Stropko's Replacement [1/2]

[Banackock 7,980]

Man, it's Sunday - the weather is not in our favor, I'm eating bland oatmeal and watching the morning news. I have no idea what your title means because my brain is literally running on turtle today. Well, the title surely speaks for itself but what it means is that we've officially found a replacement for Calgary Wranglers Norris Stropko. Goalies right now, or atleast elite ones, are hard to come by in my eyes in the current VHL. You have Norris Stropko who fits that mold, than a Broduer who doesn't, and a Tristan Iseult of the Quebec Meute who is playing the best hockey of his life.. but still.. is not Elite. Roger Sterling came into the VHLM and to say he has struggled since has been an understatement. He went 21-40-7 with the Las Vegas Aces and since then, hasn't changed a whole lot (until this season, really).

 

He was drafted by the Seattle Bears not too long ago and has since been given the helms to the team. He is now the guy who tames the net, who the team is going to rely on in between the pipes and is easily the current best guy to take over the reign for Norris Stropko once Calgary drops off next season (Bushito can say it won't happen, but it's going to with 5 other teams competing). For Sterling, though, his first year was absolute and complete shit. Was it his fault? Fuck no. The Bears made it clear that a lotto pick was in their radar and even if they gave it their all, tried to pump out wins and blah blah, they still wouldn't have. The roster wasn't their and to put it best, their record - his record, matched the entire team. He was still a good goalie - maybe just one who was in a little over his head at that time. His record for S61 11-53-3 as the Bears truly did sail to a nice draft pick.

 

Key in draft pick, welcome Kovalchuk - a high up, fiery d-man and adding another centre and you've got CHAOS. The Bears, while not supposed to be winning this season, currently ARE! They've got a beautiful shiny "X" beside their name in the standings and are 4th place in the league, 2 points up on Riga's 69. Is it a surprise that they're here? sort of - yes, but also no. New York is Garbage and while Helsinki has some nice pieces, they weren't winning shit this year. Toronto may have been the only team to be able to punch Seattle out, but have struggled out of the gates and seemingly have lost some tread on their tires. GOOD NEWS FOR STERLING because it's made his stats a whole lot better (and my own as a GM, hehe). 30-27-7 will be the record that he goes to sleep with at the end of the season as the remaining 8 games belong to the back up goalies.

 

Where does Sterling go from here? I'd say it's pretty easy. As a team forms around him in Seattle, he's only going to get better and better and better. The team has a solid first lines - and have added a player in Jack Shephard who hopefully signs for next year. Adding a d-man in the draft is an option, as well as grabbing a FA or two, or even swinging a big deal come the off-season closer to the draft. I expect Sterling to have a strong career.

 

over 500 words

SPECIAL WEEK - 16 TPE

Claiming (Kovalchuk) --> September 17th to September 23rd!

[Bushito 1,945]

We aren’t going to drop off next season say what you will

[Da Trifecta 1,896]

@Banackock since when is Stopko = Stropko?

[diamond_ace 3,107]

Stopko will only be at depreciation level 2, as will Louth. Canmore will only be at depreciation level 1. Another year of improvement for me, as well as Arroyo, without either of us depreciating. Cap space for once, with which we can replace Johnsson (the only real loss) and a depreciated to hell Bogdanovic and Quill (although one could argue Arroyo and I have improved enough that a draftee could replace 555-TPA Bogdanovic and the net among the three would be the same). 

Now I could see the argument that we'll fall off the year after next (I might even be inclined to agree with that, depending on how we're situated at goalie behind triple-depreciated Stopko). Not next year though. Wishing something will happen, repeating it over and over until you're blue in the face, doesn't make it true. Next year we'll be fine.

[diamond_ace 3,107]

@Banackock what are you laughing about? Explain to me exactly how this team will be bad next year. Sit there and fucking lay it out. If you can't, drop it.

[Banackock 7,980]

21 minutes ago, diamond_ace said:

@Banackock what are you laughing about? Explain to me exactly how this team will be bad next year. Sit there and fucking lay it out. If you can't, drop it.

Basically, I’m having fun with the issue as you can tell from a very poor put together and rambling media spot.

 

More so, it was a minor jab in hopes you and Bushito would comment and get excited/worked up - which is the case. My work here is done.

 

 

[diamond_ace 3,107]

16 minutes ago, Banackock said:

Basically, I’m having fun with the issue as you can tell from a very poor put together and rambling media spot.

 

More so, it was a minor jab in hopes you and Bushito would comment and get excited/worked up - which is the case. My work here is done.

 

 

Your work here is not done. You made a claim, back it up.

[Banackock 7,980]

10 minutes ago, diamond_ace said:

Your work here is not done. You made a claim, back it up.

I’m on my phone so mind my facts.

 

1. You’re losing a 500 TPA player. That’s a significant play for a 200 TPE draftee to replace. Again, on my phone. Are there any inactive hitting depreciation? 

 

2. A majority of your players are aging and close to retirement. Gonna get the most value or let it dip? Lots of buyers this off-season.  Better to see when lots are buying than one or two. 

 

3. Davos, Calgary, Riga, Toronto, Quebec and Seattle are all “competing”. 6 teams. Not all will make playoffs. One of them will sell and I can promise it won’t be Riga, Toronto, Quebec or Seattle. 

 

4. I would take Riga or Quebec over CGY next season if the cards play right. Quebec this season. Is it worth trying to beat the odds for depreciating players and value or cash in while the market is strong to sell?

 

Those are some of my reasons, he says in an angry, dominant tone. 

[diamond_ace 3,107]

4 minutes ago, Banackock said:

I’m on my phone so mind my facts.

 

1. You’re losing a 500 TPA player. That’s a significant play for a 200 TPE draftee to replace. Again, on my phone. Are there any inactive hitting depreciation? 

We're losing a 500 TPA player, having a guy who was about 300 before the season and now in the mid-400s (me), and a guy at 566 now who has added over 100 himself since the beginning of the season (Arroyo). Our gains make up the difference between Bogdanovic and a draftee, even more so if you take into consideration the draftee will be adding more. Of course, you look at the negative in a vacuum, and fail to apply the positives, because it makes your argument sound plausible. No inactives hitting depreciation, not that it would matter.

 

4 minutes ago, Banackock said:

 

2. A majority of your players are aging and close to retirement. Gonna get the most value or let it dip? Lots of buyers this off-season.  Better to see when lots are buying than one or two. 

You don't get to assume we'll sell when the GM himself has specified otherwise. You can try to argue we should sell, but that's a separate argument which has no bearing in how things will turn out based on the facts you have at hand (that we won't sell, as specified by the person making the decision).

 

4 minutes ago, Banackock said:

 

3. Davos, Calgary, Riga, Toronto, Quebec and Seattle are all “competing”. 6 teams. Not all will make playoffs. One of them will sell and I can promise it won’t be Riga, Toronto, Quebec or Seattle. 

I wouldn't necessarily say all of these teams are fully ready to compete yet (nor would most people using actual logic), but of course it's convenient for your argument to assume leaps that have not yet happened. Toronto especially - you have to stretch logic to the point where it becomes a fucking Stretch Armstrong to put Toronto in anything resembling the same boat as Calgary next year.

 

 

4 minutes ago, Banackock said:

 

4. I would take Riga or Quebec over CGY next season if the cards play right. Quebec this season. Is it worth trying to beat the odds for depreciating players and value or cash in while the market is strong to sell?

Of course you would, because you've already said that. However, I'd like to let you know something - the actual results of the league are not determined by who you would take. If you're taking Quebec this season, despite us being most of the way through said season and Calgary have 117 points to Quebec's 102, then as with most of your other arguments here - you don't actually believe that and are simply saying it because it's what makes your argument sound plausible. Sure, it's entirely possible that Quebec can win - but at nearly the end of the season, if one team is 15 points ahead of another team and hasn't even lost a double digit amount of times, OT included, then the only reasonable team to expect to win based on odds would be the team with the significant lead. 

 

As for next season, Quebec will have a decent shot, Riga might even (and you say "if the cards play right" but you basically assume they will, because of course you do), but if you're only naming two teams you'd take over us (even in your incredibly biased, non-factual state) then you're outright stating that you don't actually think we'll suck and you're just making a claim for the sake of making a claim. That's not how it works. You make a claim, you use evidence to support said claim. If you don't have evidence, you don't make the claim. 

 

4 minutes ago, Banackock said:

 

Those are some of my reasons, he says in an angry, dominant tone. 

The same angry, dominant tone villains use in their monologues, right before they're defeated. Logic doesn't wait for monologues. Logic cuts giant holes in every argument you've used, while you're concerned about your tone.

[Banackock 7,980]

5 minutes ago, diamond_ace said:

We're losing a 500 TPA player, having a guy who was about 300 before the season and now in the mid-400s (me), and a guy at 566 now who has added over 100 himself since the beginning of the season (Arroyo). Our gains make up the difference between Bogdanovic and a draftee, even more so if you take into consideration the draftee will be adding more. Of course, you look at the negative in a vacuum, and fail to apply the positives, because it makes your argument sound plausible. No inactives hitting depreciation, not that it would matter.

 

You don't get to assume we'll sell when the GM himself has specified otherwise. You can try to argue we should sell, but that's a separate argument which has no bearing in how things will turn out based on the facts you have at hand (that we won't sell, as specified by the person making the decision).

 

I wouldn't necessarily say all of these teams are fully ready to compete yet (nor would most people using actual logic), but of course it's convenient for your argument to assume leaps that have not yet happened. Toronto especially - you have to stretch logic to the point where it becomes a fucking Stretch Armstrong to put Toronto in anything resembling the same boat as Calgary next year.

 

 

Of course you would, because you've already said that. However, I'd like to let you know something - the actual results of the league are not determined by who you would take. If you're taking Quebec this season, despite us being most of the way through said season and Calgary have 117 points to Quebec's 102, then as with most of your other arguments here - you don't actually believe that and are simply saying it because it's what makes your argument sound plausible. Sure, it's entirely possible that Quebec can win - but at nearly the end of the season, if one team is 15 points ahead of another team and hasn't even lost a double digit amount of times, OT included, then the only reasonable team to expect to win based on odds would be the team with the significant lead. 

 

As for next season, Quebec will have a decent shot, Riga might even (and you say "if the cards play right" but you basically assume they will, because of course you do), but if you're only naming two teams you'd take over us (even in your incredibly biased, non-factual state) then you're outright stating that you don't actually think we'll suck and you're just making a claim for the sake of making a claim. That's not how it works. You make a claim, you use evidence to support said claim. If you don't have evidence, you don't make the claim. 

 

The same angry, dominant tone villains use in their monologues, right before they're defeated. Logic doesn't wait for monologues. Logic cuts giant holes in every argument you've used, while you're concerned about your tone.

You literally took nothing and turned it into something, lol.  It's Sunday - enjoy it by being happy, not by being overdramatic and angry. 

Edited September 16, 2018 by Banackock

[diamond_ace 3,107]

Just now, Banackock said:

You literally took nothing and turned it into something, lol. 

I took you making a claim with no evidence and turned it into an evisceration of the same. If you don't have evidence (which you don't, as per your post attempting to provide some) then I suggest you issue a retraction. The funny part is the one argument I actually expected you to make (the one argument that might hold some merit, and no I'm not going to provide you with it) you didn't even make.

[Banackock 7,980]

Just now, diamond_ace said:

I took you making a claim with no evidence and turned it into an evisceration of the same. If you don't have evidence (which you don't, as per your post attempting to provide some) then I suggest you issue a retraction. The funny part is the one argument I actually expected you to make (the one argument that might hold some merit, and no I'm not going to provide you with it) you didn't even make.

No. You took a joke and blew it up, lol and overreacted exactly how I thought one of you two would have. Was more so thinking Bushito though. 

 

People can make claims about any team - they do it all the time LMAO. GM's say shit all the time and then change their minds. lol

[diamond_ace 3,107]

4 minutes ago, Banackock said:

You literally took nothing and turned it into something, lol.  It's Sunday - enjoy it by being happy, not by being overdramatic and angry. 

I am being happy. I'm actually quite excited right now - arguing with actual logic is one of my favorite things (not actually lying about that). As for overdramatic, I'm trying to prove a point. You don't just say shit without a reason for it. Not sure what the day of the week has to do with anything.

[Banackock 7,980]

1 minute ago, diamond_ace said:

I am being happy. I'm actually quite excited right now - arguing with actual logic is one of my favorite things (not actually lying about that). As for overdramatic, I'm trying to prove a point. You don't just say shit without a reason for it. Not sure what the day of the week has to do with anything.

Just like any other prediction ever on this website? 

 

I gave my thoughts as to why. He can say no no no but if he's getting sloshed next year by a Riga and Quebec well see what happens. 

[diamond_ace 3,107]

Anyway - we've pretty well hashed this out on the discord now. I think you understand what I'm saying though. 

 

to you for next season, although I will absolutely bump this if we're top 3, and I expect you to do the same if we're in danger of missing the playoffs. (If we're in 4/5 but safely in, as in 6th is well back, then it's a wash). Going out to dinner now, doubt I'll be on here

[Bushito 1,945]

Neither of my players are losing shit, I’ve got enough banked. Johnsson is staying from what he told me and Symm will come up along with another rookie next season. We will be the best team next season again. After that we’ll see. It’s Banas way of trying to troll/ convince we need to sell if because he knows we’ll rape everyone again.

[Bushito 1,945]

Neither of my players are losing shit, I’ve got enough banked. Johnsson is staying from what he told me and Symm will come up along with another rookie next season. We will be the best team next season again. After that we’ll see. It’s Banas way of trying to troll/ convince we need to sell off because he knows we’ll rape everyone again.

[DollarAndADream 3,356]

Review:

With the Stropko's of the past, it's not surprising that Norris gets his name misspelled often. Haha.

Bana with another article here that stirs up conversation. Good conversation.