|
Post by Sharky on Jan 18, 2009 5:12:35 GMT -5
The fact that you think we are "cock blocking" Calgary means you awknowledge that you are on the bad side of the deal. Why keep arguing then?
The majority of a league made up of very experienced GMs thought the trade was one sided. That alone should get you to rethink it. Stop complaining and let it be.
|
|
|
Post by AvsGM on Jan 18, 2009 5:37:03 GMT -5
Ok, now I'm starting to get annoyed. If you guys want to keep going after him then send him a PM or something. But all these public attacks and wolfpack mentality is really starting to piss me off! This guy has had to fight off like half the league for the last few days, and you don't expect him to defend himself?! And people wonder why the last Minnesota GM left, and all that was in jest!
The funny, interesting thing I think you all are failing to realize, is that for as bad as you all are making the trade out to be, and as lopsided as you all are saying the opinions were, in actuality the league was split exactly down the middle! 2 votes for Cgy&Det (as they obviously agreed upon it) +11 who voted in favor, versus 13 who voted against, 13 to 13.
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Jan 18, 2009 6:02:54 GMT -5
He started the thread as an attack Jon, not in his defense. He claimed we rejected the deal just because it was Calgary involved, which isn't simply defending himself, its attacking the integrity of the 13 GMs who voted against the deal. I stayed out of the argument in the Opinion's on Trades thread, but when he said that it really pissed me off.
Defending a deal is telling everyone the reasoning behind it, which I'm sure Adam did in the other thread. Defending a deal is not questioning the integrity of everyone who voted against it. He stepped over the line.
|
|
|
Post by AvsGM on Jan 18, 2009 6:21:12 GMT -5
Defending a deal is not questioning the integrity of everyone who voted against it. I'm not here to argue, you've all said what you had to so I'm shutting down the thread. Simple.
|
|