Tom Sestito

@Warhippy this was the original post i responded to, which you were supposed to quote. Again, I will repeat that I don't know why you're trying to create a strawman. The Baertschi trade is one of Benning's most favorable moves among the fanbase. So, the strawman you've created is not representative of the fanbase opinion. Again, I will repeat that you do this continuously where you come into threads that are debating a questionable move and make a post like the above. It just seems as if you don't have an argument to be made about the move so you want to indirectly mock everyone who disagrees with it. Can you provide any insight into the move so there's something tangible to go off of?

Especially when you're throwing the $5 bill in the trash in favor of the paper weight that is Loui Eriksson.

Yeah, because the bolded was all you posted and the rest of your post doesn't exist. I will repeat again to answer that bolded part but the Baertschi trade was by far one of the least scrutinized Benning moves. Would you like to try that again where you quote your entire post so that we can address the rest that you want to pretend doesn't exist?

Sending down Gagner over the useless corpse of Granlund was a stupid move.

The Baertschi trade was one of Benning's most universally understood/applauded moves. That is to say, I'm saying that relative to the other moves Benning has made. He was a good gamble. At worst, the consensus from even the staunchest of Benning haters is that it was an understandable gamble. I still don't have an issue with the trade or the contract he signed. You do this every time there is a decision that is being debated. You come on, act as if anyone who disagrees is dumb, and then never really want to dissect why it's being criticized.

While I agree with your take on Ferland, I can't agree on the Baertschi front. Yes, Baertschi has been more effected by his concussions than Ferland. Concussions are also unpredictable and the next one for Ferland could really go badly. My biggest issue with the dump of Baertschi is that we had potential to have three scoring lines for the first time in a damn long time. Sutter and Eriksson are absolute blackholes on a third line and Beagle, while doing a good fourth line job, will not produce much offensively. I was actually quite excited about the prospect of having Baertschi - Gaudette - Leivo on a third line. They've also put themselves in a situation where they won't have cover for the top six now if Baertschi doesn't get claimed. Eriksson, Virtanen, and Goldobin were the canucks three worst forwards in camp. Not sure why two of those guys survived above Baertschi.

I have a midterm in three hours and all I've been doing this morning is reading the nonsense. There is no possible justification for Baertschi and Biega on waivers over Eriksson and Fantenberg that does not make the management group look bad.

why are you creating a strawman to justify your stance dawg

I agree that Ferland and Miller are good players. I would have taken the same gamble on the Ferland contract that Benning did. I did not have an issue with the signing. But, my issue is that people are ignoring that his concussion history means it could go downhill very easily. And, if Baertschi with his concussion issues but better offensive ability was untradeable with half the term, then you can assume that Ferland is now untradeable. I also really like JT Miller; he looks awesome. I also really like having my first round when the team has a 50/50 shot of making the playoffs at best.

You do realize Ferland has had his career plagued with concussion issues as well, right?

My point is, if there is no market for Baertschi, then there won't be a market for Sutter, Myers, Eriksson, Schaller and Beagle. Those guys objectively have far worse contracts than Baertschi. On the forward front, Ferland has the same concussion issues Bae does, but is signed for four years so he is probably untradeable unless he goes concussion free for the next two years or randomly becomes a 50+ point player. Not sure anyone would take a stab at Roussell or Pearson at their cap hits either, and this is coming from a legitimate fan of Roussell. Anyways, Sutter, Myers, Eriksson, Schaller, Beagle, Baertschi, Roussell, Ferland, Pearson, and Spooner occupy around $35m of the cap and collectively, you would have to pay more to get rid of that group than you would receive back in a trade. It's a whole yikes situation, and the fact that they couldn't get back an asset for Baertschi, who's the most productive of the bunch when healthy says a lot..

Agree on Roussell. I actually was a fan of the player and thought he performed very well before getting hurt. If he isn't slowed down by this injury, I'm happy to have him at his contract. There are far bigger worries than him. Good 3LW. Sutter is no longer mildly overpaid. He was mildly overpaid in the 16-17 season where he was still a good 3rd line player. In the last two years, he has been awful when healthy. He bleeds goals 5 on 5 while not being a capable puck distributor. His line is cemented as a black hole if he is centering it. I actually disagree on the Schaller front. I thought he did ok this preseason. Reasons stated in previous post as to why waiving Goldobin instead may have been the better move.

If they seriously couldn't trade Baertschi because of his concussion issues, Ferland has had similar issues for years now yet they signed him for four years. Baertschi wasn't even top five in terms of bad contracts that are affecting our cap situation. Probably number seven or eight, and at least he produces when healthy.

Schaller had a genuinely OK preseason and looked good next to Beagle. Waiving Goldobin for Schaller is a good move unless you plan on using Goldobin with Pete, which Green won't do for some reason. But, Eriksson couldn't make or take a pass every game he played. He's getting worse every day. Him over Baertschi is just mind blowing. And, Biega outplayed both Benn and Fantenberg. But, this management has continuously undervalued Biega for years.

Why not just outright say that you think anyone who disagrees is stupid? Because, that is what you're implying here.