The Rebuild Started...

[Canucks1096]

Sven Baertschi produced because of Horvat & Boeser, take him off that line and he’s invisible. He would not crack the top 6 of any playoff team and isn’t gritty enough to play the bottom 6. He at best is worth a second rounder.

Please do some research. If you check his scoring log. Close to half of his point total was without Boeser and Horvat.

Also it's not 1985 anymore when most teams have 2 scoring lines and 3rd and 4th lines are checkers and bangers.

 

[Canucks1096]

No you are just choosing to ignore actual stats.

You want me to use other examples? Bure, zetterberg, lidstrom, Weber, subban all drafted after the first.

Also your 18 goal example doesn’t take into account those were actually terrible stats for that players usage.

Have a nice evening.

I determine its up to 10% on getting an impact players from round 2 to round 7. Your job right now is to prove to me that making a trade for a struggling young player has a less than 10% chance of being an impact player.

If nobody can do that. That means you guys are all just generalizing.

 

[racerjoe]

I determine its up to 10% on getting an impact player from round 2 to round 7. Your job right now is to prove to me that making a trade for a struggling young player has a less than 10% chance of being an impact player.

If nobody can do that. That means you guys are all just generalizing.

So you are choosing to ignore the earlier stats? Cool.

That was also done earlier. I don’t remember the post number, but you chose to ignore it too. So far zero have worked for the Canucks. Baertschi wasn’t a reclination project as it was a personality conflict, and literally no one else is any good.

Not only that, but none could be traded for what was given up for them. Every single one has lost value.

Now it’s your turn to prove me wrong.

 

[Canucks1096]

Seriously...do you find that people shrug off your comments at work or in your social circles?

How do you figure I changed the goal posts? I actually copy/pasted what I initially wrote...which is where your 'research' came into play.

The reason you 'think' I changed the goal posts is because you misunderstood my statement or you don't understand what reclamation means. I even copy/pasted the definition for you...I don't know how much easier I can make it for you.

When I said 'reclamation' player or project what does that mean to you?

You know it DOES NOT mean any player that has been traded early in his career right? Because that is exactly the players you listed in your 'research' and that is why players who have simply improved or exceeded expectations should be omitted from your body of evidence.

You can't choose to ignore key words in a sentence to suit yourself. The ridiculous portion of your post is that you claim I changed the posts??!!

If ANY person ignores key words in a sentence they will misinterpret the meaning. THIS is exactly what you did...you ignored 'reclamation' which resulted in your misunderstanding of what I said. And now your trying to change the goal posts to suit your own needs. On top of that, I was discussing hs's statement about Baertschi (which I also copy/pasted for you) and him being a reclamation type player that was a waiver risk. YOUR IGNORANCE resulted in my point to reference every player traded early. Your hypocrisy is extreme...

1st bolded: you had this discussion with another poster...you're obviously confusing yourself talking to multiple posters.

2nd bolded: ok, show me the link. And yes, there will be some players like Justin Schultz, but he fits my description. JS came into the league with a lot of hype and expectations to be a top line player... and players like him would be included to support your theory. REMEMBER...PLAYERS THAT HAVE SIMPLY IMPROVED OR EXCEEDED EXPECTATIONS ARE NOT CONSIDERED RECLAMATION PLAYERS.

I also didn't suddenly change anything, your misunderstanding did that! I have been arguing that 2nd round and later round draft picks should be acquired because there are many top line players that have been drafted in the later rounds.

Explain how Sharp, Moulson, Versteeg, ladd (now) are reclamation projects? These are all players who were drafted in the later rounds with no expectations other than becoming complimentary players. They exceeded expectations...they weren't reclamation players.

3rd bolded is another example of you trying to change the goal posts. You choose to only say 'later rounds' instead of what everyone is discussing... bennings trades! He traded 2nd and third round picks which is a massive overpayment. Later rounds and you make it sound like 6 or 7 round picks for his age gappers...which wouldnt be a problem. Only selecting to use 'later rounds' and the goal posts have changed because trading 6 or 7 round picks for a struggling player isnt so bad.

Last bolded, we averaged your 'research' and you found roughly 10 players that could be argued as top line players in 2010. My point is that had we not traded our picks away or had we acquired more picks, we could have acquired a top line player. The probability is higher, especially with a 'drafting guru' at the helm, as there were 10 potential players we could have chosen.

Instead of using a 2nd, 3rd or later round picks on a RECLAMATION player who has little to no chance in becoming a top line player.

***your preference for these benning type trades over draft picks is a different argument. However, your position is even more ignorant and naive than the one we're having now.

I'm not gonna explain the benefits of draft picks against the pitfalls of trading for players who are waiver risks and underperforming... everyone else has done that very clearly and you still can't comprehend the facts. The biggest downfall for us has been what benning paid for these age gappers...if he picked them up for 6th round picks we probably wouldnt be discussing this

Let's keep it professional please. You don't need to bring in my work and my social circles in this. Lets just talk about hockey and nothing else. My work and social circle is none of your business. Can you do That?

Go back and read what HS wrote. He wrote Benning traded all these picks and getting Baer he broke the odds. So HS was referring to 2nd round pick for Vey, 2nd round pick for Baer. 3rd round pick for Pedan. 5th for Larsen. 7th for Etem. To Sharp and Versteeg are similiar to these type or deals and that's why I am using this examples. Then you decided to complete change the argument to just 1st round picks.

You were debating with HS about draft pick being better that those reclamation project. You actually accepted those players Benning traded are reclamation project already. If you didn't accept that. Then I have no idea why you decided to use Relamation project as an argument when you are debating with HS.

8 Players The Canucks Could Sign As Reclamation Projects (Part 2)

Canucks spin their wheels with reclamation projects instead of picks at the 2018 trade deadline

Think article claim all those players were reclamation projects.

That's WHY I said before you use your personal opinion as an argument. So you use your personal opinion to determine what is a reclamation project and decided shut down all my examples.

Long story short. Let make it nice and simple. So all those deals Benning made. Prove to me that drafting from round 2nd to 7th you have better chance of getting an impact player vs trading for one?

If you are not interested in this part of debate. Then I guess we will stop.

Later rounds can mean 2nd round pick too. Read previous post. I did indicate 2nd to 7th round

 

[Askel]

Does Sven Baertschi count as an impact player?

There is Also a much better chance of finding impact players in Rounds 2-3 than it is in later rounds.

 

[CanaFan]

Let's keep it professional please. You don't need to bring in my work and my social circles in this. Lets just talk about hockey and nothing else. My work and social circle is none of your business. Can you do That?

Go back and read what HS wrote. He wrote Benning traded all these picks and getting Baer he broke the odds. So HS was referring to 2nd round pick for Vey, 2nd round pick for Baer. 3rd round pick for Pedan. 5th for Larsen. 7th for Etem. To Sharp and Versteeg are similiar to these type or deals and that's why I am using this examples. Then you decided to complete change the argument to just 1st round picks.

You were debating with HS about draft pick being better that those reclamation project. You actually accepted those players Benning traded are reclamation project already. If you didn't accept that. Then I have no idea why you decided to use Relamation project as an argument when you are debating with HS.

8 Players The Canucks Could Sign As Reclamation Projects (Part 2)

Canucks spin their wheels with reclamation projects instead of picks at the 2018 trade deadline

Think article claim all those players were reclamation projects.

That's WHY I said before you use your personal opinion as an argument. So you use your personal opinion to determine what is a reclamation project and decided shut down all my examples.

Long story short. Let make it nice and simple. So all those deals Benning made. Prove to me that drafting from round 2nd to 7th you have better chance of getting an impact player vs trading for one?

If you are not interested in this part of debate. Then I guess we will stop.

Later rounds can mean 2nd round pick too. Read previous post. I did indicate 2nd to 7th round

Has Benning traded for an impact player yet? I can’t think of one.

 

[racerjoe]

Has Benning traded for an impact player yet? I can’t think of one.

The acquisition of Gudbranson has been impactful to the development of Hutton... Negatively, and possibly impact us in other ways, does that count?

 

[CanaFan]

The acquisition of Gudbranson has been impactful to the development of Hutton... Negatively, and possibly impact us in other ways, does that count?

Technically ...

 

[Canucks1096]

Does Sven Baertschi count as an impact player?

There is Also a much better chance of finding impact players in Rounds 2-3 than it is in later rounds.

Depends how you define impact. O.5 ppg and 20 goal pace player is considered a second line production.

Some user don't considered that second line production because people are still living 1985 when A stacked of players put up those numbers. Now there is probably only about 4 or 5 players that can actually get 18 plus goals on a team.. Some said it easy to sign those players in free agency. Hmm no it's not.

2010 2nd and 3rd round picks that turned into a top 6 F or top 4 D. Zucker Faulk AND Spooner. So a 5% chance.

Can you show me some examples or numbers of maybe put them on an excel spreadsheet and show me how trading those picks for early 20 year old has a lower chance to becoming a top 6 F/Top 4 D?

User HS said he broke the odds with Baer. Technically i think he did becauze I believe he made less than 10 of those trades. Less than 10 of those trades equal higher than 5% chance.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Can you show me some examples or numbers of maybe put them on an excel spreadsheet and show me how trading those picks for early 20 year old has a lower chance to becoming a top 6 F/Top 4 D?

This cannot be done. If this data is available, it certainly isn't public.

There are many problems with your analysis Canucks1096. It's rife with errors. Here are my explanations as to why:

- You've talked about insufficient/sufficient sample sizes, and then you cite 1 draft's worth of data. That is at once hypocritical, and it's also anecdotal. That sample is nowhere near large enough.

- You haven't defined your criteria for "reclamation".

- You haven't defined your criteria for top6/top4.

- Why doesn't your hypothesis extend to the 1st round? If you want to claim that reclamation players have the same chance at converting in either context, why ignore the best quality of one context and include the entire quality of another context?

- You define 2nd liners as "impact players". I think you should just stick to top6/top4.

- Are you taking the full array of picks squandered to produce a top6/top4 player with either strategy? For instance, are you taking Benning's full allotment of trades to produce Baertschi, or just the 2nd rounder used to produce Baertschi?

- If you are taking the array of picks, then how do you quantify that same array in regards to the draft?

- Not being in the NHL at present is not a marker on player quality re: Baertschi vs. Gaudette.

- What are your thoughts on pick value vs. reclamation players? Can you get a 2nd++ for Baertschi (the total pick array to produce him) right now? If so, explain your rationale.

- You chastise posters for using opinions and generalizations to prove their arguments without realizing that you are doing this at every turn yourself. For proof, I will outline every generalization you use in your next post -- just as a kind of marker so that you can see what you are doing, and hopefully, adjust.

 

[Archangel]

The problem is--We and everyone else know we are rebuilding. Ownership and Benning, may disagree and do a dumb trade where we trade one of our kids for an overpriced, injury prone FW (ala Wesley and Neely for Pederson)

 

[Archangel]

The question I have is where does Juovi fit into our plans?

 

[Askel]

In 2011 Kucherov, William Karlsson, Brandon Saad, John Gibson, Joel Edmunsson, Boone Jenner, Viktor Rask were picked in the 2nd round thats 7 out of 30 players who are all top six or better and thats including a few elite players.. Plus Bottom six guys like Jaskin, Jurco, Salomaki, Ritchie, Xavier Ouellet, Scott Mayfield Matt Nieto, Markus Granlund. Thats 8 more NHL players

15 out 30 picks became NHL players, 15 were top 6/top 4 or a no 1 Goalie.

 

[Bojack Horvatman]

Depends how you define impact. O.5 ppg and 20 goal pace player is considered a second line production.

Some user don't considered that second line production because people are still living 1985 when A stacked of players put up those numbers. Now there is probably only about 4 or 5 players that can actually get 18 plus goals on a team.. Some said it easy to sign those players in free agency. Hmm no it's not.

2010 2nd and 3rd round picks that turned into a top 6 F or top 4 D. Zucker Faulk AND Spooner. So a 5% chance.

Can you show me some examples or numbers of maybe put them on an excel spreadsheet and show me how trading those picks for early 20 year old has a lower chance to becoming a top 6 F/Top 4 D?

User HS said he broke the odds with Baer. Technically i think he did becauze I believe he made less than 10 of those trades. Less than 10 of those trades equal higher than 5% chance.

So the article I gave that collected data from 20 drafts was too small a sample size yet, you are using 1 draft.

Honestly, if you have a good pro-scouting department going after players like Ladd, Versteeg, or Baertschi can be more valuable than a draft pick. The Canucks pro scouting has been dog**** though. Trading pick after pick for fringe players, fourth liners and bottom because management is too impatient to wait for prospects to develop is an awful strategy. This resulted in a pick shortage for 2014-2016. This is why Jim Benning still has to sign 3 or 4 free agents every year while other teams have later picks from those draft in their lineups.

 

[Canucks1096]

This cannot be done. If this data is available, it certainly isn't public.

There are many problems with your analysis Canucks1096. It's rife with errors. Here are my explanations as to why:

- You've talked about insufficient/sufficient sample sizes, and then you cite 1 draft's worth of data. That is at once hypocritical, and it's also anecdotal. That sample is nowhere near large enough.

- You haven't defined your criteria for "reclamation".

- You haven't defined your criteria for top6/top4.

- Why doesn't your hypothesis extend to the 1st round? If you want to claim that reclamation players have the same chance at converting in either context, why ignore the best quality of one context and include the entire quality of another context?

- You define 2nd liners as "impact players". I think you should just stick to top6/top4.

- Are you taking the full array of picks squandered to produce a top6/top4 player with either strategy? For instance, are you taking Benning's full allotment of trades to produce Baertschi, or just the 2nd rounder used to produce Baertschi?

- If you are taking the array of picks, then how do you quantify that same array in regards to the draft?

- Not being in the NHL at present is not a marker on player quality re: Baertschi vs. Gaudette.

- What are your thoughts on pick value vs. reclamation players? Can you get a 2nd++ for Baertschi (the total pick array to produce him) right now? If so, explain your rationale.

- You chastise posters for using opinions and generalizations to prove their arguments without realizing that you are doing this at every turn yourself. For proof, I will outline every generalization you use in your next post -- just as a kind of marker so that you can see what you are doing, and hopefully, adjust.

if the data is not available. Then you don't have a right to say my claim of trading picks for early 20 years old has a lesser chance to become a top 6 F/top 4 D because you can't prove it. Tell someone that they are wrong but there is no way for you to prove is such a weak argument.

I looked at 2010 because me and LS we are discussing 2010 already and if you if you read our conversation it does indicate I did say every draft will be a little different. On average the percentage is not going to be that much higher. I will give you 10% instead of 5%. Do you feel better Now?



It doesn't extend to the 1st round pick because Benning is not trading 1st round picks. So Benning is trading anywhere from.2nd to 7th and mostly and 2nd and 3rd. That's why we are looking at those picks.

You telling me that your theory cant be proven. You are indirectly saying you are generalizing. Is that right?

If it can't be proven then there not much of a point of having this debate anymore.

 

[Archangel]

The actual question should be how far a long in the rebuild are we?

Here is my list of where I project our picks, prospects and current players TOPPING out--no one over 25 can be conisdered as being part of the long term plans

Goal
1-Demko 21
D
1LD Hughes 18
2LD Juolevi.20
3LD
1RD
2RD-Stretcher 24
3Rd-Woo 18
RW
1-Bouser 20
2-Goldobin 21
3-Virtanen 21
C
1-Horvat 22
2-Petterson 19
3- Gaudette 20
4- Granlund 24
LW
1-
2-
3-Baertschi
4-

I am being conservative as I know for a fact certain posters will talk about Hutton being a top 4 guy(I just do not see it), Pouliot is a dime a dozen bottom pairing for 6/7 D, Gaunce will be a fringe nhler, and I am not well versed on our last draft picks beyond the first and second round. Obviously getting a 1RHD is needed and I think Juolevi could fetch that. While I have never seen him play, I like what the scouts say about him. The question is what does Benning and co think about him. From my perspective we will be in the playoffs sooner then some think.

 

[Canucks1096]

https://www.tsn.ca/statistically-speaking-nhl-draft-pick-value-1.786131

Benning has traded away picks with the overalls of 33, 50, 53, 84, 85, 94, 99, 124, 126, 157, 204. The chance of not getting a top 6/ top 4 d out of those picks is 49.6%. The chance of not getting an nhl player is 0.6%. Getting Baertschi should not be considered beating the odds when with those picks there is a good chance of getting a player better than Baertschi.

Where did you get 49.6 % from?

 

[Bojack Horvatman]

Where did you get 49.6 % from?

You multiply the probability that each pick has of not producing a top 6/ top 4 d.

 

[Bleach Clean]

if the data is not available. Then you don't have a right to say my claim of trading picks for early 20 years old has a lesser chance to become a top 6 F/top 4 D because you can't prove it. Tell someone that they are wrong but there is no way for you to prove is such a weak argument.

I looked at 2010 because me and LS we are discussing 2010 already and if you if you read our conversation it does indicate I did say every draft will be a little different. On average the percentage is not going to be that much higher. I will give you 10% instead of 5%. Do you feel better Now?



It doesn't extend to the 1st round pick because Benning is not trading 1st round picks. So Benning is trading anywhere from.2nd to 7th and mostly and 2nd and 3rd. That's why we are looking at those picks.

You telling me that your theory cant be proven. You are indirectly saying you are generalizing. Is that right?

If it can't be proven then there not much of a point of having this debate anymore.

If the data is not available, then you can't make inferences either way with certainty. This includes saying that draft picks have better odds at becoming top6/top4 players _and_ saying trading picks for early 20 year old players provides better odds at finding top6/top4 players. All that said... anecdotally, you're more wrong than you are right.

There is far more anecdotal evidence that drafts yield better quality assets. This is the general thinking among fans. They see more players of this ilk come by way of draft, not via trade. If there was an equal probability that drafts and trades could yield the same type of assets with equal costs, then you would see many more picks than you do be traded for fringe assets. You wouldn't see many picks traded for 1 player. You would have to consider players like Baertschi as having a greater value than a 2nd rounder. In other words, the NHL would represent a perfect market, yet, we know that this isn't the case. Picks are absolutely favoured over waiver wire garbage or failing prospects.

This is about you ignoring the common sense portion of an argument to look for evidence that creates a stalemate. Inconclusive evidence does not mean all conclusions are valid. Your opinion is the definite outlier. If you doubt it, then why don't we put this to an out of board vote where HF VAN posters cannot vote?

------------------------

On sample size: The draft sample would have to be massive for you to conclude any percentage with certainty. The _generalization_ of seeing each draft as a "little different" is just that.

On not including 1st rounders: Why do we care that Benning hasn't traded a 1st? The principle is what you are trying to prove. Your theory posits that trades and drafts have an equal chance of yielding top6/top4 players. This should apply to all draft picks. If it does not, then you're unfairly gauging the best reclamations (which you still haven't defined) against everything but the best draft picks = skewed in favour of reclamations.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

I determine its up to 10% on getting an impact players from round 2 to round 7. Your job right now is to prove to me that making a trade for a struggling young player has a less than 10% chance of being an impact player.

If nobody can do that. That means you guys are all just generalizing.

Sry a bit off topic, why do you keep using this term? What would be the opposite of this in a debate / discussion?

 

[Askel]

Also when was the lat time a player like Kucherov/Gibson/Saad was added as a reclamation project?

Real impact players (top pairing d-men, first liners and no 1 goalies) are almost never traded when they are 20 for draft picks. Sometimes they are traded as futures for nows but not for 2nd and 3rd round picks.

This is the reason you keep your picks, if you find one Kucherov or Saad in 2nd round you have added an elite player and et him when he is cheap.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Also when was the lat time a player like Kucherov/Gibson/Saad was added as a reclamation project?

Real impact players (top pairing d-men, first liners and no 1 goalies) are almost never traded when they are 20 for draft picks. Sometimes they are traded as futures for nows but not for 2nd and 3rd round picks.

This is the reason you keep your picks, if you find one Kucherov or Saad in 2nd round you have added an elite player and et him when he is cheap.

Essentially, yes. We are at this point trying to determine if common sense should be challenged. I'm open to it. Sometimes new information completely changes the landscape. That said, I think it's highly unlikely that it changes in this case. Even if we were to somehow, miraculously, conclude that trades and draft picks yielded roughly equal returns... we haven't touched on costs. Once we do, it's yet another detriment to favouring trades to picks. It seems a non-starter that only Canuck1096 is willing to challenge.

 

[Askel]

And this is Bennings agegap trades:
Vey --- 2nd (#50 - Roland McKeown) Not in the NHL
Pedan --- Mallet, '16 3rd (came back to us) Not in the NHL
Clendening --- Forsling Not in the NHL
Baertschi --- 2nd (#53 - Rasmus Andersson) 2nd Liner
Etem --- Jensen, '17 6th (157- Lakatos) Not in the NHL
Granlund --- Shinkaruk Bottom 6 forward
Larsen --- '17 5th (126- Karow) Not in the NHL
Pouliot -- Pedan, '18 4th (99 - Demin) Bottom pairing d-man
Dowd -- Subban 4th liner/extra forward
Motte-- Vanek AHLer
Lepsic -- Holm Bottom six forward (but with some upside)

No real game changers, one decent player in Baertshi, one bottom pairing damn (Pouliot) One Bottom 6 forward (Granlund) 5 players not in the NHL.

 

[nuck luck]

Let's keep it professional please. You don't need to bring in my work and my social circles in this. Lets just talk about hockey and nothing else. My work and social circle is none of your business. Can you do That?

Go back and read what HS wrote. He wrote Benning traded all these picks and getting Baer he broke the odds. So HS was referring to 2nd round pick for Vey, 2nd round pick for Baer. 3rd round pick for Pedan. 5th for Larsen. 7th for Etem. To Sharp and Versteeg are similiar to these type or deals and that's why I am using this examples. Then you decided to complete change the argument to just 1st round picks.

You were debating with HS about draft pick being better that those reclamation project. You actually accepted those players Benning traded are reclamation project already. If you didn't accept that. Then I have no idea why you decided to use Relamation project as an argument when you are debating with HS.

8 Players The Canucks Could Sign As Reclamation Projects (Part 2)

Canucks spin their wheels with reclamation projects instead of picks at the 2018 trade deadline

Think article claim all those players were reclamation projects.

That's WHY I said before you use your personal opinion as an argument. So you use your personal opinion to determine what is a reclamation project and decided shut down all my examples.

Long story short. Let make it nice and simple. So all those deals Benning made. Prove to me that drafting from round 2nd to 7th you have better chance of getting an impact player vs trading for one?

If you are not interested in this part of debate. Then I guess we will stop.

Later rounds can mean 2nd round pick too. Read previous post. I did indicate 2nd to 7th round

I will keep it professional IF you can keep it logical...fair enough? If you keep misinterpreting everything than I can't promise anything, I've tried...but you've tested my patience.

Look at the first sentence of most people's reply to you...you don't find it odd that everyone either starts with sarcasm, your comprehension skills or your complete ignorance of given facts? I've had discussions with twelve year olds who were more capable of holding a conversation.

Look at my first reply to you and you'll find it quite tame and amicable. But your complete fabrication, misquotes and accusations is offensive. I DO NOT like to be misquoted and I take complete offence when you accuse me of something that YOU misinterpreted or failed to comprehend.

I agree, lets keep this at a civil level, but that requires respecting another persons words and not putting words in their mouths.

Lastly, don't be a hypocrite and do the exact things that you accuse me of doing. Otherwise you can go F yourself with your 'better than that' bs... your actions are more infuriating and much more offensive than a simple question to enquire if this disorder is just saved for hf boards or it extends into your everyday life.

If it goes beyond HF boards than I would be a little more understanding and be better equipped to reply to your interpretations, misquotes, accusations, misunderstandings and basic lack of comprehension.

Can you respect that?

 

[Canucks1096]

I will keep it professional IF you can keep it logical...fair enough? If you keep misinterpreting everything than I can't promise anything, I've tried...but you've tested my patience.

Look at the first sentence of most people's reply to you...you don't find it odd that everyone either starts with sarcasm, your comprehension skills or your complete ignorance of given facts? I've had discussions with twelve year olds who were more capable of holding a conversation.

Look at my first reply to you and you'll find it quite tame and amicable. But your complete fabrication, misquotes and accusations is offensive. I DO NOT like to be misquoted and I take complete offence when you accuse me of something that YOU misinterpreted or failed to comprehend.

I agree, lets keep this at a civil level, but that requires respecting another persons words and not putting words in their mouths.

Lastly, don't be a hypocrite and do the exact things that you accuse me of doing. Otherwise you can go F yourself with your 'better than that' bs... your actions are more infuriating and much more offensive than a simple question to enquire if this disorder is just saved for hf boards or it extends into your everyday life.

If it goes beyond HF boards than I would be a little more understanding and be better equipped to reply to your interpretations, misquotes, accusations, misunderstandings and basic lack of comprehension.

Can you respect that?

It looks like you are not ready to have a professional adult hockey conversation . I won't reply to any of your post no more. Take care.