Haha, you and your verbatims again. You were clearly alluding to Cory Schneider with my "variance between best and worst" comment. But, I digress, you didn't say "Cory Schneider" verbatim, so there's no clear evidence that you were talking about him, right?
It's relevant because you're calling Luke Schenn a "lowball offer", which indicates to me that you're totally out to lunch, and that you're completely blind by your extreme homerism. Luke Schenn's a 23 year-old, past 5th overall pick, who's been in the league for 4 seasons. He's pretty good, and there's a lot of potential there. And if he's a "lowball", it would logically follow that you would call JVR a "lowball". So what's fair value for Lou, in your opinion, given the context of this deal? You say that Florida is where he should go; OK, for who? Based on what you're calling a "lowball", I would have to expect some sort of package involving Huberdeau, which is nuts. And I know that you said you spoke about this before, but I have no interest in sifting through 70 pages of posts to find what you wrote, so just share with us again.
Haha - nice try. You came up with an argument that is about as dumb as they come - (to clarily which one among the many dumb arguments you are maintaining) - the argument where you were going on about a lack of relative variation between the best and worst starting goaltenders (ironically only 22 goaltenders with over 50 starts, haha, not even one starter per team, haha). Then you were almost starting to make sense - referring to Luongo as a "proven starter." What I pointed out was the glaring contradiction (again, among many others in your posts) - and the question is perfectly legitimate - what in your opiniion is a "proven starter" then? You used a silly one player sample to claim that you can simply plug Mike Smith into Phoenix's system and all of a sudden he appears elite... 'did he forget how to stop a puck in Tampa', blah, blah? Did Bryzgalov? blah blah (who, by the way, absolutely sucked in the playoffs in Phoenix, and then absolutely sucked in this year's playoffs in Philly) . Your argument was dense - by calling Luongo a "proven starter" (which he clearly is) you simply undermined your silly little not much difference between best and worst argument, and in turn, undermined your silly little devaluation of Luongo, hoping to (prematurely, as you have no idea what the return will be) pin the tail on Gillis. Repetitive fail.
In other words - that question was clearly and entirely about Luongo and your silly theory - had nothing to do with Schneider (who didn't have 50 starts haha) - and your response is entirely predictable - an evasive 'you were clearly alluding to Schneider' blah verbatim blah. Every time you respond you wind up underlining the irony of your 'verbatim' sarcasm - you are entirely off the mark. Carry on - your resorting to an internal dialogue does have a consolation payoff - in arguing with yourself, one half of you has an opportunity to be right. For the rest of us - again - a waste of time.
And again. You just seem like you can't help yourself - and mimic your fail - "I would have to expect some sort of package involving Huberdeau, which is nuts".... Again, that is yours, alone - and verbatim.
A more popular definition of "nuts" - "doing the same thing
over and over again and expecting different results
Edited by oldnews, 17 September 2012 - 09:01 PM.