Cuntacular Chris wroteCOLONHey, not saying it wasn't a fair deal, but giving up Colborne as well? Heh. We both know the resell value on that one. And since when does Shiv know what he's doing? lol
nino + colborne for clowe is a very sound offer for anyone trying to immediately improve their team.
this, on the other hand, reeks of frank - taking 1 piece of good value and turning it into 4 or 5 with little.
To Shiv's post: Wait, what? I intentionally tore it down, and building up with a variety of different high-upside pieces; something that was completely absent on the Canucks (save for Couture and Seidenberg) when I took over it.
Cuntacular Chris wroteCOLONTo Shiv's post: Wait, what? I intentionally tore it down, and building up with a variety of different high-upside pieces; something that was completely absent on the Canucks (save for Couture and Seidenberg) when I took over it.
Ask any GM in this league, your team is far worse than what you started with.
Wish I could get a snapshot of the team I had before I took over it. From what I read and discussed, Bergey, Tony, Mash, and a handful of others did the peripheral build with few high upside pieces after seeing everyone was going after scorers. To my recollection, Vancouver had Oleksiak, Granlund (who I think is complete and utter shit), Bennett, Couture, and MAF as the core pieces going forward.
Now, I have Schenn, Wilson, Nino, OEL, Poulin, Strome, Miller, B. Smith, Morrow, and many others who are near locks to be pretty good players or better. Not sure how I fucked up. Meanwhile, you actually tried to tank -- and failed at that if that's even possible. I get it. People want to win here. I want a dynasty. Simple as that.
And heh, yea, let's pretend that Vancouver remotely had close to the teams that Steve, Nick, Scott, and others had before I took over. Yup, he was going to win this year.
Cuntacular Chris wroteCOLONTo Shiv's post: Wait, what? I intentionally tore it down, and building up with a variety of different high-upside pieces; something that was completely absent on the Canucks (save for Couture and Seidenberg) when I took over it.
Ask any GM in this league, your team is far worse than what you started with.
Ask any GM in this league: none of you didn't disagree when I said that Vancouver wasn't a team that could contend without high quality pieces.
Cuntacular Chris wroteCOLONTo Shiv's post: Wait, what? I intentionally tore it down, and building up with a variety of different high-upside pieces; something that was completely absent on the Canucks (save for Couture and Seidenberg) when I took over it.
Ask any GM in this league, your team is far worse than what you started with.
Ask any GM in this league: none of you didn't disagree when I said that Vancouver wasn't a team that could contend without high quality pieces.
I'll let Kareem/Anton take this one so that it doesn't sound like I'm biased .
Of course you would. Kareem was one of those who agreed. And to my recollection, you did too. Quite tired of the hypocrisy. I'm going to bed. Good night.
Vancouver was a very underrated/under the radar team when Chris took over. I can understand how it would be difficult for a new GM to come in and immediately appreciate what he had, but to say your team has a better outlook now than it had then is absolutely false.
You havent done a terrible job by any stretch, but I wouldn't be bragging about what you've accomplished either.