Confirmed with Link: Tim Erixon traded to Chicago for Jeremy Morin

[Viqsi]

You make your luck. If you're an effective GM who'd like to avoid a very damaging losing streak, you don't wait for other people's offers.

What part of whose sentence looked or sounded ANYTHING like "wait for other people's offers"?

You call somebody, ask for their #5 blueliner. They reply "Jenner or GTFO". You try to discuss further and they're not budging because they have no reason to, they don't have any motivation to move anybody for anything 'cause it's too early in the season and you're a desperate GM who therefore can potentially be fleeced. There's only so much someone can do in a circumstance like that.

And if another GM didn't react that way? He'd be well known around the league as an "easy mark" and ripe for the picking any time you have any trouble. It really does happen. It's happened to us with Doug MacLean.

 

[CBJx614]

Skille has been solid...nothing to warrant the top 10 pick he was, but I'm a fan...if he and skille are the wingers on the 3rd line, I'm ok with that...

seems like we're gonna start Morin on the 4th (he practiced with Chaput and Tropp today) and let him work his way in...see where it goes

So where does that leave Boll?

 

[Xoggz22]

If I had a complaint that may have had an impact on the losing streak and minimal to no response it would have been attributed to our lack of goaltending depth. McIlheney was also injured and did not perform well at all during the streak. We were unlikely to fill forward holes or defensive holes without getting screwed but the lack of G depth could have impacted a game or two.

regardless, it's awfully tough to handle that many injuries in such a short time.

 

[SuperGenius]

My friend that's a die hard Hawks fan said he is a good third liner that plays tough and can score if given the minutes and isn't afraid to drop the gloves. I like the trade on paper, was never a fan of Erixon, too soft for a defensemen.

admit it, he had you at "drops the gloves"

 

[ca5150]

admit it, he had you at "drops the gloves"

Ha! Yeah that might have been the first question I asked...can't have too many guys that have a scoring touch and willing to play in the hard areas!

 

[db2011]

People are upset because he didn't make a move for Eberle or some other such 'name' player, that's all. They wanted the sizzle of a good deal for a top scoring winger - which of course, no other GM has been able to manage either, but that's beside the point... Add in that it's clear that no result=nothing done, and you've some unhappy folks. The best part of their stance is that when a move is made, they can say GMJK got the wrong guy or that the guy's a plug too - doubling down on their ability to be dissatisfied with both something and nothing at the same time. It's brilliant, really.

You're bad at reading

 

[SuperGenius]

You're bad at reading

Must have perfectly summed it up to get this short of a response from you. I'm disappointed. I figured I might have left one or two small holes to exploit.

I realize, btw, that this response doesn't fit your particular position perfectly, but it's not really about you in particular, fwiw.

IMO, it's easy to sit back on the outside and want things done earlier. I guess it's easy to assume that a deal could've been done and that would've stopped the streak. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Sometimes you shouldn't panic and I'm glad Jarmo didn't panic. You're playing a little of both sides saying you agree with the moves, but wanted them sooner - you're assuming two things - that the moves would have been available earlier and that the moves would've done anything to stop a losing streak.

The only way out is through.

 

[db2011]

Must have perfectly summed it up to get this short of a response from you. I'm disappointed. I figured I might have left one or two small holes to exploit.

I realize, btw, that this response doesn't fit your particular position perfectly, but it's not really about you in particular, fwiw.

IMO, it's easy to sit back on the outside and want things done earlier. I guess it's easy to assume that a deal could've been done and that would've stopped the streak. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Sometimes you shouldn't panic and I'm glad Jarmo didn't panic. You're playing a little of both sides saying you agree with the moves, but wanted them sooner - you're assuming two things - that the moves would have been available earlier and that the moves would've done anything to stop a losing streak.

The only way out is through.

Having been a part of this argument for a long time, I really can't think of anyone who your summary does fit well. I have in mind posters who had a similar position to mine who weren't talking about a name player at all.

I've been in the "do something!" crowd (might as well own it) from early on, and the accusations of wanting a magical cure-all deal were rapid-fire and mistaken.

But my whole flareup today is because if anyone's playing both sides, it's those who pooh-pooh the "do something" crowd while completely missing the point that what has been done is just what the "do something" crowd meant.

As to the assumptions yes, I am assuming that moves were available earlier because when it comes to low-impact roster moves, they are always available. I think the Leopold move could have happened sooner, and if you're an NHL team with roster space and cap room you can sign players. It doesn't have to be through trades. As to stopping the losing streak, that would have been gravy; to me the importance was to spell the young players and bring a voice or two into the room with the potential to cut through the funk.

 

[db2011]

What is there to be skeptical of if he's not lying?

Skepticism that he's representing the whole picture. For instance as regards player injuries.

Nuh-uh. Discussion had and ended.

okey doke

 

[Viqsi]

As to the assumptions yes, I am assuming that moves were available earlier because when it comes to low-impact roster moves, they are always available.

This is demonstrably incorrect, and if you can't recognize that then there's no hope for you.

 

[db2011]

This is demonstrably incorrect, and if you can't recognize that then there's no hope for you.

somehow I'm unfazed by your assessment. I should get a cookie for that, hon

 

[We Want Ten]

Who knew that Erixon could create such energy and excitement?

 

[Viqsi]

somehow I'm unfazed by your assessment. I should get a cookie for that, hon

Sorry. Cookies are for folks who either demonstrate that they have a clue, or make a point that obliges me to reconsider my own perspective. You have done neither.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

what has been done is just what the "do something" crowd meant.

This is exactly what I included in my summary and you've done nothing but complain about it.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lying_by_omission

You want to claim that saying Jarmo isn't telling the whole truth isn't the same as saying he's lying, go right ahead. I'm comfortable with my summary as it stands. It's playing out in subsequent pages all over again, as I've noted throughout.

 

[db2011]

Sorry. Cookies are for folks who either demonstrate that they have a clue, or make a point that obliges me to reconsider my own perspective. You have done neither.

It's fine, I don't like your cookies anyway

 

[db2011]

This is exactly what I included in my summary and you've done nothing but complain about it.

Not for the first time, I don't follow you. The oversimplification that was a condition of your "summary" compelled me to dismiss it. We're we truly meant to take it seriously?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lying_by_omission

You want to parse words and claim that saying Jarmo isn't telling the whole truth isn't the same as saying he's lying, go right ahead. I'm comfortable with my summary as it stands. It's playing out in subsequent pages all over again, as I've noted throughout.

He's talking exclusively about trades. "Do something!" includes waivers and FA signings. I don't think he's lying about trades, I never said he was lying about trades, but we are only covering a third of the options available to a team reeling from horrendous injuries. So for the last ****ing time, stop putting words in my mouth.

Roger Goodell is lying when he claims not to have seen the Ray Rice video. Kekalainen doesn't appear to me to be lying. If I thought he was lying I would say so. Why do you think I wouldn't stand behind what I think if I really think if?

Saying something is "lip service", which appears to be what entitles you to qualify my sentiments even above my own objections, is not the same thing as saying someone is lying. That's not parsing words. He did nothing to address the injury situation and so anything he says about to me won't be adequate. It's just lip service. Not lies.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

Not for the first time, I don't follow you. The oversimplification that was a condition of your "summary" compelled me to dismiss it. We're we truly meant to take it seriously?

It's totally spot on. And it has happened again, exactly as I posted, in the pages since. The only thing that's remotely debatable is the lying thing.

 

[Viqsi]

Not for the first time, I don't follow you. The oversimplification that was a condition of your "summary" compelled me to dismiss it. We're we truly meant to take it seriously?



He's talking exclusively about trades. "Do something!" includes waivers and FA signings. I don't think he's lying about trades, I never said he was lying about trades, but we are only covering a third of the options available to a team reeling from horrendous injuries. So for the last ****ing time, stop putting words in my mouth.

Roger Goodell is lying when he claims not to have seen the Ray Rice video. Kekalainen doesn't appear to me to be lying. If I thought he was lying I would say so. Why do you think I wouldn't stand behind what I think if I really think if?

Saying something is "lip service", which appears to be what entitles you to qualify my sentiments even above my own objections, is not the same thing as saying someone is lying. That's not parsing words. He did nothing to address the injury situation and so anything he says about to me won't be adequate. It's just lip service. Not lies.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lip service

lip service noun
: support for someone or something that is expressed by someone in words but that is not shown in that person's actions

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lip+service

To just say something but not actually do it. To pretend that you believe a certain thing but not practice that belief.

 

[db2011]

It's totally spot on. And it has happened again, exactly as I posted, in the pages since. The only thing that's remotely debatable is the lying thing.

Alright, I'll go consult your summary, which I'm not surprised to learn is spot on, and stop attempting to have actual debate. I'll plug in the responses you've been good enough to supply and pay no heed to the voice in my head that says this can't possibly be an adequate stand-in for what I'd really like to convey. But how can it be that there are rote calls and responses in a debate that has changed over time with the actual moves by the FO to affect the roster, when this debate began prior to Jordan Leopold, Kevin Connauton and now Morin being Blue Jackets?

And the "lying thing" isn't a thing unless you persist in telling me what I think while I'm telling you I don't think it.

 

[db2011]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lip service


http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lip+service

I may be using the phrase looser than its definition supports. But none of your provided definitions uses the word lying.

 

[Viqsi]

I may be using the phrase looser than its definition supports. But none of your provided definitions uses the word lying.

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/lip+service

Synonyms for lip service:
duplicity
empty talk
hollow words
hypocrisy
hypocritical respect
insincerity
jive
lie
lip devotion
lip homage
lip praise
lip reverence
lip worship
mouth honor
mouthing
sham
smooth talk
sweet talk
token agreement
tokenism
tongue in cheek
unctuousness

But apart from that, here's some useful data. Specifically, here is every player that went on waivers between when the streak started and when we claimed Connauton and traded for Leopold, in order (plus number of games lost at each point):

One game lost:
Benn Ferriero (Oct 26)

Two games lost:
Rich Clune (Oct 28)

Five games lost:
Brad Hunt (Nov 2)
Ryan Malone (Nov 2)
Scott Clemmensen (Nov 3)

Six games lost:
Blair Jones (Nov 4)
Will Acton (Nov 5)
Ben Street (Nov 6)

Eight games lost:
Rene Bourque (Nov 9)
Tomas Vincour (Nov 11)

Nine games lost:
Michael Kostka (Nov 13)
David Schlemko (Nov 14)

Leopold was traded for on Nov 15 (the same day Tyutin was placed on IR). Connauton was waived two days later and claimed the next day. He was the first player to be claimed on waivers all season.

The first trade during the season took place on Nov 11 (Gonchar for Moen). The Leopold deal was the second.

I'd be interested to know which of those guys were supposed to be a useful addition.

 

[db2011]

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/lip+service


But apart from that, here's some useful data. Specifically, here is every player that went on waivers between when the streak started and when we claimed Connauton and traded for Leopold, in order (plus number of games lost at each point):

One game lost:
Benn Ferriero (Oct 26)

Two games lost:
Rich Clune (Oct 28)

Five games lost:
Brad Hunt (Nov 2)
Ryan Malone (Nov 2)
Scott Clemmensen (Nov 3)

Six games lost:
Blair Jones (Nov 4)
Will Acton (Nov 5)
Ben Street (Nov 6)

Eight games lost:
Rene Bourque (Nov 9)
Tomas Vincour (Nov 11)

Nine games lost:
Michael Kostka (Nov 13)
David Schlemko (Nov 14)

Leopold was traded for on Nov 15 (the same day Tyutin was placed on IR). Connauton was waived two days later and claimed the next day. He was the first player to be claimed on waivers all season.

The first trade during the season took place on Nov 11 (Gonchar for Moen). The Leopold deal was the second.

I'd be interested to know which of those guys were supposed to be a useful addition.

Shucks Viqsi, ya got me. Here I was vacillating between "jive" and "sweet talk" and the whole time if was "lie". Talk about parsing words.

I'm not going to indulge your waiver wire report because in all honesty if you'd shown me that prior to Connauton being claimed, and his name was on there, there's little likelihood is have said "Connauton, obviously". You're making an implicit claim that Connauton is the hidden answer and I'm not making that claim at all. I like his game and am glad for the signing but for all I know there's another name or two on that list that could have contributed, and could have contributed during the losing streak. It's beyond my ken to scout the waiver wire competently, but that doesn't mean I'm out of bounds to believe someone on the Jackets payroll ought to be able to and ought to have done something while we were pissing away games with an absolutely subpar roster

 

[NotWendell]

I leave for ONE DAY and this thread goes spiraling out of control!!!

OK, let's throw some gasoline on the fire.

Todd Richards has done a helluva job holding this club together, keeping them focused and competitive through all of the injuries.

You may begin.

 

[blahblah]

I like Erixon. Would rather have moved someone else, but I doubt that Erixon and Richards say eye-to-eye.

Oh well, welcome new guy!

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

Alright, I'll go consult your summary, which I'm not surprised to learn is spot on, and stop attempting to have actual debate.

Good.

I'll plug in the responses you've been good enough to supply and pay no heed to the voice in my head that says this can't possibly be an adequate stand-in for what I'd really like to convey.

I've "plugged in" responses for the entire debate, not just one "side" or one individual. And since it was resurrected yesterday, we've seen pretty much everything I included.