HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Canucks Boxing Day Win 3-2 over Oilers - "Beeska" scores with 24 seconds left

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-27-2010, 09:41 PM
  #551
jumptheshark
the burn out
 
jumptheshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: hf retirement home
Country: United Nations
Posts: 52,877
vCash: 1000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
I think my favourite current thread on the Oliers' forum is:

"The faux rookie Logan couture"
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=856443

In which Oiler fans grouse about the fact that the Sharks Couture is not a "true rookie" (he played exactly 25 regular season games and the cut-off is more than 25 games) and it seems none of the Oilers rookies will win the Calder.

I would like to point out that of the 50 or so oiler fans posting in that thread--only about 6 or 7 actually by into the theory--most point out that sharks did the smark thing and bring him a long a slowly--if you are going to make fun of us atleast have courtisy to be accurate--not many oiler fans are calleding Logan a faux rookie--in the same vain Eberle could be called a faux rookie as well.

__________________
not sure how--but the fish just jumped in the boat and put the hook in it's mouth
52299/14814
The twenty year rebuild is on!!! Embrace the suck
jumptheshark is offline  
Old
12-27-2010, 10:14 PM
  #552
JBIZ14
Registered User
 
JBIZ14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lethbridge
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jumptheshark View Post
I would like to point out that of the 50 or so oiler fans posting in that thread--only about 6 or 7 actually by into the theory--most point out that sharks did the smark thing and bring him a long a slowly--if you are going to make fun of us atleast have courtisy to be accurate--not many oiler fans are calleding Logan a faux rookie--in the same vain Eberle could be called a faux rookie as well.
Selma...drooooool. You were saying?

JBIZ14 is offline  
Old
12-27-2010, 10:19 PM
  #553
VanEric
Registered User
 
VanEric's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jumptheshark View Post
I would like to point out that of the 50 or so oiler fans posting in that thread--only about 6 or 7 actually by into the theory--most point out that sharks did the smark thing and bring him a long a slowly--if you are going to make fun of us atleast have courtisy to be accurate--not many oiler fans are calleding Logan a faux rookie--in the same vain Eberle could be called a faux rookie as well.
He's hardly Sergei Makarov.

VanEric is offline  
Old
12-27-2010, 10:28 PM
  #554
DisgruntledGoat
Registered User
 
DisgruntledGoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,068
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
I think my favourite current thread on the Oliers' forum is:

"The faux rookie Logan couture"
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=856443

In which Oiler fans grouse about the fact that the Sharks Couture is not a "true rookie" (he played exactly 25 regular season games and the cut-off is more than 25 games) and it seems none of the Oilers rookies will win the Calder.
These are good, too:

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=855571

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=855750

DisgruntledGoat is online now  
Old
12-27-2010, 10:38 PM
  #555
Winroba
Keep Calm, Kassi On
 
Winroba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,414
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reynard View Post
Edler and Kesler are both having beasts of seasons.

Those are fairly debatable, as opposed to wether or not the number 25 is lower than all numbers above 25


Winroba is offline  
Old
12-28-2010, 12:00 AM
  #556
orcatown
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,591
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
If the Canucks were to trade Ballard they'd have a grand total of 2 starting defensemen signed for next season. They'd also have a lot of trouble getting anything valuable back at the deadline, given that he wouldn't be a rental and the Canucks could ill afford to take any salary in return.

Trading Ballard was and is an absurd proposition. If the Canucks want to keep Bieksa, it'll be at the expense of someone who's not signed for next year (Ehrhoff or Salo) or there'll be some salary cap gymnastics done to make it all happen.
First its not true as the Canucks have both Rome and Parent signed for next year. Canucks may well be looking at one of these players for their starting 6th defenseman no matter what they do .

Second, at the time the point was made Ballard was having a good deal of difficulty adjusting to the Canucks and, based on that, there was every reason to question whether the 4.2 contract till 2015 was a good one. Unless, I guess we have your mega- insight there was real reason to question that contract based on Ballard's initial play. And if you concluded, based upon what you were seeing from Ballard, that Ballard had the potential to be a bad contract then there was every reason to think that it might be a good thing to move him before it became obvious to everyone else

What you seem to be saying is that we should keep Ballard or anyone else under contract just to make sure we have what you call a starter under contract. Then would you have kept Redden just to make sure you had defense man under contract. Of course not. If you saw that chance emerging then you would try to have traded people like Redden or Horcroff or any number of players before the it became obvious their contracts were cap killers.

When they signed Ballard they were taking some chance on his contract. The upside of the contract - the long term stability of having a potentially top 4 guy under contract going ahead - had, for any thoughtful person, the equally potentially destructive potential of being an inflated long term contract that could hurt your cap situation well into the future. When Ballard had some initial problems with the team it was, at least, reasonable and, far from absurd, to speculate upon, or at least to discuss, the potential of Ballard's contract becoming more of albatross than a benefit.

And that's was all that was discussed. That in a situation where you had to move contract to get Salo in the lineup you should factor in the possibility of Ballard not being worth his long term cap hit. How is that so absurd? If he continued to struggle then you would want to move Ballard not only to keep Bieksa but even more because you wanted to unload a potentially bad contract moving ahead.

With time we have seen that Ballard seems near enough worth the contract so as decrease concern about it being a bad contract. But, at the time, I made the post there had to be at least some concern about Ballard's contract. Maybe you knew all along that Ballard was going to be worth his contract and did not see this as a factor. But my guess, is that this is mainly a view from hindsight. He struggled at first and with the hip injury and the concussion some caution was certainly legitimate.

Beyond that I think the Canucks have to go for it now. We have no assurance that we can keep this defense together much longer no matter what we do with Bieksa, Ballard or anyone else. Ehrhoff next year and Edler soon after are looking for big increases. Indeed if you could get Bieksa cheaper than Ballard next year you probably do that just for the cap room. But whatever. We need to determine now what is the best lineup going for it right now. If you felt that Bieksa gives you more chance this year than Ballard and Salo was needed more than Ballard then IMO you move Ballard.

Sure we probably have adjustment problems long term. But we have big adjustment coming anyhow and there may be few other times that we have the opportunity we have now. For many I know winning the cup right now is the important thing.

Can't you at least entertain that idea. Why does the perspective always seem so narrow and categorical. People have differences in opinion. What you state are opinions, not facts. You have a point of view about long term needs, but others a more short term view. Some people had more worry about Ballard's long term potential and apparently you had none. That doesn't mean I'm right and you're wrong or equally that I'm wrong and you're right. It just means we see things differently.

In the end the only decent discussion you are going to have is when you don't have to insist you are right but simply make points to justify your position.

orcatown is offline  
Old
12-28-2010, 12:00 AM
  #557
Shareefruck
Registered User
 
Shareefruck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winroba View Post
Edler and Kesler are both having beasts of seasons.

Those are fairly debatable, as opposed to wether or not the number 25 is lower than all numbers above 25

Those two threads are the most embarassing ones Canuck fans have made this season, IMO.

Edit: Nevermind-- Didn't read the thread and I thought you were actually defending those


Last edited by Shareefruck: 12-28-2010 at 12:10 AM.
Shareefruck is online now  
Old
12-28-2010, 01:15 AM
  #558
Outside99*
Sedins off Kas
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,347
vCash: 796
One possibility is to waive a couple of our fringe players after the TD to make room for Salo. Since players scooped after the TD aren't playoff eligible, common sense suggests they wouldn't be picked up. And they'd still be playoff eligible. Another scenario is if by happenstance someone else went on LTIR at the TD, which also allows Salo to rotate back into the lineup - in this case, nobody need be waived.

Outside99* is offline  
Old
12-28-2010, 01:28 AM
  #559
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outside99 View Post
One possibility is to waive a couple of our fringe players after the TD to make room for Salo. Since players scooped after the TD aren't playoff eligible, common sense suggests they wouldn't be picked up. And they'd still be playoff eligible. Another scenario is if by happenstance someone else went on LTIR at the TD, which also allows Salo to rotate back into the lineup - in this case, nobody need be waived.
What fringe players have salaries totalling $3.5 million which would be needed to bring Salo on the active roster?

Wetcoaster is offline  
Old
12-28-2010, 02:50 AM
  #560
Outside99*
Sedins off Kas
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,347
vCash: 796
^Seems to me that its quite easy to come up with 3.5M of cap cuts esp. when some of it is only for a month.

Outside99* is offline  
Old
12-28-2010, 02:51 AM
  #561
orcatown
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,591
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
What fringe players have salaries totalling $3.5 million which would be needed to bring Salo on the active roster?
Might have to consider here how the math works in terms of how much is paid out on Salo's salary by the time the Canucks have to juggle the roster.

As I understand players get paid about 14 times a year (or every two weeks) which is 1/14 of their salary. If so then a player like Rypein or Parent would have greater portion of their money still owed than Salo which would mean that they come closer to equaling Salo. Again as I understand it the salary is pro-rated and thus you have to calculate it on a on-going basis.

Might need to be an accountant to figure the cap situation here.

You know this better than I do but just saying.

orcatown is offline  
Old
12-28-2010, 03:03 AM
  #562
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by orcatown View Post
Might have to consider here how the math works in terms of how much is paid out on Salo's salary by the time the Canucks have to juggle the roster.

As I understand players get paid about 14 times a year (or every two weeks) which is 1/14 of their salary. If so then a player like Rypein or Parent would have greater portion of their money still owed than Salo which would mean that they come closer to equaling Salo. Again as I understand it the salary is pro-rated and thus you have to calculate it on a on-going basis.

Might need to be an accountant to figure the cap situation here.

You know this better than I do but just saying.
That is not how it works. Actual pay periods have nothing to do with this.

Per Capgeek:
How is cap space calculated during the season?

To understand how each team's cap count is calculated, think of a bank account. For the 2009-10 season, teams got a "deposit" of about $294,300 each day which they can spend on player salaries [$56,800,000 salary cap upper limit / 193 days in the season]. The difference left over is "payroll room," or the amount that has been "banked" for the future, if needed.
This one is pretty simple because the Canucks have zero cap space and have not accumulated payroll room.
http://www.capgeek.com/charts.php?Team=29

To bring Salo's $3.5 million off the LTIR and onto the roster, the Canucks have to move $3.5 million worth of contracts out because they sit right up against the upper limit and they are using Salo's maximum LTIR exception space.


Last edited by Wetcoaster: 12-28-2010 at 03:13 AM.
Wetcoaster is offline  
Old
12-28-2010, 03:04 AM
  #563
David Booth Fan
Registered User
 
David Booth Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,658
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to David Booth Fan
Bieksa has grown on me. I am for keeping Bieksa. Hes Bieksallent.

David Booth Fan is offline  
Old
12-28-2010, 03:38 AM
  #564
orcatown
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,591
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
That is not how it works. Actual pay periods have nothing to do with this.

This one is pretty simple because the Canucks have zero cap space and have not accumulated payroll room.

To bring Salo's $3.5 million off the LTIR and onto the roster, the Canucks have to move $3.5 million worth of contracts out because they sit right up against the upper limit and they are using Salo's maximum LTIR exception space.
What about the issues raised by Outside99?

orcatown is offline  
Old
12-28-2010, 03:55 AM
  #565
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,171
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by orcatown View Post
First its not true as the Canucks have both Rome and Parent signed for next year. Canucks may well be looking at one of these players for their starting 6th defenseman no matter what they do .
I don't see that as a likely occurrence. Unless the team is in a serious cap crunch or one of them completely revamps their game, I can't see either guy being penciled into the starting lineup next season. even then, if Ballard was moved they'd have only 2 top 5 defensemen signed for next season. Now if Bieksa and/or Ehrhoff were simultaneously re-signed, that would obviously mitigate that.

Quote:
Second, at the time the point was made Ballard was having a good deal of difficulty adjusting to the Canucks and, based on that, there was every reason to question whether the 4.2 contract till 2015 was a good one. Unless, I guess we have your mega- insight there was real reason to question that contract based on Ballard's initial play. And if you concluded, based upon what you were seeing from Ballard, that Ballard had the potential to be a bad contract then there was every reason to think that it might be a good thing to move him before it became obvious to everyone else
Most people understood the following factors about Ballard:

-he was coming off a serious surgery which prevented him from training properly in the offseason
-he was joining with a new team and learning a new system
-for the first time in his NHL career he was playing for a team and a coach with exceedingly high standards
-he'd put up several years of quality play despite playing on said bad teams
-and then to top it all off, he suffered a concussion 4 minutes into his 4th game of the season which again prevented him from exercising for a period of time

Given the above, most people understood that it would be hugely premature to make any long term judgments of his abilities or the value he would bring to his contract until well into the season.

Quote:
What you seem to be saying is that we should keep Ballard or anyone else under contract just to make sure we have what you call a starter under contract. Then would you have kept Redden just to make sure you had defense man under contract. Of course not. If you saw that chance emerging then you would try to have traded people like Redden or Horcroff or any number of players before the it became obvious their contracts were cap killers.
Comparisons to Redden or Horcoff are complete hyperbole. A more accurate comparison would be if we were discussing trading Burrows 10 games into his return because he wasn't playing well, while simultaneously ignoring all the factors surrounding his play.

Gillis knew about Ballard's offseason surgery before he traded for him. If he wasn't prepared to be patient with him, he wouldn't have made the move. He knew what he was getting into.


Quote:
When they signed Ballard they were taking some chance on his contract. The upside of the contract - the long term stability of having a potentially top 4 guy under contract going ahead - had, for any thoughtful person, the equally potentially destructive potential of being an inflated long term contract that could hurt your cap situation well into the future. When Ballard had some initial problems with the team it was, at least, reasonable and, far from absurd, to speculate upon, or at least to discuss, the potential of Ballard's contract becoming more of albatross than a benefit.
Most any assertion can be argued and supported by some facts; however, when the basis of the argument was Ballard struggling to start the season after 2 injuries and joining a new team, it had a pretty weak foundation.

Quote:
And that's was all that was discussed. That in a situation where you had to move contract to get Salo in the lineup you should factor in the possibility of Ballard not being worth his long term cap hit. How is that so absurd? If he continued to struggle then you would want to move Ballard not only to keep Bieksa but even more because you wanted to unload a potentially bad contract moving ahead.
If he continued to struggle and never showed any improvement, then it might make sense to entertain the idea. However, other teams aren't stupid. If you make a huge draft day move and outbid up to 10 other teams to land a guy, it's going to be tough to get good value back if you give up on him 6 months later.



Quote:
With time we have seen that Ballard seems near enough worth the contract so as decrease concern about it being a bad contract. But, at the time, I made the post there had to be at least some concern about Ballard's contract. Maybe you knew all along that Ballard was going to be worth his contract and did not see this as a factor. But my guess, is that this is mainly a view from hindsight. He struggled at first and with the hip injury and the concussion some caution was certainly legitimate.
IIRC, most on here were perfectly willing to withhold judgement until he'd gotten into a groove and I was one of them. It has nothing to do with hindsight; it was just the most reasonable opinion to have at the time and most shared it. An NHL season is long and making drastic judgments on very little evidence without taking into account the context is rarely a good way to formulate an opinion. At least that's how I look at it.



Quote:
Beyond that I think the Canucks have to go for it now. We have no assurance that we can keep this defense together much longer no matter what we do with Bieksa, Ballard or anyone else. Ehrhoff next year and Edler soon after are looking for big increases. Indeed if you could get Bieksa cheaper than Ballard next year you probably do that just for the cap room. But whatever. We need to determine now what is the best lineup going for it right now. If you felt that Bieksa gives you more chance this year than Ballard and Salo was needed more than Ballard then IMO you move Ballard.
Gillis has made it clear that he wants to build a team that competes year to year. Given that, it makes very little sense to me that he'd essentially throw away good assets by trading for a guy when his value's at its highest (at the draft) and then ditch him 8 months later when his value is probably at its lowest (at the deadline) when other less drastic moves could be made that wouldn't have potentially serious consequences for next season and beyond. Not many teams are going to shift things around mid season for a long term contract like Ballard's, and the guy has a NTC that prevents him from being traded to 22 of the other 29 teams, so that narrows things down even more.

Quote:
Sure we probably have adjustment problems long term. But we have big adjustment coming anyhow and there may be few other times that we have the opportunity we have now. For many I know winning the cup right now is the important thing.

Can't you at least entertain that idea. Why does the perspective always seem so narrow and categorical. People have differences in opinion. What you state are opinions, not facts. You have a point of view about long term needs, but others a more short term view. Some people had more worry about Ballard's long term potential and apparently you had none. That doesn't mean I'm right and you're wrong or equally that I'm wrong and you're right. It just means we see things differently.

In the end the only decent discussion you are going to have is when you don't have to insist you are right but simply make points to justify your position.
I shouldn't have said the notion of trading Ballard is absurd. However, the notion that Gillis will trade Ballard this season is, in my opinion, absurd. He traded for Ballard and signed Hamhuis before Salo was injured, so it was pretty clear what he had in mind for the team's defense, and Bieksa wasn't part of that plan. Salo's injury obviously scuttled that, but that doesn't mean we don't have a good idea of what Gillis' plan was. What happens next is still anyone's guess, but I simply don't see how trading Ballard is one of the more logical options given the above.

I don't insist that I'm right; however, there seemed to be almost unanimous agreement on here that more time was needed before we could accurately judge Ballard. Any other approach, in my mind, was grossly premature and I still think so.

opendoor is offline  
Old
12-28-2010, 04:14 AM
  #566
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,171
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outside99 View Post
One possibility is to waive a couple of our fringe players after the TD to make room for Salo. Since players scooped after the TD aren't playoff eligible, common sense suggests they wouldn't be picked up. And they'd still be playoff eligible. Another scenario is if by happenstance someone else went on LTIR at the TD, which also allows Salo to rotate back into the lineup - in this case, nobody need be waived.
Unless I'm mistaken, players on the NHL roster at the trade deadline can't be demoted to the AHL after the deadline (other than for conditioning assignments):

Quote:

13.12(j)

A Player may be Loaned to a club of any league affiliated with the League at any time up to 3:00 p.m. New York time of the fortieth (40th) day immediately preceding the final day of the Regular Season (the "Trade Deadline"). Following this period only the Player or Players who have been Recalled during such restricted period under Article 13.12(l) or 13.12(m) may be Loaned back to the member club of the affiliated league from which they were Recalled.
Here's a little more on who can be called up and sent down post trade deadline:

Quote:

13.12(l)

During the period following 3:00 p.m. New York time of the fortieth (40th) day immediately preceding the final day of the Regular Season no Player may be Recalled from Loan to a club of any league affiliated with the NHL, except that:

(i) A Club may exercise four Recalls from a club or clubs of any league affiliated with the NHL, of Player(s) listed on its own Reserve List.

(ii) Players may be Recalled under Article 13.12(m). [this refers to emergency recalls]

(iii) Players may be Recalled upon completion of the regular season and playoff schedule of the club to which they were Loaned.

opendoor is offline  
Old
12-28-2010, 06:27 AM
  #567
orcatown
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,591
vCash: 500
Go back and look at the original post where I suggest that it was not a given that Bieksa should be traded before Ballard and you will see I said it was premature to make any ultimate decision and that full consideration of factors such as the injuries, the settling in, the new team,etc... had to be considered. I showed flat out that I recognized those considerations and was not among the group (that somehow you have formed) that didn't have the sense to appreciate Ballard's situation. That is just a gross mis-representation of what I said.

What I was responding to was the automatic assumption that Bieksa should go. I brought up that the Canucks should keep their options open and, in fact, see how things played out with Ballard. Given his start to the season and his big long term contract it just seemed prudent. It was no wild rant to get Ballard out of here (which lacked any consideration of troubles Ballard was facing) but only a caution about assuming that Ballard was more valuable than Bieksa. I think that time has proved that this caution was at least somewhat justified.

I think if you look back you will see I was certainly willing to be patient. But I was saying that we should be patient with Bieksa as well and, in the end, make the right decision.

Far as the other points are concerned you are defending your position about the uselessness of discussing possibly moving Ballard predicated on what you believe Gillis was thinking. Like there was no way we could discuss whether it was better to move Bieksa or Ballard because we all knew what Gillis was thinking and therefore it was not a matter for consideration. Fact is that Gillis is obscure at the best of times. But the main point here is that we are basically here discussing our own views . What do we think is best for the team? To say that it not a consideration because you have divined what is in the GMs mind and you know that he would never move Ballard takes away our ability to make our own opinions of the situation.

And I think we should be discussing things based upon our own opinions and are own reasoning. If you want to shoot down the suggestion that it might be better to trade Ballard than Bieksa then go ahead. Give your reasoning, give your thoughts. But don't say it is not a consideration because you supposedly know what some third party thinks.

Also whether you get good value for Ballard is not what is key here and is a weak argument on your part. What is most important is what is best for the team moving ahead. If Bieksa is the better player and you can get him at the same price then you move Ballard if the choice is b/w them. People were willing to give up Bieksa for peanuts just to rid the Canucks of him and his contract. Much the same would apply to whoever they move. It is a salary dump and you don't expect much back. And if you keep Bieksa and re-sign Ehrhoff then someone like Ballard has got to go. You can't realistically keep him at 4.2 in your bottom pairing. And that's where he is right now with Ehrhoff and Bieksa on the team.

And again I am not saying we unload Ballard because he is no good but only that we consider the possibilities here. That's all I have ever said.

Moreover, while Gillis has mentioned the long term, AV has come out and said "our time is now". That has been widely reported and in any assessment on your part of whether the team is thinking long term or short term that should have been considered. To ignore AV's declaration (one we are all familiar with) shows a selectivity on your part that is obvious. And here again you are basing your arguments of what Gillis supposedly thinks.

What do you think? Do you think we should do what teams like Chicago and Anaheim have done and go for it now and accept the downside that probably follows? Or do you think we should just try to maintain a competitive team for the longest term possible? But why try to base your arguments on trying to figure out what Gillis thinks? Base it on your own thoughts, on your own reasoning

Personally I think we have to make a run for it now. And whether Ballard got here 10 years ago or yesterday is thus not a consideration. What is important is what is the best way to make us the strongest team possible right now. That could well mean that we keep Ballard because he is an important cog in making us the best team possible. But to say that because he arrived more recently than other players he cannot be traded even if was in the best interest of the team is truly absurd. Who cares when he got here. If it is the best interests of the team to move him then he should be moved. That, rather than his arrival date, should be the consideration. Hopefully Gilllis is not so rigid in his thinking as you suggest and would not be so concerned with the optics of the trade as you insist.

Also if your are to respond here I would hope you would take the the time to respond to the general arguments made here rather than selecting out little sections you want to deal with rather than making a consistent, sustained argument. Also, I hope you deal with what I actually said rather than making up some argument that I never made - such as saying I never considered the need for patience in making a decision on Ballard.

Just dealing with selected bits and interpreting the way you want or putting words in the other person's mouth is hardly worth much.

orcatown is offline  
Old
12-28-2010, 08:11 AM
  #568
Timmy
Registered User
 
Timmy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,729
vCash: 500
New GDT up.

You guys can cross-post your last posts into the Bieksa thread.

Timmy is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:29 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.