KFBR392

Members
  • Content count

    2,056
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,258 Revered

About KFBR392

  • Rank
    Canucks Regular

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

8,487 profile views
  1. My dog is sweet as hell and I love her to death, but she is certainly not the sharpest tool in the shed.
  2. Even his father couldn't beat the salt out of him. Poor guy.
  3. Just once is like to hear a player say he's happy being a healthy scratch.
  4. Yeah I've had some weird stuff happen too. I was cruising in an armored car with 3 others and the car just straight up disappeared on us while we were driving at full speed. We were all just suddenly standing there looking around like wtf?
  5. Anyone else find the heavy tanks a little over powered? They're fun as hell, but man. That emergency repair option is a bit much. Any time I start a game in a tank I usually end up with about 20 kills before I die. Having a few gunners makes it hard to die unless the opposing team really works together to take you out.
  6. "He's losing some hair too..." lol
  7. Only 6 more to go!
  8. My initial response in this thread was quoting captainlinden, and basically disagreeing with the idea that picks are worth throwing away on a player who has already shown signs they can't consistently play at this level. I'm not saying that these players can't or won't make it, I'm saying I'm no longer onboard with taking the risk. None of these types of moves that benning has made have worked out so far. Ironically, Granlund has been the closest one, despite me inadvertently deciding to voice my opinion in this particular thread. You could argue that none of these trades have significantly hurt our team, but the point I'm making is that none of them have really helped either. Again, with the benefit of hindsight, I wouldn't make many of them over again (vey, dorsett, etem, granlund, larsen, clendening, pedan, prust). Even baertschi to a certain degree is appearing to he a disappointment. Personally, I'd rather we stop making these kinds of expedited trades and just draft and develop our own players.
  9. Yeah, I'm not looking to argue with you bud. If you don't understand the point I'm making with my previous 4-5 posts in this thread, that's on you.
  10. I'm saying we've made some of these trades before and they haven't worked out. I'm saying I no longer want to see our team trading away picks and prospects for older players that have questionable development. I disagree with the stratagy. Its a pretty simple point.
  11. OK, if you guys think routinely trading picks for older players who have already shown issues with development is perfectly fine, we will have to agree to disagree. I don't view it as a sustainable way to manage our assets and ultimately become a better hockey team.
  12. They're also the victim of just not being very good anymore.
  13. I get what your saying, but calling it a safe move is quite the stretch. Using that logic, I guess we should trade all of our picks for young players that other teams have given up on? Giving away a 2nd for Vey didn't turn out to be a very safe move. I'd personally rather see us pick and develop our own players. If they pan out, great. If not, at least we're not putting them on waivers or walking away from their rfa/ufa within a year or two of acquiring them.
  14. I wouldn't exactly call them "low cost gambles". Trading futures for players who have already shown signs of not developing properly is risky. Just look at how it's worked out for us so far. I'm not mad that we made the moves to begin with. I get why Benning did it. But with the benefit of hindsight, we shouldn't have made most of those deals and definitely shouldn't continue making similar ones.