You cant claim Ducks players voted for Gibson and then say we dont know who voted from which team

If you cant understand how that is the literal definition of contradiction there isnt any constructive avenue for this conversation to go down

Why can't you say those 2 things? They can both be true.

We don't know how many Ducks players voted, those that did likely voted for Gibson. Both are true statements and don't oppose each other in any fashion. It's not contradictory in any sense of the word.

This is a lost cause

Lol. So when he was good, it was because he played behind a good defense, but when he's bad, it's just because he's bad. @Salzy we have another guy contradicting himself.

Bad arguments tend to be.

We don't know how many Ducks players voted, those that did likely voted for Gibson. Both are true statements and don't oppose each other in any fashion. It's not contradictory in any sense of the word.

Both on my ignore list now, not worth it

I feel bad for the good leaf fans on here

tfw you get shown you are wrong so you have to ignore people.

You sir, are playing chess while the rest of us are simply playing checkers. How in the heck could I have possibly missed the fact that in 2023-24, the year that extensions for Z/Terry/Drysdale would kick in, that the Ducks ALREADY HAVE JUST OVER $27 MILLION ON THE BOOKS?!?!?!?!?! Jeeeeeezussssssssssss. How in the heck are they going to do it?!?!?! People on here wondering how Vegas, Toronto, Tampa, Florida, etc. are going to make their teams better when they're already at the ceiling, and you, because of the whole chess thing, are worried about Anaheim 3-4 years down the road. I mean, if they decide down the line that, as you've already said, he sucks, they could always simply buy him out...

Today I learned the Ducks will play 23-24 with a roster of 9 people. Let's do the math on it. The cap is 82.5 next season, let's say it goes up 83.5 the following...not an unreasonable assumption with covid stuff still being paid back. The Ducks will be paying ~32% of their cap to just 6 players ... and thats before Zegras, Terry and Drysdale's new deals come in. You can understand how that cap being spent is suddenly rather important.

Imagine being worried about a team 3-4 years down the road. I'm sure a GM of a rebuilding team would never do that. It's not like thats their job or anything.

Should try joining me on the chess board.

Can't have your cake and eat it too.

We don't know how many ducks players voted. So how can we say that Gibson is inflated on this list when we have no idea how many ducks players voted for him?!?! Do you not understand that this is not possible?

It's either one or the other. Either we don't know how many ducks players voted, or Gibson got high results because a lot of ducks players voted on him (which I don't believe is proven true anyways)

Except it's not one or the other. There's no either or to those 2 statements. We don't know how many Ducks players voted, Gibson likely got high results because a lot did. Those aren't one is true or the other. Both can very easily be true.

A good goalie makes a team better, a good goalies stats shouldn't drastically drop as soon as the team gets bad

The drop is a bit more than it should be, sure, but to suggest there is no correlation/causation between goalie and their teams is a foolish statement.



How do you know that a lot did though? This is not based on reality, but only on you trying to find a way to prove yourself right. There is no way to know that a lot of ducks players voted on this poll. So stop trying to claim that a lot did and that's why Gibson got high results.

"Where there's smoke, there is fire" translates to "There was a rumor posted the other day and all of the sudden we've turned it from 'The Ducks might be interested in moving Gibson', to "GIBSON WANTS OUT!"



It's a heck of a lot easier to see why his numbers declined if you just watch a couple of Ducks games. Interesting how the numbers dropped as soon as Dallas Eakins (easily one of the worst 3 coaches in the NHL) instituted his "zone defence" strategy, where players wait for the puck to come to them, instead of using their bodies to break up plays. This strategy typically looks like Anaheim is on the penalty kill in their own zone. Because of this, shot attempts are limited, but as soon as a player is free they end up in position A for a scoring chance.

How does my knowledge of it being a lot or not make the statement contradictory, which is the argument you inserted yourself into.

'Gibson is still valuable because Eakin's system is bad'

Good luck with that.

I mean, you contradicted yourself and either: A) Don't understand what a contradiction is, even though he posted the definition or B) Just don't care because it doesn't serve your hilariously bad narrative.

If it is knownledge, why didn't you say so? Because I've been seeing the convorsation and your argument was that it was a "very reasonable assumption."

EDIT: and if it is knownledge, THEN YOU KNOW HOW MANY DUCKS PLAYERS VOTED!!! Hence the contradition.

Again, how is that a contradiction? We don't know how many Ducks players voted, Gibson likely got high results because a lot did. Both those statements can be true and aren't opposed to each other in any fashion. Saying they are a contradiction is just butchering the english language.

Knowledge, not knownledge.

Repeating the statement over and over again doesn't make it a non-contradiction.

Typo. I have a lot of those.

Repeating it over and over again does make it a non-contradiction because the statement is true and you haven't been able to show it to be false which is why I'm free to repeat it. If those 2 things aren't opposed to each other in any sense, they are by definition not a contradiction. You may not agree with those statements but that doesn't make them contradictory.

You know what, you're totally right! It's not as if the following season Adam Henrique and Silfverberg's contracts don't come off the books (13.5% of that 32ish that you're worried about).

How a fan of a team that has 40.6% of their cap tied up into 3 players has suddenly become worried about 9 players amounting for 32ish is beyond me, and possibly the most hilarious thing I've seen on here in a bit. Heck, we could go even further down the road and say that it's actually 58.1%(!!!!!!!!) invested into 5 (!!!!!!!) players. But yes, let's worry about why the Ducks simply cannot afford to keep John Gibson

The best part about being incorrect is when you get to the point where the most valuable thing you can do is correct a spelling mistake. Bravo!