Friday, October 15, 2010

Fabian Brunnstrom has been placed on waivers...

...so can we all now agree that it was ridiculous to bash Mike Gillis and the Aquilini brothers back in 2008 when the Canucks didn't sign him?

I mean, it was ridiculous back then and its level of ridiculousity hasn't changed, but it's level of obviousity has. The Brunnstrom "saga" should teach everyone a lesson on the dangers of hype.

But it won't.

6 comments:

  1. Harrison MooneyOctober 15, 2010 at 4:13 PM

    Bet if we picked him up to play with the Sedins, he'd score 50 goals. And if we played him AND Cheechoo with the Sedins AT THE SAME TIME they'd score 50 goals EACH NIGHT.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Qris JohnsonOctober 15, 2010 at 5:47 PM

    I don't understand your argument. Nonis would have signed Brunnstrom. Nonis was fired, so he didn't. Therefore, Brunnstrom signed in Dallas. Gillis never signed him and the Canucks never won the Cup. Your argument is invalid.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Daniel WagnerOctober 15, 2010 at 5:53 PM

    Man, I missed the Stanley Cup parade in Dallas. I hate it when that happens.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Qris JohnsonOctober 15, 2010 at 6:14 PM

    Psh, I never said Brunnstrom was a Stanley Cup all by himself.

    It's Brunnstrom, plus the Canucks' uniform, PLUS Nonis having been the one signing him that would have done it.

    The Stars would have won the Cup if they signed him, used the Canucks logo, and hired Dave Nonis, so long as they didn't do so in that order, because it would have to have been Dave Nonis that did the signing.

    Learn hockey. Sheez.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Daniel WagnerOctober 15, 2010 at 6:59 PM

    I thought I had already learned hockey. Clearly, I was (and consequently still am) wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Qris JohnsonOctober 15, 2010 at 7:33 PM

    Clearly.

    We will forever remember this moment where you failed to respect the perfect wisdom of the unwashed mob.

    ReplyDelete