Canucks Four Biggest Non-Mistakes Over the Last Year

[Gaudette Celly]

That's debatable. What have we been clamouring for the past 5-10 years? A top 6 winger and an offensive, puck moving defenceman. We got the top 6 winger but still don't have that defenceman

Dude, he's been on the job for ONE YEAR. He stabilized the goaltending, added a top-6 winger and possibly a second, added depth, and turned over half the stale roster already. Not only the tanktards, now you're starting to fall into the ever-complaining camp, too. Maybe you should go play outside and come back in September because you're starting to cast your lot with a bad crowd.

He might have a plan, but overpaying both in trades and contracts can make it harder to build the team as he'd like. Throwing in one asset now might mean a player we don't have in future - even as an asset in another trade.

I'm not sure anyone said Lack was traded at fair value, but rather market value. There's a difference. If the market doesn't understand quite what a player can bring to the table, but we're bound and determined to trade him, we'll get a lower market value then what his actual value might bring.

And now you're contradicting yourself. Lack and Bieksa were traded AT market value which IS their value; there was no "overpayment" or "throwing in of assets" That fabricated narrative is getting old and needs to be put to bed as the nonsense that it is. You of all people should set the example and mini-mod it out of here instead of perpetuating such baseless mythology.

[nuck luck]

 

So you like his drafting and you like the team... why are you complaining?

Yeah, maybe he's overpaid a bit for his players... but he's got a plan. See if he can play it out.

 

I explained it very clearly.

Look, I like the house I live in and I paid a reasonable price for it.... Had I paid more than what the market suggests, secured a mortgage rate higher than the going rate AND I tossed in a smaller condo unit to acquire this house, I wouldn't be as happy. I would still like the house, but I wouldn't be happy with what it cost.

The people who supports bj "suggests" he has a plan.... but nobody is quite clear on what it is. Everyone else questions his moves and doesn't understand what he's doing....and this is the clear majority.

I was on the fence with him, but his moves have made me lose faith. If his plan is to make this team tougher to play against and he's willing to give up our future of picks and prospects, than the plan isn't so good is it?

[nuck luck]

 

I for one was extremely proud of our bounce back season last year. Obviously it hurt losing to Calgary (I have a lot of family there and there was a lot of sh*t talking before that series began) but I didn't have a doubt in my mind we'd win in 7 against them. I was shocked at the lack of "oomph" we had when it mattered. For whatever it's worth, changing up this team even more is most welcome, and with the amount of expiring contracts and cap opening up, I'm already looking toward to '16-'17.

 

TBH...I wasn't surprised at all. Not that I would have been disappointed if we didn't make it because the last thing I wanted was to get in the Playoffs and be knocked out in the first round.

However, after going through a full season with Torts who completely sh!t the bed...and having a serious shot at making the Playoffs the same year, I expected a better result without Torts at the helm. Not many coaches could have handled a team worse than what Torts did. I wasn't honored or proud...just "ok" about making the Playoffs, impress me with series win against a serious contender and I'd have been proud. Lose out to a team like Calgary...makes me wish we had a chance for an earlier pick.

Every year we lose out a series and the team feels that we need to adjust the following year to win.... and this is why we never win. We spend half a decade emulating a team from the past and fail to adjust to the present. As much as I like Gilles, he fell into the same trap after losing to Boston. Had we stuck with our objective and went with skill and speed after Boston, we would have probably had a better chance....look at the serious contenders now.

And this "oomph" that everyone talks about.... Ferland IS NOT a difference maker! If so, where was he against the Ducks? For some reason....every Playoffs we're in, the refs let players get away with borderline hits against us and when we do start hitting back, they penalize us. Once we start accumulating mass penalty minutes, naturally, our aggression diminishes.

The series against Calgary was not lost because of "oomph"...we lost it because we had a rookie coach who wouldn't use the advantage of line match ups and wanted to stick with playing 4 lines evenly.

[elvis15]

Dude, he's been on the job for ONE YEAR. He stabilized the goaltending, added a top-6 winger and possibly a second, added depth, and turned over half the stale roster already. Not only the tanktards, now you're starting to fall into the ever-complaining camp, too. Maybe you should go play outside and come back in September because you're starting to cast your lot with a bad crowd.

And now you're contradicting yourself. Lack and Bieksa were traded AT market value which IS their value; there was no "overpayment" or "throwing in of assets" That fabricated narrative is getting old and needs to be put to bed as the nonsense that it is. You of all people should set the example and mini-mod it out of here instead of perpetuating such baseless mythology.

You're really missing the plot with this.

For one, market value doesn't equal other kinds of value at all times. Crabcakes seemed to describe that pretty well above you, and Benning rating Lack with one value while getting another should be further proof of that. Then there's the 2nd that was reportedly on offer but the deal was refused, so shouldn't that be market value? Just because Benning turned it down? And with Bieksa, he also had a better offer which Benning refused trying to get closer to what he thought Bieksa's value was only to accept a lesser offer later when he couldn't.

It's not a fabricated narrative. Teams give up too much in trades all the time to make a deal go through. Sometimes it's just one is a better negotiator than the other, other times it's one is more motivated to complete the deal. Benning has, in my and others opinions, given up too much in a number of deals for what he got back - even when his hand was forced - and it makes it harder for him to build a successful team.

But for the first paragraph, I'm not that sure he needed to stabilize our goaltending. As I've said, Vrbata was a great addition and I have no issues with the Baertschi trade (I assume that's who you mean by possibly a second). I've been ok with making moves to get assets back for players we were going to lose otherwise, except for when he failed to do so like with Matthias. I've actually liked his drafting even if they weren't choices I would have made, but you can't ignore situations where he possibly could have done better.

We could have gotten Greiss perhaps, or gone after Hiller who's making $1.5M less than Miller. Who specifically isn't as important, since so long as Lack was still developing and we were in most games, some more losses would have only worked in our favour draft day. If we aren't truly going to compete for a cup, why get a goalie like Miller who is taking a spot from a younger goalie and isn't a part of the future?

Every little thing counts when you're trying to re-tool on a team with aging vets and a prospect pool that's just started being rebuilt. It's not just about doing a lot, it's about doing the right things. And choosing a path (like signing a $6M older goalie and trading away a young developing one) that blocks the possibility of getting the other pieces needed.

But I've said this in several recent posts, so I don't think explaining it another time will help anyone who doesn't have it already. If you're still confused, go back and read the thread of this particular conversation from the start, and get the context it was started in.

[Winter Soldier]

You're really missing the plot with this.

For one, market value doesn't equal other kinds of value at all times. Crabcakes seemed to describe that pretty well above you, and Benning rating Lack with one value while getting another should be further proof of that. Then there's the 2nd that was reportedly on offer but the deal was refused, so shouldn't that be market value? Just because Benning turned it down? And with Bieksa, he also had a better offer which Benning refused trying to get closer to what he thought Bieksa's value was only to accept a lesser offer later when he couldn't.

A report isn't a trade, boyo.

What someone says on was offer should in no way determine value. Hard to tell from the high horse, I'm sure.

[nuck luck]

 

Dude, he's been on the job for ONE YEAR. He stabilized the goaltending, added a top-6 winger and possibly a second, added depth, and turned over half the stale roster already. Not only the tanktards, now you're starting to fall into the ever-complaining camp, too. Maybe you should go play outside and come back in September because you're starting to cast your lot with a bad crowd.

And now you're contradicting yourself. Lack and Bieksa were traded AT market value which IS their value; there was no "overpayment" or "throwing in of assets" That fabricated narrative is getting old and needs to be put to bed as the nonsense that it is. You of all people should set the example and mini-mod it out of here instead of perpetuating such baseless mythology.

 

He's been on the job one year and he immediately signs an older declining goaltender to a monstrous contract (I'd be happy with Miller on a reasonable contract), trades away a top 4 D man for peanuts, doesn't re-sign a fully capable and young Santorelli in order to trade away a 2nd round pick for another teams unproven prospect (that wasn't good enough to make room for). There's a ton of other examples where he disappointed, but the above mentioned were his immediate moves...

I understand your need for "change", but that change needs to come at a reasonable price. We don't trade away our future or fill our current/future cap space by addressing areas that are not the biggest issues.

Signing Vrbata doesn't offset everything else...

[nuck luck]

 

Seriously? Someone is only worth what another team will pay for him period. If there's 29 other teams out there and the most anyone is willing to pay is a 3rd and a 7th then regardless of how any fan values him, that's his actual value (this coming from a huge Lack fan). It works that way with everything in the world. The value is set at what someone else will pay for it. You can ask for more, but that's not the true assessed value.

 

Seriously? Someone is only worth what another is willing to pay him period? So you think that a persons ability to negotiate doesn't play a factor at all? I'm afraid that it doesn't work that way with everything in the world....maybe when your buying a car or something similar.

From what you said, there are no losers or winners in negotiations because in the end... the player is only worth what another team paid for him. ummm....ok.

In the real world, there's multiple factors involved in negotiating at higher levels. If you are saying that a 5 year old could have gotten the same deals that benning did than I would agree with you. Although I think that benning would fair better than a 5 year old....slightly.

[Junkyard Dog]

You're really missing the plot with this.

For one, market value doesn't equal other kinds of value at all times. Crabcakes seemed to describe that pretty well above you, and Benning rating Lack with one value while getting another should be further proof of that. Then there's the 2nd that was reportedly on offer but the deal was refused, so shouldn't that be market value? Just because Benning turned it down? And with Bieksa, he also had a better offer which Benning refused trying to get closer to what he thought Bieksa's value was only to accept a lesser offer later when he couldn't.

It's not a fabricated narrative. Teams give up too much in trades all the time to make a deal go through. Sometimes it's just one is a better negotiator than the other, other times it's one is more motivated to complete the deal. Benning has, in my and others opinions, given up too much in a number of deals for what he got back - even when his hand was forced - and it makes it harder for him to build a successful team.

But for the first paragraph, I'm not that sure he needed to stabilize our goaltending. As I've said, Vrbata was a great addition and I have no issues with the Baertschi trade (I assume that's who you mean by possibly a second). I've been ok with making moves to get assets back for players we were going to lose otherwise, except for when he failed to do so like with Matthias. I've actually liked his drafting even if they weren't choices I would have made, but you can't ignore situations where he possibly could have done better.

We could have gotten Greiss perhaps, or gone after Hiller who's making $1.5M less than Miller. Who specifically isn't as important, since so long as Lack was still developing and we were in most games, some more losses would have only worked in our favour draft day. If we aren't truly going to compete for a cup, why get a goalie like Miller who is taking a spot from a younger goalie and isn't a part of the future?

Every little thing counts when you're trying to re-tool on a team with aging vets and a prospect pool that's just started being rebuilt. It's not just about doing a lot, it's about doing the right things. And choosing a path (like signing a $6M older goalie and trading away a young developing one) that blocks the possibility of getting the other pieces needed.

But I've said this in several recent posts, so I don't think explaining it another time will help anyone who doesn't have it already. If you're still confused, go back and read the thread of this particular conversation from the start, and get the context it was started in.

How they hell do you know that he had a better offer for Bieksa? Who told you that? We traded that pick anyway so why does that even matter? SJS easily could of changed their minds or low balled for Bieksa. You can't just be so certain of things you don't even know.

Hindsight on Matthias. He figured that Matthias would continue his stellar play from before the deadline and he didn't. They might of been planing on re-signing him but his played after the deadline might swayed them otherwise.

The goal is to create a new core while shedding the old one. We want to stay competitive during this time in order to develop our youngsters in a good environment. They want Markstrom to be a part of that new core and they believe having a veteran goalie like Miller is not only good for keeping us competitive and good to have for Markstrom's development.

We were keeping Miller either way and his cap isn't an issue as we are going through a transition where we are going to shed veterans in order to make room for our young players. Miller is good enough to win us games which in turn keeps us competitive.

Management chose Markstrom over Lack to be part of the new core. Miller is just here for a part of the transition. Lack got us Brisebois, a 3rd, which was market value.

Also again management saw Clendening as an expendable piece, which he was, seeing as we have depth defensively with guys that have similar ceilings. Subban and Hutton are examples of two OFD we have in our system both of which will be in Utica next season. Clendening also had mobility issues so I for one am not upset at his departure.

They possibly chose Corrado over Clendening but they certainly are confident in the depth we have defensively. Clendening helped us get Sutter who Benning considers a "foundational" player which to me means a player who will be here for the entire transition between old core and new core while possibly being a part of the new core.

We have the old core(Sedins, Elder, etc.), the transitional players(Vbrata, Miller etc.) and the players who we want to be the new core(Horvat, Baertschi, etc.). When looking at the big picture we shouldn't be worrying about the transitional guys unless they aren't doing their job well enough which we will have to wait for since the puck hasn't dropped.

You say every little thing counts but you can probably go through every GM and find little things they could of done differently. No need to be so high-strung over the little things, they are of little significance in the grand scheme of things.

[falcon45ca]

#1 Non-mistake is not listening to CDC.

[Baggins]

He's been on the job one year and he immediately signs an older declining goaltender to a monstrous contract (I'd be happy with Miller on a reasonable contract), trades away a top 4 D man for peanuts, doesn't re-sign a fully capable and young Santorelli in order to trade away a 2nd round pick for another teams unproven prospect (that wasn't good enough to make room for). There's a ton of other examples where he disappointed, but the above mentioned were his immediate moves...

I understand your need for "change", but that change needs to come at a reasonable price. We don't trade away our future or fill our current/future cap space by addressing areas that are not the biggest issues.

Signing Vrbata doesn't offset everything else...

is the top four d-man you're referring to Garrison or Bieksa? Doesn't really matter, the common opinion on this board was neither was worth more than a bag of pucks. Remember Jason "can't hit the net" Garrison? I find it quite funny how so many just want a certain player gone and when it happens complain we didn't get enough for him.

Millers deal isn't monstrous by any stretch of the imagination. He's certainly not making elite money for a goalie. Riinne signed a seven year deal at $7m per before the last lockout when the cap was lower and with it known the cap would be going down. Lundqvist signed a seven year deal a year ago with a $8.5m cap hit that starts at $11m and ends at $5.5m when he's 39. Those are are "monstrous deals". And those guys were re-signings as opposed to going to the open market where other teams are making offers. Millers deal was a reasonable one.

Is Vey younger than Santorelli? I think he is. So we successfully got younger. This has been said many times but according to Linden, Santo was offered a one year deal that he turned it down wanting a multi-year. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't have offered a multi-year deal to a guy that was begging for a job the year before and then spent half the season injured. He wound up signing a one year deal anyway but by then we had acquired Vey which meant his spot was gone. No great loss as far as I'm concerned. It's not like Santo was going to become more than he already was.

I have no problem trading a 2nd for Vey. A 2nd has less than a 30% chance of even playing 200 nhl games let alone winding up a decent, good, or impact player. Even at that they require 3 or 4 years of development. Getting a player that's already gone through that development and had success is a far better gamble than actually using that pick. Vey was a rookie give him a chance.

[KeslerPlaysLikeACanadian]

He might have a plan, but overpaying both in trades and contracts can make it harder to build the team as he'd like.

It must be overpayment if you say it is. Way to work from a solid premise.

[KeslerPlaysLikeACanadian]

I'm not sure anyone said Lack was traded at fair value, but rather market value. There's a difference.

Right. The market doesn't set the value. Your expectations set the value. You must be an economics professor.

[KeslerPlaysLikeACanadian]

From what you said, there are no losers or winners in negotiations because in the end... the player is only worth what another team paid for him. ummm....ok.

Yes. Worth is determined in a market. Worth is the measure of what someone will pay on a given day. What exactly do you think the term "worth" means?

[Fred65]

I think it's entirely fair to say Cap management is a problem and most likely the main problem. When you look at some quality teams like Winnipeg and Nashville by comparison have a full roster and still have $12+ million space available it kind of highlight where vcr is falling down

[KeslerPlaysLikeACanadian]

I think it's entirely fair to say Cap management is a problem and most likely the main problem. When you look at some quality teams like Winnipeg and Nashville by comparison have a full roster and still have $12+ million space available it kind of highlight where vcr is falling down

Does capspace help you win games? When I look at those teams, I see garbage players up and down the lineup, and I am thankful that our ownership isn't cheap.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

I think it's entirely fair to say Cap management is a problem and most likely the main problem. When you look at some quality teams like Winnipeg and Nashville by comparison have a full roster and still have $12+ million space available it kind of highlight where vcr is falling down

Canucks don’t have a cap management problem. Canucks have a ton of veteran players nearing the end of their long term deal. That’s what happens when you spend years at the top trying to win with the same core you end up locking them up long term and it ends up hurting you a few years when all the players start aging, So there are not in the same position as canucks.

Take the kings for example, in 4 years they will still have

Gaborik 37 @ 6 cap hit

Brown 35 @ 7.25 cap hit

Quick 35 @ 7 cap hit

Carter 34 @ 7 cap hit

Kopitar & Doughty get raises in that time they will 29 & 31 making 7.5-8+

They will still have:

Martinez, 30 @ 4 cap hit

Muzzing 29 @ 4 cap hit

That’s not even including what happens with the Richards situation. The could still have him locked up @ 5.2 as well

Take the Ducks

In 5 years they will have 3 players all over 35 taking up 23.75 cap.

Take the Hawks

In 5 years they will have 6 players all over 32 taking up 42.3 cap. That includes a 41 year old Hossa

Take the Penguins

In 7 years the will have 4 players over the age of 34 taking up 32.25 cap

It’s really just a part of all teams that go all in when there core is their prime, they lock them up to long term contracts to keep the cap hit relatively low. Once those players hit their down turn it looks hard to justify having someone like Gaborik taking a 6 mill cap hit at the age of 37. But it order to give their team the best shot it needs to happen.

The good news for the canucks is, over the next 3 years most of these contracts begin to come off the books, we have over 44 million that can come off the books from UFA’s, 35 million are on player over 30 so a good chance we move on from those deal and replace them with our upcoming youth which must will be on ELC and RF status. Teams that are powerhouses right now will be on the hooks and canucks will have a ton of cap space and to make a strong push. So really cap management isn’t an issue.

[elvis15]

How they hell do you know that he had a better offer for Bieksa? Who told you that? We traded that pick anyway so why does that even matter? SJS easily could of changed their minds or low balled for Bieksa. You can't just be so certain of things you don't even know.

Hindsight on Matthias. He figured that Matthias would continue his stellar play from before the deadline and he didn't. They might of been planing on re-signing him but his played after the deadline might swayed them otherwise.

The goal is to create a new core while shedding the old one. We want to stay competitive during this time in order to develop our youngsters in a good environment. They want Markstrom to be a part of that new core and they believe having a veteran goalie like Miller is not only good for keeping us competitive and good to have for Markstrom's development.

We were keeping Miller either way and his cap isn't an issue as we are going through a transition where we are going to shed veterans in order to make room for our young players. Miller is good enough to win us games which in turn keeps us competitive.

Management chose Markstrom over Lack to be part of the new core. Miller is just here for a part of the transition. Lack got us Brisebois, a 3rd, which was market value.

Also again management saw Clendening as an expendable piece, which he was, seeing as we have depth defensively with guys that have similar ceilings. Subban and Hutton are examples of two OFD we have in our system both of which will be in Utica next season. Clendening also had mobility issues so I for one am not upset at his departure.

They possibly chose Corrado over Clendening but they certainly are confident in the depth we have defensively. Clendening helped us get Sutter who Benning considers a "foundational" player which to me means a player who will be here for the entire transition between old core and new core while possibly being a part of the new core.

We have the old core(Sedins, Elder, etc.), the transitional players(Vbrata, Miller etc.) and the players who we want to be the new core(Horvat, Baertschi, etc.). When looking at the big picture we shouldn't be worrying about the transitional guys unless they aren't doing their job well enough which we will have to wait for since the puck hasn't dropped.

You say every little thing counts but you can probably go through every GM and find little things they could of done differently. No need to be so high-strung over the little things, they are of little significance in the grand scheme of things.

This is the kind of argument I love. We know of a rumour of San Jose offering their 2nd but since it was next years not this years, Benning turned it down. So I say we'll maybe the 2nd we got from Anaheim isn't the exact and final value of Bieksa and there can be differing opinions on that, yet you can say with certainty that because that deal wasn't signed and documented it can't possibly be a possible value for Bieksa.

And Matthias, you can call it hindsight but many people had the foresight to say we should move him at the deadline while his value was at it's highest. But, I'm glad we were so focused on trying to make the playoffs and win the Stanley Cup this very second because it's impossible to have a winning atmosphere if you lose a few more games than we did, but losing like we did in the playoffs is much better for the team.

Miller's cap isn't an issue as we're going through a transition? Having a similar but younger and less expensive goalie in Lack isn't an issue while we're in transition so long as we can keep a reasonable team in front of him and a backup we can trust. But again, $6M more in cap space couldn't possibly help with that in any way.

But I'm not going to keep arguing this again since as I said at the end of the post you replied to, maybe you should read back through the conversation breadcrumbs and see where it started. Clearly saying what we got is the best we could have and no possible alternate realities exist where different moves could have been made to where we could have improved a different way.

If you're ok with not making every advantage we can count while we're drafting mid to late in the first round because we're still trying to be a playoff team before our players like the Sedins retire, then good for you. Never mind that the brightest parts of the future we have were both acquired as top 10 picks and we could use more of that in a big way, but let's keep trying to win over just being a good team that's tough to play against but will be able to rebuild faster.

A report isn't a trade, boyo.

What someone says on was offer should in no way determine value. Hard to tell from the high horse, I'm sure.

Thanks tips. And yet people on their own high horses want to ignore that there are different ways to determine value and that trades don't always equate to a proper value 1 for 1 every single time.

[KeslerPlaysLikeACanadian]

If you're ok with not making every advantage we can count while we're drafting mid to late in the first round because we're still trying to be a playoff team before our players like the Sedins retire, then good for you. Never mind that the brightest parts of the future we have were both acquired as top 10 picks and we could use more of that in a big way, but let's keep trying to win over just being a good team that's tough to play against but will be able to rebuild faster.

This probably the most palatable criticism of Benning that I have seen. It's fair enough to question whether or not we have seized every advantage along the way, although that is a tall order. As far as going for picks instead of playoffs, its a fundamental philosophical difference, not a strategic difference of opinion. So again, fair ball if you feel that way. But for me, I have to call it foul ball to take speculations on could-have-been trades seriously. Yes there are reports, rumours, and interviews, and I listen to all of them. But the likelihood of there being significant information that you are missing seems pretty well certain to me.

The narrative that SJ strung us along to paralyze us at the draft is just as compelling, based on what is passing for information. It sounds reasonable to me, but I'm not going to base an argument on it.

[elvis15]

And that's all I'm saying. Not sure why it's turned into something that you all love Benning and I hate him or something. I agree we can't win on everything but I think we've more consistently lost on our bigger deals and signings and that's worrying for me.

But the outlook as we know if from Benning is he wants to transition from old to new while remaining competitive. I don't think he's of the mind that we could have won the cup last year or are going to this year, so it becomes a fine line of how much adding players short term to make the playoffs helps up versus playing who we have (and trading smartly for the future) and living with the maybe being a lottery pick. That doesn't have to be that far off philosophically or strategically.

We're all missing information, but the repeated rumours of better offers, letting players walk to free agency when we aren't contending, and making a move for players only to turn around and flip them together for one piece in return are definitely suggestive of an trend.

[Junkyard Dog]

This is the kind of argument I love. We know of a rumour of San Jose offering their 2nd but since it was next years not this years, Benning turned it down. So I say we'll maybe the 2nd we got from Anaheim isn't the exact and final value of Bieksa and there can be differing opinions on that, yet you can say with certainty that because that deal wasn't signed and documented it can't possibly be a possible value for Bieksa.

And Matthias, you can call it hindsight but many people had the foresight to say we should move him at the deadline while his value was at it's highest. But, I'm glad we were so focused on trying to make the playoffs and win the Stanley Cup this very second because it's impossible to have a winning atmosphere if you lose a few more games than we did, but losing like we did in the playoffs is much better for the team.

Miller's cap isn't an issue as we're going through a transition? Having a similar but younger and less expensive goalie in Lack isn't an issue while we're in transition so long as we can keep a reasonable team in front of him and a backup we can trust. But again, $6M more in cap space couldn't possibly help with that in any way.

But I'm not going to keep arguing this again since as I said at the end of the post you replied to, maybe you should read back through the conversation breadcrumbs and see where it started. Clearly saying what we got is the best we could have and no possible alternate realities exist where different moves could have been made to where we could have improved a different way.

If you're ok with not making every advantage we can count while we're drafting mid to late in the first round because we're still trying to be a playoff team before our players like the Sedins retire, then good for you. Never mind that the brightest parts of the future we have were both acquired as top 10 picks and we could use more of that in a big way, but let's keep trying to win over just being a good team that's tough to play against but will be able to rebuild faster.

Thanks tips. And yet people on their own high horses want to ignore that there are different ways to determine value and that trades don't always equate to a proper value 1 for 1 every single time.

You clearly aren't trying to understand the main points of my post.