• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Baggins last won the day on December 26 2016

Baggins had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

5,801 Gaming the system

About Baggins

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Burnaby BC Canada
  • Interests

Recent Profile Visitors

12,163 profile views
  1. From the time Benning was hired. It's been rebuild on the fly and try to compete for playoff spot all along. Seriously how much of the team needs to be replaced and how many young players added before you believe we're rebuilding?
  2. How many times do they need to say "REBUILD on the fly"?
  3. And in 2010 in the 2nd round Chicago drafted: 35th Ludvig Rensfeldt 0 NHL games 54th Justin Holl 0 NHL games 58th Kent Simpson 1 NHL game 60th Stephen Johns 47 NHL games There are no guarantees. Trading for a prospect is no different than drafting a prospect. Either can be a boon or a bust.
  4. I don't recall the Sedins being in that conversation. There's also plenty of Calder winners that have never won a cup.
  5. Ha! Good one. I don't give a crap what other teams do. Period. I don't believe in setting your team up to lose. That's an opinion that has nothing to do with stats or facts. Here's another fact: other GM's have set their team up to lose and not won the cup. There's no guarantees.
  6. I don't really think it's speculation. Players around the league often play through the season with injuries that require surgery. It's a matter if they can still play and will playing make it worse. If medical staff doesn't believe playing will make it worse then it's most often a player decision in those cases rather than a coaching or management decision. I remember Cloutier playing through with a hip injury in January that required offseason surgery. That was the year we lost to Minny in the second round. The medical staff said playing "shouldn't" make it worse. It was left to Cloutier whether to have the hip surgery and miss the rest of the season or play through it and have the surgery in the offseason. Same with Naslund after the Moore hit. He had bone fragments in his elbow that needed to be surgically removed. He opted to play through it and wait until the offseason for the surgery. Hodgson is a good example of a player simply not being honest about his injury. But in his case had he been honest he would have missed camp and preseason and gone back to junior. He wanted to make the team and get that NHL paycheck. He maintained through camp and preseason his back was fine and not a problem at all. Then the day he was cut he said to the press his back was still a problem. I've always felt he lost a year of development because of not being honest in the first place. Veterans on the other hand are often less than honest simply because of their competitive nature and desire to help the team.
  7. To tank or not to tank this is the question. Sadly it's a question that's already been beaten to death over the past two years. I'm in the "always put the best team you can on the ice" side. I don't believe in setting your team up to lose.
  8. Which is why it's completely useless. Nobody has that crystal ball. You're in for a lot of useless complaining and bitter disappointment. We saw the flip. Afterwards there were better options with acquiring Granlund and having Gaunce sitting in the wings waiting for his chance. You won't change my mind on this one. It was a good gamble. It didn't pay off. I won't cry about it or make up what ifs. That's life.
  9. A big jar of peanut butter. For those that don't remember... “I see the Sedins are pointing fingers now,” Potvin said on-air. “Normally they only use those fingers to lick the peanut butter off of their bread.”
  10. So where's the quote Benning would have selected him? We need that information. The pick traded was used for McKeown not Montour. That's your hindsight talking again on who you would now want with that pick. So if you can't provide evidence of who Benning would have selected I can just as easily say he would have taken Hunter Smith. We knew what Santo was. Vey certainly had the potential to be much more. Santo was a stop gap and the pick was a gamble whether used or traded. Status quo. I honestly don't care how it turned out. It was a good gamble under the circumstances. If you believe every trade for a prospect and every draft pick will turn out to be great you're in for a great deal of disappointment. I'm a realist. I know a gamble is a gamble. It's called a gamble for a reason.
  11. Do you honestly think Green, or any other coach, would say his bosses 6th overall pick wasn't living up to expectations? lol Most coaches will pump a young players tires to some extent. Believe me when I say I haven't given up on Jake. Different players develop at different rates. But man I'd sure like to see much better numbers from him in the AHL. He has a ways to go to get back here.
  12. But how can you review a decision without any knowledge at all of what the other option would have yielded? Any actual quotes from Benning he would have taken Montour and has he had NHL success yet? Well, no. Montour is a year younger than Vey was at the time of the trade and Vey put up better AHL numbers. That's the problem in this situation. We don't know who Benning would have taken or if that player would be a bust. If it make sense it was a good gamble and that's all. Both options are a gambles. I don't worry about these types of deals working out or winners/losers. I judge it on making sense when the deal was made. This one made sense. Santo has been beaten to death. He was offered a one year deal (all he deserved) and he wanted a multi-year deal. Did he get his multi-year deal in free agency? Nope. Did he have any future with our club? Nope. That should be a good indicator. Nobody was willing to give him a multi-year deal he certainly wasn't a long term solution. He would have been nothing but a bandaid to fill time. Better to gamble on a young ready guy that could have a future here than waste that time on a bandaid. Here's a way to look at it. A stop gap (Santo) and a gamble for 3 to 5 years from now (the 2nd) or skip the stop gap (Santo) and just take a gamble now (Vey). With an aging team and no prospect pool I'd take that second option and start the future now every time. I would be less likely to do that now that we have some youth on the team. But at that time in that situation I certainly would. Regardless of how it turned out I won't consider it a mistake. It's actually the smarter move.
  13. And using that 2nd had a high chance (as shown) of being a dead asset. So where's the difference? We had no way of knowing ahead of time boon or bust going either way. Quit the pet crap. It's total bs and makes you look stupid. Vey was a good prospect we traded an asset for. He had to be given opportunity. Much like McCann last year he had a great preseason and good start to the regular season. He earned that opportunity. Also like McCann as his play slipped so did his ice time and opportunity. Then yet again like McCann as injuries occurred he was given more opportunities again. I don't recall anybody calling McCann Willies pet even though he was treated exactly the same. Hindsight is for crybabies. Nobody has a crystal ball and there are no guarantees with prospects or picks. Meaning you can't guarantee the pick would have been an NHL regular. Either could have been a boon or a bust for us. So you have to judge on whether the trade made sense when it was made. This is particularly true when it is a draft pick for a prospect trade. We'll never know who would have been chosen with that pick and thus can't judge whether or not we'd have been better off using the pick and waiting three to five years or trading for Vey in the here and now. There's nothing to compare Vey with to decide which would have been the better option. The trade did make sense thus it was a good gamble regardless of how it turned out. Ultimately trading for Vey was a gamble and using the pick was a gamble. Which gamble filled our greater need when the deal was made? Our greater need two and a half years ago was getting youth on the team developing right away. Some we were sorely lacking.
  14. 75% of 2nd round picks don't manage 200 NHL games. 70% of 2nd round picks don't manage 100 NHL games. That puts Vey (116 NHL games as a Canuck) into the top 30% of 2nd round picks. I'd call that beating the 2nd round pick odds when more twice as many won't achieve what Vey did. Really what matters is did the trade make sense. It did. With no prospect pool we needed young NHL ready prospects more than picks that would be 3 to 5 years away from the NHL. We needed young guys with potential that were ready as opposed to years away. Given Vey's AHL success it made sense to trade a 2nd for him. Just as it made sense to trade for Baertschi. Just like using a pick, trading for prospects is a gamble. Some will bust, some will have limited use, and some will become NHL regulars. No different than using the pick. Where we are now I don't think it would make sense to trade a 2nd for a Vey that's had very little NHL opportunity. But it did make sense two and a half years ago when we had nothing and were at the very start of a rebuild and truly lacking prospects. We have prospects developing elsewhere now and much more youth on the team. We now have a starting place. The only way it really makes sense to trade picks now is for young proven NHL players (Gudbranson). Although I wouldn't rule it out completely for the right deal I don't feel we need to run gambles on prospects like Vey now.
  15. We got two seasons of use out of him. That's more than you get out of 70% of second round picks. As with your lambo that crashed a month later, it would have to be considered a win then.