View Single Post
Old
11-02-2012, 08:39 PM
  #53
Gliff
Unsustainable
 
Gliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 4,605
vCash: 441
Quote:
Originally Posted by bernmeister View Post
No flame, but Rangers have to be careful to have $$ to sign guys + likely to make it prospects.

Ergo, instead of moving multiple bodies for 1, which may be ok for another day, would prefer

ASSUMING THE NMC WE ALL KNOW ABOUT IS WAIVED

to do something around Richards + not much else for Getzlaf and not much else

Why the ducks? 'cause they get ballpark Getz talent locked up for 4-5 years +, and if he gets old after that quickly can probably get either a buyout or in a future CBA an amnesty for the balance.

Why the rangers? 'cause they upgrade on a top guy with a short term commitment, so they have lots of room again for all the developing guys and the mostly younger guys they are keeping. (Keeping them all for as long as possible enhances best options for best trade scenarios when it does come time to move 2 for 1, 3 for 1.)

Again, don't expect any of this, but the thread topic is value of Getzlaf + Perry
AS RENTALs.

So I consider this in line with that.
Why in the hell would the Ducks veer do this?

If we lose Perry and Getzlaf why would we want to get older? Retarded

Gliff is offline   Reply With Quote