Player Discussion Travis Green on 650

[Melvin]

On the flip side, it's really frustrating that people angrily overreact at the drop of the hat like this to anyone simply thinking "Oh, that's kind of a silly/dumb comment" as if it must automatically be some malicious/bitter attack that's obviously fueled by their overall attitude about the team's direction or something stupid like that.

Nobody's whining, outraged, calling for his head, or even seems to have a problem with Green. He just said something that some people happen to think sounded dumb. It happens. If you don't think it sounded dumb, disagree, give your reasoning, and either talk through it or leave it at that. There's no need to take it so personally, make so many baseless assumptions, and react like a petulant child.

If anything, isn't the fact that it gets pointed out even with someone who generally doesn't draw the ire of fans like Green an encouraging sign that suggests a lack of bias? We shouldn't have a double standard when it comes to Green (who I like/respect) and Desjardins (who I don't), afterall. It's only fair.

No kidding.

I literally quoted the post with a facepalm emoji. Didn't say anything. And I seem to have started some kind of clusterf*** with everyone is getting their panties in a twist.

This extreme hyperdefensiveness of anything related to the team has to be almost unprecedented. Jesus f***ing Christ.

 

[drax0s]

The "10 players" but seems to be sort of an odd the cuff remark based on something he was looking at. I don't think Green actually thinks:

1. Build roster with 10 drafted players
2. ???
3. Stanley Cup

Hes probably aware that drafted players leads to better contacts and ELCs that outperform their cost.

 

[Eddy Punch Clock]

on Elias Pettersson: "Are we going to play him center? Are we going to play him wing? You know, we're going to try him all over the place and put him in a position to succeed. In the back of my mind, I'm hopeful he's going to have a hell of a season."

Seems like an oxymoron to me.

 

[iceburg]

Was it just me or was Green being unusually jovial in the interview? Someone should tell him we aren't allowed to have optimism and happiness...

 

[alternate]

Hard to decide which is the more riveting conversation:

1. Green said 10 homegrowns, we gonna have 14....lolz whada doltz.

2. Benning lol couldn't even convince LVGK to give up a pick to move up 1 spot like always happens in pretty much every draft...lolz whada doltz.

3. Virtanen might be working on his skilz but doubt he's actually working *hard* at it...lolz whada doltz.

Almost like a certain portion of this message board will fold themselves into pretzels to put a negative spin on things.

I for one am glad Green acknowledges the need to build through the draft to become a competitor.

 

[me2]

Hard to decide which is the more riveting conversation:

1. Green said 10 homegrowns, we gonna have 14....lolz whada doltz.

2. Benning lol couldn't even convince LVGK to give up a pick to move up 1 spot like always happens in pretty much every draft...lolz whada doltz.

3. Virtanen might be working on his skilz but doubt he's actually working *hard* at it...lolz whada doltz.

Almost like a certain portion of this message board will fold themselves into pretzels to put a negative spin on things.

I for one am glad Green acknowledges the need to build through the draft to become a competitor.

Green doesn't like Jim trading away draft picks for vets or using them age gap fillers. He's right.

 

[DL44]

Was he asked about his veteran FA wish list he allegedly submitted to management?

Or was that just rumor...

 

[RobertKron]

The "10 players" but seems to be sort of an odd the cuff remark based on something he was looking at. I don't think Green actually thinks:

1. Build roster with 10 drafted players
2. ???
3. Stanley Cup

Hes probably aware that drafted players leads to better contacts and ELCs that outperform their cost.

Of course he doesn't think that. He was making a generally correct point, but did it in a clumsy, kind of funny way.

 

[Shareefruck]

Of course he doesn't think that. He was making a generally correct point, but did it in a clumsy, kind of funny way.

Bingo.

 

[Wo Yorfat]

Of course he doesn't think that. He was making a generally correct point, but did it in a clumsy, kind of funny way.

Thank you.

 

[Havre]

Green doesn't like Jim trading away draft picks for vets or using them age gap fillers. He's right.

Exactly. He can hardly say JB you fool stop doing stupid things like trading away picks/prospects. Now he kind of did without insulting his boss.

 

[DL44]

Of course he doesn't think that. He was making a generally correct point, but did it in a clumsy, kind of funny way.

Agreed.. but how did HF take it to 4 pages now scrutinizing it?

Genuinely or disingenuously?

 

[Shareefruck]

Agreed.. but how did HF take it to 4 pages now scrutinizing it?

Genuinely or disingenuously?

The length of discussion being drawn out isn't indicative of genuine or disingenuous-ness either way (and if it was, it would be ambiguous if the guilty party is the arguer or rebutter). If something keeps being argued against, and worse yet, misrepresented, it's going to keep getting dragged out. That's just the nature of how forums work, as clearly evidenced by something like the Granlund thread. The actual importance or significance if what's being argued about is rarely the driver of that (and I don't necessarily think it should be anyways).

 

[DL44]

The length of discussion being drawn out isn't indicative of genuine or disingenuous-ness either way (and if it was, it would be ambiguous if the guilty party is the arguer or rebutter). If something keeps being argued against, and worse yet, misrepresented, it's going to keep getting dragged out. That's just the nature of how forums work, as clearly evidenced by something like the Granlund thread. The actual importance or significance if what's being argued about is rarely the driver of that.

Heh.. really?
14? 10? Vs concept?
Really?
You read the thread right?

I guess we'll agree to disagree.

 

[Shareefruck]

Heh.. really?
14? 10? Vs concept?
Really?
You read the thread right?

I guess we'll agree to disagree.

I mean, you can disagree and believe it's disingenuous for your own reasons, but I'm not sure where you draw the conclusion that length of discussion is relevant, let alone the reason for your suspicion. Do genuine arguments not get dragged out when people find them disagreeable?

 

[DL44]

I mean, you can disagree and believe it's disingenuous for your own reasons, but I'm not sure where you draw the conclusion that length of discussion is relevant, let alone the reason for your suspicion. Do genuine arguments not get dragged out when people find them disagreeable?

Dude.. it was the NATURE of the that discussion.

I think you know exactly that.. and therefore obviously. . you are being disingenuous as can be .. ah well..

 

[Megaterio Llamas]

Well at least we now know that taking Virtanen over Ehlers / Nylander wont hurt us any. Both are NHL players and you simply need 14 drafted players on your team to win the cup. It’s only the quantity of players that matters, not the quality.

It's like legendary former Canucks gm Jake Milford once said. 'Anytime you can get two players back for one, you make the deal.'

You're getting an extra player.

 

[Shareefruck]

Dude.. it was the NATURE of the that discussion.

I think you know exactly that.. and therefore obviously. . you are being disingenuous as can be .. ah well..

You can resort to dismissively throwing baseless accusations and treat them as fact if you want, I guess, but my point was that if it was the nature of the discussion that makes it disingenuous (which potentially makes sense), then why even bring up length (which doesn't) to attempt to support your point? It seems irrelevant to why you think what you think.

 

[timbermen]

You can resort to dismissively throwing baseless accusations and treat them as fact if you want, I guess, but my point was that if it was the nature of the discussion that makes it disingenuous (which potentially makes sense), then why even bring up length (which doesn't) to attempt to support your point? It seems irrelevant to why you think what you think.

They should make you the Gm and coach of the Canucks.You're so good with words and you can tell they mean something, you can just tell.

 

[DL44]

I always gets mixed around.. is it the length of the argument that's relevant or the girth of the argument?

You can resort to dismissively throwing baseless accusations and treat them as fact if you want, I guess, but my point was that if it was the nature of the discussion that makes it disingenuous (which potentially makes sense), then why even bring up length (which doesn't) to attempt to support your point? It seems irrelevant to why you think what you think.

Ummmm.. Cuz the nature of the discussion was developed over the course of the 4 pages???
Wtf was your point.. seems like a 2am type for the sake of typing session.

 

[Shareefruck]

I always gets mixed around.. is it the length of the argument that's relevant or the girth of the argument?


Ummmm.. Cuz the nature of the discussion was developed over the course of the 4 pages???
Wtf was your point.. seems like a 2am type for the sake of typing session.

You said this:

Agreed.. but how did HF take it to 4 pages now scrutinizing it?

Genuinely or disingenuously?

... Which roughly translates into "Yeah, you're right, he did it in a clumsy, kind of funny way, but look how long it dragged out for, it must be disingenuous."

Which implies some tie between how long something gets dragged out for and how disingenuous it is. My point was that there isn't.

 

[Zippgunn]

I'm not going to take the time to dig up quotes for you, you can just take my word for it or not (it's not really an important point either way), but Willie D has used some pretty overly simplistic and backwards logic in the past, more egregious than this. We've discussed this stuff ad-nauseum in the past back when it was relevant.

Paraphrasing here, but I recall him justifying playing Horvat on the 4th line because he thought he was a natural defensive grinder type who was forced out of his comfort zone to score at a 1st line rate in the final stretch last year (and it just wouldn't be fair to him to put him in that position again). I also recall him defending his deployment of Sbisa/Bieksa in the Calgary series by suggesting that he was intentionally putting them out there a lot to be pounded/exposed by Ferland & co because he wanted to protect his best defenseman, Edler and Tanev, from the physical punishment. There were many other silly comments that escape my mind.

If anything, the points that he vocally made on a regular basis were way more dumbfounding, worthy of criticism and difficult to defend than his actual coaching/results.

... but you can't remember any of them or refer anybody to them. Gotcha...

 

[Melvin]

Agreed.. but how did HF take it to 4 pages now scrutinizing it?

Genuinely or disingenuously?

Probably because you won't shut the f*** up about it.

 

[Shareefruck]

... but you can't remember any of them or refer anybody to them. Gotcha...

It was a silly line of interrogation to begin with. As I mentioned, you can either take my word for it or not, it doesn't really matter to me in this case, as it was an offhand remark about my personal impressions that didn't have anything to do with the point I was arguing.

1) It was never a part of my argument in the first place, and had no bearing on any of the claims that I made about Green's comments sounding silly.
2) I explained two examples off the top of my head, which should be enough to warrant a feeling like "It sounds like something Willie D would say."
3) This sentiment had already been discussed to death and sufficiently defended and argued when they actually happened two years ago, with quotes included.

The only thing I need to justify is why I feel that way, and I did.

Unless a poster is actually trying to convincingly argue a point about something that hinges on its truth, it seems unreasonable to demand that they must pore through old interviews to find direct quotes at their every command to justify every personal impression. If I had said that Green's articulateness reminds me of Vigneault, would it be reasonable to demand that I find more than two examples of Vigneault being articulate in order to justify feeling that way (something that I wouldn't even be arguing)?

If you want to think that Desjardin has never said anything that had backwards logic, you're free to do so and believe that I pulled it out of my ***, I guess-- either way I had no intention of convincing anyone otherwise, and it just isn't worth the effort to try to at this point.

 

[racerjoe]

It has to be PR spin, otherwise what a stupid comment. We just had a team with not a single home grown player on it make it to the cup finals. It is more about depth and talent, where you get that from is something else completely.

Not saying it isn't important to draft well. Just noting that where the players come from is not important as long as they are good.