Around the league (signings, RFAs injuries)

[Strangelove]

I know what I posted and it wasn’t to imply Gustav Forsling was a great player. It was me relentlessly taking a bat to Elmer about his shitty asset management which was in top form from 2014-17. But hey you know what I’m trying to say more than I do right?

If Forsling was nothing special, how was dumping him "shitty asset management".

The fact you used Forsling as a "shitty asset management" example proves you thought he was something.

(either that or you're whacko)

Now that Forsling is "waiver fodder" doesn't that show you were wrong to use him as a "shitty asset management" example?

Your posts I dug up from the archive prove you are now lying about what you were trying to say during All. That. Whining:

viewtopic.php?p=356347#p356347

Thoughts Iceman?

[Blob Mckenzie]

Lol the puppet master is angry. So you now decide what people are thinking when they are posting? That’s rich. Forsling among many draft picks and other young assets was a case of piss poor asset management.

Forsling’s value in 2015-2017 ( when those comments were made) was much higher than it is now. Just to dumb that down for ya.

[Strangelove]

Lol the puppet master is angry.

Angry? So you now decide what people are thinking when they are posting?

And you decide who uses socks at this site?

Again, I have not used a sock at this site since the Great Migration of 2011.

I'll remind you that YOU however have been busted a few times. (by me)

So you now decide what people are thinking when they are posting?

No, I proved what you were thinking about Forsling... using your own words.

viewtopic.php?p=356347#p356347

Forsling among many draft picks and other young assets was a case of piss poor asset management.

How so, he was just a young random 5th round pick guy

... traded to bring in a young former 2nd round pick guy as an emergency replacement.

(see, Forsling was in Europe at the time)

Forsling’s value in 2015-2017 ( when those comments were made) was much higher than it is now. Just to dumb that down for ya.

AHA so you DID think Forsling was something special!!

NOW we're getting someplace...

[ESQ]

Forsling’s value in 2015-2017 ( when those comments were made) was much higher than it is now. Just to dumb that down for ya.

I love how Blob overvalues prospects, when they are (a) just selected, and (b) traded by Benning.

[Strangelove]

Forsling’s value in 2015-2017 ( when those comments were made) was much higher than it is now. Just to dumb that down for ya.

I love how Blob overvalues prospects, when they are (a) just selected, and (b) traded by Benning.

He'll say he doesn't.

And when you produce proof that he does?

HE'LL STILL DENY IT

[BingoTough]

Surely Forsling can both be worthless now and have had a higher relative value than the asset he was traded for at the time (which makes it a poor trade) which is the crux of what Blob tends to argue?

It then comes down to "Based upon the information he had at the time, did Benning foresee the decline or just get lucky?". Foresight = genius, lucky = not so much.

Forsling needn't have been great at the time for Blob's argument to hold, he just needed to have a higher probability of working out than the asset he was traded for. It's why he complains about shipping draft picks for low-probability players you type of which you could pick up on the waiver wire. Why throw away the picks (or talent with potential) when you don't have to? It's irrelevant that the pick/player didn't turn out well, it's about being pretty clear up front that what you're getting in return isn't valuable.

Ultimately I actually don't have a view on that particular trade, I can't remember who was better than whom at the time.

[Blob Mckenzie]

Surely Forsling can both be worthless now and have had a higher relative value than the asset he was traded for at the time (which makes it a poor trade) which is the crux of what Blob tends to argue?

It then comes down to "Based upon the information he had at the time, did Benning foresee the decline or just get lucky?". Foresight = genius, lucky = not so much.

Forsling needn't have been great at the time for Blob's argument to hold, he just needed to have a higher probability of working out than the asset he was traded for. It's why he complains about shipping draft picks for low-probability players you type of which you could pick up on the waiver wire. Why throw away the picks (or talent with potential) when you don't have to? It's irrelevant that the pick/player didn't turn out well, it's about being pretty clear up front that what you're getting in return isn't valuable.

Ultimately I actually don't have a view on that particular trade, I can't remember who was better than whom at the time.

Good post BT. It’s the accumulation of 2nd and 3rd round picks and prospects that got traded for out and out garbage is what frustrates people. Unfortunately Doc and his little puppets aren’t smart enough to understand this.

[Strangelove]

Surely Forsling can both be worthless now and have had a higher relative value than the asset he was traded for at the time (which makes it a poor trade) which is the crux of what Blob tends to argue?

Well Blob has a few conflicting arguments he is presenting concurrently.

1). He never implied Forsling was great. (archived posts suggest otherwise)

2). Strangelove uses fake accounts. (an untrue red herring to distract)

3). Forsling was in fact rather great when he was traded. (contradicts #1)


Forsling had the value of a 5th round pick because that's exactly what he was... just 7 months before the trade.

The player he was traded for was a 22-yr-old who was drafted in the 2nd round 3 drafts before the trade.

That player (defenceman Clendening) had racked up 22 goals + 88 assists in 185 AHL games.

Seemed like a decent trade for your Vancouver Canucks and yet Blob complained constantly about it for years.

It then comes down to "Based upon the information he had at the time, did Benning foresee the decline or just get lucky?". Foresight = genius, lucky = not so much.

As stated above, Forsling was traded just 7 months after being drafted...

Forsling needn't have been great at the time for Blob's argument to hold

Are you talking about Argument #1 or Argument #3 above?

, he just needed to have a higher probability of working out than the asset he was traded for.

Well he didn't.

Forsling being a late round pick 7 months removed and Clendening already having great success in the AHL.

It's why he complains about shipping draft picks for low-probability players you type of which you could pick up on the waiver wire. Why throw away the picks (or talent with potential) when you don't have to? It's irrelevant that the pick/player didn't turn out well, it's about being pretty clear up front that what you're getting in return isn't valuable.

Well this was a prospect for a prospect, the one acquired being 3 seasons further along (as Blob like to put it) than the other.

(as I said, Canucks were ravaged with injuries at the time and needed someone they could throw in there)

Ultimately I actually don't have a view on that particular trade, I can't remember who was better than whom at the time.

Well Blob sure had ONE HELL OF A LOUD OPINION at the time... and for a few years afterwards.

Which is why of course the Chef and I are roasting him over an open flame.

[Blob Mckenzie]

Lol you couldn’t roast a marshmallow with a blow torch. But it’s cute to see you give your posse marching orders and get them to back you up again.

[Strangelove]

Lol you couldn’t roast a marshmallow with a blow torch.

Oh yeah? Check this out:

viewtopic.php?p=356347#p356347

But it’s cute to see you give your posse marching orders and get them to back you up again.

Ewww... denial and paranoia... bad combo!

Sad!

[Cousin Strawberry]

I cant say for sure but i think i read Blob call him Peter Forsling once

[ESQ]

Surely Forsling can both be worthless now and have had a higher relative value than the asset he was traded for at the time (which makes it a poor trade) which is the crux of what Blob tends to argue?

Oh for sure, I'm just pointing out the recent hypocrisy of Blob saying the Dude overvalues Canucks prospects - I believe it's been in relation Hoglander and/or Focht lately - while selectively over valuing picks and prospects they were traded by Benning.

By the same token, "surely linden vey can both be worthless now and have had a higher tendons value than the asset he was traded for at the time".

[Blob Mckenzie]

I cant say for sure but i think i read Blob call him Peter Forsling once

It is what it is. The Chancellor hates people challenging him.

Might be time to move along

[Topper]

Genius Jim Benning could see Forsling for what he was. Baubles could not.

Baubles has wailed in blindness repeatedly since then.

Baubles is too small of a man to now acknowledge the vision and genius of Jim Benning.

That trade was prescient, days after, injuries hit and the Canucks needed Clendenning in the lineup.

[Cousin Strawberry]

I cant say for sure but i think i read Blob call him Peter Forsling once

It is what it is. The Chancellor hates people challenging him.

Might be time to move along

Chancellor you saaay....

Hmmm.

*Takes an extra couple pulls on the gandalf pipe he got for just such a problem...

Hes only the steward...

Corn and Brian are the rightful heirs to the throne. Does than make Doc Denethor?



Ok I'm trippin balls baked that sounds a bit fucked