(Article)Botchford:Luongo's level of happiness isn't what matters, it's whether or not he's motivated

[Brick Tamland]

Hey Botchford, you're still not relevant...

[Dogbyte]

For all the morons that keep whining about a source. "When did Luongo ever request a trade, blah, blah, blah."

"I understand where he’s coming from. He requested a trade after the 2012 season. He anticipated he was going to be traded."

[oldnews]

Poor Botchford....gettting too much hate on CDC...

(...he's earned all of it).

This particular article - actually appears as though Botchford is making a run at amateur journalism...

The only real issues I have with it... unsubstantiated claims about nixing a few deals to Toronto - and he's done this repeatedly - claimed Luo nixed a deal for Schenn - a claim he later retracted. He loves to tell stories as if he's been inside every meeting, a third party to all the calls with Toronto, etc (but his articles are always hopelessly devoid of credible sourcing/documenting his claims)... if there's something Botchford has established, it's that he's extremely lose with information - what he hasn't established - any real credibility to expect us to buy a word of it. He's a lazy journalist who's always jumping the gun.

The other part...."Luongo told people privately it didn't change much".... Again, for a guy who postures as a journalist, he certainly has no concept of what a usable source is, let alone where the boundaries of credibility lay/lie...

But, for a change, he's subsituted a few reasonable points (ie who cares how "happy" Luongo is) where he usually just published straight up amateurish, sensationalized scribbling, mixed in amongst the posturing-as-if-he-knows-what-he's-talking-about....

[oldnews]

For all the morons that keep whining about a source. "When did Luongo ever request a trade, blah, blah, blah."

Here it is or you could just use common sense you freaking numbskulls.

Wow that feels better.

[Benchsplinters]

Doesn't matter if he is happy?

[Dogbyte]

Yeah - was a bit surprised that Gilman let that one out of the bag - imo that is where he actually "tripped" - not a lot to be gained at this point by outing that.

But, on the other hand, a lot of people were using Luongo's postgame interview after the playoff loss to LA, prematurely, as evidence of a "trade request" - and that was every bit as moronic as denying he wanted out.

[sirwilliam]

I must be going crazy because I didn't find a dam thing offensive about this article.

I think it's just cool to hate Botchford on CDC.

I thought it was a decent read.

[King Heffy]

Didn't you get the memo? In order to post here, you need to irrationally hate Botchford, Bettman and any commentator not named Larscheid.

[Baggins]

What exactly is his out clause? Do the canucks have to trade the guy ? How does it work?

[Baggins]

Honestly, how can any hockey fan not hate Bettman?

[oldnews]

Didn't you get the memo? In order to post here, you need to irrationally hate Botchford, Bettman and any commentator not named Larscheid.

Seriously, it's a trendy / lemming thing to hate Botchford, and it's a bit tiresome.

[oldnews]

Yeah, early on it wasn't substantiated but later it became more or less common knowledge as the saga progressed. What got me is the Luongo ball huggers that would clog up every arguement with this point when that itself was not even really relevant to the actual discussion. This is exactly what my brother does when he knows he's losing an argument, argue semantics or some point losely related that does not allow you to move onto the argument itself.

[aGENT]

Well some of us understand that Bettman is simply the voice of the owners. That's not to say he doesn't make recommendations, but if he actually did as he pleases (as many seem to believe) the owners would be more inclined to fire him than give him a raise and extension. He is after all an employee of the Board of Governors.

[sirwilliam]

Got any substance? Feel free to qualify that weak claim that people are "irrationally" critical of Botchford - if there's a quality article of his that you'd like to post, or even a segment in one, it might carry a little more weight than the nothing you just posted.

[oldnews]

Didn't you get the memo? In order to post here, you need to irrationally hate Botchford, Bettman and any commentator not named Larscheid.

Seriously, it's a trendy / lemming thing to hate Botchford, and it's a bit tiresome.

[Amish Rake Fighter]

I must be going crazy because I didn't find a dam thing offensive about this article.

I think it's just cool to hate Botchford on CDC.

I thought it was a decent read.

[sirwilliam]

You whiffed on the meaning of "Straw man".

I simply asked you to qualify your overzealous defense of Botchford - something you apparently also whiffed on. There's no shortage of criticisms of Botchford that are fairly well articulated on these boards - it's just that he's made such a monotonous cliche of himself that simple dismissals now seem to suffice.

[oldnews]

I guess you were arguing that the hate isn't irrational? If so you'd be better served to explain why you don't like this article, rather than asking me to prove a point I didn't make.

[Canada Hockey Place]

I just think 9 / 10 people on here trashing Botch couldn't articulate why. Maybe you can.

[sirwilliam]

You're mistaking being critical for "hate" (which is a "tiresome" embellishment itself) - and what you call 'jumping all over you' was simply a suggestion that you qualify what you said.

You evidently didn't read my posts if you missed why I didn't find the article particularly insightful - it's only a two page thread at this point so I can't be bothered to rehash - (although ironically, I did credit it with being a step up on his usual quick and easy scribblings).