wallstreetamigo Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 12 minutes ago, oldnews said: Why would you want to give him a look if you don't think he'd earn a spot anyway? I dont think he would be given a chance to earn a spot unless there was another couple of injuries. I personally wouldn't have minded seeing them have a look to see if he could be a longer term piece we could use. If not no real loss, if so it would be found money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 6 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said: I dont think he would be given a chance to earn a spot unless there was another couple of injuries. I personally wouldn't have minded seeing them have a look to see if he could be a longer term piece we could use. If not no real loss, if so it would be found money. That's what I thought - you weren't speaking for yourself - you were projecting speculative straw on someone else. Presumably if they'd claimed him, it would have been for the purpose of giving him a look - so forgive me if I yawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 5 minutes ago, oldnews said: That's what I thought - you weren't speaking for yourself - you were projecting speculative straw on someone else. Presumably if they'd claimed him, it would have been for the purpose of giving him a look - so forgive me if I yawn. Where do you see them giving him a chance to play right now on our roster? He is not the type of player Desjardins would be looking for on his fourth line nor would that really help the Canucks take a serious look at him. There are really no spots in the top 9 to put him even with the current injuries we have. I enjoy debsting with you on subjects but it is pretty annoying to have words put in my mouth by someone while they are using their pet word strawman at me at the same time. Incredibly ironic I would say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 I am interested to see what the Rangers do with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 22 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said: Where do you see them giving him a chance to play right now on our roster? He is not the type of player Desjardins would be looking for on his fourth line nor would that really help the Canucks take a serious look at him. There are really no spots in the top 9 to put him even with the current injuries we have. I enjoy debsting with you on subjects but it is pretty annoying to have words put in my mouth by someone while they are using their pet word strawman at me at the same time. Incredibly ironic I would say. In one sentence you telling me what Desjardins would think - and claiming there's nowhere for him to play. Next line you're protesting about words being put in your mouth. Just after a post where you wanted to claim him and give him a look. To play where? Not really any spots even with injuries? Hmmm. Not sure I follow or agree with you about where the irony lies. Anyhow - where I'd play him I answered a page ago - a moot point in any event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 54 minutes ago, oldnews said: In one sentence you telling me what Desjardins would think - and claiming there's nowhere for him to play. Next line you're protesting about words being put in your mouth. Just after a post where you wanted to claim him and give him a look. To play where? Not really any spots even with injuries? Hmmm. Not sure I follow or agree with you about where the irony lies. Anyhow - where I'd play him I answered a page ago - a moot point in any event. I think if you can get a young guy like that for nothing it is no harm in giving him a look at the expense of one of our AHL call ups for a few games. I mean, if he is good enough for the Rangers to take a chance on he probably should be good enough for the Canucks. Just my opinion. I am not sure why you think it is such a bad thing to say Desjardins would not use a guy like him on the 4th line. Is that an insult to Desjardins in your view? Seems like just common sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 1 minute ago, wallstreetamigo said: I think if you can get a young guy like that for nothing it is no harm in giving him a look at the expense of one of our AHL call ups for a few games. I mean, if he is good enough for the Rangers to take a chance on he probably should be good enough for the Canucks. Just my opinion. I am not sure why you think it is such a bad thing to say Desjardins would not use a guy like him on the 4th line. Is that an insult to Desjardins in your view? Seems like just common sense to me. By that logic Etem was good enough for Anaheim, so we should never have waived him. Except they waived him again and he cleared the second time. Who knows why teams make the decisions they do. The Canucks scouting staff prefer the assets they have. Ottawa, despite some key injuries, were willing to dump him on waivers. Reality is that a lot of young players that CDC armchairs think should be in the NHL.....well not a single NHL team agrees with them. Can you think of a single young waiver claim that has stuck with an NHL team this year? The exception is a veteran - Parenteau. A lot of young players that a lot of people were clamoring to claim - how many of them made an NHL team? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 1 minute ago, oldnews said: By that logic Etem was good enough for Anaheim, so we should never have waived him. Except they waived him again and he cleared the second time. Who knows why teams make the decisions they do. The Canucks scouting staff prefer the assets they have. Ottawa, despite some key injuries, were willing to dump him on waivers. Reality is that a lot of young players that CDC armchairs think should be in the NHL.....well not a single NHL team agrees with them. Can you think of a single young waiver claim that has stuck with an NHL team this year? The exception is a veteran - Parenteau. A lot of young players that a lot of people were clamoring to claim - how many of them made an NHL team? The point is who cares if he (or any other player off waivers) turns out to be nothing? He is free and it's not like our roster is so great that taking a few waiver risks would hurt us. We have several bottom end players already so trying out others to see the upside is not a bad idea if we can get them for free. Its interesting that you approve when Benning trades assets for these similar 23-24 y/o waiver eligible players that you call garbage because they are on waivers. Would you rather pick Clendening up on waivers or trade Forsling for him? Benning thought enough to trade a quality prospect for a guy who was waiver eligible and turned out to be waiver fodder (less than a year later iirc). I would rather not lose an asset for something I can get for free but that's just me I guess. Waiving Etem was a risk they took to sign Skille so they were obviously ok losing him. Not re-claiming him when Anaheim waived him though probably had everything to do with him having a one way salary because he could have been sent directly to Utica. If Etem had a two way contract I am pretty sure they would have picked him back up to help Utica. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 On 20/11/2016 at 0:30 PM, J.R. said: Puempel is the first waiver guy I'd actually be a bit upset/surprised if JB doesn't claim him. Has a lot of promise IMO. Where would he have fit in though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 19 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said: Where would he have fit in though? Bottom 6 or Utica for development. He had to much upside though. We don't need hope around here. That thru is fer weirdos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 1 minute ago, Warhippy said: Bottom 6 or Utica for development. He had to much upside though. We don't need hope around here. That thru is fer weirdos Utica eh? I suggest you learn how things work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 4 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said: Utica eh? I suggest you learn how things work. Well he'd have to clear waivers unless we corrado'd him. But that would be an option. The most likely scenario is Skille would be relegated or chaput maybe even Gaunce to make room for him. But we don't need potential young wingers. Especially free ones. That kinda talk is for other teams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 40 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said: Where would he have fit in though? Sedin, Sedin, Sutter Eriksson, Horvat, Hansen Baer, Granlund, Puempel (Easy QOC and ozone starts up the wazoo) Burr, Chaput/Gaunce, Dorsett Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 14 minutes ago, Warhippy said: Well he'd have to clear waivers unless we corrado'd him. But that would be an option. The most likely scenario is Skille would be relegated or chaput maybe even Gaunce to make room for him. But we don't need potential young wingers. Especially free ones. That kinda talk is for other teams You have to be the Leafs for the Corrado thing to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 2 minutes ago, J.R. said: Sedin, Sedin, Sutter Eriksson, Horvat, Hansen Baer, Granlund, Puempel (Easy QOC and ozone starts up the wazoo) Burr, Chaput/Gaunce, Dorsett Gotta say I like that 2nd line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coryberg Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 9 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said: Would you rather pick Clendening up on waivers or trade Forsling for him? Benning thought enough to trade a quality prospect for a guy who was waiver eligible and turned out to be waiver fodder (less than a year later iirc). I would rather not lose an asset for something I can get for free but that's just me I guess. So much wrong. Clenndening wasn't waiver eligible when we acquired him. That didn't kick in until the following season. He never turned into waiver fodder for us, he turned into a trading chip that landed us a building block. we never lost an asset, we upgraded it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudrias Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 9 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said: The point is who cares if he (or any other player off waivers) turns out to be nothing? He is free and it's not like our roster is so great that taking a few waiver risks would hurt us. We have several bottom end players already so trying out others to see the upside is not a bad idea if we can get them for free. Its interesting that you approve when Benning trades assets for these similar 23-24 y/o waiver eligible players that you call garbage because they are on waivers. Would you rather pick Clendening up on waivers or trade Forsling for him? Benning thought enough to trade a quality prospect for a guy who was waiver eligible and turned out to be waiver fodder (less than a year later iirc). I would rather not lose an asset for something I can get for free but that's just me I guess. Waiving Etem was a risk they took to sign Skille so they were obviously ok losing him. Not re-claiming him when Anaheim waived him though probably had everything to do with him having a one way salary because he could have been sent directly to Utica. If Etem had a two way contract I am pretty sure they would have picked him back up to help Utica. I agree. I have liked Chaput's game since he came up. IMO the over riding priority this season is player development and evaluation. If Benning's assessment is that Megna is a superior prospect then so be it. Claiming Puempel and having a look for a few games has little net downside. Don't know the current roster limit or number of contracts available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 9 minutes ago, coryberg said: So much wrong. Clenndening wasn't waiver eligible when we acquired him. That didn't kick in until the following season. He never turned into waiver fodder for us, he turned into a trading chip that landed us a building block. we never lost an asset, we upgraded it. It's about proper roster planning for future years. Clendening was becoming waiver eligible so you don't trade a young non waiver prospect for him at that point. Even if he had met every expectation on him it still wouldn't have made him valuable enough to do that trade. He wasn't a principle part of the trade for Sutter. He was an extra piece they wanted to make it happen at best. I would not have traded Bonino and Forsling for Sutter and I doubt many GM's would have. Same as trading a 2nd for Vey who had not been able to crack the Kings roster nor was he going to so would have been placed on waivers most likely. We could have very likely got him for free by being patient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 10 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said: Its interesting that you approve when Benning trades assets for these similar 23-24 y/o waiver eligible players that you call garbage because they are on waivers. smh. it's been a slice. but find another STRAWMAN to waste time on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted November 22, 2016 Share Posted November 22, 2016 1 hour ago, coryberg said: So much wrong. Clenndening wasn't waiver eligible when we acquired him. That didn't kick in until the following season. He never turned into waiver fodder for us, he turned into a trading chip that landed us a building block. we never lost an asset, we upgraded it. You're trying to make sense to an automaton with a singular purpose. Well done on the sense part, but getting it through. lol, best of luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.