Strangelove wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:54 pm
So for all intents and purposes, twas Bones straight up for Sutts
Even if that was the trade (it wasn’t), we had to sign Sutter immidiately after acquiring him (to a poor contract).
Actually that WAS the trade... "for all intents and purposes".
And it was that or having to eventually sign Bonino (to a poor contract).
(I guess one could say all UFA contracts are "poor contracts" relatively speaking?)
Island Nucklehead wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:04 pm
Why not just trade Bonino at the TDD for younger assets/picks? He was a productive 2C on a sweetheart deal. Given Benning’s draft prowess, surely this would’ve been a better approach...
Bonino was a "productive 2C"??
He was a 15-goal half-a-point-per-game centre playing 17 minutes per game with lots of PP time.
Lord Benning felt a proven top defensive centre was slightly more important to the rebuild than a (3rd round?) pick.
(and we'll eventually get that draft pick when we trade Mr Sutter)
Who the fuck are you, you peasant, to argue with the wisdom of your Lord!
Why not just trade Bonino at the TDD for younger assets/picks? He was a productive 2C on a sweetheart deal. Given Benning’s draft prowess, surely this would’ve been a better approach...
Sadly, the posters who can’t seem to grasp this are fairly limited. In reality if they didn’t learn to whistle they wouldn’t know which end to wipe.
I feel I’m doing gods work here. Leading the helmet wearing mouth breathers down a path of reality. It’s a thankless job but someone’s gotta do it.
Last edited by Blob Mckenzie on Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“I don’t care what you and some other poster were talking about”
The only Benning trade I was instantly unhappy with was the Forsling trade, even though I understood the reasoning.
I was disappointed in the Kesler return but couldn't fault Benning.
I was disappointed in the Garrison return but couldn't fault Benning.
I was real happy with the Gudbranson trade.
I was thrilled with the Lack trade.
I was happy with the Sutter trade.
I was meh with the Kassian trade but overjoyed when I found out about the substance abuse issues.
I didn't have a real opinion on the Vey trade as I didn't know him.
I was ok with the Bieksa trade.
I was ok with the Hansen trade.
I was ok with the Burrows trade.
I was ok with the Vanek trade.
There are others but for the most part I haven't been upset nor has my world been rocked. It would be nice if he could make a good hockey trade where he was the clear winner but at the same time, he hasn't been a loser.
Five on that list had some type of trade protection. Not too shabby.
Strangelove wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:23 pm
^Aaaaaaaand the troll continues to ignore all responses, rather than debate...
Well,
Strangelove wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:17 pm
Who the fuck are you, you peasant, to argue with the wisdom of your Lord!
...doesn't sound like an invitation to debate.
It's like arguing with a creationist. You have your divinely revealed truth, and no facts or arguments are ever going to sway you, so there really isn't any point.
If you don't think extra draft picks help a re-build, we just don't have enough common understanding of the world for a productive discussion.
Strangelove wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:23 pm
^Aaaaaaaand the troll continues to ignore all responses, rather than debate...
Well,
Strangelove wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:17 pm
Who the fuck are you, you peasant, to argue with the wisdom of your Lord!
...doesn't sound like an invitation to debate.
Ignoring responses and making jokes are two different things my humourless friend.
Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:47 pm
If you don't think extra draft picks help a re-build, we just don't have enough common understanding of the world for a productive discussion.
No offense Cliffy, but you generally come off as a pompous ass (I thought you would want to know).
If you don't think a good mentor (top defensive centre in this case) could possibly be as important as an extra 3rd to a rebuild
... well I'm afraid your understanding of the world does not provide for a productive discussion.
Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:47 pm
If you don't think extra draft picks help a re-build, we just don't have enough common understanding of the world for a productive discussion.
No offense Cliffy, but you generally come off as a pompous ass (I thought you would want to know).
Hockey Widow wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:27 pm
The only Benning trade I was instantly unhappy with was the Forsling trade, even though I understood the reasoning.
I was disappointed in the Kesler return but couldn't fault Benning.
I was disappointed in the Garrison return but couldn't fault Benning.
I was real happy with the Gudbranson trade.
I was thrilled with the Lack trade.
I was happy with the Sutter trade.
I was meh with the Kassian trade but overjoyed when I found out about the substance abuse issues.
I didn't have a real opinion on the Vey trade as I didn't know him.
I was ok with the Bieksa trade.
I was ok with the Hansen trade.
I was ok with the Burrows trade.
I was ok with the Vanek trade.
There are others but for the most part I haven't been upset nor has my world been rocked. It would be nice if he could make a good hockey trade where he was the clear winner but at the same time, he hasn't been a loser.
Five on that list had some type of trade protection. Not too shabby.
TSN has reported that Chicago is shopping Forsling. I got news for you HW, he’s not that special.
“If you want to know who your friends are, get a jail sentence” - Charles Bukowski
Strangelove wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 5:00 pm
... well I'm afraid your understanding of the world does not provide for a productive discussion.
No basis for further discussion. It's always nice to end these with common ground.
And ole close-minded Cliffy makes fun of "creationists" (his definition).
No mentors, just extra draft picks please, Cliffy loves his Vancouver Oilers...
Isn’t it funny that the laughs kept guys like komarov and Martin around during their rebuild, and now look at the islanders benefiting from komarkv and Martin. It’s like guys like them are actually a valuable commodity.
Blob Mckenzie wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:21 pm
Sadly, the posters who can’t seem to grasp this are fairly limited. In reality if they didn’t learn to whistle they wouldn’t know which end to wipe.
“I don’t care what you and some other poster were talking about”
Blob Mckenzie wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:21 pm
Sadly, the posters who can’t seem to grasp this are fairly limited. In reality if they didn’t learn to whistle they wouldn’t know which end to wipe.
Hockey Widow wrote: ↑Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:27 pm
The only Benning trade I was instantly unhappy with was the Forsling trade, even though I understood the reasoning.
I was disappointed in the Kesler return but couldn't fault Benning.
I was disappointed in the Garrison return but couldn't fault Benning.
I was real happy with the Gudbranson trade.
I was thrilled with the Lack trade.
I was happy with the Sutter trade.
I was meh with the Kassian trade but overjoyed when I found out about the substance abuse issues.
I didn't have a real opinion on the Vey trade as I didn't know him.
I was ok with the Bieksa trade.
I was ok with the Hansen trade.
I was ok with the Burrows trade.
I was ok with the Vanek trade.
There are others but for the most part I haven't been upset nor has my world been rocked. It would be nice if he could make a good hockey trade where he was the clear winner but at the same time, he hasn't been a loser.
Five on that list had some type of trade protection. Not too shabby.
TSN has reported that Chicago is shopping Forsling. I got news for you HW, he’s not that special.
Yes I know that now. My point was that that was the only trade were I had a real negative reaction too. I think that’s what speaks volumes to the idea that Benning’s trades are fiascos.
