Atlanta-Chicago-NYIslanders 3-way Proposal
View Single Post
11-16-2003, 02:49 AM
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Tyrone, GA
Originally Posted by
So how does that explain your Hamrlik for John Klemm proposal?
That was a flight of fancy that I was just tossing out there. One that I labeled as such. That was not serious, I noted that it was a bad proposal that was a humongous slant in the favor of the Thrashers. It was a wish, a long shot. Something that would make me as a fan jump up and down in glee. Something that would happen in EA Sports 2004, or ESPN NHL Hockey 2004, or EHM. Not something that would happen in real life. That is why I designated it as so.
. I figure I don't need to explain something I pretty much deemed fantasy material from the start.
The use of the huge font I felt necessary since it appears people are not reading the whole thread, just the initial post and repeatedly criticizing me for what I have already both apologized for and acknowledged I was wrong in.
Here were my misconceptions:
1) The Islanders were is slash and burn mode to get rid of payroll. - I was wrong. - If this assumption had been correct then the Islanders would have been in a position to take less than market value for an asset.
2) Mark Parrish was going to be placed on waivers imminently. - I was wrong. - If this assumption had been correct then I think two 5th rounders would have been preferable to nothing had the guy been lost on waivers.
3) Roman Hamrlik was going to be an UFA after the season and would most likely not resign with the Islanders. - I was wrong. - If his assumption had been correct then I still would have been off with a Klemm + 1st rounder pick for him, but that would have been better than nothing if he walked after his contract. Klemm was there to help with the payroll cutting and Hamrlik because he is your highest payed guy on defense. Aucoin, Jonsson, and Niinimaa all fall in order behind him. I knew better than to ask for Aucoin and know most Islander fans wouldn't want to move the other two either. So with a misconception that Roman would be an UFA who wouldn't resign, coupled with him being the highest payed defenseman, I chose to put him in the deal.
Under the assumptions that I was operating I didn't believe my proposals were nearly as brutal as they actually are since I was sloppy with my homework on the position of the Islanders. I thank those that were kind enough to correct me without resorting to childish behavior, which I have been guilty of in defending myself. In the future I will be sure to be more certain to get a clear definition of the position the other team is in before I propose deals on this board. However, in this case I felt I had, but I was wrong. I admit it. I have done so repeatedly. I don't know what else to say.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Voynich