inkman Posted October 7, 2008 Report Posted October 7, 2008 I don't think so. Just checked. The Miller pick came with Rhett Warrener, the Roy pick came with Chris Gratton.
Guest Sloth Posted October 7, 2008 Report Posted October 7, 2008 Part of me honestly believes that Darcy is hanging on to Connolly in part to show that he "won" the trade(Peca for Connolly & Pyatt). If that's true, he must want to keep this cautious attitude other GM's have when making a deal w/ Darcy. So many GM's wonder if they're making a mistake when they give this, that, or the other for a player Darcy no longer wants.
nfreeman Posted October 7, 2008 Report Posted October 7, 2008 Part of me honestly believes that Darcy is hanging on to Connolly in part to show that he "won" the trade(Peca for Connolly & Pyatt). Which part? Not the rational hockey fan part, I trust.
LabattBlue Posted October 7, 2008 Report Posted October 7, 2008 Which part? Not the rational hockey fan part, I trust. The part of me that believes Darcy falls too much in love with the young players(forwards) on this team and refuses to bring in the veteran forward for the 3rd or 4th line that I have been asking for over the last 3 years or so. ;)
inkman Posted October 7, 2008 Report Posted October 7, 2008 The part of me that believes Darcy falls too much in love with the young players(forwards) on this team and refuses to bring in the veteran forward for the 3rd or 4th line that I have been asking for over the last 3 years or so. ;) I think you are selling Matt Ellis short. :rolleyes:
nfreeman Posted October 7, 2008 Report Posted October 7, 2008 The part of me that believes Darcy falls too much in love with the young players(forwards) on this team and refuses to bring in the veteran forward for the 3rd or 4th line that I have been asking for over the last 3 years or so. ;) Well, that part does sound like the rational part. It's just hard to square that part with the Connolly conspiracy theory. I think you are selling Matt Ellis short. :rolleyes: Why don't we give ol' Matt a chance before we start assuming that he stinks?
inkman Posted October 7, 2008 Report Posted October 7, 2008 Why don't we give ol' Matt a chance before we start assuming that he stinks? I don't think I'll have any problem with his game, I just don't think he's the type of player Labbatt was envisioning.
LabattBlue Posted October 7, 2008 Report Posted October 7, 2008 Why don't we give ol' Matt a chance before we start assuming that he stinks? I'd never heard of Matt Ellis before the Sabres claimed him off waivers a week or so ago, but I can tell you that I am all in favor of him being in the opening night lineup over Peters. :thumbsup:
shrader Posted October 7, 2008 Report Posted October 7, 2008 I'd never heard of Matt Ellis before the Sabres claimed him off waivers a week or so ago, but I can tell you that I am all in favor of him being in the opening night lineup over Peters. :thumbsup: His inability to make the Detroit roster for opening night last year isn't exactly a shot against him. But then again, his inability to make the Kings roster this year is.
carpandean Posted October 7, 2008 Report Posted October 7, 2008 But then again, his inability to make the Kings roster this year is. Unless the Kings' plan is to give their young prospects as much experience as possible while securing a spot in the Tavares lottery. :thumbsup:
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.