Archived

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

arsenalian

Mike Gillis Co-Hosting Team 1040 from 11-1

222 posts in this topic

Nice diagram. Sorry you had to waste your time with that.

It still has nothing to do with last season, which was the only season I was talking about.

Thanks for coming out though.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice diagram. Sorry you had to waste your time with that.

It still has nothing to do with last season, which was the only season I was talking about.

Thanks for coming out though.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, wow, talk about full of crap.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree. The debate was weather Garrison will be a significant improvement from Salo last year, not weather Garrison has more of a future, or is a better deal than Salo this year. The diagram was irrelevant.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last year should be essentially irrelevant - as it's already over. You're clearly ignoring the fact this guy is made like a sheet of glass and isn't getting any younger; good production or not.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bunch of whiney Gillis lovers in here.

Gillis had a chance to make a bold move, and he couldn't get it done. Now he's making an excuse. That deserves some amount of criticism, whether you like to admit it or not.

Meeting with a player, and actually making an offer are two different things. It sounds like he thought Nashville would match for sure, so he planned to offer him a 1 year offer sheet so that he would remain in Nashville until he was a free agent. It didn't work, and now he missed out.

I think I should be allowed to criticize our GM when he doesn't get things done. This doesn't always have to be a Gillis love fest.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The diagram is entirely relevant as it plays into the overall decision on whether Salo would be as effective this coming season as he has been in previous seasons, especially when you compare to a 10 year younger and way more physical body in Garrison and equivalent point production. In my opinion, Garrison is hands down above and beyond what Salo would be able to provide next season if for no other reason than he stands a much higher chance of playing in all 82 games.

The logic? Not having to miss time due to injury means consistent playing time, it means not having to catch up to speed with the rest of the team. Is it likely that Garrison might be injured during the season? Sure, but a lot less likely than Salo. Consistent time in the line up equals a higher chance at increased point production.

There are nothing but positives when considering Garrison over Salo.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

De Niro, you're making an absolute fool of yourself. It is so easy to admit to being wrong on the internet: Quit posting.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going forward Garrison will be the better choice, but I said this in my last post, that is not what DeNiro was debating with you.

The impact that Garrison has this year will not likely be a large improvement over the impact that Salo had last year. This means that as a team, we are not largely improved from the previous year. Salo's production or worth in coming years has nothing to do with the argument.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

De Niro, you're making an absolute fool of yourself. It is so easy to admit to being wrong on the internet: Quit posting.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice to meet you too, Rounoush is it?

I don't think I'll quit posting. If you're so offended by what I'm posting, don't read it. You must be new to the internet if you have this much problem with different people's point of views.

And the fact I have almost 10,000 posts and 5,000 plus votes means that people usually like what I have to say more than they don't. Sorry I offended you so deeply though. ;)

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going forward Garrison will be the better choice, but I said this in my last post, that is not what DeNiro was debating with you.

The impact that Garrison has this year will not likely be a large improvement over the impact that Salo had last year. This means that as a team, we are not largely improved from the previous year. Salo's production or worth in coming years has nothing to do with the argument.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't that skewed by the current lack of a minus button?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't that skewed by the current lack of a minus button?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Going forward" includes next year. If at best Garrison proves to be equivalent to Salo NEXT YEAR, how would re-signing Salo over offering a long term contract to Garrison be the better decision?

It just proves the shortsightedness you possess when pragmatically looking at and assessing the given situation. There are more factors present in any business decision, let alone tendering performance based contracts. Potential absolutely has to be one of the criteria, this is an asset management game. You have to plan 5 steps ahead of where you are to ensure you are perennially competitive.

I fail to see how the Canucks are any less competitive with Garrison in the roster next year instead of Salo. I think you need to take a step back and correct your lack of objectivity. Salo has been here for a long time, so he was a known quantity; I get that but you also need to be able to adjust and ride the wave or risk getting sucked under and pulled down by the current.

The point is, from a performance stand point, a business stand point and a future stand point Garrison was all positive. Even if you only look at next season (which IMO is a very narrow sighted stance to take, and an incomplete sample size to base a decision upon), I would have still gone with Garrison.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I got the majority of the upvotes before the minus button was taken away. But regardless, you don't have to give posts pluses, just like you don't have to give them minuses.

If you're getting a plus for every couple posts, chances are you're getting more positive reaction then negative.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said "Going forward Garrison is a better decision, BUT I said this in my last post, that is not what DeNiro was debating with you."

You're not arguing the same thing. Be careful when you read or else you will begin to belligerently argue a point that has nothing to do with it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously you should take a dose of your own medicine. My argument has since evolved to fall in with the scope of what DeNiro was "arguing", so maybe you should let that bone go and actually read the substance of my previous post. In any event DeNiro was providing nothing but Straw Man arguments, and you backing him up like a blind sheep. Neither of you have pointed out any of the merits of any of my posts that in my opinion blatantly blow your opinions out of the water.

This is so futile that I'll cease this argument as there is obviously no point in pointing out facts and coming to logical conclusions, go back to using the magic 8 ball to formulate your mundane and redundant retorts.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.