Trade ideas and speculation

[TrueBlueGED]

All I'm imagining is Juolevi

I shouldn't rule it out because it's Benning, but not sure I see team trading Juolevi. Then again, I also can't see them moving someone like Edler because trading for Kane would be a win now move. All I know is trading with Benning is always a good idea.

[Neo]

True, but it would free up Reinhart to be center full time.

Is he a RW now because the team needs him there, or because he needs to be there?

[thewookie1]

All I'm imagining is Juolevi

That would be a Benning kind of trade. Kane and a 2nd for Juolevi and Virtanen

[TrueBlueGED]

Is he a RW now because the team needs him there, or because he needs to be there?

Reading the tea leaves, I think it depends on whether you ask Bylsma or Murray.

[Taro T]

I shouldn't rule it out because it's Benning, but not sure I see team trading Juolevi. Then again, I also can't see them moving someone like Edler because trading for Kane would be a win now move. All I know is trading with Benning is always a good idea.

Benning REEEAAAALY appears to be the NHL Front Office example of the Peter Principle.

 

Too bad for him & Van-city. Hopefully the Sabres take advantage of this before the Nucks make the inevitable correction.

[LGR4GM]

True, but it would free up Reinhart to be center full time.

I love Reinhart but I am not convinced (yes we all know I swore up and down he was a center) that he will make it in the NHL at center unless something changes. A coach needs to get in his face and tell him to stop being a biatch. 

 

I shouldn't rule it out because it's Benning, but not sure I see team trading Juolevi. Then again, I also can't see them moving someone like Edler because trading for Kane would be a win now move. All I know is trading with Benning is always a good idea.

I think Benning is short sighted enough to trade for Kane. Especially with Juolevi still in London (where is should be for this season)

 

Is he a RW now because the team needs him there, or because he needs to be there?

I think it is because he needs to be there. 

[WildCard]

Benning REEEAAAALY appears to be the NHL Front Office example of the Peter Principle.

 

Too bad for him & Van-city. Hopefully the Sabres take advantage of this before the Nucks make the inevitable correction.

What is a a Peter Principle?

[darksabre]

I would trade Kane for literally anyone in the Vancouver system who can get the puck anywhere near the net.

[WildCard]

I want something exciting to happen so badly for this team

[Taro T]

What is a a Peter Principle?

People get advanced to a job they cannot adequately perform because they can do the lower level jobs quite well. "A manager will rise to his/her own level of incompetence."

[LTS]

People get advanced to a job they cannot adequately perform because they can do the lower level jobs quite well. "A manager will rise to his/her own level of incompetence."

 

Which, technically, should not be a bad thing.  After all, one should strive to achieve the next level.  You won't know you can't do the job until you try it.

[Taro T]

Which, technically, should not be a bad thing.  After all, one should strive to achieve the next level.  You won't know you can't do the job until you try it.

True, but if one is seriously out of their element, like Bruce used to say: "bad things, man, bad things."

 

TM, get on the phone NOW! ;)

[Thorner]

I love Reinhart but I am not convinced (yes we all know I swore up and down he was a center) that he will make it in the NHL at center unless something changes. A coach needs to get in his face and tell him to stop being a biatch. 

 

 

I think Benning is short sighted enough to trade for Kane. Especially with Juolevi still in London (where is should be for this season)

 

 

I think it is because he needs to be there.

 

 

I am put off more with your choice of descriptors more than your actual (valid) criticisms of Reinhart, these days. Why call a player you "love" a b*tch, even if you are unhappy with his play? I'll never understand it, but that's ok.

 

Also, Virtanen is a right wing. Not that he can't play left, but he's officially a RW and I believe has played mostly there.

[LGR4GM]

I am put off more with your choice of descriptors more than your actual (valid) criticisms of Reinhart, these days. Why call a player you "love" a b*tch, even if you are unhappy with his play? I'll never understand it, but that's ok.

 

Also, Virtanen is a right wing. Not that he can't play left, but he's officially a RW and I believe has played mostly there.

Because he plays soft. Pucks coming up the boards, the guy with it has to collect it and turn to play the puck out of the zone, and here comes Reinhart stick first, never making body contact to get the puck and save the day... like a biatch. 

[Thorner]

Because he plays soft. Pucks coming up the boards, the guy with it has to collect it and turn to play the puck out of the zone, and here comes Reinhart stick first, never making body contact to get the puck and save the day... like a biatch.

 

You don't know what you are talking by about.

 

Calling him a biatch is neither here nor there. The language is just off putting.

[WildCard]

You don't know what you are talking by about.

 

Calling him a biatch is neither here nor there. The language is just off putting.

He's not playing with confidence. He's being a little biatch

[LGR4GM]

You don't know what you are talking by about.

 

Calling him a biatch is neither here nor there. The language is just off putting.

Would you prefer I said weak? soft? feeble? frail? fragile? squishy?

He's not playing with confidence. He's being a little biatch

Which is what I mean. So far tonight I see confident Reinhart. We need confident Reinhart, we need him desperately. 

[TrueBlueGED]

Would you prefer I said weak? soft? feeble? frail? fragile? squishy?

Which is what I mean. So far tonight I see confident Reinhart. We need confident Reinhart, we need him desperately. 

 

Yes. For someone who has invoked misogyny as a problem in the politics thread, I'm actually rather surprised you went with what you did regarding Reinhart.

Edited November 16, 2016 by TrueBlueGED

[Thorner]

He's not playing with confidence. He's being a little biatch

Young-uns ;)

 

Would you prefer I said weak? soft? feeble? frail? fragile? squishy?

Which is what I mean. So far tonight I see confident Reinhart. We need confident Reinhart, we need him desperately.

 

Im not in a position to tell you what to say. I'm just mentioning how it comes off.

Yes. For someone who has invoked misogyny as a problem in the politics thread, I'm actually rather surprised you went with what you did regarding Reinhart.

Yes, this exactly. Edited November 16, 2016 by Thorny

[LGR4GM]

Yes. For someone who has invoked misogyny as a problem in the politics thread, I'm actually rather surprised you went with what you did regarding Reinhart.

Female Dog references are misogyny? Well then good to know that is how people feel.

Sam Reinhart is playing like a bad hockey player. I want him to play like a good hockey player. I hope this didn't offend anyone. 

[Thorner]

Female Dog references are misogyny? Well then good to know that is how people feel.

Yes, I'm sure your intended reference was to a female dog. Cause female dogs are weak, fragile, etc. All those words you offered to use instead. Face-palm. Edited November 16, 2016 by Thorny

[TrueBlueGED]

Everyone, JJ and Liger have swapped accounts I think :w00t:

[WildCard]

Come on now, it was the slightest reference. It's still an internet forum guys

[LGR4GM]

I am going to poll all the women I know to see if they think it is misogyny. I am actually curious about this now.

[Taro T]

Everyone, JJ and Liger have swapped accounts I think :w00t:

Ah don' care who ya ahr, nah thet's jus' funny.

 

:lol: