View Single Post
09-16-2013, 05:02 PM
Diamond in the rough
Diamonddog01's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,175
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Eddy Punch Clock View Post
Personally I think that is exactly what that means.

When weighing the pros and cons, the whole "KHL" factor is no small concern.

Especially when you're basically forced to give up your #1 goalie in the process.
This is a big factor on why Horvat was picked, not due to the fact he was the BPA.

I disagree strongly that a compelling argument means that it was the right decision. They are not one automatically one and the same.

I can make a compelling argument for why the Ballard trade had to be made. I can make a compelling argument for why Luongo's contract was a great idea at the time. Does that make either of those decisions good ones, or the right ones?

This is classic Gillis snake-oil.

For non-hockey examples, I can make a compelling argument as to why loosening banking regulations is a great idea. Does that make that the right decision? Given how that cost the US in 2008, probably not.

Diamonddog01 is offline