Dubas opinion based on his interviews and decisions.

[Joey Hoser]

I'm well, thanks. Re: opportunism...It's bad form to intervene in a conversation that although is visible for anyone to respond to, doesn't require intervention and should probably be allowed to play out between the two concerned. It might be an antiquated notion now, but it's certainly not something that renders someone "crazy" for wanting it to remain between the concerned.

As for what? I don't know what your personal motivation was, but it wasn't an appropriate time to jump in.

That is simply not at all true about message forums.

 

[Joey Hoser]

I am merely pointing out that blaming only Babcock is wrong the roster needs changes. Dubas needs to share the blame for our roster as some of the decisions were directly on him. The Goat and Marincin as well as Sparks all are Dubas selections.

Dubas signed JT and I gave him credit for it so I seriously do not know wtf you are talking about.

There is far more I can say about Dubas but that is for another time. This is a thread about Babcock and Dubas has to share some of any blame based on his selections as well.

But there's nothing to "blame" anyone for. We're 6-3 and our roster is full of young stars. The guys who don't play will always be guys who aren't good enough. That's how it works.

 

[diceman934]

But there's nothing to "blame" anyone for. We're 6-3 and our roster is full of young stars. The guys who don't play will always be guys who aren't good enough. That's how it works.

Have you read this thread?

It is all about placing blame on Babcock I simply added another name if the blame game is going to be tossed about.

I am not concerned at all with the team, we need some changes but we should get that straightened out by Jan. If not then I will be concerned.

 

[Gary Nylund]

I didn't and I think you took my response in a way it certainly wasn't meant to be taken. Apparently, in offense where none was intended.

Offense? What offense?

 

[Duke Silver]

I am merely pointing out that blaming only Babcock is wrong the roster needs changes. Dubas needs to share the blame for our roster as some of the decisions were directly on him. The Goat and Marincin as well as Sparks all are Dubas selections.

Dubas signed JT and I gave him credit for it so I seriously do not know wtf you are talking about.

There is far more I can say about Dubas but that is for another time. This is a thread about Babcock and Dubas has to share some of any blame based on his selections as well.

Yeah, he signed Tavares but... Gauthier, Marincin and Sparks, though!

 

[Gary Nylund]

Have you read this thread?

It is all about placing blame on Babcock I simply added another name if the blame game is going to be tossed about.

I am not concerned at all with the team, we need some changes but we should get that straightened out by Jan. If not then I will be concerned.

I hope you're not saying Dubas needs to acquire a big physical Dman by January, that would be kind of an arbitrary deadline. Especially considering how few trades are made in today's NHL, forcing a trade doesn't seem wise.

Agree Dubas shares some blame, everyone in the organisation shares in that. However, since he has only been in his role for a short time I think he gets a pass for now, especially since it's still very early in the season. Plus we're 6-3, not sure "blame" is the right word here.

 

[ITM]

That is simply not at all true about message forums.

Sure it is. Good judgement to allow posters the room to navigate a misunderstanding is often applied.

 

[ITM]

Offense? What offense?

The need for upgrades apparently. Sorry...the need for five pieces to enhance our playoffs chances. At any rate...

 

[Joey Hoser]

Sure it is. Good judgement to allow posters the room to navigate a misunderstanding is often applied.

Well I'm going to remember this next time you respond to one of my posts when I wan't specifically addressing you. Good day sir.

 

[57 Years No Cup]

Sorry, picks...not pricks! LOL. Damn autocorrect!

Actually, uh, the Leafs kinda need some pricks. They are a little too soft. We need some hard pricks.

 

[Gary Nylund]

This was my original post:

I think it may be the other way around - the better the team looks, the more pressure there may be to make a deal because having the Nylander asset contributing nothing this season could potentially cost us the cup.

This was your original response:

Can't think like that with the defense we have. We took another step this season, but we're still in need of two to three pieces on the back end and likely another couple in the bottom six. Our window isn't short and continuing to be patient (Think Nashville and David Poile) in asset management is always the right way to build a perennial contender.

Now if only we could replicate their cap management.

And here is your latest post:

The need for upgrades apparently. Sorry...the need for five pieces to enhance our playoffs chances. At any rate...

Once again, the idea that we need 5 more pieces in order to think in terms of winning the cup is absurd. That does NOT mean five more pieces wouldn't "enhance" our chances or that we should stop trying to become a better team. And nowhere did I say or even hint that our window is short or that we shouldn't be patient.

I hope that helps. Let me know if you have any questions but please stop shifting the goalposts and arguing with strawmen. Thanks!

 

[57 Years No Cup]

You keep shifting the goalposts. 5 players away is wacky.

Be careful. ITM is an assassin....

 

[57 Years No Cup]

Gain had by me? The hell are you talking about?

Nevermind man. Clearly I touched a nerve somehow.

Welcome to any discussion with ITM. War is hell.

 

[ITM]

Well I'm going to remember this next time you respond to one of my posts when I wan't specifically addressing you. Good day sir.

You've responded to numerous posts of mine without being criticized for it. That's obviously not the issue. The issue is intervening (call it "tag-teaming"?) on the post you did that didn't require you to discern the issue for me, or for the other poster's accusation. It wasn't a shifting of goalposts and secondly, I asked the question of the other person without having received a response. That's an instance where if understanding is going to be had, it needs the concerned going back and forth...You needlessly intervened. That's not the same as general participation.

 

[ITM]

Welcome to any discussion with ITM. War is hell.

I guess your era of civility is over. A shame.

 

[LeafFever]

What the hell does this have to do with us having Marincin on our roster or Holl and Sparks. Sorry but he shares in the blame for our roster as I know that Babcock did not want Marincin and Sparks and why is Gunny not playing wing for us? He required no waivers. If we lost Marincin to waivers would it hurt our team? Or the Goat..Not one bit.

So letting the 25 year-old goalie go and keeping mcbackup at 35 would be better?
And I'm confused what is bad about Holl.

The guy delivers the biggest UFA of any GM in at least 12 years and you are complaining about a 7th DMan on the roster.

 

[57 Years No Cup]

I guess your era of civility is over. A shame.

It's a civil war....

No big guy I'm good. Just making sure you're paying attention. I will be way better. Not because of anything you did, but because I got upset with myself.

I did notice you got a bit overheated with other posters there. It's a hockey board. Relax.

 

[Gary Nylund]

So letting the 25 year-old goalie go and keeping mcbackup at 35 would be better?
And I'm confused what is bad about Holl.

The guy delivers the biggest UFA of any GM in at least 12 years and you are complaining about a 7th DMan on the roster.

Well ... on one hand, Tavaress probably signs here anyway (though not a sure thing). On the other hand, I agree that Marincin isn't an issue. Bottom line is that Dubas hasn't had a chance to do anything major yet so it's too early to judge him IMO. I am encouraged that so far, it doesn't seem like he's giving an inch in the Nylander negotiations. Of course so far it's a speculation and rumours so far but at least from the rumours it sounds like he's doing well.

It's a civil war....

No big guy I'm good. Just making sure you're paying attention. I will be way better. Not because of anything you did, but because I got upset with myself.

I did notice you got a bit overheated with other posters there. It's a hockey board. Relax.

ITM - you gotta admit, he's got ya there.

 

[57 Years No Cup]

It's a civil war....

No big guy I'm good. Just making sure you're paying attention. I will be way better. Not because of anything you did, but because I got upset with myself.

I did notice you got a bit overheated with other posters there. It's a hockey board. Relax.

EDIT: One more thing. When you post a comment, think of it as "publishing" it. We are the content here, and all comments are available for public response and consideration. You shouldn't be surprised if others "butt in". There are private messages if you only want a response from a certain individual.

 

[FerrisRox]

Kyle Dubas maybe smart but he is sure looking like he is full of himself right now and Shanny needs to tell him to zip it when it comes to comments that are fixed with no flexibility as he has made this short time as our GM.

In light of Shanahan's incredibly stupid public comments in regards to the Nylander contract situation he is the last guy that should tell anyone to zip it.

Shanahan should get out of the way and let the person he has hired to be the General Manager do the job. The last thing the organization needs is Shanahan meddling and being involved in hockey decisions.

 

[diceman934]

Have you read this thread?

It is all about placing blame on Babcock I simply added another name if the blame game is going to be tossed about.

I am not concerned at all with the team, we need some changes but we should get that straightened out by Jan. If not then I will be concerned.

That is simply not at all true about message forums.

i must apologize as I though I was responding to a post in the Babcock thread.
So my point of have you read this thread is silly.

 

[diceman934]

In light of Shanahan's incredibly stupid public comments in regards to the Nylander contract situation he is the last guy that should tell anyone to zip it.

Shanahan should get out of the way and let the person he has hired to be the General Manager do the job. The last thing the organization needs is Shanahan meddling and being involved in hockey decisions.

Shanny not being involved in hockey decisions. My lord that is what he was hired to do.

 

[ITM]

Once again, the idea that we need 5 more pieces in order to think in terms of winning the cup is absurd. That does NOT mean five more pieces wouldn't "enhance" our chances or that we should stop trying to become a better team. And nowhere did I say or even hint that our window is short or that we shouldn't be patient.

I hope that helps. Let me know if you have any questions but please stop shifting the goalposts and arguing with strawmen. Thanks!

I think it's far more absurd to on one hand state we don't need five more pieces in order to win the Cup and then the next sentence state that that claim doesn't exclude five more pieces wouldn't enhance our chances to win the Cup.

Simple accusations of fallacies don't equate to their actual presence. Asking clarifying questions isn't the same as rejecting what you believe constitutes appropriate evidence. Again, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

The original statement I replied to:

I think it may be the other way around - the better the team looks, the more pressure there may be to make a deal because having the Nylander asset contributing nothing this season could potentially cost us the cup.

In your last response you said:

Once again, the idea that we need 5 more pieces in order to think in terms of winning the cup is absurd. That does NOT mean five more pieces wouldn't "enhance" our chances or that we should stop trying to become a better team.

The bold in the second quote is precisely my point you've repeatedly noted as "wacky". There's no difference to my apprehension that sees us needing a number of pieces to enhance our chances to your comment on "the Nylander asset"...And yet now you choose to include it as a not-out-of-the-question qualifier to the rest of your criticism of my position?

Owing to the possibility that anything I say, contrary to your opinion, will be noted as "shifting the goalposts"...I took your statement (the one I originally replied to) to mean that Toronto is close enough to the Cup that "the Nylander asset" (whatever that asset is, i.e. Nylander or that which Nylander is traded for) represents a reasonable difference between ultimate success and ultimate failure i.e. "could potentially cost us the cup."

And now qualifying your statement as allowing for enhancement, where it certainly didn't imply as such , and that it doesn't preclude the club attempting to get better...Well...Note: You said "having the Nylander asset contributing nothing this season could potentially cost us the cup." There's nothing that implies for the position you then subsequently criticize but claim exists in your post. But you say you actually have it, so I"ll accept it. But it wasn't there at the time of your statement and every statement following in response to mine called the proposition, "wacky".

Which is inherently contradictory.

 

[ITM]

It's a civil war....

No big guy I'm good. Just making sure you're paying attention. I will be way better. Not because of anything you did, but because I got upset with myself.

I did notice you got a bit overheated with other posters there. It's a hockey board. Relax.

You have my full attention, dsred. Not to worry. And the back and forth here and there actually is relaxing for me. I appreciate the concern.

 

[Gary Nylund]

I think it's far more absurd to on one hand state we don't need five more pieces in order to win the Cup and then the next sentence state that that claim doesn't exclude five more pieces wouldn't enhance our chances to win the Cup.

Simple accusations of fallacies don't equate to their actual presence. Asking clarifying questions isn't the same as rejecting what you believe constitutes appropriate evidence. Again, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

The original statement I replied to:

In your last response you said:

The bold in the second quote is precisely my point you've repeatedly noted as "wacky". There's no difference to my apprehension that sees us needing a number of pieces to enhance our chances to your comment on "the Nylander asset"...And yet now you choose to include it as a not-out-of-the-question qualifier to the rest of your criticism of my position?

Owing to the possibility that anything I say, contrary to your opinion, will be noted as "shifting the goalposts"...I took your statement (the one I originally replied to) to mean that Toronto is close enough to the Cup that "the Nylander asset" (whatever that asset is, i.e. Nylander or that which Nylander is traded for) represents a reasonable difference between ultimate success and ultimate failure i.e. "could potentially cost us the cup."

And now qualifying your statement as allowing for enhancement, where it certainly didn't imply as such , and that it doesn't preclude the club attempting to get better...Well...Note: You said "having the Nylander asset contributing nothing this season could potentially cost us the cup." There's nothing that implies for the position you then subsequently criticize but claim exists in your post. But you say you actually have it, so I"ll accept it. But it wasn't there at the time of your statement and every statement following in response to mine called the proposition, "wacky".

Which is inherently contradictory.

LOL. WTF is this post? If you're going to pretend to not understand, you could do so using a lot less words. And if you are going to use so many words you could brush up on your grammar first, sheesh.

And once again, LOL at us needing 5 more pieces.