|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Aug 30, 2006 22:24:22 GMT -5
To Winnipeg:
Patrick Eaves
Alexander Semin
Curtis Sanford
Marc-Andre Gragnani
Tomas Plekanec
Andrew Cogliano
Nikolai Kulemin
To Ottawa:
Joe Thornton
|
|
|
|
Post by canucksgm on Aug 30, 2006 22:25:28 GMT -5
yah im pretty sure u already released half those players
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris - Capitals on Aug 30, 2006 22:26:27 GMT -5
Accepted
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris - Capitals on Aug 30, 2006 22:27:01 GMT -5
yah im pretty sure u already released half those players If you check the offical releace it says......PENDING THORTON TRADE....... SO EAT IT |
|
|
|
Post by Mark - Bruins on Aug 31, 2006 10:35:16 GMT -5
so.... how does adding a bunch of minor leaguers make this deal more fair?
|
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Aug 31, 2006 11:20:59 GMT -5
so.... how does adding a bunch of minor leaguers make this deal more fair? ok, what exactly makes this deal fair to you? i wasnt aware i had to go through a third party to do a trade....i kind of feel like im buying tickets to an event... |
|
|
|
Post by Mark - Bruins on Aug 31, 2006 13:35:43 GMT -5
so.... how does adding a bunch of minor leaguers make this deal more fair? ok, what exactly makes this deal fair to you? i wasnt aware i had to go through a third party to do a trade....i kind of feel like im buying tickets to an event... I'm not trying to dictate who you should and should not trade. All I am saying is if your other deal around Semin/Eaves/Sanford caused such an uproar and virtually veto'd by the league, how is adding a bunch of soon-to-be-released players to the deal make it any more fair in the eye of everyone else? There is no logic in that. Its the same deal that everyone (except you and Chris) thought was unfair. I don't want to get in a war of words or ruffle any feelings, all I am asking is if you decide to rework a deal, actually try to re-work it. The league has veto power over any trade, so please don't feel like this is a personal attack or anything. If enough GMs don't think a trade is fair, then the deal doesn't go through. There is no reason to be angry with other people for expressing their rights as GMs in this league. |
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Aug 31, 2006 13:56:55 GMT -5
ok, what exactly makes this deal fair to you? i wasnt aware i had to go through a third party to do a trade....i kind of feel like im buying tickets to an event... I'm not trying to dictate who you should and should not trade. All I am saying is if your other deal around Semin/Eaves/Sanford caused such an uproar and virtually veto'd by the league, how is adding a bunch of soon-to-be-released players to the deal make it any more fair? There is no logic in that. Its the same deal that everyone (except you and Chris) thought was unfair. I don't want to get in a war of words or ruffle any feelings, all I am asking is if you decide to rework a deal, actually try to re-work it. The league has veto power over any trade, so please don't feel like this is a personal attack or anything. If enough GMs don't think a trade is fair, then the deal doesn't go through. There is no reason to be angry with other people for expressing their rights as GMs in this league. the deal wasnt reworked to be "more fair" considering that is virtually impossible with both teams IN the trade thinking it already benefits them. the deal was simply rewritten so that it appears like more value on paper to muffle some of these ridiculous claims. Sure, the league has "veto power." what im asking is that people be civil about it and actually have a reason for the veto. the briere and cammy deals didnt get veteod. i naturally expect the same consistency. it shouldnt be altered just because a few more people happen to disagree with chris's opinion. you DONT have to trade a superstar for a superstar. there are different variations of trades you know? also, not everyone disagreed with the trade, just a vast majority. its funny how your sentence was worded though. "Its the same deal that everyone (except you and Chris) thought was unfair. never thought id see the day when the two teams involved in the trade think its fair to both of them and thats a bad thing ...no way, get out of town.  |
|
|
|
Post by Mark - Bruins on Aug 31, 2006 14:21:32 GMT -5
you DONT have to trade a superstar for a superstar. there are different variations of trades you know? I have no problem with trading superstars for non-superstar players. Its just when deals like that occur, you trade superstars for a few high quality players. also, not everyone disagreed with the trade, just a vast majority. actually, i'm pretty sure everybody who posted exclaimed to the effect they dislike the deal and think it really favors your side. the only difference is phil didn't want to use his veto because he doesn't like to veto trades, period. its funny how your sentence was worded though. "Its the same deal that everyone (except you and Chris) thought was unfair. never thought id see the day when the two teams involved in the trade think its fair to both of them and thats a bad thing ...no way, get out of town. if virtually everyone in the league and a majority of people polled on the internet (http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=284839) feel strongly that the deal is unfair or severely one sided, perhaps the two people that feel strongly that the deal is fair could've possibly overrated some of the players involved in the transaction? |
|
|
|
Post by Chris - Capitals on Aug 31, 2006 14:24:34 GMT -5
In the nhl when a team trades with another team do there GMS say fuck no that doesnt work??? NO grow up guys its what i feel is fair fro my team and how i judge the talent for my players not how you feel you guys are being so damn childish.
|
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Aug 31, 2006 14:28:15 GMT -5
you DONT have to trade a superstar for a superstar. there are different variations of trades you know? I have no problem with trading superstars for non-superstar players. Its just when deals like that occur, you trade superstars for a few high quality players. actually, i'm pretty sure everybody who posted exclaimed to the effect they dislike the deal and think it really favors your side. the only difference is phil didn't want to use his veto because he doesn't like to veto trades, period. its funny how your sentence was worded though. "Its the same deal that everyone (except you and Chris) thought was unfair. never thought id see the day when the two teams involved in the trade think its fair to both of them and thats a bad thing ...no way, get out of town. if virtually everyone in the league and a majority of people polled on the internet (http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=284839) feel strongly that the deal is unfair or severely one sided, perhaps the two people that feel strongly that the deal is fair could've possibly overrated some of the players involved in the transaction? once again..."overrated" is completely subjective. there is no such thing as overrated until the player/players actually play and do well or bust. you can poll the entire world, hockey analysts, even Patrick Eaves and Alexander Semin in the flesh and it doesnt matter because this winnipeg team is not theirs to manage. |
|
|
|
Post by Mark - Bruins on Aug 31, 2006 14:28:16 GMT -5
In the nhl when a team trades with another team do there GMS say fuck no that doesnt work??? generally, before a GM pulls a trade the team president, owner, or maybe even another high-up person can negate the deal if they don't like the move. also, in the nhl if a GM makes a series of bad trades, they can be fired (*cough*Milbury*cough*). also, Derrick, the Briere/1st pick deal did almost get veto'd, its just that not every GM voted so it was hard to get cancelled. Just because a prior trade didn't get veto'd isn't any justification for any future deals. |
|
So exciting.
You better make that pick or trade it! I'm excited to see if we can use up all the draft picks this year.