Sharpshooter
Registered User
- Dec 14, 2011
- 13,590
- 9
Jason Botchford - Credible or Not
- Thread starter Mr. Canucklehead
- Start date
Lonny Bohonos
Registered User
Sharpshooter
Registered User
- Dec 14, 2011
- 13,590
- 9
damack
Registered User
- Jan 3, 2014
- 402
- 12
I've been a true blue Botch hater. It's almost like he kicked my dog and rode away on my bike.
But I started reading the Provies lately and I find them really entertaining. I'm coming around, maybe he's growing on me. Take the "facts" for what they are, his style is like one of your buddies that says **** just to get you going.
I want my bike back though.
But I started reading the Provies lately and I find them really entertaining. I'm coming around, maybe he's growing on me. Take the "facts" for what they are, his style is like one of your buddies that says **** just to get you going.
I want my bike back though.
Last edited by a moderator:
All media are hit and miss--look at Gallaghear--even Dracula gets one right every so often
In 2009 "Marian Gaborik has bought a house in West Van to play alongside close friend Pavol Demitra" - Jason Botchford
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...r-marian-gaborik-purchases-house-in-vancouver
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...r-marian-gaborik-purchases-house-in-vancouver
Last edited:
haha no way, he said that? i havent heard that referenced, here, in the jason botchford thread. not once lol!! wow!
Sorry I haven't read all of your 6,000+ posts to know what you were or weren't aware of.
when a man makes such an error six years ago, who knows what sorts of errors he makes everyday! the man probably mistakes his wife for his dog on his way out the door for work.
it's to botchford's credit that it's been six years since the gaborik whiff that you don't haven't found anything else lying around to hold against him.
it's to botchford's credit that it's been six years since the gaborik whiff that you don't haven't found anything else lying around to hold against him.
Go back and re-read the thread there has been including the Hutton thing that started this thread.
you've literally been engaged with him about this exact subject for a couple pages now. do you think wisp changed his name and then someone changed their name to wisp just to confuse you or something?
I think you're being petty about a small detail. Gaborik is a pretty big error, admittedly. In comparison, I think this the definition of griping over a technicality.
Last edited:
No, but if he keeps posting his beliefs I will keep posting mine.
It is one of many that others have brought up as well, I am just being the most vocal about it. You keep ignoring it because it suits your narrative. People in the news have made much smaller mistakes and made statements about it to keep the credibility. I am holding him to the same standard I would anyone else.
Prime example is Aaron Warde. He made a huge mistake last year then made a comment towards it, and he wears his mistake. Botch does none of this.
i gave you some responses as to why i dont give a **** about that technicality. did you read those?
well, racerjoe, this is tiresome and I like you generally, so lets split the difference:
the only thing I think Botchford is probably wrong about is the idea Hutton dropped in the draft due to scholastic ambitions. It's very possible he was confused with McNally. this seems incredibly petty technicality that I think is a waste of everyone's time to pretend is a big deal. I'll admit it's a thing and a human error, that's fair to me.
But if you can't entertain a strong possibility where Hutton says he wants a degree - such as the incredibly likely scenario where the agent is telling everyone who will that his client wants a degree so he can use it as negotiating leverage - then really I won't be bothered to engage with you anymore.
the only thing I think Botchford is probably wrong about is the idea Hutton dropped in the draft due to scholastic ambitions. It's very possible he was confused with McNally. this seems incredibly petty technicality that I think is a waste of everyone's time to pretend is a big deal. I'll admit it's a thing and a human error, that's fair to me.
But if you can't entertain a strong possibility where Hutton says he wants a degree - such as the incredibly likely scenario where the agent is telling everyone who will that his client wants a degree so he can use it as negotiating leverage - then really I won't be bothered to engage with you anymore.
Was this latest reply directed at you? Feel free to join in, I really don't mind, but don't swear at me for responding to someone in the thread saying you responded to something else.
Last I saw, you didn't respond to my reply. You did respond a few to arsmaster, and if you would like I can respond.
Here is what Botch got wrong. Hutton never dropped in the draft. Not only did he never say he would stay in school for four year to get his degree, but has said when the Canucks want him to go pro he would.
It has no bearing on what supposedly his people said now, except it makes me question if I can believe what Botch is saying. Especially when he continues to say its true. Which if I remember his reply to you he did.
Where is his quote that Hutton ever said he wanted to finish his degree instead of going Pro?
no but you've basically said the same thing to me and i replied to ars instead because responding to people saying the same thing isn't an efficient way to communicate
you know what i (and wisp) mean by technicality, right? like a thing that is correct but irrelevant? i think the things you think are important in this case are not important.
in my opinion the most important things about hutton here are, in order
A: the exact details of the contract(s) that hutton signed ☑
B: that he signed/was going to sign ☑
C: that the organization wanted him to sign ☑
D: ben hutton's name ☑
E: what hutton's camp was saying before the contracts were signed (one ELC, one PTO) [maybe]
F: what ben hutton wanted to do at the draft [no]
Last edited:
This is all fair enough, and while I can agree with it being probably a small error, him refusing to acknowledge his mistake, it makes me question the rest of the story.
I only really took issue with saying he has been mistake free for 6 years, when he clearly has not, small in some people eyes or not. I read some of his stuff, he has become an entertaining writer, but I will continue to question his reporting side until he proves himself. Much like Aaron Warde must now prove the mistake he made was wrong. No one is perfect, and to ask for that is insane. But when you do make a mistake you can't just brush it under the rug.
see, ward was actively fed information from the team that turned out to be incorrect. when a team official says "yes, the trade is complete", its really not on your reputation if you're wrong. i would honestly put more blame on botchford for hutton than i would on ward for iginla.
like i'll say "ok whatever, botch got some details wrong about hutton's draft year". again, i actively speculated that myself. i just don't think it matters, and so when people say "what happened with botch and hutton" i'll say "he got it right" because he got all the important stuff
Normally for me, if two people say the same thing I would like to respond to I will quote them both, but that is a personal thing, as sometimes I just don't want to engage with certain posters.
Having read your response, I think we are looking at this as completely different. You (correct me if I am wrong) look at what you wanted to know, and put those as the most important. I look at what was said, and what was important from the article.
Personally to me the only important thing was Hutton signing or not. Nothing else mattered. However in the article, or blog or subsequent tweets, the content was the why. Here is why Hutton is not currently signing. Here is what the Canucks want to do.
He got wrong an important detail on the first half, that questions the entire half of said point. If I can't trust what you have written how can I trust any of it?
That is where I come from. I have to get back to work now, but will respond to any reply's when I get a chance.
Super quick.
How do we know he got the other stuff right? All we know is the Canucks signed him. He was wrong about a detail, small or not take the size of the detail out for a second.
I gave a bad example earlier. If I say I am in insider and Vrbrata is sick, but he may play tonight. The Canucks are going to pump him full of drugs. Then he plays tonight would I be believed?
a key thing about college free agents in hutton's position are whether or not they sign an elc for this year or next. if hutton signed an elc this year it means he is unavailable to go to the comets for the playoffs and we lose a year on his ELC - meaning he's a UFA and an RFA a year earlier. if he signs an ELC for next year and a PTO for this year, he is ineligible for the NHL season but can join the comets on their playoff run
this is a pretty important detail and one that botch nailed before the contract was even announced. in a situation where most speculation was that hutton would be given the former (an elc this year), that the canucks negotiated him to the latter is significant and very important.
because it was confirmed later
if you were botchford, or any member of the media, this seems reasonable. if you're any given person, no. thats the debate at heart here. i think botch is reliable enough to be given the benefit of the doubt. i did that and i feel that my assertion was supported.
He's a decent/underrated hockey writer, and The Provies often make a few salient observations you may not have thought much about during the game. I stopped trusting him as an insider a long time ago though. I don't know where people get the idea that it's normal for reporters to be wrong as often as he is. Elliotte Friedman and Bob McKenzie certainly aren't.
