Cannot Mis-Management Review.

[Aircool]

11 minutes ago, Baggins said:

I'm not a pedophile. I could care less if the players are young or old. I like to watch a team compete and have a chance to win. When you don't have the offensive talent you play a defensive game. I'm not paying to watch a team set up to lose. No enjoyment involved when the game is over in the first period regardless of how many kids are on the team. You may get excited about being down 4-0 after the first period because kids are playing but it's not what I'll pay to watch.

Without ignoring the horrible joke, or even worse attempt at an insult, let's talk about what's realistic with a sports franchise. Sports Franchises do not always contend, they cannot contend for eternity. Certainly not any form of meaningful contention. If you aren't a legitimate cup contender, then your franchise needs improvement, but sometimes there aren't any ways to improve your team, given the age of your assets, and the way that trades occur in the NHL. It's very restrictive. So given that this is true, since it is, you have to accept that for some duration of time, after some period of time, your team will not contend. This is the life-cycle of NHL teams, the fact that this occurs is proof that it helps to reinforce your team long term. So I couldn't care less what you are willing to pay to watch, it HAS TO OCCUR. Regardless of your desires, it has to occur. So given that FACT, who cares what you think about when the team is bad. All I was saying is that I'd rather pay to watch Bo Horvat than 39 year old Jarome Iginla. It's more exciting hockey.

 

Do you really think that the apathy, In terms of viewership for the Canucks this year, has nothing to do with the fact that our most important players are 36 and don't skate well? Yeah they can pass, but it's not high-tempo hockey, and it's still not enough. If it's going to be not enough, it might as well be high energy not enough. 

[R35Godz1lla]

8 minutes ago, Aircool said:

Do you really think that the apathy, In terms of viewership for the Canucks this year, has nothing to do with the fact that our most important players are 36 and don't skate well? Yeah they can pass, but it's not high-tempo hockey, and it's still not enough. If it's going to be not enough, it might as well be high energy not enough. 

So with that said, does it really matter the age of the players bringing the high energy play style?

 

I also feel Willie's " Try Not To Loose " Strategy was a part of the problem with the teams excitement level as well.

[CanadianRugby]

3 hours ago, Baggins said:

I'm not a pedophile. I could care less if the players are young or old.

Wow, Baggins stoops to new levels.  

[Aircool]

3 hours ago, R35Godz1lla said:

So with that said, does it really matter the age of the players bringing the high energy play style?

 

I also feel Willie's " Try Not To Loose " Strategy was a part of the problem with the teams excitement level as well.

No the age doesn't really matter. However, teams are drafting players now with Skating being a priority. We've seen many players who couldn't skate well enough get phased out of the NHL. I believe this is why Jared Cowen doesn't have a team now. He just can't skate (plus injury problems). So the younger generation in general has better skaters than let's say players who are 15+ years older than them. Also, I think it's fair to say that younger players can give that energy level more consistently, not necessary within a game but over the course of a season. If you told me there was a fast-skating, high energy player on our team who brought it every night and he was 35. I've got no issues with that. If he was any good, I would advocate trading such a player in favour of a younger player who could bring similar and so we could acquire more assets.

 

Essentially, I just don't think young players who can't skate are going to make the NHL, regardless of draft position. If they can skate, and are NHL ready, they are probably high draft picks. Or they've been in your system for a while.

[R35Godz1lla]

32 minutes ago, Aircool said:

No the age doesn't really matter. However, teams are drafting players now with Skating being a priority. We've seen many players who couldn't skate well enough get phased out of the NHL. I believe this is why Jared Cowen doesn't have a team now. He just can't skate (plus injury problems). So the younger generation in general has better skaters than let's say players who are 15+ years older than them. Also, I think it's fair to say that younger players can give that energy level more consistently, not necessary within a game but over the course of a season. If you told me there was a fast-skating, high energy player on our team who brought it every night and he was 35. I've got no issues with that. If he was any good, I would advocate trading such a player in favour of a younger player who could bring similar and so we could acquire more assets.

 

Essentially, I just don't think young players who can't skate are going to make the NHL, regardless of draft position. If they can skate, and are NHL ready, they are probably high draft picks. Or they've been in your system for a while.

I think eventually you will stop noticing a huge gap in player speedf ( Okay well, players like McDavid and Larkin will always be faster than the mean ) as everyone will be around the same speed, as like you noted, you either have "New" NHL speed or you don't .

 

We are right in-between the old and the new NHL and its making the new and shiny draft picks seem all that much better ( Not that they are not skilled ) but eventually even your fourth line will have to have speed close to top end players.

 

That said there is still a place ( at least for now ) for high IQ players like the Sedins, the problem is we have 2 "High IQ" older, slower, players that have to play on the same line. It means that you are left with 1 spot for a quick player, who is somehow supposed to not only fore-check, but also get back on defense and cover for the Sedins lack of speed.

 

As I said I think the new era of players is making people go draft crazy, not without reason however, but if everyone just pulled back a bit on the whole "Need More Draft Picks OMGZBBQ11!1!!1" and accepted that speed and size will come once Benning has some time to actually focus on the draft and not on insulating the Sedins everyone will be better of for it.

[Aircool]

8 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

You call me stupid but you obviously can't read. 

I've very clearly stated

 

Only for you to reply with 

 

Did Pits tank the year before to get Crosby? Nope

Was Mario drafted in the last 20 years? Nope

Did penguins get the 2003 first overall by finishing with the best drafting odds? Nope

 

That's three strikes.  You're out. 

 

Why are you bringing up 2003? I don't understand. I mentioned that Pittsburgh was tied for the best odds for the #1 overall pick in 2005. They have since gone on to win the cup. It meets all of your requirements. You're trying to create a flaw in my argument, where none exist. I'm sorry.

 

Quote

Crobsy and Malkin weren't drafted in 2006 or 07.  How can those two be at you stated   "future chances to draft higher end players" if they were drafted prior.  Riddle me that one....Stamkos and Tavares don't have any cups. Meanwhile Toews is the winning-est captain in modern era, he's not replaceable.  Hawks Lucked out by drafting Toews and Kane.  It's that simply.  You don't finished 5th last and draft 1st overall without luck.  You also don't finish 5th last if you're goal is  " You can't plan for luck, you can only plan with probability. You can only put yourself in the best possible situation you think you can, and that situation in terms of draft picks, is the position with the best odds to pick the best player."

I brought up Crosby and Malkin to make the point that Chicago wouldn't be any worse off with those two players. So clearly, I could replace Toews and Kane with Crosby and Malkin and produce a team that is perhaps even better than Chicago has been in the last 10 years. Because those players are better collectively than Toews and Kane. Toews may well be the winning-est captain in the modern era, but that doesn't have nothing to do with the rest of his team. Take Keith and Seabrook off Chicago, and take Hossa off Chicago, and they probably don't win cups. Now, every cup winning team has depth, and many good players. I'm not using that to fault Toews or Kane, I'm just bringing it up to say that it's not like they won the cup on their own. You are giving them all the credit, where they deserve some, and perhaps a lot, but not close to all. That's ridiculous. Would you agree with the statement that Toews is better than Crosby because he's won more cups? Do you think Crosby would have won less cups if you swapped the two? If you don't agree with this, then your point makes no sense. If you do agree with this, then you don't know hockey. Either way, you're screwed. You're being incoherent.

 

Stamkos and Tavares don't have any cups, that wasn't my point, my point is they haven't been fortunate enough to play on Chicago. If Toews was in Tampa Bay, he might have 1 cup, I think he is better than those two players. Would he have three? No. This is certain. Would Stamkos or Tavares have a cup if they were in Chicago? I think most people would vote yes if polled on that question. So part of their reputations have been constructed due to the teammates they have. This is the point I'm trying to make. Do you see how this is consistent with the previous paragraph? My arguments are consistent, yours are not... You just choose to ignore the obvious narrative I'm painting when arguing.

 

I never said that these teams didn't have luck when they win the lottery from a non-last position. Winning the lottery from the last position has luck involved. Luck is beside the point in terms of outcome. I'm talking about PLANNING. You can't plan for luck, but you can give yourself the best odds for it to occur. That is something you can plan to do. You give yourself the best outcome in the event of bad luck, which is to say to be incapable of falling too far due to your starting position. This is the only point I've made on this, clearly you aren't understanding this very simple statement. It's concerning.

 

Quote

Hawks finishing 25th clearly refuted your stupid argument. but yet you keep stating them as the rebuild to model.

I've stated that the Hawks getting Toews and Kane at the timing they got them, was ideal. It was ideal. This is what teams should look to emulate. I've also stated, tens of times now, and you just aren't getting it, that the most reliable way to reproduce this is to be in the a spot with the best odds to receive the high picks required to get such a player with that timing. This is nowhere close to a refutation of my arguments. I think EVERYONE understands that not everything can go according to plan, you don't always win the lottery, some players don't pan out, injuries occur, lots of things in sports ruin plans. Some things have positive benefits, like lucking into a first overall pick. This doesn't refute the best way to plan, it's just the variance that occurs in reality. Nobody can perfectly predict the future, but they can assess their current position and their needs, and their likely outcomes in the futures, and make a plan.

 

Quote

You can say I suck at arguing all you want but you're problem is you don't even know the point you are arguing anymore, it's been a constant flip flop. 

Do you want canucks to finish bottom 3 or not?  Well then they do but yet somehow it's not good enough, because it wasn't planned, so you argument goes on to tanks need to be organized and orchestrated by finishing with the best odds.  I provide examples of how Hawks and Kings rebuild had more reliance on luck than organization, so then your argument changes again..

Look. You are full of $#!7. You are the one who has come into a back-and-forth debate I've been having with someone else, and trying to sidetrack this debate into being about something it was never about. You are the one trying to make this about, whether I want them to finish bottom 3 or not. Not me. You don't know what the argument is about. This debate I've been having with Baggins was about the Intention versus Incompetence of Benning in getting to where we are. Inextricably tied to Intention is Direction. Until this past deadline we had not been rebuilding, our Intention was not to finish outside of the playoffs. Due to incompetence we've finished Bottom-5 twice now. You could argue that this year it was intentional, given the clear signal to rebuild at the deadline, I don't give that much credit, I think this was forced on Benning given our poor performance prior to the deadline, and his short track record. With the intention to rebuild, we would have certainly finished in a better position 3 seasons ago and 2 season ago. This past season, for specificity 1 season ago, I would say there is no definitive way to say we could have finished in a stronger drafting position. In the two season that we could have done so, we've missed out on players like McDavid, Eichel, Matthews, Laine. Regardless of if the timing is right, these are EXTREMELY valuable players, who we'd prefer to have than not have obviously. Our chances at getting them were squandered due to direction of this team. There are other reasons to be critical of the direction of this team in the last 3 years, but I have not made those arguments in this thread. So I won't introduce them now.

 

Quote

Like seriously, what is the point you are trying to make?

That you are bad at arguing, you are wrong in this case (yet again), and that you are introducing irrelevant points into the argument.

 

Quote

You've been a big proponent of teams finishing in the bottom and getting a top pick, but when canucks finally do that, you still find something to cry about. 

Again. Intention/Incompetence. Direction of the team. These are valid criticism of Benning. Whether you like the fact that they are or not, they are valid criticisms. I've not complained about where we are drafting this year, not at any single point have I done that. I'm satisfied with that aspect of our current state as a franchise. So why do you keep bringing it up? I've never mentioned it, so I don't get why you think it's some great rebuttal against my arguments. It's not.

 

Do you seriously believe that a person isn't entitled to make an argument, just because something else they've argued for has been satisfied? I mean, at some point in our entire lives, we've gotten our way once. At least once. Something we've asked someone to do, or advocated for, has been done. So I guess nobody is entitled to ever argue for anything ever again by your logic. God you are stupid.

 

Quote

You're an easy target because you don't provide any factual evidence to support you points.  Everything you state is just that, your own opinion.  All one has to do is spend 2 minutes doing simple research and they can completely destroy you argument,  It's quite amusing watching you unravel, you know you've been beat, so instead of refuting the rebuttal that was presented to you, you try to change the topic onto something that has nothing to do with hockey and whine about my arguing skills. I'll be honest, i don't think of myself to be the best debater, but i'll always be good enough to make you look silly. 

I love how you think I've been beaten... It shows your delusional tendencies. We've been going back and forth for a long time now, whatever I say is going to come to pass, comes to pass. You never end up being right. But you convince yourself that somehow you're ahead in these arguments. I said Gudbranson wouldn't help us, he didn't. I said we wouldn't make the playoffs, we came 2nd last. You thought we'd make the playoffs. You thought we'd make the playoffs last year. You think competing is the right direction... Clearly it's not.. Benning has been doing what you want, not what I want, and trying to compete, yet we've finished in a worse place last year than the year before, and a worse place this year than last year... Why are we trending down if your way of doing things is the correct way? It doesn't make sense. It's not LOGICALLY (and I mean in a binary logic sort of way, true and false statements) possible that you can be correct and the fact that we are getting worse. These two things cannot be simultaneously true. We are getting worse, therefore you are wrong. This is the only possible outcome.

 

I've provided plenty of information to support my arguments. I've provided the state of our franchise, and that it's trending down, not up. I've provided examples of other franchises who have trended up as a result of my way of rebuilding. I've provided logical arguments that you have, forget refuted, not even addressed that support my claims. Such as you are more likely to get a better player drafting #1 than #5. This is just factually true. Given that any player you can pick at #5, you can pick at #1.

You don't do research. That's not what you do. If you think that's what you do, then let me educate you as to why it's not. When one does research, they don't start with a conclusion. This is what you do. You decide that someone is wrong, then you go and find information, that you think supports your conclusion. This is not research, you don't go looking for counter-arguments. Not only that, but you take the information out of context, you don't consider how the information doesn't support your argument. Why do you do this? Because you aren't researching and investigating, you are scouring for information. There is a big difference! HUGE! What you do isn't research, stop trying to fool yourself that it is. You're trying to make yourself feel like you are more academic, and intelligent than you are, you are not. I don't call people stupid, if I don't think they are stupid. I'm an extremely honest person, if you can't tell. I'm also extremely fair.

 

When people disagree with me in a rational, and conservative way, not making outlandish claims about EVERYTHING I've stated, I can at least see their point of view, and say, "I see why you think that, but this is why I disagree." I don't respond if I have nothing to disagree with, I'm not going to congest threads with "patting people on the back " comments... This is what an up-vote is for. The problem with the way you argue, is that you don't pick a small piece of an argument that you disagree with, you try to take the whole thing on. You start arguing against facts, in your battle for intellectual supremacy. Instead of just making a good point. In the process of doing this, you discredit everything you say, because no one can take seriously any person who believes that a #14 pick is more valuable than a #1 pick. Or that finishing #25 in the league is better than finishing #30. You don't get any support by making such stupid claims.

 

 

 

[Aircool]

41 minutes ago, R35Godz1lla said:

I think eventually you will stop noticing a huge gap in player speedf ( Okay well, players like McDavid and Larkin will always be faster than the mean ) as everyone will be around the same speed, as like you noted, you either have "New" NHL speed or you don't .

Agreed. This is the trend. the NHL is a copycat league though, so if someone wins without it, people will start following.

 

Quote

We are right in-between the old and the new NHL and its making the new and shiny draft picks seem all that much better ( Not that they are not skilled ) but eventually even your fourth line will have to have speed close to top end players.

Again agreed. The reality is, if the vast majority if your current team won't be a part of your next contending team, you are in a state that requires rebuilding. You don't have to get draft picks, you could get young (pre-NHL) talent if you like the look of it. But you should be acquiring future assets. I don't see how this is controversial.

 

Quote

That said there is still a place ( at least for now ) for high IQ players like the Sedins, the problem is we have 2 "High IQ" older, slower, players that have to play on the same line. It means that you are left with 1 spot for a quick player, who is somehow supposed to not only fore-check, but also get back on defense and cover for the Sedins lack of speed.

There isn't no place for players like the Sedins. I'm just trying to make the point that on a team whose success is predicated on their elite level of play, if we don't win, they don't bring as much of an entertainment factor on the nights we lose. They are spectacular when they create goals. Some players are exciting when they create opportunities. The force, speed and/or agility of their skating that creates a great shot opportunity, that doesn't necessarily have to go in to be exciting. That's all I was saying about the Sedins, I don't think they are incapable of providing value to a hockey team. They are capable of it.

 

Quote

As I said I think the new era of players is making people go draft crazy, not without reason however, but if everyone just pulled back a bit on the whole "Need More Draft Picks OMGZBBQ11!1!!1" and accepted that speed and size will come once Benning has some time to actually focus on the draft and not on insulating the Sedins everyone will be better of for it.

Well I think the thing to point out here is that, why should he be insulating the Sedins? Whatever that means. I'm not quite sure to be honest. They won't be a part of our next cup contending team, what do they have to do with the future? Outside of a mentorship sort of thing while they are here? How does their presence prevent Benning from acquiring draft picks? I think he uses his picks well, so I won't ask how they prevent him from drafting well, that would be nonsense. I'm okay with your conclusion given your premise, I just don't think I agree with the premise here. Again, not that I'm entirely sure what you mean by "insulating the Sedins".

[R35Godz1lla]

11 minutes ago, Aircool said:

There isn't no place for players like the Sedins. I'm just trying to make the point that on a team whose success is predicated on their elite level of play, if we don't win, they don't bring as much of an entertainment factor on the nights we lose. They are spectacular when they create goals. Some players are exciting when they create opportunities. The force, speed and/or agility of their skating that creates a great shot opportunity, that doesn't necessarily have to go in to be exciting. That's all I was saying about the Sedins, I don't think they are incapable of providing value to a hockey team. They are capable of it.

 

I was agreeing with you that we currently have an issue, we have two players of the old cloth that have to be put together. Their Elite IQ can no longer make up for their lack of speed. I agree 100% that its sad to watch the Sedins struggle to create offence and then when they loose the puck, for it to go the other way and off of the rush a goal be scored against us.

 

 

11 minutes ago, Aircool said:

Well I think the thing to point out here is that, why should he be insulating the Sedins? Whatever that means. I'm not quite sure to be honest. They won't be a part of our next cup contending team, what do they have to do with the future? Outside of a mentorship sort of thing while they are here? How does their presence prevent Benning from acquiring draft picks? I think he uses his picks well, so I won't ask how they prevent him from drafting well, that would be nonsense. I'm okay with your conclusion given your premise, I just don't think I agree with the premise here. Again, not that I'm entirely sure what you mean by "insulating the Sedins".

 

I was saying that for the first 2 years of his tenure Benning was seemingly tasked with supplying the team with complimentary players for the Sedin's.

 

When it is the Sedin's who should be complimentary players for the new core of quick and tough players that he has only as of this trade deadline been given the go ahead to focus on obtaining 100%.

 

We are agreeing, I was just fleshing out some of your points with my own take on the current trend of the NHL, the state of the Canucks and pointing out that going forward we will be one of the new age teams once Benning has a chance ( as he now does ) to focus on the future and not the past ( The Sedin's ) .

[ForsbergTheGreat]

18 minutes ago, Aircool said:

Why are you bringing up 2003? I don't understand. I mentioned that Pittsburgh was tied for the best odds for the #1 overall pick in 2005. They have since gone on to win the cup. It meets all of your requirements. You're trying to create a flaw in my argument, where none exist. I'm sorry.

You mean these.... "No team in the last 20 years has tanked/finished the year with the best odds to draft the best player and has won a cup."

unless you can't read in no way does that meet requirements.  please finish 5th grade and then we can maybe we can have a discussion.

18 minutes ago, Aircool said:

I brought up Crosby and Malkin to make the point that Chicago wouldn't be any worse off with those two players. So clearly, I could replace Toews and Kane with Crosby and Malkin and produce a team that is perhaps even better than Chicago has been in the last 10 years. Because those players are better collectively than Toews and Kane. Toews may well be the winning-est captain in the modern era, but that doesn't have nothing to do with the rest of his team. Take Keith and Seabrook off Chicago, and take Hossa off Chicago, and they probably don't win cups. Now, every cup winning team has depth, and many good players. I'm not using that to fault Toews or Kane, I'm just bringing it up to say that it's not like they won the cup on their own. You are giving them all the credit, where they deserve some, and perhaps a lot, but not close to all. That's ridiculous. Would you agree with the statement that Toews is better than Crosby because he's won more cups? Do you think Crosby would have won less cups if you swapped the two? If you don't agree with this, then your point makes no sense. If you do agree with this, then you don't know hockey. Either way, you're screwed. You're being incoherent.

 

Incoherent?  What does replacing players have to do with anything? You can't draft players that are already in the NHL. so you're point means nothing....You clearly said had they not drafted kane or toews they would have had "future chances" to draft higher end players...Crosby is in the past, not the future, either you understand this or you need help.

 

18 minutes ago, Aircool said:

Stamkos and Tavares don't have any cups, that wasn't my point, my point is they haven't been fortunate enough to play on Chicago. If Toews was in Tampa Bay, he might have 1 cup, I think he is better than those two players. Would he have three? No. This is certain. Would Stamkos or Tavares have a cup if they were in Chicago? I think most people would vote yes if polled on that question. So part of their reputations have been constructed due to the teammates they have. This is the point I'm trying to make. Do you see how this is consistent with the previous paragraph? My arguments are consistent, yours are not... You just choose to ignore the obvious narrative I'm painting when arguing.

You're arguments are consistent? Haha, you're using "what if's" to try and justify your point.  haha and you said I was bad at arguing......  

 

18 minutes ago, Aircool said:

I never said that these teams didn't have luck when they win the lottery from a non-last position. Winning the lottery from the last position has luck involved. Luck is beside the point in terms of outcome. I'm talking about PLANNING. You can't plan for luck, but you can give yourself the best odds for it to occur. That is something you can plan to do. You give yourself the best outcome in the event of bad luck, which is to say to be incapable of falling too far due to your starting position. This is the only point I've made on this, clearly you aren't understanding this very simple statement. It's concerning.

 

And I've said the the hawks and Kings rebuild revolved around unplanned LUCK.   

 

18 minutes ago, Aircool said:

I've stated that the Hawks getting Toews and Kane at the timing they got them, was ideal. It was ideal. This is what teams should look to emulate. I've also stated, tens of times now, and you just aren't getting it, that the most reliable way to reproduce this is to be in the a spot with the best odds to receive the high picks required to get such a player with that timing. This is nowhere close to a refutation of my arguments. I think EVERYONE understands that not everything can go according to plan, you don't always win the lottery, some players don't pan out, injuries occur, lots of things in sports ruin plans. Some things have positive benefits, like lucking into a first overall pick. This doesn't refute the best way to plan, it's just the variance that occurs in reality. Nobody can perfectly predict the future, but they can assess their current position and their needs, and their likely outcomes in the futures, and make a plan.

 

Look. You are full of $#!7. You are the one who has come into a back-and-forth debate I've been having with someone else, and trying to sidetrack this debate into being about something it was never about.

 

You are the only one that's been called out by two different people about you flip flopping on you're opinion.  Time to look in the mirror.

 

18 minutes ago, Aircool said:

 

You are the one trying to make this about, whether I want them to finish bottom 3 or not. Not me. You don't know what the argument is about. This debate I've been having with Baggins was about the Intention versus Incompetence of Benning in getting to where we are. Inextricably tied to Intention is Direction. Until this past deadline we had not been rebuilding, our Intention was not to finish outside of the playoffs. Due to incompetence we've finished Bottom-5 twice now. You could argue that this year it was intentional, given the clear signal to rebuild at the deadline, I don't give that much credit, I think this was forced on Benning given our poor performance prior to the deadline, and his short track record. With the intention to rebuild, we would have certainly finished in a better position 3 seasons ago and 2 season ago. This past season, for specificity 1 season ago, I would say there is no definitive way to say we could have finished in a stronger drafting position. In the two season that we could have done so, we've missed out on players like McDavid, Eichel, Matthews, Laine. Regardless of if the timing is right, these are EXTREMELY valuable players, who we'd prefer to have than not have obviously.

 

I could care less about the intent. It ended with the same results, bottom placed finished.  Those players weren't guaranteed to anyone, even by finishing with the best odds.  We put ourselves in a good position to get those players, we didn't get lucky it's as simple as that.  Yet you and your cry baby attitude cry about's Benning plan.  Where I clearly pointed out that the moved benning made are the same moves hawks made in 2006.  Again had canucks got lucky last year and drafted matthews. you and your cry baby attitude wouldn't haven't thing to whine about...  Think about that if you can.  You're hole argument against benning is less about JB ability and more about how the balls dropped.  Wait for lightbulb to turn on...

 

18 minutes ago, Aircool said:

 

Again. Intention/Incompetence. Direction of the team. These are valid criticism of Benning. Whether you like the fact that they are or not, they are valid criticisms. I've not complained about where we are drafting this year, not at any single point have I done that. I'm satisfied with that aspect of our current state as a franchise. So why do you keep bringing it up? I've never mentioned it, so I don't get why you think it's some great rebuttal against my arguments. It's not.

 

You posted an opinion, i stated fact as to why it's a stupid opinion..Followed up by you getting triggered a going off on a off topic rant..  Which I may find funny but it doesn't give you any credibility. It's what a child does when they lose and argument... "oh yeah.....well you're stupid"......Great debating skills......

 

 

18 minutes ago, Aircool said:

Do you seriously believe that a person isn't entitled to make an argument, just because something else they've argued for has been satisfied? I mean, at some point in our entire lives, we've gotten our way once. At least once. Something we've asked someone to do, or advocated for, has been done. So I guess nobody is entitled to ever argue for anything ever again by your logic. God you are stupid.

 

I love how you think I've been beaten... It shows your delusional tendencies. We've been going back and forth for a long time now, whatever I say is going to come to pass, comes to pass. You never end up being right. But you convince yourself that somehow you're ahead in these arguments. I said Gudbranson wouldn't help us, he didn't. I said we wouldn't make the playoffs, we came 2nd last. You thought we'd make the playoffs. You thought we'd make the playoffs last year. You think competing is the right direction... Clearly it's not.. Benning has been doing what you want, not what I want, and trying to compete, yet we've finished in a worse place last year than the year before, and a worse place this year than last year... Why are we trending down if your way of doing things is the correct way? It doesn't make sense. It's not LOGICALLY (and I mean in a binary logic sort of way, true and false statements) possible that you can be correct and the fact that we are getting worse. These two things cannot be simultaneously true. We are getting worse, therefore you are wrong. This is the only possible outcome.

 

We aren't getting worse. We are getting younger and better.  Had canucks not been injured last year we'd have been in the playoff hunt....Guess what next year when the season is over, the canucks will have more points next year than they did this year.....hence we are getting better.

 

18 minutes ago, Aircool said:

I've provided plenty of information to support my arguments. I've provided the state of our franchise, and that it's trending down, not up. I've provided examples of other franchises who have trended up as a result of my way of rebuilding. I've provided logical arguments that you have, forget refuted, not even addressed that support my claims. Such as you are more likely to get a better player drafting #1 than #5. This is just factually true. Given that any player you can pick at #5, you can pick at #1.

You've provided you're weak opinion.  Opinions aren't facts..

 

18 minutes ago, Aircool said:

You don't do research. That's not what you do. If you think that's what you do, then let me educate you as to why it's not. When one does research, they don't start with a conclusion. This is what you do. You decide that someone is wrong, then you go and find information, that you think supports your conclusion. This is not research, you don't go looking for counter-arguments.

Not only that, but you take the information out of context, you don't consider how the information doesn't support your argument. Why do you do this? Because you aren't researching and investigating, you are scouring for information. There is a big difference! HUGE! What you do isn't research, stop trying to fool yourself that it is.

 

haha funny...wrong again, must get tiring.

 

Research

1.  the collecting of information about a particular subject

 

18 minutes ago, Aircool said:

 

You're trying to make yourself feel like you are more academic, and intelligent than you are, you are not. I don't call people stupid, if I don't think they are stupid. I'm an extremely honest person, if you can't tell. I'm also extremely fair.

 

No what you do is you make your conclusion, state your opinion and then freak out when someone points of facts don't agree with you....That is not be fair, that is acting like a child.

 

18 minutes ago, Aircool said:

When people disagree with me in a rational, and conservative way, not making outlandish claims about EVERYTHING I've stated, I can at least see their point of view, and say, "I see why you think that, but this is why I disagree." I don't respond if I have nothing to disagree with, I'm not going to congest threads with "patting people on the back " comments... This is what an up-vote is for. The problem with the way you argue, is that you don't pick a small piece of an argument that you disagree with, you try to take the whole thing on. You start arguing against facts, in your battle for intellectual supremacy. Instead of just making a good point. In the process of doing this, you discredit everything you say, because no one can take seriously any person who believes that a #14 pick is more valuable than a #1 pick. Or that finishing #25 in the league is better than finishing #30. You don't get any support by making such stupid claims.

Support by whom? You speak for the people?  As far as I can tell, all you ever do is freak out as you are far from rational... it just takes a quick look at the last two pages to see that.  

[skategal]

Forgive me if I don't quote the previous posters.  My opinion based on what I've read in the past half hour over a couple of different threads...it's going to be a long summer   

[The Lock]

2 hours ago, Aircool said:

You're trying to create a flaw in my argument, where none exist. I'm sorry.

Okay. I wasn't going to say anything but this is one of the most out of touch with reality statements I have ever heard on this forum. It's one thing to be confident about one's answer, but to be confident to the point where you actually think there's "no flaw in my argument"? Not that I expect you to think you're over-confident as there's "no way you can be over-confident" right?

 

One who is good at debating listens to what the other debater is saying and comes up with counter arguments. "There's no flaw in my argument" is not a good counter argument.

 

Debating is about learning as well. No argument is ever safe from criticism. No argument is ever 100% bulletproof. Even science has changed drastically over the past millennium. If we were back in time when Galileo was persecuted for claiming the world wasn't flat, he was persecuted by a bunch of people going "our argument is not flawed!"

 

At least you're sorry unlike the persecutors I guess. lol

[Gaudette Celly]

11 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

You're an easy target because you don't provide any factual evidence to support you points.  Everything you state is just that, your own opinion. 

189 must be related, as are most tankers, it seems.  The logic runs shallow once it is given the light of historical fact.

[CanadianRugby]

2 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

And I've said the the hawks and Kings rebuild revolved around unplanned LUCK.   

At one point in their rebuild, the Blackhawks had 8 draft picks in the first 2 rounds over a 2 year period.

 

When they drafted Kane & Toews they had 11 draft picks in the top 100.  

 

Compare that to Vancouver's "rebuild" over the last 2 seasons.  

2 draft picks in the first 2 rounds.

4 draft picks in the top 100.

 

Every great team has some luck to help them out but Chicago picked 4 times for every Canuck pick in the first 2 rounds in their rebuild.  To say that their rebuild was all luck means you don't know anything about their rebuild.  If they relied on luck and were just happy to get Kane & Toews they wouldn't be any better than the Oilers were with their top picks.

[Aircool]

1 hour ago, The Lock said:

Okay. I wasn't going to say anything but this is one of the most out of touch with reality statements I have ever heard on this forum. It's one thing to be confident about one's answer, but to be confident to the point where you actually think there's "no flaw in my argument"? Not that I expect you to think you're over-confident as there's "no way you can be over-confident" right?

 

One who is good at debating listens to what the other debater is saying and comes up with counter arguments. "There's no flaw in my argument" is not a good counter argument.

 

Debating is about learning as well. No argument is ever safe from criticism. No argument is ever 100% bulletproof. Even science has changed drastically over the past millennium. If we were back in time when Galileo was persecuted for claiming the world wasn't flat, he was persecuted by a bunch of people going "our argument is not flawed!"

 

At least you're sorry unlike the persecutors I guess. lol

I didn't mean my entire argument. I meant my statement that Pittsburgh was tied for the best odds for a #1 overall pick, got that player, and won the cup. It meets all of his criteria. There is no flaw in that statement, he's trying really hard to make one. There just isn't. Given the criteria he expected, it was a flawless statement. If he had changed his criteria, that example would not work. He tried to do this after the fact, by saying that he meant the team who finished last the year before. Not what he said though. It was undoubtedly a flawless claim. If you disagree, tell me how it wasn't.

 

It's all fine and good to tell someone, "Hey, you could be wrong." It's incredibly pathetic to say that while not showing how. Anybody "could be wrong". Am I wrong? This is all that matters. The answer to that question is no. If I was wrong, you would have already said how by now. Instead of the cheap statement you've made instead.

 

Also, it's entirely, ENTIRELY, scummy to quote just that tiny segment of my post without the context. Doesn't need to be the whole post, but to not quote the context is just scummy. You are a pathetic person.

[Aircool]

3 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

You mean these.... "No team in the last 20 years has tanked/finished the year with the best odds to draft the best player and has won a cup."

unless you can't read in no way does that meet requirements.  please finish 5th grade and then we can maybe we can have a discussion.

Exactly. "with the best odds to draft the best player and has won a cup." You know, the entire portion not bolded that has the most significance. You're trying to create some sort of "Yeah, but that doesn't count" out of it. It does count, oh well. It's not really a big deal. So your statement changes from 1 team instead of no team. Your point really isn't any better/worse as a result of this change. It still sucks. It says a lot about you that you are being so childish as to not concede that your statement was incorrect.

 

The reason your argument still sucks, is because you asking for a subset of a subset of a subset of a subset. You are asking me to consider ONLY the last 20 years, and ONLY teams that finished 30th in the league, and ONLY teams that then won the lottery, and ONLY teams that then won a cup. What a small sample size, despite the fact that your claim was wrong, it's not particularly brave to make such a claim. Which is why the argument sucks. It's like me asking you to prove that playoff contention is a good way to build a cup contender by stating me a team that has made the playoffs 25 years in a row, and wins the cup in the 25th year. Well only 4 teams have ever had a playoff streak of 25+ years. Two of them never won a cup in those 25+ years. The only one to win a cup after year 5 was the Red Wings, who won 4, but none after year 18.

 

Quote

Incoherent?  What does replacing players have to do with anything? You can't draft players that are already in the NHL. so you're point means nothing....You clearly said had they not drafted kane or toews they would have had "future chances" to draft higher end players...Crosby is in the past, not the future, either you

understand this or you need help.

Are you trying to be this disingenuous. You said that these players were not replaceable. I can name other players who can put in the same quality or better quality of performance. Clearly they are "replaceable". Toews is not the best player in the league, he's replaceable. Same for Kane. It's not about drafting Sidney Crosby who went in a draft before Toews. It's about saying that if you swapped in a comparable player for Toews, you'd still be able to win a cup. Again, inventing arguments I'm not making.

 

Quote

You're arguments are consistent? Haha, you're using "what if's" to try and justify your point.  haha and you said I was bad at arguing......  

I'm just giving you examples of players without strong teammates, and players with strong teammates. I'm trying to use these examples of such players to illustrate that the team around you contributes to your reputation in the league. Because a player requires a good team to have individual success. Players that have team success often have individual success, and players that have individual success have strong reputations. That was my point, I think you have to give examples of players with good and bad reputations in terms of "winningness" in order to make such a point. Don't you?

 

Quote

And I've said the the hawks and Kings rebuild revolved around unplanned LUCK.   

You can't plan for Luck by definition. Well I mean you could, but it's a fools errand. Luck is something that is not within your control, so isn't all luck unplanned?

 

Quote

You are the only one that's been called out by two different people about you flip flopping on you're opinion.  Time to look in the mirror.

Probably because I'm doing a good job at tearing you apart. I'm getting up-votes, so I guess someone agrees with me too. But oh yeah, one person agreeing with you is proof that I'm flip-flopping or wrong. Okay.

 

Quote

I could care less about the intent. It ended with the same results, bottom placed finished.  Those players weren't guaranteed to anyone, even by finishing with the best odds.  We put ourselves in a good position to get those players, we didn't get lucky it's as simple as that.  Yet you and your cry baby attitude cry about's Benning plan.  Where I clearly pointed out that the moved benning made are the same moves hawks made in 2006.  Again had canucks got lucky last year and drafted matthews. you and your cry baby attitude wouldn't haven't thing to whine about...  Think about that if you can.  You're hole argument against benning is less about JB ability and more about how the balls dropped.  Wait for lightbulb to turn on...

Okay, you don't care about intent, and I do. This is called an impasse. Your refutations against my arguments aren't valid just because you don't consider intent, because my arguments are predicated upon the fact that I do. So you have to argue given that, or refute the value of the intent. You have done neither.

 

Also, Chicago's rebuild didn't start in 2006. It's got nothing to do with how the balls dropped. Their rebuild started in 1999/2000. There were a lot of decisions made prior to 2006. So you aren't comparing Apples to Apples. I will say this again, since you didn't read properly last time, I have at no point expressed discontent with where we have finished this year. My issues in that regard apply to the previous 2 years. Chicago didn't win more than a single #1 overall pick, I'm okay with not getting a lot of them, I still want us to focus on acquiring younger assets, future assets, not assets for the short term. Not trades for players like Erik Gudbranson, or Adam Clendenning, or Linden Vey. It's ideal to get the complimentary pieces first and then add the star players like Chicago. But when a player like Connor McDavid comes along, you throw ideals out the window. If it doesn't work, you trade him for the biggest haul in NHL history. It's worse that we missed on McDavid because we had no business trying to make the playoffs, this team hasn't been a cup contender for 5 years. This is the issue I had. The whole point of my original post in this thread was to say that it's not absurd to critcize Jim Benning's incompetence versus intention and his direction for this team. I've replied to those who were inquiring more, and been more specific. But you are just in here trying to create a narrative out of my posts that I was never crafting. It's got nothing to do with how the balls dropped, not that you'll see that.

 

Quote

You posted an opinion, i stated fact as to why it's a stupid opinion..Followed up by you getting triggered a going off on a off topic rant..  Which I may find funny but it doesn't give you any credibility. It's what a child does when they lose and argument... "oh yeah.....well you're stupid"......Great debating skills......

What does this have anything to do with the portion that is quoted above it in your post? You are the person who brings in off-topic information to try and make your points. It's beyond ridiculous that you are accusing me of this. We are so far past ironic at this point. My claim is that you suck at debating. Proof of this? Telling me that a child insults someone with things like, "oh yeah.... well you're stupid" one paragraph after calling me a cry baby and going on about how I'm whining.

 

Quote

We aren't getting worse. We are getting younger and better.  Had canucks not been injured last year we'd have been in the playoff hunt....Guess what next year when the season is over, the canucks will have more points next year than they did this year.....hence we are getting better.

At the very least it's accurate to say that we were getting worse. 101, 75, 69 points in Benning's tenure as GM. In that order. That's called getting worse. Especially since his objective was to make the playoffs every year. I think our future is brighter now than it was 3 years ago when he started. He is good at drafting, I've always said that. That's not improvement on the NHL roster though. It's gotten worse. Clearly. Next year we may well finish with more than 69 points, we won't be any closer to winning a Stanley Cup though. The difference between 0.0001% and 0.0010% odds of winning a Stanley Cup isn't really worthy of mention is it? Remember, my bar is winning a Stanley Cup, yours is getting bounced in the first round of the playoffs. We just have have different standards. You're okay with mediocrity, I'm not.

 

Quote

You've provided you're weak opinion.  Opinions aren't facts..

News Flash. Arguments require opinion. Almost no raw data is worthy of mention without opinion to put it in context. If you want to forego opinion entirely, then my citation of 101, 75, 69 points is king. Because you can't cite a single thing more factual than that. Any citation of player's point totals, you can't prove they will improve or maintain those. You can't prove that any player will get better and not worse. No one here can definitively prove the best way to rebuild, otherwise some GM would be doing it, and they'd be raking in Stanley Cups. There are almost no concrete facts one can claim to possess in an argument such as this. The "facts" you supposedly state, turn out to be wrong, and meaningless in context. Who cares?

 

Quote

haha funny...wrong again, must get tiring.

 

Research

1.  the collecting of information about a particular subject

Well sure, cite your own chosen definition. It's not like all definitions are identical, they aren't. Besides that, that still doesn't refute my point. My claim is that you cherry-pick information to suit your argument that you've already made. Not collect information about a subject and then formulate an argument.

 

Quote

No what you do is you make your conclusion, state your opinion and then freak out when someone points of facts don't agree with you....That is not be fair, that is acting like a child.

If you think I'm freaking out that explains a lot. I'm not. But, again you'd know better. Right? I just see bad arguments, and I'm willing to debate. I'm 100% willing to debate, so are you, I give you credit for that at least. I don't make a conclusion, state my opinion and then freak out when people provide information they think refutes it. I make a post expressing my opinion. Someone criticizes/argues against it. Which is entirely fair, they disagree, so they debate, I encourage that. If they have a good point, I try to understand it and see it within the context of how I view things. Everyone understands things differently. If their point is wrong, like you almost always are, I just refute it. You don't provide FACTS, name a fact you've provided. Not one. So hypocritical. I think you just can't conceive that you are so far wrong on this, and so far across the line in your behaviour, that you are unwilling to believe that my response isn't a freak out. It's not.

 

Quote

Support by whom? You speak for the people?  As far as I can tell, all you ever do is freak out as you are far from rational... it just takes a quick look at the last two pages to see that.  

I'll let others choose whether they want to chime in on this, if they agree with me. Not my place to speak for them. I've been getting up-votes, that means they like what I've said. 3-5 people isn't everyone. It's not proof of anything, like I said in the last post. Just like your "supposed" other person who is disagreeing with me isn't proof of anything either. I'm not even sure who you are talking about. The Lock? I just decimated him in a debate one night and he's held a grudge ever since. Kind of like you. Funny how the two people I've destroyed most thoroughly are the only ones disagreeing with me in this thread. You say I freak out... You're the one taking it personally. You started this with me, not the other way around. I just responded. Why? Because your criticism was illogical.

 

[Baggins]

13 hours ago, Aircool said:

Without ignoring the horrible joke, or even worse attempt at an insult, let's talk about what's realistic with a sports franchise. Sports Franchises do not always contend, they cannot contend for eternity. Certainly not any form of meaningful contention. If you aren't a legitimate cup contender, then your franchise needs improvement, but sometimes there aren't any ways to improve your team, given the age of your assets, and the way that trades occur in the NHL. It's very restrictive. So given that this is true, since it is, you have to accept that for some duration of time, after some period of time, your team will not contend. This is the life-cycle of NHL teams, the fact that this occurs is proof that it helps to reinforce your team long term. So I couldn't care less what you are willing to pay to watch, it HAS TO OCCUR. Regardless of your desires, it has to occur. So given that FACT, who cares what you think about when the team is bad. All I was saying is that I'd rather pay to watch Bo Horvat than 39 year old Jarome Iginla. It's more exciting hockey.

 

Do you really think that the apathy, In terms of viewership for the Canucks this year, has nothing to do with the fact that our most important players are 36 and don't skate well? Yeah they can pass, but it's not high-tempo hockey, and it's still not enough. If it's going to be not enough, it might as well be high energy not enough. 

Who the hell is talking about "contending"? I'm talking about being "competitive" as opposed to getting "blown out" game after game. I don't mind seeing the team lose a game as long as they're in it. I could care less about the cup either. I care about a full season of games that hopefully culminates in playoff hockey. That's what I pay to see. I won't pay to watch the team get blown out because management intentionally set the team up to lose regardless of how many kids are on the team. Not sure how a 25 point forward is more exciting than a 59 point forward. But really, I pay to watch a team compete, not because of some fanboy crush on a young player.

 

Nobody cared there wasn't any youth on the team when we among the best of the league. Six year waiting list for seasons tickets without any youth. The need for kids for it to be exciting is all in your head. For the fairweather fans in Vancouver it's all about winning not age. Me, I don't care about age. Honestly. They're all just hockey players on a team to me.

 

Honestly, if you need kids or the cup to have any interest in the team, you're watching for the wrong reasons.

[Aircool]

1 hour ago, Baggins said:

Who the hell is talking about "contending"? I'm talking about being "competitive" as opposed to getting "blown out" game after game. I don't mind seeing the team lose a game as long as they're in it. I could care less about the cup either. I care about a full season of games that hopefully culminates in playoff hockey. That's what I pay to see. I won't pay to watch the team get blown out because management intentionally set the team up to lose regardless of how many kids are on the team. Not sure how a 25 point forward is more exciting than a 59 point forward. But really, I pay to watch a team compete, not because of some fanboy crush on a young player.

Hate to break it to you, but players play the pre-season that is the regular season for a chance at winning the cup. Their only other motivation in the regular season is to put up numbers so they get paid. They don't care about the regular season. Nobody does. It's meaningless. This isn't soccer. The real show is the playoffs, and if you don't win the cup, you are a loser. You may play good hockey, but you are a loser. The objective every year for every team is to win the cup, but it's just not always feasible.

 

If you can't understand how up and coming talent is important, and more exciting than aging and underwhelming talent. Then I don't know what to say to you. The fact is that when teams are truly strong nobody does care whose on it, you are right. When they are losing, teams try to sell you hope, "This signing will be a game-changer.. yada yada", and when that doesn't work they start selling you the youth. Why do they do this? Because it works. You can't always win, and fans need something to latch onto, to stay enthusiastic. Young players improve, that's the hope teams sell you when they are bad. The future of the franchise.

 

Quote

Nobody cared there wasn't any youth on the team when we among the best of the league. Six year waiting list for seasons tickets without any youth. The need for kids for it to be exciting is all in your head. For the fairweather fans in Vancouver it's all about winning not age. Me, I don't care about age. Honestly. They're all just hockey players on a team to me.

 

Honestly, if you need kids or the cup to have any interest in the team, you're watching for the wrong reasons.

If you don't understand how youth is the vehicle to arriving at a point in time where there is a six year waiting list for season tickets again, then you know nothing about how professional sports works in capped leagues. It's not about what you don't care about, it's about what gets you what you do care about. If you could guarantee me that we'd win the cup next year with a team that had the average age of 37, I'd sign up for that. Unfortunately, there are no assurances in sports, and you can't predict the outcome of multiple rounds of 7 game playoff series a year in advance. So you have to settle for things that result in over the long term you achieving what you want. So for me and cup contention, that's a young and extremely talented team, that can stay together and improve and contend for an extended period of time. For you and your desire for competitive games that result in a playoff appearance, in order to get this for as many years as possible, you require the same thing. A young and extremely talented team.

 

You and I may have different "Whats" in terms of "What" we want. You aren't considering the "How"... As in "How" to get it. You can't make the playoffs, and you can't be competitive, every year. So you have to be willing to make some concessions to get it as much as or as best as possible.

 

[189lb enforcers?]

Going on 19 pages.

Another Guardian thread saves this forum from boring itself to death.

The irony. 

 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

10 hours ago, Aircool said:

Exactly. "with the best odds to draft the best player and has won a cup." You know, the entire portion not bolded that has the most significance. You're trying to create some sort of "Yeah, but that doesn't count" out of it. It does count, oh well. It's not really a big deal. So your statement changes from 1 team instead of no team. Your point really isn't any better/worse as a result of this change. It still sucks. It says a lot about you that you are being so childish as to not concede that your statement was incorrect.

 

How can a statement be incorrect when your reply clearly doesn't meet the requirements. It was my statement, you don't get to choose what you feel is the most important. I bet you failed a lot of classes in school. Every question you got wrong you likely cried about. "But but I answered the part I thought was most important".  And you call me childish...ha ok.

 

Quote

The reason your argument still sucks, is because you asking for a subset of a subset of a subset of a subset. You are asking me to consider ONLY the last 20 years, and ONLY teams that finished 30th in the league, and ONLY teams that then won the lottery, and ONLY teams that then won a cup. What a small sample size, despite the fact that your claim was wrong, it's not particularly brave to make such a claim. Which is why the argument sucks. It's like me asking you to prove that playoff contention is a good way to build a cup contender by stating me a team that has made the playoffs 25 years in a row, and wins the cup in the 25th year.

 

Actully it nothing like that and the fact that you can't see that shows how clueless you are. Every year a team finishes 30th. You claim finishing last to improve your odds is the best path to rebuild. Well the teams that follow that criteria, in the last 20 year (draft lottery changes odds) ZERO,  I'll repeat zero teams have won the cup. It's shows that being the best tanker in a season hasn't worked out in modern era of hockey. Anyone with a brain can understand that. That is unless you keep your eyes closed and cover your ears while still shouting your point. 

 

even if you try to use Crosby is doesn't suit your arguement because no hockey was played that season. Penguins didn't tank to get him.  Penguins did nothing to improve there odds that's year. hard to improve your odds when you don't play any games. It's not like penguins knew there would be a lock out and they knew the 4 year requirements to have the 6% odds. 

 

So again you lose. 

 

 

Quote

Are you trying to be this disingenuous.

 

You said "future chances". Your words. Your criteria. And then because it doesn't suit your needs you try to change it. And even still. You're playing what ifs. You don't have any proof to state someone else would be just as good.  It's not about being the best player, there's more to winning than just skill. But again. You stated future chances. Stick with it. 

 

You really are the king of flip flopping. Can't hold an argument and stay on point. 

 

Quote

You can't plan for Luck by definition. Well I mean you could, but it's a fools errand. Luck is something that is not within your control, so isn't all luck unplanned?

 

if it's unplanned. Then why the hate on the Canucks and the praise for the hawks interms of obtaining top pick players. The only thing that separates them is luck. You can't blame someone because they didn't get lucky. 

 

Quote

Probably because I'm doing a good job at tearing you apart. I'm getting up-votes, so I guess someone agrees with me too.

 

Oh it's about up votes... that's childish and thy really hold no value. But Hmm if that is the case I'm getting them too and I got more than you. Must mean I'm smarter. 

 

Quote

 

But oh yeah, one person agreeing with you is proof that I'm flip-flopping or wrong. Okay.

 

Proof is you changing your stance when your argument was wrong. Just reread the last 2 pages. Start to finish and see how much your argument has changed. 

 

Quote

Also, Chicago's rebuild didn't start in 2006. It's got nothing to do with how the balls dropped. Their rebuild started in 1999/2000. There were a lot of decisions made prior to 2006. So you aren't comparing Apples to Apples.

And neither are you want you comparing them to the Canucks. Hawks went through 5 coaches in their reubult and spent 9 years. Canucks are what 3 years in and yet you are crying that our gm has not got us to where the hawk were at the end of there rebuild. 

 

Quote

I will say this again, since you didn't read properly last time, I have at no point expressed discontent with where we have finished this year. My issues in that regard apply to the previous 2 years.

 

So last year when we finished 28th overall. And the mcdavid year when we would have had zero chance to our tanked the 3 bottom teams.   For reference. This year Canucks had a terrible year, we had injuries, poor coaching and major slumps, it couldn't have got much worse. But we finished 29th with 69 points.  69 points in 2015 would have got us the 25th worst record. We still ended that year with a future top player in boeser. I'd says that's a pretty good consolation prize. 

 

 

Quote

Chicago didn't win more than a single #1 overall pick, I'm okay with not getting a lot of them, I still want us to focus on acquiring younger assets, future assets, not assets for the short term. Not trades for players like Erik Gudbranson, or Adam Clendenning, or Linden Vey

 

I can agree with you on that, except for guddy. I've never agreed with the vey, Prust or clendenning trade. I never agreed with not getting a return on vbrata or hammer. I don't want to see this team rely on the twins. I want to see more opportunity for the young players and less on the decline vets and ahl fill ins. 

 

Quote

 

. It's ideal to get the complimentary pieces first and then add the star players like Chicago. But when a player like Connor McDavid comes along, you throw ideals out the window.This is the issue I had.

 

We we weren't getting mcdavid. It's as simple as that. The two teams that tanked hard to get him didn't even get him.  This team was not a 50 point team in 2015. We currently aren't that bad. Despite having Major Injuries in 3 of the last 4 years which have made this team appear to be worse off. 

 

 

Quote

The whole point of my original post in this thread was to say that it's not absurd to critcize Jim Benning's incompetence versus intention

 

Are the yotes and sabres incompetent for not getting mcdavid?  Canucks were never in a position to get him. Crying about it is crying over spilled milk. What were you expecting jb to do. Trade all the ntc's, not play anyone that was having success. Oh wait... that's what buffalo did and they still didn't get him. 

If you want to be mad at anyone. Get my a FA. He's the one that hired a new gm and he's the one who set the direction. He could have easily kept Gillis and torts and hoped for another train wreck season. JB was just an employee doing what his boss was telling him to do. 

 

 

Quote

 Remember, my bar is winning a Stanley Cup, yours is getting bounced in the first round of the playoffs. We just have have different standards. You're okay with mediocrity, I'm not.

That's everyone's bar but nothing you've provided guarentees a cup or even turning the team into a contender. 

 

Quote

 

News Flash. Arguments require opinion. Almost no raw data is worthy of mention without opinion to put it in context. If you want to forego opinion entirely, then my citation of 101, 75, 69 points is king.

That is fact. You are right, in terms of standings Canucks have gotten worse. There is not rebuttal to that. No opinion can disprove that fact. 

 

 

Quote

If you think I'm freaking out that explains a lot. I'm not.

 

Calling people stupid and pethetic is just an every day occurrence then?  Maybe your not freaky out but then you have major angry issues. 

 

 

Quote

Not one

 

 

Fact

Quote

Kings between 2007-09 finished 26,29,25

Hawks between 2004-07 finished 29,28,25

Meanwhile canucks in 3 of the last 4 years are 24,28,29.

Fact

Quote

No team in the last 20 years has tanked/finished the year with the best odds to draft the best player and has won a cup.

 

 

Quote

I'll let others choose whether they want to chime in on this, if they agree with me. Not my place to speak for them. I've been getting up-votes, that means they like what I've said.

 

And as I said. I've been getting up votes too. But even Guardian gets upvotes time to time, it doesn't mean a whole lot.

 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

6 minutes ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Going on 19 pages.

Another Guardian thread saves this forum from boring itself to death.

The irony. 

 

he's good for creating entertainment.  Typically lays the seeds, stays for a couple of pages, and then watches it as others make it burn,