shrader Posted May 24, 2010 Report Posted May 24, 2010 I am sick to death of people attempting to portray themselves as hockey gurus with only thier deep insights to be heard on professional hockey. I am 39, not 13, and if you think for one moment that Kane or any other NHL player or prospect are untouchable, you are sadly mistaken pat989. At 39 I run my own business, so I think I know a little of what I say here. Players are merely commodities, nothing more, nothing less. They serve a purpose in this sport as a means to an end. Nothing more, nothing less. Does this mean Patrick Kane is tradable? For a price sure. What would that price be? I don't know, thats why this thread exists, to see what "fair value" really means to peolple. If you weren't around for the Gretzky trade, then its more than obvious you missed a lesson you should have learned. I'm sure it's not your intent, but you go off on not wanting to hear people pretend to be hockey gurus, then you throw out that line about running your own business. You're basically coming off as exactly what you're speaking against.
carpandean Posted May 24, 2010 Report Posted May 24, 2010 Does this mean Patrick Kane is tradable? For a price sure. What would that price be? I don't know, thats why this thread exists, to see what "fair value" really means to peolple. If you weren't around for the Gretzky trade, then its more than obvious you missed a lesson you should have learned. You are right, of course, that any player is available for the right price. Before this season, I wouldn't have said that Calgary was going to trade Phaneuf. However, there are certain players that are so unlikely to get moved that it's not worth mentioning. A 21 year old, who just put up 30 goals and 88 points in just his third season (scoring 70+ points in his first two) and is signed for just over $6 million a year isn't going anywhere. It's not like the Gretzky days where the owner can pocket $15 million in the deal. Chicago has cap problems next year, no doubt, but I'm confident that they'll find a way out of it without giving up Kane or Towes.
static70 Posted May 24, 2010 Author Report Posted May 24, 2010 I'm sure it's not your intent, but you go off on not wanting to hear people pretend to be hockey gurus, then you throw out that line about running your own business. You're basically coming off as exactly what you're speaking against. Correct shrader, and I should have worded it differently. I am merely looking for the fair value in any possible trade. My opinion is of a Center and RWer, but there may be a multitude of players and positions that could help the team. What is fair value for Patrick Kane, or a player of his caliber? I don't know, thats why I am asking. I put out there what I thought Chicago would consider, does this mean its a good trade or even a trade in the realm of reality? I don't know, its what my thoughts were, thats why I always ask, is there value here.
sabresnutinphoenix Posted May 24, 2010 Report Posted May 24, 2010 Ryan Miller and Tim Connelly to San Jose for Joe Thornton and Nabokov...
shrader Posted May 24, 2010 Report Posted May 24, 2010 Ryan Miller and Tim Connelly to San Jose for Joe Thornton and Nabokov... It's been mentioned in here already, but Nabakov's contract is up and he will be a fre agent in July.
SwampD Posted May 24, 2010 Report Posted May 24, 2010 It's been mentioned in here already, but Nabakov's contract is up and he will be a fre agent in July. Also, Thornton might actually be a bigger disappointment than Connolly.
shrader Posted May 24, 2010 Report Posted May 24, 2010 Also, Thornton might actually be a bigger disappointment than Connolly. Bigger in the sense that more was expected from him, maybe. But if by some chance a team had a choice between the two, I think it's safe to say that all 30 would go with Thornton, even after factoring the salaries.
SabresneedaCup Posted May 25, 2010 Report Posted May 25, 2010 Also, Thornton might actually be a bigger disappointment than Connolly. ha yeah ok
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.