View Single Post
02-22-2013, 02:28 AM
Join Date: Aug 2006
Originally Posted by
No one is singling out Garrison here. The thread was about Garrison so that is why he is getting talked about here. If you want to start a thread on Bieksa or Hamhuis or someone else then go ahead. This thread is about Garrison and that's why he gets talked about in this thread. How hard is that to understand???
No one here is glossing over the play of so-called "known culprits" but is simply trying to isolate the discussion to the topic at hand - Garrison. Indeed, I see very little glossing over of anyone's play ( I haven't). Instead people are only trying to bring back the focus back to the point of the discussion - Garrison.
And it makes no sense to justify the play of Garrison based on the poor play of others. If you are doing a bad job at school or work then it senseless to say well others are doing worse when its your body of work under inspection. If you think Garrison is playing well then you need to point where and how he is. You need to base it on the merits of his play not on the lack of success of others.
I and others have tired to point to specific areas where we believe Garrison is not looking good. You need to do the same. Don't tell us how Bieksa is playing bad but instead tell us where Garrison is doing well. How hard is that to understand?
I have agreed with you (mostly) on how he doesn't "look" good right now. Choppy stride, slow to react etc... I don't agree with you on how this pertains to his effectiveness. Nor do I agree that a buyout is even a consideration at this point.
Here's what's "hard to understand": Everyone is looking like crap. Yet context doesn't matter? How is it that Garrison looking like crap = buyout, other people look like crap = meh? It makes no sense. You cannot disregard environment. It must be taken into account. From there you can isolate, but not to the exclusion of, otherwise your analysis lacks perspective.
And don't start in with some ad hominen attack that the other person is ignorant of Garrison back ground or is irrational or biased. Deal with the substance of what the person is saying. Defend your position by saying where the other person is wrong in their description of Garrison's play. And I think people really have tried to go into depth on things they see as poor play. In fairness, you need to do the same.
To suggest I or others have some built in dislike or prejudice against Garrison is juvenile and totally unsupported by you. It's just a way of trying to taint another person's opinion without having to deal with what they are saying. I want nothing that the best for Garrison and hope he excels here. But when he doesn't IMO, I'm not going to pretend he has done well.
Your opinion is "tainted" because it's full of bias. It's not a built in dislike that makes it biased, it's refusal to judge others by the same standard that you apply to Garrison. It's also a disregard for the environment.
Ad hominem = head stuck in the sand, married to their opinions, difficulty understanding. Which of these things has to do with the player and not the poster? Or is hypocrisy OK?
I don't have to defend his play on "looks". I'd rather talk about his effectiveness. If you want, I can provide some context as to his actual effectiveness per stats. Such as his penchant for being a positive possession player, while taking the 2nd toughest minutes on the squad (.820 CRelQoC, 5.98 Corsi with 56%Ozone starts). Or him finding a way to keep the puck out of dangerous areas even if he screws up. Or his constant covering for Bieksa/Edler. Or his strength in front of the net. Stickwork etc... Yes, he has to get quicker and gets pinned in battles because of it. But that stuff pales in comparison as to how he's trusted to keep the puck out of the net.
As far as the buy out option is concerned I would repeat that I'm very glad the buy out has become an option. This is very long term contract and if Garrison continues to play like he is then there has to be questions whether the team can carry him at his long term cap hit. This is no different than the concern with Ballard's contract going into the season. Much of that concern has been eased by the play of Ballard much as the concern about Garrison's long term contract could be if he improves his play.
This is no wild, overly passionate reaction
but simply a reasonable consideration given Garrison play to this point and the tight conditions created by the new CBA. The team must avoid bloated or bad contracts going ahead and IMO Garrison's contract might become that.
As I have stated I certainly haven't come to the conclusion that Garrison must be bought out. But his, like other contracts (such as Booth) where the person is playing well below expectations created by the size of their contracts, needs to to be discussed.
You may say that Garrison is showing himself fully deserving of his contract. You may think he looking like a great pick up and a real bargain. But you need to show this not by making alibis, not be putting down other players and not by attacking the credibility of people with an opposite opinion. Instead you need to show how Garrison is playing well and is fair value for his contract based on his play.
I see it as a wild reaction given the information we have to date. 13 games in, and buyout consideration? Yes, that is completely reasonable...
I know that it is your opinion that Garrison's contract may become an albatross. I just think there is no merit to an opinion that is formed after 13 games of poor Canuck hockey. The mere discussion about it is absurd IMO.
Again, I don't need to show anything. It's been 13 games. Fans should learn to be patient enough, especially given this management's history, not to jump to extreme conclusions or even considerations after such a short time.
View Public Profile
Bleach Clean's albums
Find More Posts by Bleach Clean