F A N
Registered User
- Aug 12, 2005
- 18,726
- 5,960
I see.
So you're denying the appeal to authority, and your diversion is argumentum ad populem.
Anyway, let's get back to facts, reasoning and logic.
There may be some idiotic posts that supported signing a 1A or 1B goalie regardless of dollar and term, but at the time it was already obvious that any replacement for Marky - given that management had screwed the pooch so royally with our cap structure - should be replacement level $ if more than one year, and only one year if more than replacement level $.
Secondly, Holdby was no doubt on a list of goalies that Clark believed he could work with. However, there is no evidence that Clark only recommended Holtby. And there is no evidence that Clark recommended a 2 year term. And there is no evidence Clark recommended that $ amount. But non sequiters are de riguerur along with ad hominem and argumentum ad populem. I'd add appeal to authority and straw man fallacy but I can't find the latin terms for them.
Thirdly, I understand that you might only look at one criteria, but as indicated in my post earlier, I listed the information that can and should be looked at, including age and related regression, comparables, past performance etc. It wasn't an exhaustive list, we can also look at team D and conclude that a goalie playing for a team like WAS is going to have better team defense than . . . than . . . well, you're familiar with the atrocious team D that Benning has managed to assemble after just 7 years.
Anyway, good to see that the bizarre claim about people saying Benning didn't consult Clark has been withdraw . . . oh, PoM hasn't withdrawn that one?
And the false ad hominem about tinfoil hats, not withdrawn either?
No surprise.
You know this is a message board to talk about hockey rate? Philosophy class and debate group can be found elsewhere.
I never said anything about Clark recommending Holtby getting a 2 year term or the AAV he got. I do think the Canucks overpaid a bit there, but if you look at the market, the contract Holtby got is reasonable. The others who are not 35+ got 3 year terms. Why don't you tell us who you would have targeted?
It appears to me that the way Benning usually goes about acquiring a goaltending is consulting his goalie coach. I think that is sound strategy but you can disagree. Holtby's drop off in performance coincided with Korn stepping back from full time coaching duties. Before that he was good. I think with goaltending, adjustments are needed especially as you start to age. Goaltending coaches have taken on much greater importance through the years and if Clark has identified Holtby as a goalie he can work with that's a solid bet. You can disagree with all of this and just look at the criterias you want to look at. For me, Ian Clark is the team's goaltending guru. I guess Benning doesn't have to trust him. He can just ask Wall and Biech for their recommendations.