HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > St. Louis Blues
Notices

LH Defenseman

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-14-2012, 04:13 PM
  #476
BlueDream
Registered User
 
BlueDream's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 6,680
vCash: 500
@PocketNines: I don't mean to start another argument with you but I hope I haven't missed anything in this Jackman-Kuba debate (have missed some pages) but what you are saying about Jackman is basically my argument about Stewart. While neither hit like Backes or Reaves, they both do offer that 'protection' role in the case that they were willing to get into scrums, stand up for teammates, etc. That's pretty important if you are a "physical" player. Just my thoughts, not to get off topic though. I think now that he's re-signed though we can both hope that he does rebound and do well.

BlueDream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2012, 04:17 PM
  #477
CarvinSigX
Registered User
 
CarvinSigX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Illinois
Country: United States
Posts: 7,768
vCash: 2616
Make no mistake...If we could get Garrison AND keep Jackman, I'd be ecstatic. I just don't see the room in the budget. That's obviously an assumption on my part.

CarvinSigX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2012, 04:20 PM
  #478
Harley83
Registered User
 
Harley83's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketNines View Post
You need to read the rules. I've asked for clarification publicly so that if I'm free to do what you've been doing, you're probably not going to like it much.

I know that your answer to that criticism is to lash out at me personally over and over again. But that only speaks to how weak your argument is. Responding to substantive criticism by blaming people and reciting their perceived faults (while pontificating on "adult" behavior, no less!) satisfies my pleasure in irony but doesn't make your arguments any better. Work on those arguments! They suck now but maybe in the future ... they won't as much?
"It isn't my job to protect your opinions from seeming stupid.

HAHAHA. Good grief.

Let me get this straight. After all this bellyaching about not having enough confrontational defensemen you want a player who has averaged 3 hits every 10 games over the last three years???? You have no idea what your arguments even are.

All in all, these are very weak arguments not to be interested in a #2 defense-first dman who is physical, blocks shots and provides a far, far superior offensive option (Weber-like PP shot) than anyone currently on the left side.

Yeah, so we shouldn't sign Garrison because he doesn't fight much. Just so, so, so, so ridiculous.

Yeah, the argument is even more surreal if he doesn't think we'd lose more games by acquiring Garrison. It has to be a central assumption he believes this or else this whole thing is a style points debate. In which case, who cares?

Winning is winning is winning

Frankly I think it's bizarre and nuts. There's a difference between understanding someone else's opinion and agreeing that it has any validity.

What you clearly aren't understanding is that

Thank you for apologizing for my inability to understand your brilliant argument."[/QUOTE]



Talk to people in that matter and then come up with this

Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketNines View Post
I am really getting sick of this kind of total horse **** reply. Really really really really ****ing sick of it. In no way was I rude or confrontational to you.

If you had read more closely you'd have noticed I didn't make the player usage charts the "center" of my reply. Nor are they the center of "everyone" of my arguments, for crying out derping herp derp.



I never tried to talk your opinions down in the matter you did with me. I am guilty though of saying that you are unable to see any other point of view other than your own and that you like to dish it out but you can't take it but after reading all of your previous post I'm pretty sure I'm right..(see above) Look at this through the eyes of others with our discussions. Who do you think sounds like the debating and who sounds like the one pouting? Your arguments come in the form of insulting peoples arguments and not debating, that's where the whole adult behavior thing comes in to play.

Harley83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2012, 04:22 PM
  #479
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harley83 View Post
Maybe his opinions are well thought out but his choice of words aren't. I don't think Kuba was an absurd suggestion it was actually suggested by a Moderator STL Fan In IA and nobody ridiculed him. I did state that I would want Kuba IF we could keep Jackman but some conveniently didn't read that part. Me and P9 were discussing if Garrison comes and Jackman goes and my concern was of losing a confrontational, crease-clearing defenseman and he tried to pick it apart by saying Garrison provides that because he checks and that confrontational play is the same as physical. I honestly don't think he has provided me good enough debate to warrant the way he tries to make my point seem stupid but it's okay I got thick skin and I can handle it. The misuse of the word "Absurdism" was by P9 in reference to a joke he made with the St. Louis Blues being unattractive and my comeback saying that we should lasso all the leagues talent with our good looks. I understand you want to back your friend but you don't even have the right argument in reference to the misuse of the word Absurdism. Isn't that in itself absurd?
Iowa never spent multiple pages objecting to Jason Garrison over some made up, moving target definition of "confrontational" (def: con•fron•ta•tion•al, adj., not Jason Garrison because I say so) only to follow up with the idea of Kuba after all that effort. I guarantee you IA prefers Garrison to Kuba. Kuba was an alternative option to be discussed in the very possible event Suter or Garrison sign elsewhere. But he never argued Kuba would be some crease-clearer or would facewash guys after the whistle. If you had said you'd be fine with Garrison or Kuba that's one thing but you said Garrison's a no go for this one specific critical reason. It was the thing you isolated as the most important missing element. You really believed it in your heart that what would improve the Blues is this one quality ... and then went, yeah, Kuba'd be good. On top of that you've completely dug in around the argument, like you truly don't understand why it's so absurdly contradictory.

I watched plenty of games with Garrison this year. I knew about his defense and early in the season Celtic (IIRC) posted a list of lefty defensemen who played a lot of minutes. We've been thinking about this LHD topic for a LONG time around here because it's been a need for a long time. I've watched Garrison enough times throughout the season to realize he's every bit as "confrontational" as the Blues would need him to be. You act like he's the kind of defenseman who just lets a forward stand in the crease all he wants. Honestly from your comments I truly do not believe you have watched Jason Garrison play at all. Like, even one game. I'm convinced you made a bunch of stuff up because you can't really articulate why you don't want him, you just don't. And when your arguments get cornered in their logic as they've been getting, you're reacting by making nearly every post about my supposed bad faith. Watch more hockey, make better arguments, stop posting personal judgments of people because you can't handle their criticism for your poor arguments.

PocketNines is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2012, 04:24 PM
  #480
Harley83
Registered User
 
Harley83's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarvinSigX View Post
Make no mistake...If we could get Garrison AND keep Jackman, I'd be ecstatic. I just don't see the room in the budget. That's obviously an assumption on my part.
That's the really tough part for the budget with Defenseman especially with Petro's contract coming up.

Harley83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2012, 04:26 PM
  #481
Harley83
Registered User
 
Harley83's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueDream View Post
@PocketNines: I don't mean to start another argument with you but I hope I haven't missed anything in this Jackman-Kuba debate (have missed some pages) but what you are saying about Jackman is basically my argument about Stewart. While neither hit like Backes or Reaves, they both do offer that 'protection' role in the case that they were willing to get into scrums, stand up for teammates, etc. That's pretty important if you are a "physical" player. Just my thoughts, not to get off topic though. I think now that he's re-signed though we can both hope that he does rebound and do well.
Thank you. My exact sentiments....

Harley83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2012, 04:32 PM
  #482
Harley83
Registered User
 
Harley83's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketNines View Post
Watch more hockey, make better arguments, stop posting personal judgments of people because you can't handle their criticism for your poor arguments.
You prove my point again. You just can't stop with the insults, huh? Let me fire back and you'll start crying out "I'm so sick of the personal judgements.. What makes you think you can judge me?.. Why do people victimize me?" Like I said I have thick skin and I've proved it. I've been listening to your Kindergarten insults for awhile now, you're the one that gets uptight when anybody bites back. If that's the way you talk to people, you better get used to it.

Harley83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2012, 04:38 PM
  #483
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harley83 View Post
"It isn't my job to protect your opinions from seeming stupid.

HAHAHA. Good grief.

Let me get this straight. After all this bellyaching about not having enough confrontational defensemen you want a player who has averaged 3 hits every 10 games over the last three years???? You have no idea what your arguments even are.

All in all, these are very weak arguments not to be interested in a #2 defense-first dman who is physical, blocks shots and provides a far, far superior offensive option (Weber-like PP shot) than anyone currently on the left side.

Yeah, so we shouldn't sign Garrison because he doesn't fight much. Just so, so, so, so ridiculous.

Yeah, the argument is even more surreal if he doesn't think we'd lose more games by acquiring Garrison. It has to be a central assumption he believes this or else this whole thing is a style points debate. In which case, who cares?

Winning is winning is winning

Frankly I think it's bizarre and nuts. There's a difference between understanding someone else's opinion and agreeing that it has any validity.

What you clearly aren't understanding is that

Thank you for apologizing for my inability to understand your brilliant argument."



Talk to people in that matter and then come up with this






I never tried to talk your opinions down in the matter you did with me. I am guilty though of saying that you are unable to see any other point of view other than your own and that you like to dish it out but you can't take it but after reading all of your previous post I'm pretty sure I'm right..(see above) Look at this through the eyes of others with our discussions. Who do you think sounds like the debating and who sounds like the one pouting? Your arguments come in the form of insulting peoples arguments and not debating, that's where the whole adult behavior thing comes in to play.
Do you really want me to come up with a list of the number of posts you've made calling me out personally – each individual instance of which violates site rules? All those supposed gotchas that Bar Fighty McGee came up with are focused on argument. Are they incredulous about what you're pushing? Do I think your arguments are ridiculous? You act like it's some big offense to say an argument is ridiculous. It isn't. In fact it's not even against the rules. Oh noes! He said "HAHA good grief." He said "winning is winning is winning." Seriously, good grief. You notice how none of this is personally directed at you as a person? Because that supposedly is against the rules. Do you think that I haven't reciprocated with an endless litany of testimonials as to what kind of "adult" you are because that isn't in my wheelhouse? No, it's for one reason and one reason only. I'm respecting the rules and assuming that sooner or later there will either be the consequences for your behavior or I'll get to do the same, that's all there is to it.

PocketNines is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2012, 04:45 PM
  #484
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueDream View Post
@PocketNines: I don't mean to start another argument with you but I hope I haven't missed anything in this Jackman-Kuba debate (have missed some pages) but what you are saying about Jackman is basically my argument about Stewart. While neither hit like Backes or Reaves, they both do offer that 'protection' role in the case that they were willing to get into scrums, stand up for teammates, etc. That's pretty important if you are a "physical" player. Just my thoughts, not to get off topic though. I think now that he's re-signed though we can both hope that he does rebound and do well.
Stewart will get into scrums and he will fight. It's an aspect of being physical but where we still disagree is using that physicality fighting to gain and hold onto possession of the puck. He needs to do that far more in my view to be thought of as a physical player. The after the whistle stuff like scrums and fights is something opponents won't take seriously if you can't battle between the whistles. After the whistle physicality has far less impact on winning than between the whistles physicality and the LA series was exhibit A. Again, the Blues had 5 fights against SJ and 3 against LA while LA only had one other fight the entire rest of the playoffs (16 other games). The Blues also had more fights than every playoff team in the West this year during the season. If all that counts for so much how come LA was so undaunted in their physicality in the playoffs?

PocketNines is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2012, 04:56 PM
  #485
Harley83
Registered User
 
Harley83's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketNines View Post
Do you really want me to come up with a list of the number of posts you've made calling me out personally – each individual instance of which violates site rules? All those supposed gotchas that Bar Fighty McGee came up with are focused on argument. Are they incredulous about what you're pushing? Do I think your arguments are ridiculous? You act like it's some big offense to say an argument is ridiculous. It isn't. In fact it's not even against the rules. Oh noes! He said "HAHA good grief." He said "winning is winning is winning." Seriously, good grief. You notice how none of this is personally directed at you as a person? Because that supposedly is against the rules. Do you think that I haven't reciprocated with an endless litany of testimonials as to what kind of "adult" you are because that isn't in my wheelhouse? No, it's for one reason and one reason only. I'm respecting the rules and assuming that sooner or later there will either be the consequences for your behavior or I'll get to do the same, that's all there is to it.
I never threatened you personally or used anything profane so if there is something I'm guilty of I'm sure you are as well cause you are the one dishing out the insults left and right, only difference is you get all uptight when someone returns them back. I have read through this forum and you are the biggest violator of the first rule: flaming isn't that what you are doing when you are referring to arguments as stupid and dumb. I'm not trying to argue the conduct of the forum as I know how I'm supposed to conduct myself but like I said until I get the boot from a Moderator you might as well get used to me being here cause I'm going to continue standing my ground and challenging your opinions. Deal with it.

Harley83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2012, 04:58 PM
  #486
BleedBlue42
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 112
vCash: 500
This thread has, almost, lost all relevance.

BleedBlue42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2012, 05:02 PM
  #487
bleedblue1223
OMAHA!!!
 
bleedblue1223's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 19,776
vCash: 50
harley just let it go

bleedblue1223 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2012, 05:08 PM
  #488
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harley83 View Post
I never threatened you personally or used anything profane so if there is something I'm guilty of I'm sure you are as well cause you are the one dishing out the insults left and right, only difference is you get all uptight when someone returns them back. I have read through this forum and you are the biggest violator of the first rule: flaming isn't that what you are doing when you are referring to arguments as stupid and dumb. I'm not trying to argue the conduct of the forum as I know how I'm supposed to conduct myself but like I said until I get the boot from a Moderator you might as well get used to me being here cause I'm going to continue standing my ground and challenging your opinions. Deal with it.
"Debates are fine, but critique the opinion, not the person."

Do you even have the slightest awareness of how many times you've crossed this line? I complain in frustration with your tactics because if I were allowed to do this as often as you have done it we'd be having an entirely different kind of conversation. The fact that it has been let go so often makes me question whether this really is the rule because a principle of fairness should be we both get to do the same things. Shouldn't we be allowed to do the same things? This is why I'm focused on your opinions and suggesting you put make better arguments if you don't like my critique of your arguments.

Meta Me: "your opinion is ridiculous and here's why." (totally fine)
Meta You: "you always do X, Y and Z. you're not an adult." (totally not fine)


Last edited by PocketNines: 06-14-2012 at 05:14 PM.
PocketNines is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2012, 05:19 PM
  #489
BleedBlue42
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 112
vCash: 500
This is what I've noticed thus far. PocketNines expresses his views, I expressed mine, PocketNines and I get into an argument. I've stepped back. Harley comes in during our argument and expresses his own views. It just so happens that Harley's views are different from PocketNines' views. Now, PocketNines and Harley are having an argument.

I respect Harley for sticking to his views, and I respect PocketNines for sticking with his.
But, all in all, this has to stop. We've completely got off topic, and the truth is, there is no "right" answer to this topic. Some of us will have different opinions, and we can't change that.

So, my advice is:
Harley, go back to answering the question about the topic, and not to question PocketNines' relevancy about posts.
PocketNines', go back to answering questions about the topic, not to question the intelligence of posts, and to not bring myself up in arguments (as it's immature to call me "Bar Fighty McGee" or something like that).
For everyone else, just don't instigate the argument and let's all just move on.

BleedBlue42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-15-2012, 06:01 PM
  #490
Celtic Note
Moderator
Chi Town Bound
 
Celtic Note's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 8,593
vCash: 500
Re-opened. Keep the post on topic!

Celtic Note is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2012, 12:12 PM
  #491
UgotOSHIED
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: St. Louis, MO
Country: United States
Posts: 220
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Celtic Note View Post
Re-opened. Keep the post on topic!
Coolio. Jackman just signed for 3 yrs @9.5 mil, so that eliminates him from the discussion.

UgotOSHIED is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2012, 12:35 PM
  #492
Dolph Ziggler
Push ME
 
Dolph Ziggler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: St. Louis, MO
Country: United States
Posts: 8,391
vCash: 50
Great deal that should allow the Blues to have money to take a run at Garrison/Suter

Dolph Ziggler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 09:42 AM
  #493
zachws6
Registered User
 
zachws6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: STL
Posts: 530
vCash: 1480
First off, I'd like to say I'm very happy with the Jackman signing!

Secondly....the Suter topic. I'm not quite sold on all the Suter talk on HF. Yes I would like to have him, but at the prices being discussed?! I really think not. Think about the price we would have to pay Pietrangelo 1 year from now if we are paying 6.5 million for Suter. Breaking the bank.
"Here's 8 million for 5 years Pietrangelo!. Time to round up 4 guys from Peoria now because that's all we can afford!"

zachws6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 10:35 AM
  #494
The Grouch
Enraged
 
The Grouch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 1,624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by zachws6 View Post
First off, I'd like to say I'm very happy with the Jackman signing!

Secondly....the Suter topic. I'm not quite sold on all the Suter talk on HF. Yes I would like to have him, but at the prices being discussed?! I really think not. Think about the price we would have to pay Pietrangelo 1 year from now if we are paying 6.5 million for Suter. Breaking the bank.
"Here's 8 million for 5 years Pietrangelo!. Time to round up 4 guys from Peoria now because that's all we can afford!"

Pietrangelo has several RFA years left, I don't see him earning a higher AAV than Suter will garner with his next contract. Also, like it or not, great players cost money. If the Blues sign Ryan Suter for 6.5 million, I would be ecstatic.

The Grouch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 11:05 AM
  #495
zachws6
Registered User
 
zachws6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: STL
Posts: 530
vCash: 1480
Eh, good point. I didn't exactly keep the RFA contracts in mind. Although Doughty sure received the big bucks after his ELC. I hope to avoid that mess.

zachws6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 11:29 AM
  #496
Ignore42me*
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 172
vCash: 500
Strickland "There’s limited players available in free agency that register on the excitement meter. I’m not sure the Blues can afford a player like Matt Carle who will fetch north of $4 million come July 1st." i dont want Carle at all but if the Blues cant afford a $4mil contract then i guess signing Suter might just be a dream after all.

Ignore42me* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 12:48 PM
  #497
HooliganX2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,087
vCash: 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignore42me View Post
Strickland "There’s limited players available in free agency that register on the excitement meter. I’m not sure the Blues can afford a player like Matt Carle who will fetch north of $4 million come July 1st." i dont want Carle at all but if the Blues cant afford a $4mil contract then i guess signing Suter might just be a dream after all.
If Carle is our big free agent signing I would honestly prefer Cole over Carle with Pietrangelo.

HooliganX2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 02:57 PM
  #498
sdaltons
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 181
vCash: 500
rumor is that Thomas Hickey wants out of LA. would you?

sdaltons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 03:27 PM
  #499
ManyIdeas
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 1,887
vCash: 1152
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdaltons View Post
rumor is that Thomas Hickey wants out of LA. would you?
Yeah, if I lived in la I'd want out.

ManyIdeas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-19-2012, 03:37 PM
  #500
sdaltons
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 181
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ManyIdeas View Post
Yeah, if I lived in la I'd want out.
hmm i wonder if you knew what i meant

sdaltons is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 05:48 AM.

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.