I'm not sure any of the rebuttals you have received here over this topic are "straw man" arguments (you use that term too much btw).....everyone here agrees that shutting him down versus trading him or waiving him was a business move to clear cap space in order to make room for Kesler's return from injury. Manny was chosen because his performance was below the level of Ebbet, Schroeder, and Lapierre, at the time. Maybe he couldn't be traded, maybe Gillis really did hope Manny would stick around and still be part of the team. Who knows the actual plan for Malhotra beyond that season. If Manny couldn't be traded then whatever, should have waived him, it was a dick move, but it was performance based.
That's exactly what they are meds. Perhaps that term is being used because that bullshit form of debating is being used too much (not by you). Think about that. It's not accidental, if it continues, I'll call it out. There shouldn't be a need for rebuttals over this issue if we all agree he was shut down for business reasons as you say. The only thing on the table should really be if Manny was the right call over Barker (2 assists in 14 gp total), Pinizzotto (how did he pan out?), Ebbett...maybe Schroeder (waiver exempt...not exactly deployed in an effective manner for him to potentially succeed). Losing Volpatti was a waste.
Well it's pretty difficult to put that on the table. Obviously hindsight would indicate that keeping Manny would have been a better option for the team in the here and now. But at the same time, salary definitely had to come into play here. Barker, Ebbet, and Pinizzotto, were making a combined $1.9M, whereas Malhotra was making $2.5M. So while you have come out and stated that you believe Gillis fucked up by letting him go, dick move or not, others are saying that at the time
it was the right choice when comparing him to the other players.
Also, comparing Cam Barker to Malhotra in terms of point production is asinine. Barker was a 7th/8th defenseman and Manny was a 12th/13th forward, and likely dropping to 14th at that point. Injuries to the blueline are more commonplace, and depth on the blueline has always been considered paramount. The choice was to let go of 1 of 3 centers who were battling it out for the 12/13 spot on the depth chart. Cap was an issue. Manny made twice as much as both of those guys combined. Their production was all very similar. The choice was clear at the time.
Need more clarity? Trading Mikael Samuelsson and Marco Sturm to Florida for David Booth was a fucking no brainer. At the time, and on paper, Gillis fleeced the pants off of Tallon. Hindsight suggests that it was a wash as none of those players contributed much for their new teams.....Gillis looks worse now because Booth had a contract that was more than both of Sturm and Samuelsson and for a longer term.
You can't debate the merits of a trade when you already know the outcome, the numbers don't lie. Nobody here is arguing with you that what we see now makes the move then look like a mistake. Topper isn't muddying the waters or deflecting, he's arguing that at the time Malhotra's performance was worse. The only time he did anything resembling a strawman argument was when he said.....
So the mollusk would have Manny over Kesler in the lineup. Recall, Manny's comeback from injury stink, stank, stunk and moving him out the roster was best for all concerned, including Manny. At that point he was even being displaced from own zone faceoffs.
It was no case of an elephant in the room, the guys play stank and it was clear to all watching that Manny was being blindsided by opponents. If anything, Manny was kept active too long as a placeholder in Kesler's absence.
Didn't a similar convenient IR swap scenario occur with Bieksa and Edler the previous year and we all mumbled cap management.
All he did was take a jab at you. His argument after that first sentence was to the point and in no way misrepresenting your opinion. He then went on to talk about Manny's return and his AHL level of play.
He dismisses the elephant in the room because everyone knew that Manny wasn't the same player, and that the Canucks needed cap space for Kesler's return. Your "elephant" implies that nobody talked about it.....and yet we all did.
He then talks about the Bieksa/Edler swap that was clearly a cap management move.
It is then you that continues to press the issue by bringing up Malhotra's current level of play.....which has absolutely no bearing on his level of play at the time of Gillis' shutting him down. This was a year after his injury and all the guy could do was take faceoffs.....
When that has been answered a thousand times by multiple people you go back to.....
The main issue here was not that Malhotra was dispatched off the team, it was the line of bullshit that was fed. While I think he still should have been on the team ahead of Ebbett, you guys disagree. Its subjective. I am aware he wasn't playing great at the time, I believe he would have played through it and he did just that. I'm not even saying he'd be on the team now. If you want to believe the story that was dished out then open wide.
Nobody here said they believed Gillis' reasoning. They hoped it was legit, but everyone here saw it as a cap issue and Manny was the odd man out because of his play.
Do you think for a minute that if Malhotra had recovered from his injury and was playing at the same level that he was before being hit with the puck that Gillis would have shut him down? Obviously not. Nobody is saying that. Malhotra couldn't hold his spot on the roster. If he had been contributing meaningfully at the time then the move would be to axe 2 other guys and send Schroeder to the AHL.
As to his performance in the faceoff circle. At the time it wasn't what it had been. Kesler is a pretty damned good faceoff man in his own right. Manny being gone and Kesler returning meant that Kesler could then be deployed in some of those situations. The trade off was performance based decisions for cap management.
I couldn't remember how this whole back and forth started, so I went back. The "strawmen" that you are referring to have stuck to their position and argument throughout. You have argued several different points and now come full circle.
Time to stop.