I submit that a bold assertion followed by a weaselly, ass-covering, back-pedaling, parenthetical qualifier isn't exactly top-flight forum debating form, either.Strangelove wrote:I'm disappointed, that is not how one properly debates Cliffy.
I did not oppose the specifics of the trade at the time, because I bought into the narrative the Benning was an unusually astute judge of talent and may have seen things that others missed. I did oppose the principle of trading draft picks for older playersStrangelove wrote:Too bad you can't build a time machine to go back and oppose the Vey trade at the time.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10927&p=261513&hili ... ft#p261513
and point out that Vey wasn't even the player Benning said he wanted
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10901&p=254759&hilit=Vey#p254759
But we still agree on the main point. All that matters in assessing Benning's work is how the Canucks are doing in the "1-2 years" that have been reverberating around this board. If they are doing well (and I plan a poll on what would qualify), then Benning has done a great job. Unfortunately your kool-aid addiction prevents you from even contemplating the implications if the Canucks are not doing well.