kazin! Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 12 minutes ago, Aladeen said: How is he unlikely to make the NHL? he was Captain of Sweden's U20 Squad. His skating is excellent, his offensive instincts are such that he can effectively QB a PP. Sounds like a lot of what the Canucks need. Now in 3-4 years when he makes the jump those needs may not be the same. And I said he did correct that mistake by trading him for Sutter.... so wtf are you arguing about? Forsling was not the captain of the U20 WJC team. He was captain of an evaluation camp team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aladeen Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Just now, kazin! said: Forsling was not the captain of the U20 WJC team. He was captain of an evaluation camp team. Fair enough but still a role of Captain in a international stage... better than not being named Captain at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aladeen Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Look we can come back to this thread in 5 years and you can all say we told you so if Forsling never pans out. I think he has some upside and I think he will make the NHL as a regular one day putting up decent numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 13 minutes ago, Aladeen said: Where did I say he is the next Karlsson, I said he wasn't worth trading to get waiver fodder Clendening. Grab a clue, Unless you called Clendening "waiver fodder" at the time of that - go ahead and quote yourself if you did - all you're doing now is - the exceedingly easy - hindsighting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aladeen Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Just now, oldnews said: Unless you called Clendening "waiver fodder" at the time - go ahead and quote yourself if you did - all you're doing now is - the exceedingly easy - hindsighting. I never liked the trade from the get go, I never said he was waiver fodder at the time, but my role isn't evaluating talent for a trade that's JBs and he didn't see the fact that he DID end up as waiver fodder now did he? Plus I said the mistake was corrected, so fracking drop it already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 8 minutes ago, theminister said: I think it's important to recognize the team situations he just passed through this year. Pittsburgh has Ehrhoff, Maatta, Letang and Pouliot. Anaheim has Vatanen, Fowler, Lindholm and Theodore. All of those players overlap with Clendening's style so it's not surprising that he wasn't able to push himself in front of their organizational chart in a short time span. We don't have that same redundancy. We have Hutton, Weber and Subban What I'm saying is...Yes...it would make some sense for us to claim him back. Just because he wasn't useful to them doesn't mean he wouldn't have use to us. I think Pitts' plan with Clendening was to stop gap him until they felt Pouliot was ready. They assigned Pouliot to get him some bigger AHL minutes, not keeping him in the AHL prematurely - and Clendening was serviceable for at the very least that period and in the meantime they'd have an opportunity to see how well he fit there. Anaheim - in addition to the guys you mention, also just recalled Despres - so he will be eating significant minutes and pushing everyone down the depth chart another spot. It's also been a season where quite a few tweener / close to serviceable young D have wound up on waivers, and for the most part clearing. I'm not sure I'd prefer Clendening over Biega, but I'd love to see them claim him and flip him to Toronto for Frankie lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 6 minutes ago, Aladeen said: Perhaps... but you talk as if JB can do no wrong... he made a mistake (initially IMO) and fixed it (With the Pittsburg Trade IMO)... that works just fine too. And if he picks up Clendening I guess he really won the trade overall. Not that he can do no wrong but your opinion (or mine frankly) on Forsling mean very little and moving him for Clendening should rank pretty low on anyone's care-o-meter. It was a move of very little significance and there's likely no way to judge it as a mistake or not for another 5+ years anyway. So I'm not sure why you're bothering or being so adamant that you're opinion is correct. So a move of little significance, that's FAR too early to judge anyway and regardless, worked out by getting us Sutter... seems like you're complaining to complain. Only in Vancouver is the trade of an undersized 5th rounder so closely scrutinized... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aladeen Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 8 minutes ago, J.R. said: Not that he can do no wrong but your opinion (or mine frankly) on Forsling mean very little and moving him for Clendening should rank pretty low on anyone's care-o-meter. It was a move of very little significance and there's likely no way to judge it as a mistake or not for another 5+ years anyway. So I'm not sure why you're bothering or being so adamant that you're opinion is correct. So a move of little significance, that's FAR too early to judge anyway and regardless, worked out by getting us Sutter... seems like you're complaining to complain. Only in Vancouver is the trade of an undersized 5th rounder so closely scrutinized... Exactly the same logic could be said about what you guys are doing. Your Opinion is that he will never be an impactful player in the NHL well odds are you're right just because that is the odds in general. All I am saying is that there was more upside to Forsling as a prospect than being traded for Clendening. I stated my opinion that I don't think the initial trade was a good one, and I have said that it was made up for by the Sutter trade it's you and these other gentlemen that won't seem to let the subject stop there. I am not the one adamant, I am the one responding you guys are the ones adamant that I am wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shift-4 Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Yeah, I remember when Shawn Belle was going to be a monster in the NHL too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retinalz Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 1 hour ago, Aladeen said: You could also say he was wrong to trade for him in the first place too though. If we had Forsling or Clendenning, I still wouldn't have included either one for Sutter. We are a better team when he is playing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 3 minutes ago, Aladeen said: Exactly the same logic could be said about what you guys are doing. Your Opinion is that he will never be an impactful player in the NHL well odds are you're right just because that is the odds in general. All I am saying is that there was more upside to Forsling as a prospect than being traded for Clendening. I stated my opinion that I don't think the initial trade was a good one, and I have said that it was made up for by the Sutter trade it's you and these other gentlemen that won't seem to let the subject stop there. I am not the one adamant, I am the one responding you guys are the ones adamant that I am wrong. No, my opinion is that while I think he's probably destined to be Yanik Weber-esque, that my opinion doesn't really matter and that no one should care this much about what amounts to very little. Certainly not enough to call it a mistake or otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aladeen Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 3 minutes ago, J.R. said: No, my opinion is that while I think he's probably destined to be Yanik Weber-esque, that my opinion doesn't really matter and that no one should care this much about what amounts to very little. Exactly, where did I say I care? I said it was all made up for in the Sutter trade, so the only ones that seem to care are you and these other gentlemen intent on proving me wrong, but as you said, Forsling being a bust, a Weber, a steady NHLer, or Karlsson won't be determined for another 5+ years. I feel the need to respond when people talk to me, that's all, I gave my opinion you don't care for it, I'm not going lose sleep over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Just now, Aladeen said: Exactly, where did I say I care? When you called it a mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexandre Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 3 minutes ago, Retinalz said: If we had Forsling or Clendenning, I still wouldn't have included either one for Sutter. We are a better team when he is playing. Yeah but Pitsburgh insisted on the inclusion of Clendening in the trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aladeen Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Just now, J.R. said: When you called it a mistake. It was, doesn't mean I care anymore. ok I will put this one more time in a way you can't ignore it. THE SUTTER DEAL MADE UP FOR IT, THEREFORE IT NO LONGER MATTERS BECAUSE WE HAVE THE BEST PLAYER THAT COULD HAVE POSSIBLY COME OUT OF THAT WHOLE SITUATION. Got it? Good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 3 minutes ago, Aladeen said: Exactly the same logic could be said about what you guys are doing. Your Opinion is that he will never be an impactful player in the NHL well odds are you're right just because that is the odds in general. All I am saying is that there was more upside to Forsling as a prospect than being traded for Clendening. I stated my opinion that I don't think the initial trade was a good one, and I have said that it was made up for by the Sutter trade it's you and these other gentlemen that won't seem to let the subject stop there. I am not the one adamant, I am the one responding you guys are the ones adamant that I am wrong. Very debatable. Clendening scored 46 and then 59 points in the AHL as a 20 and 21 year old. That is exceptional production for an AHL defenseman at any age, let alone that young. There is literally not enough room left there for Forsling to have "far more upside". Clendening is still only turned 23 months ago. My reservation about claiming him would be based on one thing along - his lateral movement - his pivoting - his skating (aside from the simple north-south) - and he's not too old to continue to improve those technical aspects imo. Will be interesting to see what JB does, but the idea that Clendening lacked upside would suggest you never really looked at the player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 1 minute ago, Aladeen said: MADE UP FOR IT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aladeen Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 1 minute ago, oldnews said: Very debatable. Clendening scored 46 and then 59 points in the AHL as a 20 and 21 year old. That is exceptional production for an AHL defenseman at any age, let alone that young. There is literally not enough room left there for Forsling to have "far more upside". Clendening is still only turned 23 months ago. My reservation about claiming him would be based on one thing along - his lateral movement - his pivoting - his skating (aside from the simple north-south) - and he's not too old to continue to improve those technical aspects imo. Will be interesting to see what JB does, but the idea that Clendening lacked upside would suggest you never really looked at the player. Yes but you are just looking at the player themselves. Chicago wanted to offload him because of his waiver status in the next season. They would have lost him to waiver for nothing if they didn't trade him. The trajectory of how Forsling was developing at the time, combined with where Vancouver was during it's rebuild/retool meant that Forsling at least at that very moment was a more important asset to the Canucks than Clendening could ever have been UNTIL HE WAS TRADED TO PITTSBURGH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aladeen Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 1 minute ago, J.R. said: Whatever man, useless to try to have a conversation with you because you just read what you want to read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Just now, Aladeen said: Whatever man, useless to try to have a conversation with you because you just read what you want to read. Just reading what you wrote Al Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.