tas

I'd argue mode is the only logical form of average to use, and I really doubt that guy is using it.

how are we even defining average? mean? median? is that sensible?

sure, but juicing your stats to try to strengthen your point is what shyster's with bad arguments do.

did this goof omit the largest defenceman from all the other teams he referenced before working out their averages, too?

teams didn't take garland for free when they thought they could bend van over and actually get paid to take him. they'll likely take him for free either now or later in the summer after missing out on their targets. I still don't think they're going to give up an asset for him.

no, his value should now be considered neutral instead of negative. it still isn't positive.

full disclosure: I haven't read the posts you're responding too. I also agree that garland's value is low, by and large because he kinda sucks. that said, his value is higher now than it was before oel was bought out. when teams knew that the canucks HAD to move salary, they could pressure them to add a sweetener to the deal to move garland out. now that the canucks are in a position to tell other teams to f*** themselves and just keep the guy, they could probably offload him for future considerations.

making up stories in your head based on nothing is a symptom of psychopathy.

you think he'd risk not only his career but the hugely public fallout over some tiny fraction of an agent's 5% cut? get real. not to mention the agent risking his accreditation and reputation. fantasyland. edit: not to mention, your economic model is broken. what's in it for the agent? he only cares that his client is getting a bigger ticket because it means his cut goes up. if he has to pay out of his own pocket to make that happen, he's not getting anywhere.

who do you allege was providing these kickbacks to benning? whose pocket was that money coming out of?

I mean, you gave yourself a 1 in 5 chance of being right there, nostradamus.

so how's CDC doin' today?

trade would have involved a combination of schneider/kesler/edler/bourdon/raymond/1st round pick. not all those pieces, but most of them.

as a deluded fantasy perhaps. the legal battle with gagliardi was over in '09, but francesco was very clearly running the team all throughout. who else would have been? gagliardi has owned and operated the dallas stars since 2011. surely you remember the drama of gillis's hiring, and nonis getting the axe for refusing to trade the farm for brad richards?

who ran the team between 2006 when francesco gained 100% ownership and 2012? who was that running the press conferences firing nonis and hiring gillis way back in '08?

what you understand is wrong.

we'll have to agree to disagree.

linden looks way older imo

tryamkin sucks and hopefully the canucks wouldn't be dumb enough to play him on a top pair. it's pretty simple.

what difference does it make? tkachuk was always destined for a sunny, american tax-haven.

in vancouver, telling the fans not to panic is like telling the clouds not to rain.

what if an army of bears storms the draft floor and ravages everyone in attendance? it's equivalently likely.

pretty predictable. he was about the least impactful player I've ever seen. low risk, medium reward swing and a miss.

my favourite thread of the offseason. it's like death and taxes.

can we combine this with the other one and just have a single nikitolay goldamkin thread instead?