Jump to content

Patrick Kane: [Updated] D.A. Decides Not to Prosecute; NHL Determines Claims "Unfounded"


Recommended Posts

Posted

This has turned into the worst thread in the history of this board. I mean it. EVERYONE, check yourselves. Geez.

 

I check this every morning to see if there's news on Kane, and there's not. It's just you all circle jerking.

You make circle jerks sound like such a bad thing!

Posted

You got that from reading the posts in this thread?

 Maybe I mis interpreted something ? I certainly didn't quote anyone. Could it be the wording I used in the part you bolded ? I'm aghast . Maybe I was in this thread in another dimension ? 

Posted

This has turned into the worst thread in the history of this board.  I mean it.  EVERYONE, check yourselves.  Geez.

 

I check this every morning to see if there's news on Kane, and there's not.  It's just you all circle jerking. 

 

was about to ask if there was any news, but I guess none will come out untill it gets to court, even if it gets settled we'll never know more than this.

Posted

 Maybe I mis interpreted something ? I certainly didn't quote anyone. Could it be the wording I used in the part you bolded ? I'm aghast . Maybe I was in this thread in another dimension ? 

 

Maybe I misread it, it didn't seem to match the rest of your post. The impression I got from the bolded print was that you have read all the posts and found some to have been posted by members that can't help themselves and rape is just under the surface. I can't recall anybody here coming remotely close to that point. If I misunderstood your point, I apologize.

Posted

Maybe I misread it, it didn't seem to match the rest of your post. The impression I got from the bolded print was that you have read all the posts and found some to have been posted by members that can't help themselves and rape is just under the surface. I can't recall anybody here coming remotely close to that point. If I misunderstood your point, I apologize.

Simple misunderstanding. I could be wrong but from the tone of some posts to me it sounded like men just can't help themselves. True, certain men probably just can''t help themselves. Anyways , I probably read it wrong. Sorry

Posted

http://www.thehockeynews.com/blog/report-blackhawks-have-been-contacted-by-five-teams-about-potential-patrick-kane-trade/

 

Sure hope we are keeping our hands of this.  Also hard to believe any team would want to trade for that mess.

Right on. Are there really five teams that scummy? Wouldn't be surprised if Pegula wants in on this action, given the dirtbags he's brought to Buffalo, or allowed to be brought to Buffalo, already. (And, yes, keeping scum off my team is one exception to my no-owner meddling rule.)

Posted

Right on. Are there really five teams that scummy? Wouldn't be surprised if Pegula wants in on this action, given the dirtbags he's brought to Buffalo, or allowed to be brought to Buffalo, already. (And, yes, keeping scum off my team is one exception to my no-owner meddling rule.)

 

:flirt:

Posted

Poor guy took the day off to go fishing and no one is biting.

You just nibbled and it felt so good.

:flirt:

Well, it is the one time an owner should meddle. It's his name on the deed/title/whatever. The brand is at stake. If GMTM wants to trade for Pat Kane, Pegula has every right to say no. Hiring the foot fetish dude and allowing gay-bashing bullies and jaw-breakers and folks with criminal records on his football team, that's on Pegula.

Posted

You just nibbled and it felt so good.

Well, it is the one time an owner should meddle. It's his name on the deed/title/whatever. The brand is at stake. If GMTM wants to trade for Pat Kane, Pegula has every right to say no. Hiring the foot fetish dude and allowing gay-bashing bullies and jaw-breakers and folks with criminal records on his football team, that's on Pegula.

I seem to spot one of those anti-foot fetish extremists here. :P  

Posted

Since this thread hasn't been filled with hysterical denunciations or ad hominem attacks lately, here's a question to consider:  what if there is an out-of-court settlement in which the accuser, presumably in exchange for a big check, drops the charges and agrees not to discuss the matter, but Chicago decides to trade Kane anyway?  Assuming no verifiable facts emerge about the incident, would you want the Sabres to go after him?

Posted

Since this thread hasn't been filled with hysterical denunciations or ad hominem attacks lately, here's a question to consider:  what if there is an out-of-court settlement in which the accuser, presumably in exchange for a big check, drops the charges and agrees not to discuss the matter, but Chicago decides to trade Kane anyway?  Assuming no verifiable facts emerge about the incident, would you want the Sabres to go after him?

 

I stand by what I wrote earlier.  I don't want him around the young guys.

Posted (edited)

No.  The price would be too high in trade and adding his contract means we are putting a ton of money into wingers again. I watched that play once, it was a tragedy.

Adding one of the best wingers in the league isn't putting a ton of money into wingers again.  It's putting a ton of money into winger.  I agree that the price would be to high, and I agree with others upthread that have stated that his contract doesn't coincide with our window.  But big money on an Ovechkin/P.Kane game breaker is never a bad idea.

Edited by immerman
This topic is OLD. A NEW topic should be started unless there is a VERY SPECIFIC REASON to revive this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...