mr grieves said:
KW Sluggo said:
The years of decent production preceded the new contract and after the $5.5M deal was signed, bye-bye production, so long initiative, bye bye first line, so long second line an hello checking line.
I am sure it is just a coincidence.
I don't know. Did you structure that as a
post hoc ergo prompter hoc just to amuse me? Given that nothing in there even suggests a plausible account of why a player's production would decline -- offers no solid evidence other than the nonsensical 'intangibles' you hear trotted out on talk radio and in terrible bars -- I can only assume that.
KW Sluggo said:
This is not about past performance. It is about a diminishing return on an aging athlete who is tied up at $5.5 per year for the next four years.
Tell me about this after Nonis signs Grabbo's replacement from the UFA pool.
KW Sluggo said:
If he is worth anything close to what you suggest why would nobody take him in a trade. Grabbo has 10 teams on his approved trade list.
Why did not one of them want him? Price is too high for the on ice return.
You do understand that if a GM is looking desperate to move a player at a not-ideal contract, the incentives are for his potential trading partners to back off and acquire the guy after the buyout suggested by the desperation and acquire the player at no asset cost and for a better price... right? Or is that not a market transaction you think happens?
KW Sluggo said:
the marketplace has spoken and you are wrong, not the marketplace.
Pathetic fallacy. Nice. Am I responding to a performance artist? What is next, argument from authority? Can it be Glenn Healy?
KW Sluggo said:
Grabbo would be a good fit as Stajan 2.0 in Calgary where Feaster is the keenest judge of hockey talent there is.
My god. Please, please tell me you're a fan of re-signing Tyler Bozak so you and I can spend the next year together watching Bozak's hairline recede in a Leafs uniform and Grabbo put up 60 points on someone's second line.
Propter, not prompter but that is the least of your errors
Bozak is not worth what they will pay him but no UFA ever is but that argument has zero todo with Grabbo. It's not a zero sum game.
As for re-signing him well I would rather have him than Grabbo. Aside from being younger, the fact is he held onto his job on the first line, Grabbo did not and if you cannot score you had better be able to defend and Grabbo could not be effective there either.
However I do like the use of the distraction argument, i.e., if you cannot make a case for Grabbo, attack another player - too bad that other player is playing better than Grabbo.
You cross the line with the "performance artist" ad hominem attack. If you cannot argue substantive points you make personal attacks? Grow up.
The fact is that the marketplace has spoken and because you lack any reasoned response you slag me (among others).
I am truly sorry that your favourite player got let go but no other team was willing to trade for him despite the great value he gives with a handful of points and inability to defend and at the bargain price of $5.5M for the next 5 years. But it is what it is whether you like it or not.