Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Franz Liszt

Mike Gillis Wants To Get "Younger & Bigger" - My Take

Recommended Posts

Undersized: Of less than normal or sufficient size.

So, you're saying that only players 6'1" and 205 lbs are normal or sufficient size, any anything less than that is undersized. I'm not saying that at all, I'd say 5'8"-5'10" (or less obviously) is undersized, and someone substantially lighter than most as well.

And as far as weight goes, I'm sure you've seen plenty of profiles of young players with their weight and/or height listed incorrectly. By your estimations, players like Nicklas Jensen would have been undersized since most sites listed him as only 186lbs on draft day but he's now at least 203lbs and even listed as heavier on some sites. Even taking the 203 at face value by your definition he's not good enough. Oh well, Gillis is drafting 'undersized' players.

Look at 2008 where you stated 4 of Gillis' first 5 draft picks were undersized. Clearly you have Sauve as the one that made your cut, and then you had Cody (6', 185), Prab Rai (5'11", 191), Morgan Clark (6', 165), and Mats Froshaug (6'1", 198). I've got Clark as undersized for weight and Rai being arguable as I've heard 5'11" is generous. Cody is the size of a number of skilled forwards, if only below average, and Froshaug is actually listed on a few sites as well above 200 lbs now, not that 5 lbs should have been a definitive sign of Gillis drafting 'undersized' players as I'd mentioned with Jensen.

That's another point, that you are taking an overall average in player size at the NHL level, rather than accounting for positional differences. Defencemen, forwards and goalies aren't all the same size, but your formula has then judged by the same criteria.I

In the end, it's too easy to find fault with your arguments to give you any credibility on this topic. I'd grant you that he hasn't had a history of drafting larger than average players, but he has started trending in that direction as other factors like BPA allow. Undersized is definitely a stretch however, which is the word from the original post I replied to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoa, you're not giving me any credibility on this topic, yet you are the one who was asking for undersized(less than normal) examples, I gave them to you and then you tried to change the criteria. You were basing things on 6' players when that's not even the league average, so how is that credible? You did that only to support your claims because you found out that you were wrong when you actually did some research on the subject. And how is anything less than 6'1" and 205lbs not undersized when that is the league average? I'm not making up those numbers to support my argument, those are the facts.

And I didn't have Jensen as undersized. How is Rai even arguable when you admit that he's probably not even as tall as 5'11" and he's almost 15lbs below the league average? Talk about a lackof credibility. So, now you want to break down the players into, skill forwards, defensemen and goalies. I'm using the league average of the NHL players. If you wanted to break it down further, I think that you'll find that the only position that the Canucks might have drafted larger than average players is on D, and the average size of an NHL defensemen is actually bigger than that of the forwards, so they'll bring up the curve. I also think that our goalies will be undersized just like the forwards.

At the end of the day, if you're not drafting at least average sized players, then they have to be considered undersized. We're not comparing them to the general public but to NHL players, so again where is your credibility........it's in the crapper with your arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a guy that claims that I'm stupid, you sure can't type for crap. You're getting mad? L...

Yes, you did say there was not enough room - but not in those exact words. The meaning was all there and now that I called you out for it, you're just going to backtrack it like a wuss.

I have read your pathetic posts and you contradict yourself so many times in this thread that you have no right to call another person a hypocrite. I love it when you backtrack your way after every post. It's so hilarious. I'm almost not even sure if you are an Ebbett basher by day and an Ebbett lover by night.

You weren't giving him credit - you said he was a mediocre NHL player - a journeyman, as you called it specifically, which is hardly a flattering compliment.

I brought up the number of contracts available to be signed - that was my argument, an argument that has yet to be refuted by you thus far. That argument specifically questions why you say Ebbett does not belong on this team. He is a depth player as expressed many times before. Through your own admission, you believe Ebbett has "heart", so if he has "heart", why are you bashing Gillis for signing a depth player (a two way contract I should tell you again) that has heart and some skill? Besides, it is not a long-term contract whatsoever. Therefore, your statements that you've made against Ebbett are baseless and erroneous.

Love how you're only attempting insults rather than addressing the issues at hand though, A+ for effort but F for quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't blame me because you failed to understand my point from the beginning. I even gave you the dictionary definition of undersized - the word I centered my argument around from your post. If you can't get your head around normal or sufficient size not meaning one very specific measurement taken from an average of players much older than those drafted then no one can help you.

I did include Rai in my numbers because I feel he is undersized. I added Jensen in to point out a fallacy in your argument (regardles of if you used him or not in your numbers). I pointed out a further concern about the average you're using to compare players since it is a make or break number for you. That doesn't even begin to mention I did my research when I posted originally, but thought you'd be smart enough to at least see my argument against calling Gillis' drafted players undersized so I left it out rather than make you look a fool.

This has nothing to do with the general public, but if you want to compile an average, try an average of players taken in recent drafts. Then consider some leeway since you can't just say Mats Froshaug (I love how you left him out of your reply) is undersized since he was 6'1", 198 lbs when your criteria was 6'1", 205 lbs. It's just the same way you wouldn't say someone like Gaunce is particularly oversized because he's an inch taller and 10 lbs heavier when compared to the average of NHL players, but heavier in particular when compared to the average of draftees. I'd even be happy if you wanted to consider a draftee's potential size after they've filled out instead of their size as teenagers.

Here's a breakdown for you though since you love seeing facts and numbers. There were only 2 players who weighed 200lbs or more in the top 10 of the draft this year, 11 in the first round. That seems to suggest at least one of two things: drafted players are lighter than NHL'ers, or other GMs aren't bothered by drafting teenagers who currently have less than NHL average size. Going by your NHL average criteria, only 7 players drafted in the first round weren't 'undersized' (meeting both height and weight) yet Gillis picked one of those seven.

I guess Gillis is one of the smart ones now then, and the other GMs must think they need to have undersized players to win (sarcasm obviously, BPA tends to be a practice in early rounds of drafts regardless of player size, as I'd mentioned to begin with).

If you want to argue that Gillis' overall drafting record doesn't trend towards drafting particularly large players, or players who are at least NHL average size, then I have to agree. He's drafted larger lately, but did draft a number of players that aren't NHL average or above. However, he certainly hasn't been drafting "mainly guys who were undersized" when you consider the definition of the word 'undersized' (even 'mainly'). That's even before you factor in size differences between draft age players and NHL age players.

Now it's time to get back to more interesting discussions, rather than the one you're so badly pretending to support as such with multiple people in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Admittedly, I haven't been paying especially close attention to this thread lately, but are we really writing wall-o-text posts and calling each other "idiots" and "stupid" based on a difference of opinion over what constitutes above average size?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not claiming that you're stupid, I'm outright telling you that you're stupid and all of your responses just confirm it. As for the typing, don't know what you're talking about and nor do I give two shiats.

Yes, you did say there was not enough room - but not in those exact words. The meaning was all there and now that I called you out for it, you're just going to backtrack it like a wuss. - So, despite the fact that you've rambled on like an idiot while bringing up topics that I wasn't even talking about or debating, you now think with your single digit IQ that you can put words in my mouth and knew my meaning? Look, instead of thinking that you know what I meant, do yourself a favor, and everyone else for that matter and don't think at all because it's very apparent that you aren't equipped for it. Not only does your paraphrasing suck but so does your reading ability because I didn't backtrack on anything.

Again, please show me where I've backtracked or contradicted myself. That's right, you can't, because I didn't. I've clearly said that Ebbett works hard and plays with heart = me giving him credit. I've also been very clear in saying that he's a mediocre/less than mediocre NHL player, a journeyman by definition and have given you facts as to why that's the case. So, how is that badmouthing him, he is what he is. You must have been one of those kids that needed to be coddled and always told that you were good even though you sucked because if you think that being called a journeyman is insulting to a player like Ebbett, then you apparently haven't played any sports on any sort of higher level. I wasn't trying to flatter him, I was being honest. Why do I need to flatter him, I've already given him credit. Ebbett knows that he's a fringe NHL player, he's not stupid, but you are for thinking that me calling him a journeyman is an insult. I don't know if you're his retarded younger brother or what because you're sure getting defensive about me calling him a mediocre journeyman player.

Wow, my brain is starting to hurt arguing with you who is obvious lacking in one. I've mentioned a few times already why I think that Ebbett shouldn't have been re-signed, and I'll try to type it as clearly as I can for you.....it's because the Canucks forward group as a whole are already too small and soft and they need to get younger. Mike Gillis himself has said that he wants to get bigger, stronger and younger. So, given the fact that Ebbett is one of the smaller players in the league while also being 29 years old, of course I'm going to question this signing. Get it? Again, if we had a bigger and stronger team then I wouldn't have as much of a problem with this signing but we don't. I don't care how many contracts that they have available. But, those contracts fill up very quickly and is quite often the reason why teams make even up trades as far as contracts are concerned. And the fact that Gillis has used up three contract spots on small and soft players in the last week is disturbing.

And how in the **** does Ebbett's contract length make my comments about him as a player erroneous or baseless? It doesn't. It's actually the EXACT opposite. If you are capable, which is a very big if, the fact that Ebbett signed a one year two way deal confirms what I've been saying about him........HE'S A JOURNEYMAN!!!

As for the insults, no arguments there............... but pot please meet kettle!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't honestly have time to analyze ALL your gun-toting BS that you keep changing post after post. You yourself may not even realize how contradictory you've been this whole thread.

You claim to be praising Ebbett (i.e. good work ethic, heart etc) yet you call him a journeyman - you're hilarious! That's not praising him. That's not complimenting him at all. Look at this way: If I call you a decent person, can I still call you a chump? :lol:

Fact is: No one has ever said Ebbett was an all-star. His good work ethic and heart, as you pointed out, obviously allowed him to land a contract with the Canucks, albeit a two way contract. No one has denied that he is 'undersized' by NHL standards (a fact that cannot be disputed).

Calling a player a journeyman is something of a pejorative description. Added to the fact that you 'honestly' called him mediocre, it is hard to imagine that you expect people to think that you are not actually bashing him. You have indirectly bashed Gillis too because he chose to sign a 'mediocre undersized journeyman' - amirite? He is a DEPTH NHL player. He might be mediocre but he also might be good too.

As for the pot calling the kettle - I don't think you know what that actually means. :lol:

You do realize that when I "talked you down", I was merely mirroring (in a sarcastic way) what you have been doing. That doesn't make me a hypocrite for calling you out for using personal attacks. You must think you're so cool! You have commented my signature and you have thrown the kitchen sink at me because you are unable to argue your own points with any merit.

The hilarious part is that someone who contradicts himself is calling someone a hypocrite. Unlike you, I still haven't resorted to using personal attacks AS THE BASIS of my argument. And you still haven't addressed my point about the NUMBER OF CONTRACTS. If in fact the number of contracts have been filled up, THEN your point might make sense. But at the time of this writing, there is still room for more contracts. Are you honestly expecting the Canucks to sign up EVERY SINGLE free agent out there?

Let me rephrase this to you again, because you are so unable to see through your own propaganda: The number of contract spaces available IS essential to answering your point regarding "no space for small players". He is a DEPTH player and a player that is on a two-way contract. Why u heff to be mad?

Funny thing is, you claim that your brain is hurting from arguing but you don't even realize how much it hurts to laugh at everything you've said here in this thread. You're such a hypocrite and it's so sad that you don't even realize it. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, it has to be your cognitive issues as to why you've contradicted yourself so much. You've yet to say why you think that I've contradicted myself other than to say that according to you I'm not allowed to give Ebbett credit for being a hard worker and having heart while still calling him a mediocre player. Please tell me why you can't give someone credit while also listing their shortcomings? Everyone has faults but apparently I'm not allowed to list his? What a load of BS.

Now as far as your contradictions go, just in this post of yours you've contradicted yourself more than once.

1) I don't honestly have time to analyze ALL your gun-toting BS that you keep changing post after post. ---------and then you go on to write this long diatribe right after this quote.

2) You claim to be praising Ebbett (i.e. good work ethic, heart etc) yet you call him a journeyman - you're hilarious! That's not praising him. That's not complimenting him at all. Look at this way: If I call you a decent person, can I still call you a chump? :lol: ------------So, saying that someone has a good work ethic and that plays with lots of heart isn't giving them credit or praising them? Wow, if you don't consider that a compliment then you must be one uptight and high maintenance dude/chick................or you have no redeeming qualities yourself and you've never been given a compliment before.

3) Fact is: No one has ever said Ebbett was an all-star. His good work ethic and heart, as you pointed out, obviously allowed him to land a contract with the Canucks, albeit a two way contract. No one has denied that he is 'undersized' by NHL standards (a fact that cannot be disputed).-------------------- This is my point, he signed a two way contract. Most 29 year old guys who sign two way contracts are journeyman/fringe NHL players. This can't be argued, so why bother? You take great offense to the term journeyman and yet you say albeit he signed a two way contract, which is another contradiction on your part becaue how many non jouneyman players who are UFA's are signing 2 way contracts? You seem to think that being a journeyman player is being derogatory to that player? Why is that? Not everyone can be a superstar. I was talking to a former minor league pro this last weekend and he called himself a journeyman player. He was honest about it and I never took it like he was degrading himself. Ebbett has reached the NHL and being called a journeyman at the NHL level certainly isn't anything to sneeze at and isn't disparaging him at all. Being a mediocre/less than mediocre player at the highest level in the world is better than most of us can fathom. Most of us on here would give our left nut to be playing in the NHL in any capacity but it still doesn't take away from the facts and the facts are at the NHL level, Andrew Ebbett is a spare part and easily replaceable, which to me makes him a mediocre player at this level.

4) Calling a player a journeyman is something of a pejorative description. Added to the fact that you 'honestly' called him mediocre, it is hard to imagine that you expect people to think that you are not actually bashing him. You have indirectly bashed Gillis too because he chose to sign a 'mediocre undersized journeyman' - amirite? He is a DEPTH NHL player. He might be mediocre but he also might be good too.-------------------your last sentence is yet another contradiction. How can someone be mediocre and good too? How can you possibly be both? He's a 29 year old who just signed a two way contract, does that not tell you that he's mediocre? According to you that tells you that he's mediocre and good?

5) As for the pot calling the kettle - I don't think you know what that actually means. :lol:-------------yes, that's why I said it. Just because you might not understand it, doesn't mean that other don't.

You do realize that when I "talked you down", I was merely mirroring (in a sarcastic way) what you have been doing. That doesn't make me a hypocrite for calling you out for using personal attacks. You must think you're so cool! You have commented my signature and you have thrown the kitchen sink at me because you are unable to argue your own points with any merit. -------------no, what makes you a hypocrite is saying that I personally attacked you, when you don't admit to personally attacking me. That is the epitome of a hypocrite and adds to your growing list of contradictions. And I've already commented on the contract thing, so look it up.

6) Are you honestly expecting the Canucks to sign up EVERY SINGLE free agent out there? --------------What are you rambling about now? I've mentioned only 2 or 3 UFA's that I'd like the team to look at, so how in the hell does that constitue EVERY SINGLE free agent? It doesn't.

7) Let me rephrase this to you again, because you are so unable to see through your own propaganda: The number of contract spaces available IS essential to answering your point regarding "no space for small players". He is a DEPTH player and a player that is on a two-way contract. Why u heff to be mad? -------------------I've told you that I think that the Canucks are already too small and soft up front and that's why I didn't think there was room for Ebbett. I've never wavered from that. A depth player on a two way contract and yet you don't think he's a journeyman? Scary!!!

8) Funny thing is, you claim that your brain is hurting from arguing but you don't even realize how much it hurts to laugh at everything you've said here in this thread. You're such a hypocrite and it's so sad that you don't even realize it. :lol:----------------So, I've just made a list of just some of your contradictions and you've yet to come up with a single thing that I've contradicted myself on. I would say pot meet kettle again, but you apparently have no idea of the meaning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah no, I'm not continuing with this. It's going nowhere. I know where I stand on the issues and you have a right to disagree with me. You think I'm wrong. I think you're wrong. Leave it at that.

Thanks for the entertaining discussion but I'm out.

Edit: Don't get me wrong, I'm not "wussing out", but this is getting extraordinarily repetitive and I honestly have more important things to deal with right now than arguing over the significance of an Ebbett signing.

^ Bad formatting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, that Ebbett isn't really worth this much time arguing over, which should actually tell you what kind of importance and relevance that he has on this team and in the league as a whole.....but I digress.

I guess that we'll just have to agree to disagree on this topic.

As for the formatting, oh well!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for being reasonable.

Like him or not, Ebbett's on the team. We'll have to see whether this signing is worth it or not later on. Also, it would be interesting to see if he rises or falls with this opportunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.