Gino's Knuckle wrote:Lay off the pejoratives and let’s keep the discussion civil.
So pointing out the massive discrepancy in your arguments is uncivil?
Give me a break I never insulted you, sometimes people can feel "insulted" when their the weakness of their position is exposed, but that's more about you then anything I said.
I never stated that you insulted me. But your condescension isn’t appreciated.
Think I made it pretty clear that my discussion with respect to the team’s softness/lack of grit was in response to someone else’s commentary – that isn’t discrepant, it is just a side topic. Not sure how much more clear I can be with that. I guess we can have separate threads for every different thought, but that seems a little excessive to me.
I didn’t realize we were limited to discussing one dimension at a time. I guess a multi-facetted argument dealing with various critiques is unacceptable. Let me do a quick summary:
Multi-facetted arguments are fine as long as they are connected by some sort of logical flow.
Like I said, bemoning the loss of Grabner and then going into a diatribe about the teams over all lack of grit and inability to win in the post season makes no sence.
And like I said, my discussion regarding the “softness” or “lack of grit” was in response to another poster. i.e. side argument. Would you see more logic were I to, as noted above, immediately start a new thread dealing with that side-topic rather than debating it in the same thread in which it was brought up?
a) I would have preferred to have kept Grabner;
Yes you have said as much. You do understand however that Grabner is not waiver exempt which means he has to stay on the roster, which means that he has to play. If he does play it is at the expense of one of our other forwards all of whom are either far better (Sedins, Kesler, Burrows) or a lot grittier then Grabner (Hansen, Booth, Higgens, Lappy, Kassian, etc).
Thanks for the clarification. Yes, I understand. And as I have pointed out over and over, in my opinion the trade-off would have been fine. It's not as if keeping Grabner would have resulted in the exclusion of any moves to address the issue of toughness.
b) Someone indicated he was too soft;
Do you not agree ?
I agree he is soft. My point was and is and will continue to be that the dimension I feel he brings is worth the trade-off on a team which is already “soft” or “not gritty enough”. You can work on the grit in other moves.
c) I indicated the team was soft anyway (which led to a side argument on whether the team was “soft” or just “not gritty enough” ad infinitum);
Again the point made no sense from the start. If the team is soft, why on earth would they want to be any softer. (again I would like to note that soft teams do not get to game 7 of the final, a point you avoided entirely)
Since you didn’t seem to get it the first time, let me repost:
Gino's Knuckle wrote: Just because I think the team needs to get tougher does not equate to my requiring that every movement of the team be about toughness. I think we all understand that you can have a general movement toward something (i.e. increasing toughness), without making every move solely on the basis of that goal (i.e. making a trade that might not get you closer to that specific target but one which you feels increases your overall talent etc.). Every move a team makes is in some senses a trade-off. In my opinion keeping Grabner would have been trade-off that I would have preferred (that is not to say I wouldn’t have made other moves to compensate for toughness).
As for the “avoided” point, did you actually watch the beating they took from Boston? Or from LA? Maybe they weren’t “soft” but they sure as hell weren’t gritty enough.
d) I indicated that I felt Grabner’s skillset and potential (speedy goal scorer) outweighed his softness and deficiencies (i.e. the trade-off was worth it).
He had 32 points last season.
That is absolutely terrible production for a guy getting top6 minutes. You want to give up grit, and defensive play for a guy who produces less then our other top9 forwards?
And as for Grabners upside, that isn't really the point. Perhaps he can improve but the problem is you have to keep him on the roster and a team with cup aspirations isn't going to want to waste a roster spot on a player that doesn't help them win in the here and now.
His production for the Canucks may have been better, and given what seemed to be really good chemistry with Kesler, likely would have been. As indicated prior, my opinion regarding the last season was that it was an anomaly. His season before was 33 goals – you don’t think that would have been more helpful than a defenseman who the coach won’t play?
His upside does remain a point, as does Kassian’s, Tanev’s, et al. I, again, see the dimension he brings to the team as something that could help now as well as in the future. Now maybe I am wrong on that, but that doesn’t make said argument illogical it just means that the facts upon which the argument is based are incorrect (if I am wrong).