- May 25, 2014
- 45,764
- 31,064
I think Larkin would have been the best option in hinesightTkachuk-Pettersson-Boeser
DeBrincat-Horvat-Nylander
what could have been
And yeah Mccann AND DeBincat over Gudbranson... sigh
I think Larkin would have been the best option in hinesightTkachuk-Pettersson-Boeser
DeBrincat-Horvat-Nylander
what could have been
Tkachuk-Pettersson-Boeser
DeBrincat-Horvat-Nylander
what could have been
Screw McCann, what about Pastarnak! Granted how painful would that have been in hindsight to trade him for Gudbrandson....I think Larkin would have been the best option in hinesight
And yeah Mccann AND DeBincat over Gudbranson... sigh
Tkachuk-Pettersson-Boeser
DeBrincat-Horvat-Nylander
what could have been
He then claimed he "liked the pick from day 1."Tkachuk-Vlardi-Konecney
DeBrincat-Horvat-Nylander
Hindsight is always 20-20 given your preference for Vlardi and Konecney on the draft days. You really seemed upset with the Pettersson pick but you probably hadn't watched him play at all.
Every ranking had McCann ahead of Pastrnak so you cannot argue that he could take him ahead of McCann. You can argue, however, how is it possible that the draft savant couldn't recognize how good Pastrnak was/is...Screw McCann, what about Pastarnak! Granted how painful would that have been in hindsight to trade him for Gudbrandson....
Personally too I like Ehlers over Nylander but that could be just a anti-Leaf bias. As well if we drafted Tkachuk and Nylander/Ehlers we wouldn't have been in a position to draft EP40 most likely.
Tkachuk-Vlardi-Konecney
DeBrincat-Horvat-Nylander
Hindsight is always 20-20 given your preference for Vlardi and Konecney on the draft days. You really seemed upset with the Pettersson pick but you probably hadn't watched him play at all.
Do you think y2k maybe getting the petersson/valardi pick wrong is as egregious as the guy who’s actual job it is to scout players getting the obvious Virtanen/Euler/nylander and Juolevi/Tkachuk picks wrong?
Oh and btw valardi put up 58 points in 32 games so it’s not like he’s been tracking poorly like the picks the scouting savant made.
When someone constantly posts about how much farther along the team would be if they'd made the picks they wanted, then yes, there is a supposition that that person knows better who ought to have been drafted. And it turns out they only make that claim when discussing certain picks and never bring up the picks they wanted that wouldn't have worked as well as the ones that were actually made. There's no humility whatsoever on internet message boards. That's ultimately what leads to arguments.This times a million.
That people want to apply the same standards to their purported savant guru drafting wizard as they do to random ass fans with real jobs is infuriating.
Completely talking hind-sight here. I was high on Pasta based on his WJC showing but not so that I was disappointing with the McCann pick or wanting us to take Pasta there. Looking back though it's almost a good thing we didn't take him as trading him for Gudbrandson would be a real tough pill to swallow. Not that McCann and Debrincat isn't but it would just be a million times worse had Pasta been included.Every ranking had McCann ahead of Pastrnak so you cannot argue that he could take him ahead of McCann. You can argue, however, how is it possible that the draft savant couldn't recognize how good Pastrnak was/is...
He then claimed he "liked the pick from day 1."
Do you think y2k maybe getting the petersson/valardi pick wrong is as egregious as the guy who’s actual job it is to scout players getting the obvious Virtanen/Euler/nylander and Juolevi/Tkachuk picks wrong?
Oh and btw valardi put up 58 points in 32 games so it’s not like he’s been tracking poorly like the picks the scouting savant made.
You said on draft day that any pick other than Vilardi would be a blown pick. Therefore, you categorically called Pettersson a blown pick. Later you claimed you liked the pick from day one. You're a liar. everyone on this board knowns you're a liar. It's okay -- that's why there are so many message boards on the internet. You don't need to maintain credibility on any one of them, and for people like you it's more fun not to most of the time. You're not the first of your type any of us have seen.When you make things up that's when people get pissed off. Then again I've thrown facts in your face many times and you've ignored every one of them, so I'll do it again.
I hated passing on Vilardi.
I also liked Pettersson and had him ranked around the Canucks draft spot.
My gripe was with drafting Pettersson over Vilardi.
But again, don't let facts stand in the way of your own agenda.
You said on draft day that any pick other than Vilardi would be a blown pick. Therefore, you categorically called Pettersson a blown pick. Later you claimed you liked the pick from day one. You're a liar. everyone on this board knowns you're a liar. It's okay -- that's why there are so many message boards on the internet. You don't need to maintain credibility on any one of them, and for people like you it's more fun not to most of the time. You're not the first of your type any of us have seen.
Just before Pettersson was drafted, you posted:There's a difference between a blown pick and not liking the player we pick.
Example: I like Brock Boeser. Brock Boeser at 1st overall in 2015 would have been a block pick.
I don't know how much simpler I can explain this, but it seems like rather than dealing with reality you're more interested in twisting things to come attack me. Maybe you should actually join us in reality and critically analyze the job performance of Jim Benning...you know...the guy who's actions actually have real world impact.
Just before Pettersson was drafted, you posted:
Just after Pettersson was drafted, you posted:
"****ing idiots!"
And:
"Blown pick. Stupid ****ing idiots"
And:
"Second year in a row I cash in on their stupidity, oh well."
And:
"But passing on Vilardi nonetheless was typical of this stupid regime."
Later you claimed you "liked the pick from day 1." That's a direct quotation. This isn't twisting. This isn't a departure from the task of holding management accountable. This is something you started by lying. You. Are. A. Liar. And now you're trying to change the subject. You're pathetic. You're embarrassing yourself.
Holy shit. It would not surprise me at all.Maybe Y2K is secretly Dave Pratt.
Just before Pettersson was drafted, you posted:
Just after Pettersson was drafted, you posted:
"****ing idiots!"
And:
"Blown pick. Stupid ****ing idiots"
And:
"Second year in a row I cash in on their stupidity, oh well."
And:
"But passing on Vilardi nonetheless was typical of this stupid regime."
Later you claimed you "liked the pick from day 1." That's a direct quotation. This isn't twisting. This isn't a departure from the task of holding management accountable. This is something you started by lying. You. Are. A. Liar. And now you're trying to change the subject. You're pathetic. You're embarrassing yourself.
But it's a Juolevi thread so why were you asking about UFA's? Why bring that up only to shut Pavel down when he gave you an answer? That's exactly the point I was making. He was responding to a question YOU asked.
And since you brought it up I've liked EP since day 1. I had him ranked around where we picked him. I just felt Vilardi was the better pick. But like others have mentioned, how is it too early to judge Juolevi when you're ready to dub EP a huge success? Also what EP hate? I've loved everything I've seen from him since he was drafted.
Maybe Y2K is secretly Dave Pratt.
Homie it was a mistake regarding how strictly you should apply tiers, but you’ve learned from it, no need to try to cover it up or argue in circles about it.
If they had just misjudged Tkachuk as a projected player, I could forgive that... but they passed on Tkachuk because Virtanen was already in the system and they were going to draft a dman or center. If Tkachuk was a center, he'd probably be a canuck.
McCann and Pastrnak were the only two NHL regulars so far until like the 3rd round. We got the 2nd best pick out of like 60. Benning needs to be held responsible for all kinds of things from contracts, acquiring bad players, wasting prospects and picks to acquire those bad players, and completely blowing 2/3 of his top 10 picks. McCann over Pastrnak is not one of them.