How do you feel about posts regarding impossible trades/RFA signings?

[dumb_dumb88]

But the Gilmour trade to Calgary was a product of him wanting / needing to get out of St. Louis. It doesn't really meet the definition of what n was looking for.

Here's a sampling from the NHL list itself.

 

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=380611

 

And there are in fact, many others.

I think the overall sentiment from some people on the boards here is that none of the trades/RFA potential signings seem realistic because they are set to a thought process of a pre-determined outcome. Or, conversely they are used to thinking of a set of standards that has been the status for a majority of opportunities, specifically in RFA offer sheeting. Although, there are examples, few, but examples of it at the very least happening. Vanek is a prime example of this. That is where the Stamkos situation some of us spoke on were at, the question being, would he even reach that period before Tampa could sign him. I myself admitted it's highly unlikely.

 

But these were merely conversations on a player, and admittedly, it was entertaining to discuss, atleast for myself, my wife and some others. I would be interested in seeing what others have to say on their "more reasonable" trade/signing situations.

[Maximus_Decimus]

But these were merely conversations on a player, and admittedly, it was entertaining to discuss, atleast for myself, my wife and some others. I would be interested in seeing what others have to say on their "more reasonable" trade/signing situations.

Unfortunately from what I have read over the past few weeks, there seems to a be a group of elitists on this board and to some degree the moderators must feel similar as the july 1 thread was deleted... I have been checking here more than I once was because that thread had some ideas that were not crazy and were really good. No one at all paid any attention to the UFA defenseman list. Instead people attacked it because it had lidstrom on it even though he fits the category.... I am sad to see that thread gone.

[SabresFan526]

But the Gilmour trade to Calgary was a product of him wanting / needing to get out of St. Louis. It doesn't really meet the definition of what n was looking for.

Sure, Gilmour's adventures in babysitting was more the reason he was traded out of St. Louis, but the trade out of Calgary was a pure hockey trade. It turned out to be a horrible trade by Calgary, but at the time, you probably could not have predicted it. I still maintain that blockbuster like deals took place more frequently when there was no salary cap and no no trade/no movement clauses. Less restrictions back in the day.

 

Let me see if I can come up with some major blockbuster trades that were pure hockey moves:

 

- I would argue the LaFontaine/Randy Wood trade for Turgeon, Hogue, and others was a pretty legitimate hockey trade with both teams' superstars involved. Granted, the trade was instigated by LaFontaine's holdout, but it was a pretty big trade. In this day and age, that would be the equivalent of trading an RFA to another team for a decent player because said RFA refuses to sign e.g. Stamkos or Parise. Not saying either of those guys will get traded as I don't think either one will, but that's probably the analogy I would give with regard to n's original post

 

- Perhaps the Ron Francis and Ulf Samuelson deal could be considered a blockbuster trade deadline deal. It turned out to be horrible for the Whalers, but I don't know if you knew how bad it was at the time the trade was made. Still, I'd consider it blockbuster.

 

- How about Chelios for Savard and a pick? While Savard played sparingly in Montreal, the team did win a Stanley Cup after the trade and Chelios was part of some good Blackhawk teams that were competitive and played in the Stanley Cup Finals.

 

- Perhaps Owen Nolan for Sandis Ozolinsh might qualify in this category as a pure straight up hockey trade of pretty good players at the time.

 

I could probably try to come up with some more. But, it's probably not worth it. I think the point remains that the salary cap and rise in No-Trade/No Movement clauses are what have really prevented blockbuster trades from taking place these days. I'm sure it's still possible, but they are few and far between these days versus how more common they were back in the day.

[Assquatch]

You know what, I did confine my comments there and never posted in a game discussion thread about how we should trade for Pavelski.... but hey you guys ruined it, Labatt and you and others. So now I guess that means we should all post in w/e :censored: thread we feel like. I think I will use one of the 30 threads about player a,b,or c or ruff where people bring up the same sh*t repeatedly and kick the dead horse until its a pile of masticated meat lying in a puddle of blood. :death:

 

How does one masticate a horse by kicking it?

 

Inigo Montoya would have something to say about that.

[Taro T]

Did Thorton want out of Boston?

IIRC, it wasn't that Thornton wanted out as much as the B's didn't want to pay him what he'd be worth on the next contract. The Bruins pretty much totally screwed the pooch coming out of the lockout.

 

I'd say you found 1 here that meets n's criteria.

 

Here's a sampling from the NHL list itself.

 

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=380611

 

And there are in fact, many others.

I think the overall sentiment from some people on the boards here is that none of the trades/RFA potential signings seem realistic because they are set to a thought process of a pre-determined outcome. Or, conversely they are used to thinking of a set of standards that has been the status for a majority of opportunities, specifically in RFA offer sheeting. Although, there are examples, few, but examples of it at the very least happening. Vanek is a prime example of this. That is where the Stamkos situation some of us spoke on were at, the question being, would he even reach that period before Tampa could sign him. I myself admitted it's highly unlikely.

 

But these were merely conversations on a player, and admittedly, it was entertaining to discuss, atleast for myself, my wife and some others. I would be interested in seeing what others have to say on their "more reasonable" trade/signing situations.

Most of those trades had some major underlying player unhappy or team not wanting to / able to pay, but there were a few on the list that were straight up blockbusters. The Espo/Park trade, the Clark/Sundin, & the Francis-Ulfie-Jennings/bag of pucks trade being the ones I'd put up there. (The Bentley trade was a bit before my time; I'll have to ask PA about it sometime. ;) )

 

A couple of those 'blockbusters' while they ended up making a huge difference for their new teams and deserve credit as 'blockbusters' (the Goring trade being the epitome of that far & away), they weren't what I'd consider a 'blockbuster' in terms of star power & talent.

 

I'm not sure how the Thornton trade doesn't make the list. Probably because it hasn't taken the Snarks to the next level, but it was in fact a 'blockbuster.'

 

But several of those deals were forced on management either through pouting (Lindros), an extremely ignorant coach (Roy), a wife's pouting (Pronger), and IIRC the Kings figured they wouldn't be able to afford Blake so they got the best deal they could for him. Hasek going to Detroit and Peca joining the Gorton crew would be a couple more examples of this.

 

All that said, I don't see any way Stamkos isn't wearing the Bolts new duds next year. I don't expect Malkin to be shipped out of Pittsburgh, but could see scenarios where that one happens.

 

Sure, Gilmour's adventures in babysitting was more the reason he was traded out of St. Louis, but the trade out of Calgary was a pure hockey trade. It turned out to be a horrible trade by Calgary, but at the time, you probably could not have predicted it. I still maintain that blockbuster like deals took place more frequently when there was no salary cap and no no trade/no movement clauses. Less restrictions back in the day.

 

Let me see if I can come up with some major blockbuster trades that were pure hockey moves:

 

- I would argue the LaFontaine/Randy Wood trade for Turgeon, Hogue, and others was a pretty legitimate hockey trade with both teams' superstars involved. Granted, the trade was instigated by LaFontaine's holdout, but it was a pretty big trade. In this day and age, that would be the equivalent of trading an RFA to another team for a decent player because said RFA refuses to sign e.g. Stamkos or Parise. Not saying either of those guys will get traded as I don't think either one will, but that's probably the analogy I would give with regard to n's original post

 

- Perhaps the Ron Francis and Ulf Samuelson deal could be considered a blockbuster trade deadline deal. It turned out to be horrible for the Whalers, but I don't know if you knew how bad it was at the time the trade was made. Still, I'd consider it blockbuster.

 

- How about Chelios for Savard and a pick? While Savard played sparingly in Montreal, the team did win a Stanley Cup after the trade and Chelios was part of some good Blackhawk teams that were competitive and played in the Stanley Cup Finals.

 

- Perhaps Owen Nolan for Sandis Ozolinsh might qualify in this category as a pure straight up hockey trade of pretty good players at the time.

 

I could probably try to come up with some more. But, it's probably not worth it. I think the point remains that the salary cap and rise in No-Trade/No Movement clauses are what have really prevented blockbuster trades from taking place these days. I'm sure it's still possible, but they are few and far between these days versus how more common they were back in the day.

I agree w/ you that the 2nd Gilmour trade was a blockbuster, but it wasn't a 'pure hockey trade' as Gilmour was VERY unhappy w/ his contract. I have no idea what Risebrough was thinking with the return he got for that one though. I wouldn't want Gary Leeman anywhere near any team of mine. (I still don't know how Smith chose to keep Leeman over Iafrate.)

 

I wouldn't put the Lafontaine trade in the pure hockey move either as the Isles NEVER wanted to part w/ Patty.

 

The other trades you mentioned look like pure hockey trades (at least on 1st glance ;) ).

 

Pure I want this guy, you want that guy trades are extremely rare nowadays. (The Sabres were in a few back in the day - think van Boxmeer, Foligno, Cloutier and what the Sabres had to give up to get those guys +. And the rumours were flying that Perreault would become a Hab w/ Lemaire becoming a Sabre; the rumours reached such a pitch that Lemaire's '74-'75 hockey card had him dressed in Sabres white, gold, & blue.) Which again, is why Stamkos is pretty much a pipe dream.

[SabresFan526]

IIRC, it wasn't that Thornton wanted out as much as the B's didn't want to pay him what he'd be worth on the next contract. The Bruins pretty much totally screwed the pooch coming out of the lockout.

 

I'd say you found 1 here that meets n's criteria.

 

 

Most of those trades had some major underlying player unhappy or team not wanting to / able to pay, but there were a few on the list that were straight up blockbusters. The Espo/Park trade, the Clark/Sundin, & the Francis-Ulfie-Jennings/bag of pucks trade being the ones I'd put up there. (The Bentley trade was a bit before my time; I'll have to ask PA about it sometime. ;) )

 

A couple of those 'blockbusters' while they ended up making a huge difference for their new teams and deserve credit as 'blockbusters' (the Goring trade being the epitome of that far & away), they weren't what I'd consider a 'blockbuster' in terms of star power & talent.

 

I'm not sure how the Thornton trade doesn't make the list. Probably because it hasn't taken the Snarks to the next level, but it was in fact a 'blockbuster.'

 

But several of those deals were forced on management either through pouting (Lindros), an extremely ignorant coach (Roy), a wife's pouting (Pronger), and IIRC the Kings figured they wouldn't be able to afford Blake so they got the best deal they could for him. Hasek going to Detroit and Peca joining the Gorton crew would be a couple more examples of this.

 

All that said, I don't see any way Stamkos isn't wearing the Bolts new duds next year. I don't expect Malkin to be shipped out of Pittsburgh, but could see scenarios where that one happens.

 

 

I agree w/ you that the 2nd Gilmour trade was a blockbuster, but it wasn't a 'pure hockey trade' as Gilmour was VERY unhappy w/ his contract. I have no idea what Risebrough was thinking with the return he got for that one though. I wouldn't want Gary Leeman anywhere near any team of mine. (I still don't know how Smith chose to keep Leeman over Iafrate.)

 

I wouldn't put the Lafontaine trade in the pure hockey move either as the Isles NEVER wanted to part w/ Patty.

 

The other trades you mentioned look like pure hockey trades (at least on 1st glance ;) ).

 

Pure I want this guy, you want that guy trades are extremely rare nowadays. (The Sabres were in a few back in the day - think van Boxmeer, Foligno, Cloutier and what the Sabres had to give up to get those guys +. And the rumours were flying that Perreault would become a Hab w/ Lemaire becoming a Sabre; the rumours reached such a pitch that Lemaire's '74-'75 hockey card had him dressed in Sabres white, gold, & blue.) Which again, is why Stamkos is pretty much a pipe dream.

So, I think this is a good and very interesting discussion and very cordial(considering what has been going on here), but I think perhaps my point is probably not coming through, or I am poorly articulating it, after all I have language issues given that I am Indian. Perhaps I am completely missing nfreeman's point, so that is where I may be getting confused.

 

In a lot of the instances cited on the NHL.com page and what I have cited one of the underlying reasons for the blockbuster trade was due to financial resources. Let's exclude the happiness issues as it relates to team and under contract players demanding trades as that to this day will continue to drive blockbuster deals like Heatley for Hossa and Heatley for Michalek and uselessness, and Heatley out of San Jose once he gets upset and frustrated there as he is a diva. In the other instances, the underlying reason for some of the trades was money. In the pre-lockout trades, they were instigated because the player did not get the money they wanted or the team could not afford to pay the player due to their internal financial problems/budget, etc. This situation led to a player getting traded because they could not make the requisite money on their current team.

 

Now, let's extend that analogy to the post-lockout world. To this point, I have not seen it happen a lot, so admittedly, there is limited empirical proof on my side. However, the theory of financial constraints forcing blockbuster trades still can exist in today's world. The primary financial constraint on teams today is the salary cap as well as players having no-trade and no movement clauses. Hence, in theory a blockbuster trade could be instigated, especially in the case of Tampa Bay and the New Jersey Devils where the team is up against the salary cap and there are high dollar players on the team with no-trade/no-movement clauses. In those situations, somebody has to get shipped out in order to stay compliant with the Salary Cap. Perhaps a player waives the no-trade/movement clause or one of the young stud RFAs likely would have to get traded because the financial constraint for players currently under contract prevents the team from staying compliant within the salary cap. So, a potential blockbuster trade could get instigated where the return is multiple players and/or draft picks for said superstar either veteran or RFA.

 

My point being, there is no chance that I believe Stamkos or Parise get traded (as much as I would like Parise on the Sabres, I know it won't happen), the theory of financial constraints could play itself out thereby forcing a trade of one of these superstars or one of their veteran teammates getting traded for multiple players/prospects and picks coming in return. Where this played most recently was with the Chicago Blackhawks this past offseason as they turned over half their roster in order to stay compliant within the salary cap as this constraint forced them to make some major blockbuster trades, see the Atlanta Thrashers, the Kris Versteeg trade, etc. In the Blackhawks situation, they made, in my opinion, the right choice by holding on to Toews, Sharp, Hossa, and Kane and trading away other key members of the team that they knew they could not afford. Having said that, guys like Byfuglien and Versteeg really look to be upper echelon talent (not Crosby/Malkin, but pretty good players). In Byfuglien's case, he could very well become a Norris Candidate type player and was forced to be traded out due to the financial constraints.

 

So, ultimately, the point here is, it is possible to see financial constraints forcing a team to make bold salary dump type moves for players they don't believe they can afford due to upcoming contracts or other players with No-Trade/No-Movement clauses on the team. However, what seems to be in reality is that these very constraints are actually preventing the big blockbuster deals from happening except in the rare case when a team has absolutely no choice like the Blackhawks. The No-Trade/No-Movement Clause has made it exceedingly difficult for top end veteran players to get moved as it is a constraint placed on the GM. Typically these players with the NTC or NMC end up having very high cap figures. Consequently, the teams that can afford them, the player likely does not want to play for as they are likely "not in contention" or teams in contention likely cannot afford said player as they are up against the cap and cannot afford to bring the player in without hurting the team in another area or because a return player with a similar cap figure may himself have an NTC/NMC blocking the trade from happening for the other team. So, in the extremely rare case, like the Blackhawks, the Salary Cap and NTC/NMC may force a team to go the route of blockbuster trade if only to stay within the salary cap. However, because there is a Salary Cap and NTC/NMCs in place what happens is that these constraints are making it exceedingly difficult to work out real blockbuster trades that are pure hockey moves. What I am unclear on is whether the Blackhawks situation will become the norm or if it is an extremely rare situation. Anyway, very interesting discussion, nonetheless.

[Taro T]

So, I think this is a good and very interesting discussion and very cordial(considering what has been going on here), but I think perhaps my point is probably not coming through, or I am poorly articulating it, after all I have language issues given that I am Indian. Perhaps I am completely missing nfreeman's point, so that is where I may be getting confused.

 

In a lot of the instances cited on the NHL.com page and what I have cited one of the underlying reasons for the blockbuster trade was due to financial resources. Let's exclude the happiness issues as it relates to team and under contract players demanding trades as that to this day will continue to drive blockbuster deals like Heatley for Hossa and Heatley for Michalek and uselessness, and Heatley out of San Jose once he gets upset and frustrated there as he is a diva. In the other instances, the underlying reason for some of the trades was money. In the pre-lockout trades, they were instigated because the player did not get the money they wanted or the team could not afford to pay the player due to their internal financial problems/budget, etc. This situation led to a player getting traded because they could not make the requisite money on their current team.

 

Now, let's extend that analogy to the post-lockout world. To this point, I have not seen it happen a lot, so admittedly, there is limited empirical proof on my side. However, the theory of financial constraints forcing blockbuster trades still can exist in today's world. The primary financial constraint on teams today is the salary cap as well as players having no-trade and no movement clauses. Hence, in theory a blockbuster trade could be instigated, especially in the case of Tampa Bay and the New Jersey Devils where the team is up against the salary cap and there are high dollar players on the team with no-trade/no-movement clauses. In those situations, somebody has to get shipped out in order to stay compliant with the Salary Cap. Perhaps a player waives the no-trade/movement clause or one of the young stud RFAs likely would have to get traded because the financial constraint for players currently under contract prevents the team from staying compliant within the salary cap. So, a potential blockbuster trade could get instigated where the return is multiple players and/or draft picks for said superstar either veteran or RFA.

 

My point being, there is no chance that I believe Stamkos or Parise get traded (as much as I would like Parise on the Sabres, I know it won't happen), the theory of financial constraints could play itself out thereby forcing a trade of one of these superstars or one of their veteran teammates getting traded for multiple players/prospects and picks coming in return. Where this played most recently was with the Chicago Blackhawks this past offseason as they turned over half their roster in order to stay compliant within the salary cap as this constraint forced them to make some major blockbuster trades, see the Atlanta Thrashers, the Kris Versteeg trade, etc. In the Blackhawks situation, they made, in my opinion, the right choice by holding on to Toews, Sharp, Hossa, and Kane and trading away other key members of the team that they knew they could not afford. Having said that, guys like Byfuglien and Versteeg really look to be upper echelon talent (not Crosby/Malkin, but pretty good players). In Byfuglien's case, he could very well become a Norris Candidate type player and was forced to be traded out due to the financial constraints.

 

So, ultimately, the point here is, it is possible to see financial constraints forcing a team to make bold salary dump type moves for players they don't believe they can afford due to upcoming contracts or other players with No-Trade/No-Movement clauses on the team. However, what seems to be in reality is that these very constraints are actually preventing the big blockbuster deals from happening except in the rare case when a team has absolutely no choice like the Blackhawks. The No-Trade/No-Movement Clause has made it exceedingly difficult for top end veteran players to get moved as it is a constraint placed on the GM. Typically these players with the NTC or NMC end up having very high cap figures. Consequently, the teams that can afford them, the player likely does not want to play for as they are likely "not in contention" or teams in contention likely cannot afford said player as they are up against the cap and cannot afford to bring the player in without hurting the team in another area or because a return player with a similar cap figure may himself have an NTC/NMC blocking the trade from happening for the other team. So, in the extremely rare case, like the Blackhawks, the Salary Cap and NTC/NMC may force a team to go the route of blockbuster trade if only to stay within the salary cap. However, because there is a Salary Cap and NTC/NMCs in place what happens is that these constraints are making it exceedingly difficult to work out real blockbuster trades that are pure hockey moves. What I am unclear on is whether the Blackhawks situation will become the norm or if it is an extremely rare situation. Anyway, very interesting discussion, nonetheless.

I fully expect the Hawks' situation to stay rare. To fall into that situation (in the current cap-constrained landscape) you almost have to have a roster full of very high draft picks all coming of age at the same time; which means you have to have been VERY bad for a reasonably long time (ooohh look there's Edmonton) or get to trade w/ someone that doesn't put much value on top 5 picks. (Heeerrree Brian, Brian, Brian; we've got a nice Kessel Stafford to sell you for a pair of 1sts and a 2nd. ;) )

 

Now that teams are getting the hang of the cap, I don't see another TB where the full budget is spent on 3-4 skaters, maybe a goalie, and a whole bunch of AHLers, forcing sell offs of the magnitude of Richards happening too often either.

 

There will be the odd blockbuster here or there, but you won't see them happen often. (Gee, there's a shock. Such great insight. :doh: ) IMHO, not so much because of NTC's, but more so because in MOST years there's going to be a handful of top notch FA's that you can go out to get to alter the team chemistry without making a major disruption to it. While most GM's aren't as risk adverse as Darcy's appeared through the years, there aren't a whole lot that are willing to risk losing the HUGE gamble - because unless your hired by Charles Wang the odds are that if you go big and flame out badly, you're out the door. That in itself limits the number of 'blockbusters.'

 

It doesn't seem that this year is going to be as deep as the other post-lockout years have been, but there'll still be a few guys available that can help. I'm looking forward to seeing what the Sabres will do this off-season. (Can't wait to see Stamkos wearing b&g. :lol: )

[Maximus_Decimus]

I hate to admit this but I was looking over the idea of finacial issues and I thought of that guy who posted about Pavelski, He does have a point that the Sharks may have to move him because there other guys have NMC or such and Couture is going to be resigned no doubt. Maybe he was not crazy? IDK, I somehow feel that we must either get richards or make a trade for something more viable as a center than arnott or higgins.

 

The blockbuster trades of the salary cap era are clearly cap mandated. Brian Campbell for instance was traded for cap reasons, those reasons being we knew we could not sign him. So there are other ways to get into "cap trouble". A great number of teams spend around the cap and must either move veterans or rookies for reasons such as not being able to afford to sign them. At the deadline it happens less because teams are willing to be at the cap to make a run and then in the summer sell off some assets to maintain there viability. NJ for instance had issues because they could not dress a full roster at the beginning of the year.

 

Who honestly knows for real who is in play from any given team. We have seen players get traded before where you looked at it and said "really him? wow." I once heard a quote from a congressmen, "I ain't seen of nor heard of an issue that's so hot it can't be talked about" so lets discuss centers or w/e but please keep it to a thread and leave the more serious talk to other threads, also if you do not want to take part in either or, than do not go harassing people because they want to discuss some ridiculous thing like Stamkos.

 

My final thing here is that there are some teams that are in the blackhawks predicament, some of which will be fine because they do not have to sign many players this summer or they have rentals who will be gone. Others have problems like having to sign 3-5 defensemen or do what the sabres did and draft or promote guys. The first of july will be a curious time indeed and with Terry Pegula around it does not surprise me that people want to speculate about some crazy things like Stamkos, malkin, or w/e. Just have to wait and see what happens.

[Bmwolf21]

What if we gave them beef on weck but held on to wings?

Done, but they have to take LQ off our hands.

[LGR4GM]

People you gotta stop the trade talk. None of it will happen we will never trade for anything good cuz trades don't happen. Hossa was never traded, nor kovalchuk, or penner, or thorton or heatley, or boyes, or your mom, or gonorrhea, or herpes, or Neal, or Briere, or other people. Don't talk about trade stuff, talk about Indian food, it is more fun and better than anything to do with hockey... Remember trade talk BAD; Indian food talk GOOD. :ph34r:

[shrader]

I hate to admit this but I was looking over the idea of finacial issues and I thought of that guy who posted about Pavelski, He does have a point that the Sharks may have to move him because there other guys have NMC or such and Couture is going to be resigned no doubt.

 

You want to know the main problem with that? Couture still has another year left on his contract.

[korab rules]

What exactly is the red herring that I've thrown out?

 

What "circumstances" exist that make "plausible" the acquisitions of Stamkos, Malkin, Kane, Kesler, etc.?

 

Is it possible that a hockey player with 2 heads will emerge from Russia, sign with the Sabres and score 4 goals per game for the rest of the year? Well, I can't prove that's impossible, so I guess it's possible. That doesn't mean that every thread on this board should be polluted with discussion about this possibility.

 

Can he play center?

[LabattBlue]

Can he play center?

What if he is listed as a center on a website, but has never played the position in his career?

[nfreeman]

Can he play center?

That's just a red herring.

 

Do Indians eat herring?

[korab rules]

What if he is listed as a center on a website, but has never played the position in his career?

 

With my luck Ruff will immediately move him to center anyway.

 

That's just a red herring.

 

Do Indians eat herring?

 

No - Indians are all vegetarians. Except the ones who serve Pakistani food in Indian restaurants.

[wonderbread]

People you gotta stop the trade talk. None of it will happen we will never trade for anything good cuz trades don't happen. Hossa was never traded, nor kovalchuk, or penner, or thorton or heatley, or boyes, or your mom, or gonorrhea, or herpes, or Neal, or Briere, or other people. Don't talk about trade stuff, talk about Indian food, it is more fun and better than anything to do with hockey... Remember trade talk BAD; Indian food talk GOOD. :ph34r:

 

Obsess much? :blink:

[Samson's Flow]

With my luck Ruff will immediately move him to center anyway.

 

 

 

No - Indians are all vegetarians. Except the ones who serve Pakistani food in Indian restaurants.

But vegetarians can eat Taco Bell since it is only ~40% actual meat. Are we caught up yet?

[LGR4GM]

I just went to red lobster and ate indian food it was fun. Indian food is yummy, I love inidan food. I do Not like curry it tastes like butt. Other indian food is ok. Like red lobster indian fumake good stuff

[Maximus_Decimus]

You want to know the main problem with that? Couture still has another year left on his contract.

Although that sounded condescending, I am aware of Couture's contract which is for another year at 1.24mil and some change. The thing is after this year SJ will need to resign, 9 players and will only have (depending on the cap) about 10mil to do so. Looking at it from a money standpoint, either this summer or next year at some point the sharks might consider trading. Who knows if that means Pavelski or someone else but there is a valid idea behind it. The Sabres probably will not be in on anything but it should be fun to see what happens in july.

[Maximus_Decimus]

Can he play center?

 

 

What if he is listed as a center on a website, but has never played the position in his career?

 

Is this a reference to the Gerbe thing I saw awhile back or the Brad Boyes thing in which Korab was actually wrong? I am confused.

[korab rules]

Is this a reference to the Gerbe thing I saw awhile back or the Brad Boyes thing in which Korab was actually wrong? I am confused.

 

I was not wrong - he was not a center until ruff decided to play him at center, where he is decidedly less effective than he is at wing.

[LGR4GM]

Can he play center?

 

 

What if he is listed as a center on a website, but has never played the position in his career?

 

 

That's just a red herring. Do Indians eat herring?

 

 

With my luck Ruff will immediately move him to center anyway.No - Indians are all vegetarians. Except the ones who serve Pakistani food in Indian restaurants.

 

 

Obsess much? :blink:

 

Yes I am very Obsessive over the fact that I was wrong about Gerbe but so f*cking right about Boyes that the goon squad here can not admit it. Or I haven't mentioned either even though gerbe gets thrown in my face every 5 seconds and I know that Korab blocked my posts because he didnt want to hear how he was full of it when he said "Brad Boyes has never played center in the NHL" then poof he did. O and I am saying he is full of Indian food that he stuffed into a supermighty.

[Maximus_Decimus]

I was not wrong - he was not a center until ruff decided to play him at center, where he is decidedly less effective than he is at wing.

arguing over this is pointless but I agree that he is less effective at wing, but he had and does on occasion play center in the NHL, not to nitpick but you were in fact wrong, that does not leave out the fact this team needs a real center so boyes can go back to the wing where he is better.

[nfreeman]

Yes I am very Obsessive over the fact that I was wrong about Gerbe but so f*cking right about Boyes that the goon squad here can not admit it. Or I haven't mentioned either even though gerbe gets thrown in my face every 5 seconds and I know that Korab blocked my posts because he didnt want to hear how he was full of it when he said "Brad Boyes has never played center in the NHL" then poof he did. O and I am saying he is full of Indian food that he stuffed into a supermighty.

arguing over this is pointless but I agree that he is less effective at wing, but he had and does on occasion play center in the NHL, not to nitpick but you were in fact wrong, that does not leave out the fact this team needs a real center so boyes can go back to the wing where he is better.

 

I would respectfully suggest that both of you should chill out a bit, ignore the teasing, keep the far-fetched trade/FA suggestions in the designated thread, and participate in the actual hockey talk. Both of you have produced hockey posts are quite good -- let's have more of those and less trying to get the last jab in.

[SwampD]

I would respectfully suggest that both of you should chill out a bit, ignore the teasing, keep the far-fetched trade/FA suggestions in the designated thread, and participate in the actual hockey talk. Both of you have produced hockey posts are quite good -- let's have more of those and less trying to get the last jab in.

I will say that a Supermighty stuffed with Indian food sounds pretty darn tasty, though.