Prospect Info: Gianni Fairbrother a.k.a. Giovanni Fairbrudder

[montreal]

I definitely feel as if we are getting an NHL player in Gianni Fairbrother one way or another.

I sure hope so cause I sure hope they didn't draft him for need vs getting Dorofeyev, who was one of Russia's best players in the U-20 tournament this weekend. I admit I don't know much about either so far but Dorofeyev was impressive.

 

[dcyhabs]

Dorofyev put up points. The most obvious draft error is neglecting scoring. It’s pretty much the only solid stats there is.

Edit: stats not dats...

 

[dackelljuneaubulis02]

fairbrother seems okay but really struble and norlinder were fine in filling the LD 'need'. passing on dorothy was a bit goofy. we'll see in the end but come on depth really means nothing after the top 3 or so in any given position. for god sakes, go bpa after that. mete, romanov, harris, struble, norlinder...we really needed this other kid?

 

[26Mats]

I sure hope so cause I sure hope they didn't draft him for need vs getting Dorofeyev, who was one of Russia's best players in the U-20 tournament this weekend. I admit I don't know much about either so far but Dorofeyev was impressive.

Timmins already said they drafted for need. He said they targeted left D's, it wasn't a coincidence we drafted so many in a row. He said with younger and younger players being able to play in the league quicker, you need to use the draft to address need. He also said he tried to disguise it in the interviews leading up to the draft saying they would draft the best player available, but really they were drafting for need, which they defined as LD.

It's a big mistake if you ask me.

The year Aho went early in the 2nd round, we took a Dman (Juulsen) because Bergevin told Timmins to get him a defenseman in the first round.

Always draft the bpa. It's not like this is our last chance to get LD's. There's always next year. What's the rush. At least D seems to be Timmins' strong suite. That and that alone may make this a good approach.

 

[Whitesnake]

Timmins already said they drafted for need. He said they targeted left D's, it wasn't a coincidence we drafted so many in a row. He said with younger and younger players being able to play in the league quicker, you need to use the draft to address need. He also said he tried to disguise it in the interviews leading up to the draft saying they would draft the best player available, but really they were drafting for need, which they defined as LD.

It's a big mistake if you ask me.

The year Aho went early in the 2nd round, we took a Dman (Juulsen) because Bergevin told Timmins to get him a defenseman in the first round.

Always draft the bpa. It's not like this is our last chance to get LD's. There's always next year. What's the rush. At least D seems to be Timmins' strong suite. That and that alone may make this a good approach.

This has to stop. Bergevin do not ask Timmins to get him a guy Timmins doesn't want. Didn't you see the vid this year? Timmins tells Bergevin who we are going with. Not the other way around. Yes, maybe Bergevin might say that if Timmins hesitates between 2 guys, go with the D this time....but Timmins has to love the guy anyway.

It is NEVER a good strategy to go with needs. It's immensely stupid. 'Cause a guy who doesn't make it do NOT fill a need.

 

[26Mats]

This has to stop. Bergevin do not ask Timmins to get him a guy Timmins doesn't want. Didn't you see the vid this year? Timmins tells Bergevin who we are going with. Not the other way around. Yes, maybe Bergevin might say that if Timmins hesitates between 2 guys, go with the D this time....but Timmins has to love the guy anyway.

It is NEVER a good strategy to go with needs. It's immensely stupid. 'Cause a guy who doesn't make it do NOT fill a need.

Bergevin has last word on everything.

Timmins' job is to select the best talent available, within the restrictions set by his boss.

Timmins and Bergevin both said when Bergevin came, at first at least, there was more of an emphasis on size. This is on video. Just like there was a video after the draft of Bergevin saying he told Timmins to get him a defenseman in the first round.

Not sure who's idea it was to draft for need. But it would sound more like a GM decision, given the reason given that they want to use young players to fill the roster right away.

 

[Whitesnake]

Bergevin has last word on everything.

Timmins' job is to select the best talent available, within the restrictions set by his boss.

Timmins and Bergevin both said when Bergevin came, at first at least, there was more of an emphasis on size. This is on video. Just like there was a video after the draft of Bergevin saying he told Timmins to get him a defenseman in the first round.

Not sure who's idea it was to draft for need. But it would sound more like a GM decision, given the reason given that they want to use young players to fill the roster right away.

Well you didn't watch the video. And you didn't watch the video of Timmins managing the room when it's time to discuss the picks.

 

[26Mats]

Well you didn't watch the video. And you didn't watch the video of Timmins managing the room when it's time to discuss the picks.

I did watch the video. What are you referring to?

What in that video shows you Bergevin didn't instruct Timmins to draft for need?

 

[Whitesnake]

I did watch the video. What are you referring to?

What in that video shows you Bergevin didn't instruct Timmins to draft for need?

I see Timmins saying to go with Caulfield. I see Churla talking to Timmins saying that we indeed need more scoring power. I see Timmins turning to Bergie and saying that we will go with Caulfield. To which Bergie said...yes. Saying yes is not having the final word. It's acknowledging that his scouts know more than he does and that the GM job is to delegate. I see Timmins and Co talking about the talent of the players. And that even if Bergie would say let's concentrate more on D's, Timmins by agreeing with it means that he also agrees with the point of view but that despite the needs factor, if Timmins doesn't like a D, he is not going to go with him.

 

[26Mats]

I see Timmins saying to go with Caulfield. I see Churla talking to Timmins saying that we indeed need more scoring power. I see Timmins turning to Bergie and saying that we will go with Caulfield. To which Bergie said...yes. Saying yes is not having the final word. It's acknowledging that his scouts know more than he does and that the GM job is to delegate. I see Timmins and Co talking about the talent of the players. And that even if Bergie would say let's concentrate more on D's, Timmins by agreeing with it means that he also agrees with the point of view but that despite the needs factor, if Timmins doesn't like a D, he is not going to go with him.

Yes, I saw all of that. It proves Berhevin didn't, in advance of that conversation, mandate that we take a d in the first tound.

But, it doesn't prove anything about whether there was a mandate to stock pile left D's on day 2. In fact, we know that was the goal. Timmins said in the interview following day 2 that they were not picking the best player available and coincidentally it happened to be a left d all those times in a row. He said they were picking left D. Who decide on that strategy? Timmins or Bergevin, or the whole team together? I haven't seen any evidence of who made that decision. Nothing in the video you mentioned proves who did. I would suspect it came from Bergevin, as the reason given was to fill current roster needs quickly, because young players play in the league quickly. But ultimately i don't know.

What i do know is in the Juulsen year, after the pick was made, Bergevin went on Camera and he said he told Timmins: "Get me a defenseman." That's a fact.

 

[Whitesnake]

Yes, I saw all of that. It proves Berhevin didn't, in advance of that conversation, mandate that we take a d in the first tound.

But, it doesn't prove anything about whether there was a mandate to stock pile left D's on day 2. In fact, we know that was the goal. Timmins said in the interview following day 2 that they were not picking the best player available and coincidentally it happened to be a left d all those times in a row. He said they were picking left D. Who decide on that strategy? Timmins or Bergevin, or the whole team together? I haven't seen any evidence of who made that decision. Nothing in the video you mentioned proves who did. I would suspect it came from Bergevin, as the reason given was to fill current roster needs quickly, because young players play in the league quickly. But ultimately i don't know.

What i do know is in the Juulsen year, after the pick was made, Bergevin went on Camera and he said he told Timmins: "Get me a defenseman." That's a fact.

And again, if Juulsen sucks for Timmins, he is not going to pick him no matter if Bergevin holds a gun on his head. Bergevin might have whatever strategy in his little head, if the scouts tell him there's nothing there to pick, there will be nothing to pick. That's my point. It' s just impossible to reduce the roles of every scout of this team by saying that no matter the work you put in this year, I'm going left D no matter how good the guys are. Yes, the GM MIGHT stress that this is a position he'll like to fill, and again, he would be wrong. Every time. But if Timmins doesn't see it, Bergevin won't have it.

At the JUulsen draft, one scout told Bergevin that he will now sleep like a baby because we picked Juulsen. All those rave reviews made Bergevin be happy to say that we were going D. Because for them, D's were the way to go based on who was available.

 

[Gainesvillain]

What i do know is in the Juulsen year, after the pick was made, Bergevin went on Camera and he said he told Timmins: "Get me a defenseman." That's a fact.

Is there a link for this?

 

[26Mats]

And again, if Juulsen sucks for Timmins, he is not going to pick him no matter if Bergevin holds a gun on his head. Bergevin might have whatever strategy in his little head, if the scouts tell him there's nothing there to pick, there will be nothing to pick. That's my point. It' s just impossible to reduce the roles of every scout of this team by saying that no matter the work you put in this year, I'm going left D no matter how good the guys are. Yes, the GM MIGHT stress that this is a position he'll like to fill, and again, he would be wrong. Every time. But if Timmins doesn't see it, Bergevin won't have it.

At the JUulsen draft, one scout told Bergevin that he will now sleep like a baby because we picked Juulsen. All those rave reviews made Bergevin be happy to say that we were going D. Because for them, D's were the way to go based on who was available.

At the end of the day, there is back and forth between GM and scouts.

But the fact that both MB and Timmins said there has been more emphasis on size since MB took over, because that's how MB sees things, shows that MB will have an impact on who is selected. I hope you understand that. In your example, MB doesn't need to hold a gun to Timmins' head. He just needs to instruct him. Timmins would never disobey. But if he did, he could be fired.

And the bottom line is, this team is drafting for need, not BPA, and I don't like it. I would argue ultimatly it's Bergevin's fault, because he could easily tell Timmins draft the best player available or I'll find someone who will. But if Timmins has been pushing for drafting for need, he's just as culpable.

 

[26Mats]

Is there a link for this?

the interview i remember was with TSN, i think. Working now so don't have time to look it up. here's the sportnet interview. There is a relevant quote at 5:45. But it's not the one I'm thinking of

 

[Legend123]

fairbrother seems okay but really struble and norlinder were fine in filling the LD 'need'. passing on dorothy was a bit goofy. we'll see in the end but come on depth really means nothing after the top 3 or so in any given position. for god sakes, go bpa after that. mete, romanov, harris, struble, norlinder...we really needed this other kid?

idk... Doro doesnt look that impressive. I watched him play vs Swe and he was quite boring. I would wait till he plays in the KHL before ssaying anything about him but Ill agree I would have drafted him over Fairbrother easily. Other than that, and maybe going after Puistola, who also has his own set of problems, the draft went quite well imo.

 

[Whitesnake]

the interview i remember was with TSN, i think. Working now so don't have time to look it up. here's the sportnet interview. There is a relevant quote at 5:45. But it's not the one I'm thinking of

When Bergevin is being interviewed, he repeats what he was told by his scouts. Cause chances are...,he never say those kids play. And if and when he did, it's WAY less then the scouts did. So when he says he's happy to have a good complete d-man, it's because he was told he was.

Then, yes, they are happy to have the possibility to have prospects in every position out there. I would too. But you don't force something that isn't there. If so, you have to fire them immediately. And if Timmins is against Bergevin's way of seeing things, he would have gone somewhere else. There is NO WAY that this guy wouldn't find another job somewhere else. And under HIS conditions.

Again, I will not tell you here that I know exactly how it's going. Nobody can. I have no doubt that Bergevin could very well tell Timmins, and he would be wrong doing it, that this draft, he'd love to concentrate on D's. And that if we hesitate between 1 forward and 1 D, go with the D. But, again, if Timmins don't like that D, he is not going to pick him.

And yes, Bergevin and Co are awesomly wrong to go with needs.

 

[26Mats]

When Bergevin is being interviewed, he repeats what he was told by his scouts. Cause chances are...,he never say those kids play. And if and when he did, it's WAY less then the scouts did. So when he says he's happy to have a good complete d-man, it's because he was told he was.

Then, yes, they are happy to have the possibility to have prospects in every position out there. I would too. But you don't force something that isn't there. If so, you have to fire them immediately. And if Timmins is against Bergevin's way of seeing things, he would have gone somewhere else. There is NO WAY that this guy wouldn't find another job somewhere else. And under HIS conditions.

Again, I will not tell you here that I know exactly how it's going. Nobody can. I have no doubt that Bergevin could very well tell Timmins, and he would be wrong doing it, that this draft, he'd love to concentrate on D's. And that if we hesitate between 1 forward and 1 D, go with the D. But, again, if Timmins don't like that D, he is not going to pick him.

And yes, Bergevin and Co are awesomly wrong to go with needs.

Only good thing about drafting for need is when it's for D, which seems to be Timmins' strong suite.

Fairbrother, Norlinder, and Struble are looking like good prospects so far, along with Romanov, Harris, Brook, Fleury, Mete, Sergachev, and Juulsen. That's 10 good d prospects. He will most probly have drafted an entire new NHL dcore in a 5 year span (2015-2019).

 

[Scintillating10]

I sure hope so cause I sure hope they didn't draft him for need vs getting Dorofeyev, who was one of Russia's best players in the U-20 tournament this weekend. I admit I don't know much about either so far but Dorofeyev was impressive.

A lot of good defensemen go in later rounds of draft

 

[Hfbsux]

Bergevin has last word on everything.

Timmins' job is to select the best talent available, within the restrictions set by his boss.

Timmins and Bergevin both said when Bergevin came, at first at least, there was more of an emphasis on size. This is on video. Just like there was a video after the draft of Bergevin saying he told Timmins to get him a defenseman in the first round.

Not sure who's idea it was to draft for need. But it would sound more like a GM decision, given the reason given that they want to use young players to fill the roster right away.

You don't draft for need with a top pick. I have no problem drafting for need in the 2nd round and down.

 

[Mike Mike Caron]

This has to stop. Bergevin do not ask Timmins to get him a guy Timmins doesn't want. Didn't you see the vid this year? Timmins tells Bergevin who we are going with. Not the other way around. Yes, maybe Bergevin might say that if Timmins hesitates between 2 guys, go with the D this time....but Timmins has to love the guy anyway.

It is NEVER a good strategy to go with needs. It's immensely stupid. 'Cause a guy who doesn't make it do NOT fill a need.

I feel Bergevin is more invested in top-3 picks like the Galchenyuk and Kotkaniemi draft, as there is so little options to choose from, but at 15 or 26, it's all Timmins.

 

[Whitesnake]

You don't draft for need with a top pick. I have no problem drafting for need in the 2nd round and down.

Makes even less sense to do that. With a top pick, if you think you are 1 D away from becoming a contender and you hesitate between Byram and Turcotte...go Byram. But after 2nd round and up? How the heck are those guys needs when chances are they won't make it. On the contrary, you go as BPA as possible 'cause that's the only way you'd have a greater percentage in getting somebody interesting.

You should never draft by need. Not in the 1st round. Not ever. But it might make more sense with a top pick.

 

[montreal]

Yes, I saw all of that. It proves Berhevin didn't, in advance of that conversation, mandate that we take a d in the first tound.

But, it doesn't prove anything about whether there was a mandate to stock pile left D's on day 2. In fact, we know that was the goal. Timmins said in the interview following day 2 that they were not picking the best player available and coincidentally it happened to be a left d all those times in a row. He said they were picking left D. Who decide on that strategy? Timmins or Bergevin, or the whole team together? I haven't seen any evidence of who made that decision. Nothing in the video you mentioned proves who did. I would suspect it came from Bergevin, as the reason given was to fill current roster needs quickly, because young players play in the league quickly. But ultimately i don't know.

What i do know is in the Juulsen year, after the pick was made, Bergevin went on Camera and he said he told Timmins: "Get me a defenseman." That's a fact.

Timmins said last year that they made a mistake in '13 going for size and in the past he's said they made a mistake in '06 going for need, so you hate to see him repeat that mistake.

idk... Doro doesnt look that impressive. I watched him play vs Swe and he was quite boring. I would wait till he plays in the KHL before ssaying anything about him but Ill agree I would have drafted him over Fairbrother easily. Other than that, and maybe going after Puistola, who also has his own set of problems, the draft went quite well imo.

He was Russia's best player vs the Czechs's and he was one of their best vs the Finns. Overall their line was the best in the tourny with Morozov and Denisenko.

A lot of good defensemen go in later rounds of draft

hopefully he's one of them and Timmins clearly is better at drafting D then forwards but if Fairbrother ends up being nothing but a decent AHLer and Dorofeyev ends up being a good NHLer that will sting. But who knows what will happen, as I said I don't know much about either but just watched Dorofeyev play 3 games where he was one of the best players in the tourny. Fairbrother should be in Laval for the '20-'21 season so we'll see how that goes.

 

[Playmaker09]

Makes even less sense to do that. With a top pick, if you think you are 1 D away from becoming a contender and you hesitate between Byram and Turcotte...go Byram. But after 2nd round and up? How the heck are those guys needs when chances are they won't make it. On the contrary, you go as BPA as possible 'cause that's the only way you'd have a greater percentage in getting somebody interesting.

You should never draft by need. Not in the 1st round. Not ever. But it might make more sense with a top pick.

I'd take it even further.

It's important to remember you're almost certain to lose value either way in trying to address a need, whether on the draft floor or years later when trying to trade your BPA for a player that's a better fit for your roster. But you ARE going to do it at some point if you want to build a competent NHL roster.

Perfect example is 2013.

Tampa outsmarted themselves by taking their BPA Drouin over Jones. Ended up with the far worse player overall and had to move their former 3OA for 8OA Sergachev to address the need on D and are still dreaming of having a legit top pairing RHD like Jones.

Meanwhile, Nashville actually got the BPA in Jones but ended up having to trade down in value to get a C in Johansen. They were also lucky he was ever available due to the rift between him and CBJ. And they lost value in Jones because he could never get any playing time above Weber and Ellis on the depth chart or PP to prove his worth. They could've instead taken their destiny into their own hands and selected the better player in Monahan.

Yakupov's another example of not taking into account how a player will develop on your roster. How was he ever going to develop playing behind Eberle, an offensively sheltered #1RW, and Hall on the right half-wall of the PP? You're expecting an 18 year old one dimensional offensive threat to develop those skills on a 2nd or 3rd shutdown line? I'm not saying you have to take Ryan Murray at 1 if your scouts aren't a big fan of him, but are you not better off trading down for a king's ransom and taking the two-way LW in Forsberg or RHD in Trouba?

Staying where you are and taking the BPA that falls into your lap is lazy and a bad way to build a team. Identify who you want based on your scouting reports and the direction your team is going and trade up/down accordingly.

Or if you know you're going to take a certain player you consider far and away the BPA, like Yakupov, you need to have a trade in place beforehand to pave the road for his success. ie. Trading Eberle for a 2c or RHD while his value was at its peak in 2012 (76 pts in 78 games heading into the Yakupov draft)

 

[JoelWarlord]

It's important to remember you're almost certain to lose value either way in trying to address a need, whether on the draft floor or years later when trying to trade your BPA for a player that's a better fit for your roster. But you ARE going to do it at some point if you want to build a competent NHL roster.

Not necessarily. Toronto just traded their 3C for a slightly worse (but cheaper so it's a wash in net value) younger 3C and a nice fit on RD. Vegas drafted a high end D prospect and traded him for an elite winger on a team that lacked a singular star forward. The Devils filled a huge need on RD for some magic beans. St. Louis added a Selke winning high end C for a late first, a couple meh prospects and some throw-ins. Rangers fixed their RD for the forseeable future in one off season for a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and Pionk. Dallas locked in a #1C for a decade for a veteran winger and some OK prospects.

There's tons of examples of teams filling a big need at fair or discount cost through trades, Jeff Petry is a great example for the Habs, and Domi/Danault are both trades that filled big needs on the team, Domi for a good value and Danault basically for free. Tatar too, added an at worst equivalent winger while filling big needs in the prospect pool. Sure usually the Jones/Johansen type deals where both sides gamble on upside usually end up with a clear winner, but what if the Preds decided to just keep Jones and traded some other stuff for ROR and dealt Weber for a forward?

Perfect example is 2013.

Tampa outsmarted themselves by taking their BPA Drouin over Jones. Ended up with the far worse player overall and had to move their former 3OA for 8OA Sergachev to address the need on D and are still dreaming of having a legit top pairing RHD like Jones.

Alternatively at that same draft Montreal took McCarron to fill a perceived need over Theodore and now 6 years later the Habs are desperately trying to find a Shea Theodore and rushing teenagers to the NHL to try and fill that spot. They took Tinordi in 2010 with Kuznetsov on the board and then traded a 3rd overall pick for Max Domi to fill the hole that Kuznetsov would have filled for 15 years, and also passed on Rielly to fill the C hole with Galchenyuk in the first place!

The problem with drafting for need is that needs can change so quickly in hockey and often by the time the players are ready the team looks different outside of elite talents that make instant impacts. Even in the case of Kotkaniemi I don't know the book is closed on that pick, it looks great now but if Domi and Poehling take a step then suddenly you might wonder if a high end winger like Tkachuk or Zadina would have rounded out the top 6 more effectively. Not that I agree with that, but even in a case as clear as "Habs take a great center high" it's not necessarily clear if it will be the best pick they could have made.

 

[Playmaker09]

Not necessarily. Toronto just traded their 3C for a slightly worse (but cheaper so it's a wash in net value) younger 3C and a nice fit on RD. Vegas drafted a high end D prospect and traded him for an elite winger on a team that lacked a singular star forward. The Devils filled a huge need on RD for some magic beans. St. Louis added a Selke winning high end C for a late first, a couple meh prospects and some throw-ins. Rangers fixed their RD for the forseeable future in one off season for a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and Pionk. Dallas locked in a #1C for a decade for a veteran winger and some OK prospects.

There's tons of examples of teams filling a big need at fair or discount cost through trades, Jeff Petry is a great example for the Habs, and Domi/Danault are both trades that filled big needs on the team, Domi for a good value and Danault basically for free. Tatar too, added an at worst equivalent winger while filling big needs in the prospect pool. Sure usually the Jones/Johansen type deals where both sides gamble on upside usually end up with a clear winner, but what if the Preds decided to just keep Jones and traded some other stuff for ROR and dealt Weber for a forward?

Alternatively at that same draft Montreal took McCarron to fill a perceived need over Theodore and now 6 years later the Habs are desperately trying to find a Shea Theodore and rushing teenagers to the NHL to try and fill that spot. They took Tinordi in 2010 with Kuznetsov on the board and then traded a 3rd overall pick for Max Domi to fill the hole that Kuznetsov would have filled for 15 years, and also passed on Rielly to fill the C hole with Galchenyuk in the first place!

The problem with drafting for need is that needs can change so quickly in hockey and often by the time the players are ready the team looks different outside of elite talents that make instant impacts. Even in the case of Kotkaniemi I don't know the book is closed on that pick, it looks great now but if Domi and Poehling take a step then suddenly you might wonder if a high end winger like Tkachuk or Zadina would have rounded out the top 6 more effectively. Not that I agree with that, but even in a case as clear as "Habs take a great center high" it's not necessarily clear if it will be the best pick they could have made.

Not even close. They traded a much better player in Kadri for two massive defensive liabilities. Kerfoot is a worse version of Desharnais and Colorado's been trying to offload Barrie for years. They're selling high now after he padded his stats with Mack and Rantanen. And Toronto still doesn't have a single RD that can actually play D and match up against top lines, Marchand - Bergeron - Pastrnak will eat them alive once again.

The Habs certainly traded down in value for Domi. They were stuck with a player who didn't fit their system and had no choice but to deal him for less. That Domi turned out the way he did is pure hindsight.

Same with Pacioretty. When you have a player who's no longer a fit he plays bad. Playing bad lowers his value. Lowering his value means that instead of a 1 for 1 between one of the best even strength goal scorers of the past decade for a top LD, you end up with a washed up player with 1 year left on his contract for some prospects and a spare part. Any time you're dealing from a position where you have a player you no longer want and are trying to acquire a player you need, you will lose value. And drafting strictly by BPA creates more scenarios where that's going to happen. You are now stuck with an asset that doesn't help your team win more hockey games and everyone knows that.

Theodore absolutely would've been a need at LD unless you were dead set on both Tinordi and Beaulieu as top 4 LD. And why is picking McCarron or Tinordi a mistake of drafting by need and not just poor talent evaluation? Beaulieu and Scherbak were highly skilled players that were considered BPA at their picks. Why don't I get to claim that drafting BPA was a mistake instead in these cases?

Almost every other move you've mentioned is a prospects/picks for players move. Nothing to do with the draft at all so not sure where BPA comes into play. Vegas for example could've picked Thomas, Poehling, Liljegren, Jokiharju, Frost etc. and Ottawa may have still made the trade. It's not like they only had an LD need to fill with Chabot already there.

I'm not saying don't take advantage of opportunities when they come. Of course when a Subban or ROR type player hits the market for some stupid reason you do everything to get one. But doing nothing but waiting for one of those types of players to fill a huge need for you is EXACTLY the type of reactive GMing that Bergevin (righfully) gets bashed for all the time.

You think St Louis planned on wasting 10 years of their contending window to bide their time for the perfect opportunity to finally get some decent centers? It just happened and they were ready to pull the trigger. And none of the assets they gave up had anything to do with drafting BPA or not drafting BPA so what's the point?