then why bother posting ?
well like I said. I never understand why if you
agree with what's going on, you're "toeing" the company line or a sheep or whatever. why can't it just be. you
agree.
i, personally don't have an issue with that line. (I also don't have a problem with hyman). I feel personally, it allows to spread out our threats down the line up and make every line a threat vs. loading up everyone on one line. that's our greatest strength. (i also feel all this harping on Hyman is really unfair, and i think statements such as "well if he was on the 4th line we'd like him more" is a cop out. I don't have issues with people
not liking him, that's fine, but he's not a plug, he's not 'detrimental' he doesn't have stone hands or anything like that. he's just literally not as high end talented as Matty and Will are. but that line works and liking someone predicated on what line they play is dumbo - because imo they are doing the same thing regardless).
If Babcock were to move him off that line, I wouldn't have an issue with it, because he's making line better. (which would mean the line wasn't producing, or he wanted to get another look at something and liked it better) and accepting that doesn't mean you are jumping onto the next thing babcock did. but again for me. worrying about who plays where, when the line does well, and we're producing, etc, is very minimal (and i think this year, even when we weren't considering the youth it wasn't a big as a deal as people made it. if it were like next year, or the after when you' expect more consistency then i'd have more than a say - because also by then i'd assume that the team is "finished'. I don't think this team is done at all yet, thus worrying whom is where makes no difference to me.
If New GM (Dubas, Hunter, Fenton, Futa, whomever) decided to trade Hyman, it would make sense to me, (but i've also said if they moved anyone not named Matthews, I'd be okay with it, because they are getting pieces again to make us better). for me, and I've been consistent with this forever and if people want to make this equal me being a sheep - fine - unless it's fundementally different from what the organization is preaching - or if it clearly isn't working (and this is supposed to be the final product) or it literally
isn't working and enough time has passed, then i'd quibble. (heck. i've been on record, that I don't agree with a lot of the stuff Babcock is doing now personally, but I can see why he's doing it, so at the end of the day, I can understand
why he's doing it, even though I don't agree with it).
it doesn't make people a hypocrite or wishy washy or just following the party line or whatever. i don't think a lot of it has to be verbalized to get to that point, though around here it's like you have to.
there's nothing wrong with being the opposite either but i often feel it's done
to be done, (thus people can throw out the "well, it's okay to criticise" thing at you. which yes it is. but it's also nice to point out what the end goal is going to be - or at least what the hope is, which I try to do and a lot of others around here too and trusting that process. that doesn't make me a sheep or blindly following management, imo. See: my everlasting hatred of Brian Burke. and even then, I could see some of his reasoning).
