  If the injuries of Falloon and >Ozolinsh were purely accidental, then what could McGill and Hammond have done >to prevent them? > 	Hey, get off the McGill/Hammond thing.  I'm no fan of either. My 	point is that last year the Sharks had toughness that was missing 	this year.  This year we had more skill, I'm all for that, but 	if your skill players keep getting beat up and injured they 	can't do you much good.  Whether it's a cheap shot or not you 	can't let the other teams push you around.  The 1992-93 Sharks 	simply got pushed around to much.  Other teams knew this. 	They knew they could aggressively check the Sharks and not 	pay for it.   Adding some players in the off season who will 	add some toughness to the team will help insure that next 	season other teams will be more hesistant to vigorously  	check our skill players, or to take cheap shots.  It doesn't 	guarantee no injuries (nothing does), but it's something the 	Sharks can do to reduce the number of injuries.    	mark   just say