And yet he wasn’t a bottom pairing guy, more lies you make up to support your point.
He played with Hughes a lot and was a top 4 defender for the Canucks, which is why they were so pissed off when he was unavailable to play and they were losing games. That’s exactly why the relationship fell apart.
So now we have two lies you have peddled to try and support your point: 1) that he was so bad he was available for free earlier in the season, 2) he was available because he was a bottom pair defender on the Canucks.
Nice try iceprick. But this is where you are telling a lie. Please post where I said either #1 or #2. It should be easy to check with my post history. But I'll save you some time. This is you filling in what you want to hear.
Here's another lie from you. Hamonic didn't play "a lot" in the top 4. He did play a bit, but was swiftly moved down the pecking order due to his deficiencies. He played with Hughes, but I wouldn't call it a lot. He was the fourth-highest partner of Hughes. Luke Schenn, Tucker Poolman, and Tyler Myers played more with Hughes than Hamonic did. Actually, they played significantly more:
643:31, 273:16, 213:46 vs. 122:49
The lowest guy (Myers) was almost double the amount as Hamonic.
Does it sound familiar? How Hamonic was brought in to play top 4, but couldn't cut it? You know who he played more with (128:39)? Brad Hunt. You say, who the fook is this guy? Right, he's in the AHL now since he's so good. Don't think those two played much top 4. So yeah, don't throw stones in glass houses and such.
Your hat seems to now rest on someone in the media calling their GM a wizard for getting rid of a guy that the team had turned on based in his vax status to start the season. Not exactly a solid position, but everyone is allowed their opinions.
No, wrong again. It wasn't just one guy. It was a number of media, NHL personalities, posters here, etc. shared the same view. So yeah. That's a lie from you. I can post again all the links again (which there are plenty), but I'm assuming you can go back and read it for yourself. The consensus was that this was a bad trade. But you don't follow consensus, right? You just live in your own world. That's very apparent.
Just to add some more context, the third we gave up was not ours, and was closer to our 4th round pick that we didn’t have to give up. PD didn’t care about the mid round pick, as he stated he wanted Hamonic in the team to assess for for the rest of the season to see if he could help our RD situation going into next season. And low and behold, he has been helpful, Sanderson’s partner no less (the kind of partner he and his dad wanted for him by the way) all for the small price of a 3rd round pick.
He should care about mid-round picks because the Senators draft picks are an important currency. I'd argue more so than other teams since we can't attract FA's and the only we build this team is through the draft, and using those picks wisely for trades. So the 3rd or 4th is important and should not be thrown away like candy. You are sold that he's been useful. I say it's too early to tell. He's had some good games, and some bad games. Let's see how it pans out. Hamonic has shown that over time he shows his deficiencies and has to be moved down the lineup. One good game with Sanderson is not proof it's been "worth it". So no, he has not been helpful just yet. Nice try.
Here’s another of your lies by the way: a 3rd round pick in a trade does not in any way signify to the league that you are a top 4 RD. That is straight up bullshit. Did we see top 4 guys get traded for 3rd round picks this off season? Everyone and their dog knows that top 4 RD’s are amongst the most valuable positions right now.
You're right. A 3rd doesn't signify that it's a top 4 D. But it also doesn't say that we acquired a bottom pairing D, which is what Hamonic is. We paid a premium for a bottom pairing D. I hope it works out and he can play top 4 minutes and help Sanderson. Unfortunately, recent history has shown us that Hamonic is not good enough for that. Actually, this is a classic Dorion move. Overpay for a bottom pairing D, and hope he can play in the top four. (See: Gudbranson)
By the way, you aren’t known at all to give praise where it’s due, nice try though.
Lol, that's the difference between you and me. I will give praise when it's warranted. You on the other hand will not say anything negative. Again you are living in your own world. You want examples? This is what I said about the DeBrincat trade, which I loved:
He's exactly what I was advocating for in January this year. We needed top 6 scoring, more specifically a sniper. I didn't think we'll get someone of his caliber, but he's been a perfect addition.
So now give me an example of a negative post from yourself. I bet you can't find one. You're just a bootlicker.
I agree that we paid more than was likely needed, but in the end, he's providing better value than a bottom pair defender, he's been good for us, so I'm not stressed about it. Like I said, had we paid a 5th instead, it really wouldn't make much of a difference.
I'm less concerned when we overpay for someone useful,
Fair enough. As I said, the book is not closed on Hamonic. I actually wanted him over Gudbranson and JBrown a couple of years ago. That's all I'm arguing though. That he was an overpayment. If he works out and plays effective top 4 D (which he hasn't yet consistently), then I'll be here first to say he was worth it. He's not there yet.
