|
Post by Hawks on Sept 24, 2009 23:42:27 GMT -5
I'm not taking the time to look up each player for their first names. Its the responsibility of the people who send it in to format the trade in a readable way.
And yes, I would prefer first and last names.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2009 15:07:31 GMT -5
Blockbuster of epic proportions!
Jim Slater to San Jose? Holy cow! Who saw that coming? Didn't think so.
You just never know what's going to happen in the JGHL. I think it stands for Just Gonna Have Lunch. I had McDonald's.
|
|
|
Post by RangersRon on Oct 11, 2009 21:24:15 GMT -5
I am wondering if the trade between Leafs and Nashville is being voted on it merit or because it makes a team better in east. With only eastern teams voting and 2 no, one has to wonder and ask the question, why no?
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Oct 11, 2009 23:16:43 GMT -5
Why no? Its two completely unproven players for one of the leagues best wingers.
|
|
|
Post by RangersRon on Oct 11, 2009 23:51:56 GMT -5
Why no? Its two completely unproven players for one of the leagues best wingers. And that has never happens on here!!!!!! ! Maybe Nash could have gotten more, but like alot of people around here, not much is really ever offered, is it? No one is really willing to give up much these days and there was two deals on table and Nash (give him some credit and respect) has a plan on what HE wants to build!
|
|
|
Post by LeafsGM on Oct 12, 2009 0:12:00 GMT -5
Why no? Its two completely unproven players for one of the leagues best wingers. can't say i agree with the unproven part. Both guys are on nhl teams, one is top six 20 year old winger, the other an 18 year old kid with a cannon playing top 4 minutes. Explain to me how that's worthy of rejection?
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Oct 12, 2009 1:13:56 GMT -5
Ron, I'm consistent with the way I vote. I don't care if its happened before, I've always voted against it.
Do you seriously think Kulikov is proven after playing 4 games on a team that hasn't made the playoffs for what... ten years? Give me a break.
And Boedker is a top six forward? He scored 28 points last year and is still waiting on his first point this year.
What happened to the good old days when players had to accomplish something before they were labelled "top 4 defenseman" and "top six forwards"? Now it seems like this is the common logic... "well he got an 8B on hockeysfuture... he's under 25... he's playing in the NHL... he must be a top liner!"
|
|
|
Post by LeafsGM on Oct 12, 2009 1:55:35 GMT -5
Ron, I'm consistent with the way I vote. I don't care if its happened before, I've always voted against it. Do you seriously think Kulikov is proven after playing 4 games on a team that hasn't made the playoffs for what... ten years? Give me a break. And Boedker is a top six forward? He scored 28 points last year and is still waiting on his first point this year. What happened to the good old days when players had to accomplish something before they were labelled "top 4 defenseman" and "top six forwards"? Now it seems like this is the common logic... "well he got an 8B on hockeysfuture... he's under 25... he's playing in the NHL... he must be a top liner!" Is Kulikov proven after 4 games? No. Is he widely considered a stud prospect who has made the team out of his first training camp, has shown poise, already contributed on the power play, and has an absolute cannon for a shot? Yes. The fact that there is clear top pairing potential is pretty undisputed. If you don't agree, go check out any Panthers board and see for yourself. Keep in mind those 28 points Boedker scored were done playing mostly 3rd and 4th line minutes, with almost no PP time, not to mention playing on a team that's in financial, managerial, and structural turmoil. The fact that he hasn't gotten his first point yet says absolutely nothing about his top 6 potential and skills, sorry. You have every right to an opinion, and you may think he could have gotten more, but fact is, he was contemplating between two, that's right TWO offers. Clearly he went with the better one, one which he handpicked and felt was the best return for his team. It's one thing if he was getting two guys who may never even set foot on NHL ice, but this isn't the case here since both young players are already considered cornerstone's for their respective franchises, which is ideal value for a 72OV winger. There has been enough trades that were worthy of rejection, but sorry, this isn't one of them. I feel we've come to a point where anytime there is a big name being moved, there will be instant "no" votes that lack objectivity.
|
|
|
Post by MontyBurns on Oct 12, 2009 9:18:36 GMT -5
I am wondering if the trade between Leafs and Nashville is being voted on it merit or because it makes a team better in east. With only eastern teams voting and 2 no, one has to wonder and ask the question, why no? how can you see whos voted?
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Oct 12, 2009 9:31:51 GMT -5
I am wondering if the trade between Leafs and Nashville is being voted on it merit or because it makes a team better in east. With only eastern teams voting and 2 no, one has to wonder and ask the question, why no? how can you see whos voted? Purely an assumption on his part, based on who was logged in, when the trade was posted. I voted to pass, but thought it was border line, and in favor of the leafs 60- 40. I myself never vote no on a trade, to prevent someone in my Conf. from improving, it's either fair or it isn't, if I deem it 60-40 at worst, I'm given it a pass.
|
|
|
Post by RangersRon on Oct 12, 2009 9:46:57 GMT -5
Ron, I'm consistent with the way I vote. I don't care if its happened before, I've always voted against it. Do you seriously think Kulikov is proven after playing 4 games on a team that hasn't made the playoffs for what... ten years? Give me a break. And Boedker is a top six forward? He scored 28 points last year and is still waiting on his first point this year. What happened to the good old days when players had to accomplish something before they were labelled "top 4 defenseman" and "top six forwards"? Now it seems like this is the common logic... "well he got an 8B on hockeysfuture... he's under 25... he's playing in the NHL... he must be a top liner!" I don't believe it is 50 -50 in no way or form, but in recent history of trades, and I am saying recent, people have been giving up far less in trades then in past.....just look at some trades and as someone who looks for trades often and knowing what is offered at certain times, I am thinking that if a GM decides to make a move of a certain player and the offers are few and far between, then GM needs to take WHAT THEY decide what is best for THEIR team. I have laways said this and still do. It is not that big of a difference, like Ray said 60-40. Nash is building for future and Leafs is willing to give up some of his future. Different directions for different teams, heck if we go by what these two young guys have not done, then what about all those trades that people gave up #1s? ?? At least here you know what your getting here and who knows this guy could be in the KHL is a couple of years while Nash has his for many years to come. No one really knows do they. Trading and what people are willing to give up has changed and GMs have to take the best deal that is available to them even if other GMs don't like it. That is all I am saying!
|
|
|
Post by RangersRon on Oct 12, 2009 9:49:45 GMT -5
how can you see whos voted? Purely an assumption on his part, based on who was logged in, when the trade was posted. I voted to pass, but thought it was border line, and in favor of the leafs 60- 40. I myself never vote no on a trade, to prevent someone in my Conf. from improving, it's either fair or it isn't, if I deem it 60-40 at worst, I'm given it a pass. Not much of an assumption, but it is based on log ins at time of post and who logged in......I think people need to vote on the deal, not on any other factor, peiod which is why I brought it up.....does not have to be a 50 - 50 deal, it can be 60 - 40 now but who knows what it holds for future of both teams, no one knows, at least no one here
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2009 12:13:58 GMT -5
I based this trade purely on looks, Kulikov and Boedker are much more handsome than Zetterberg! But seriously, I had gone after some players I wanted with no luck before putting Zetterberg on the block. I wasn't able to get a clearly established young player, so I based these on potential, which of course by any account is always hard to tell for sure but I like both of their odds. I don't need Zetterberg right now for the reasons I had first picked him up for, and I am trying to rebuild, so might as well get 2 great players for one. Even if I had got say three 1st round picks for Zetterberg, there would have been even more uncertainty as to what I'd be getting, at least with these players I have some background to go on.....and yes, they do still have to prove themselves yet in the NHL.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2009 12:35:07 GMT -5
Why no? Its two completely unproven players for one of the leagues best wingers. Perfectly said! This trade is a joke, no matter how Toronto trys to spin it! People have been "focred" to give up more for less in deals where the league thought it wa unfair. If this passes it is truly a sad day for the JGHL!
|
|
|
Post by LeafsGM on Oct 12, 2009 12:49:10 GMT -5
I can always count on good ol detroit to come around and remind me of how i spoke out against his trade by sabotaging mine. I feel like you've been voting against every single one of my deals since, just out of spite. Do you even know who the players I'm giving up are? Do some research first before you accuse me of spin.
|
|