Thread: Proposal: Who wants Jonathan Bernier?
View Single Post
12-04-2012, 08:19 PM
Reverend Mayhem
CRJ + RNH = Sex
Reverend Mayhem's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,400
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to Reverend Mayhem
Originally Posted by supert View Post
Hockey fans seem to have trouble reading . He said a good fit would be battling it out with an aging goalie or battling it out with a young guy for the top spot . he did not say this was the case in LA
Either that or we suck at sentence structure.

Originally Posted by DontgoZiggy View Post
You misread my comment, I never said he was used 50/50, I said (meant) ideally he would be in a situation to assume 50% of the workload from an aging number one. He did battle it out with Quick in the sense that he kept pressure on him to perform and was given, like you mentioned 41 games in 2 seasons, obviously Quick won, he stood on his head, is the better goalie (at the moment), won the conn smyth and got paid.
Originally Posted by DontgoZiggy View Post
He's a potential number one, Ideally he'd be put in a similar situation as he was in LA, battling it out with another potential number one or splitting 50/50 with an aging number 1.
So DontgoZiggy, what you are saying is that there are in fact THREE possibilities when he gets traded and those are:

A) He gets put in a similar situation as he was in LA, i.e. playing about 20 games a season as a back-up until he develops.

B) He battles it out with another potential no. 1 goalie (I'm assuming you mean like a Lindback, Crawford, Bobrovsky type)

C) Platooning with an aging no. 1 goalie (I'm assuming you mean like Brodeur or Anderson)

In which case, I would kindly advise you to use a colon ':' as that is a list.

However, if this is not the case I would have to hold you with what you said which compares his time in LA as essentially getting bigger minutes than he actually did, as I am lead to believe he ever battled it out or split time 50/50 with a much superior Quick.

Unless, of course I am still missing something that you have not said. However, I don't really want to go further than this comment as I don't see why arguments on boards like these should about semantics so I'll hear you out and that's that.

Reverend Mayhem is online now   Reply With Quote