Bigturk8 Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 lol, wow, talk about full of crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanucksFanMike Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 MG has nothing better to do than sit in a studio fielding dumb questions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanGnome Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigturk8 Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wonder__Bread Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigturk8 Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rounoush Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 De Niro, you're making an absolute fool of yourself. It is so easy to admit to being wrong on the internet: Quit posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 De Niro, you're making an absolute fool of yourself. It is so easy to admit to being wrong on the internet: Quit posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BananaMash Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanGnome Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tragoedia Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Isn't that skewed by the current lack of a minus button? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Isn't that skewed by the current lack of a minus button? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigturk8 Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 "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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BananaMash Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanGnome Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoneypuckOverlord Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 I think it's really cool for MIke Gillis to co host the show. Very classy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigturk8 Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimitedEdition Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Gillis has zero personality. What a doorknob. Props for doing the segment though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanGnome Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Dear god man... I agree with alot of what you have to say, but the fact of the matter is that you didn't address what he had to say. You responded with something irrelevant to his direct argument. I don't care about any of the other points that you have made because they have no relation to what was being argued in the first place. You can't change what is being argued and then claim to be right. There is no point in arguing against someone who doesn't understand how to argue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.