View Single Post
11-27-2012, 07:56 PM
Registered User
Firefoxx's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 658
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Jack de la Hoya View Post
Also, the test, as we thought of it before, was whether the team's identity was compromised by removing a player. THat's the criteria for stricter study of a trade, right?

Can anyone really say that they hear Columbus and think of Jack Johnson? He's been there less than a season.

I don't really have a problem with this deal. I'm not great with Kane, and I think he gave up quite a bit in terms of short-term production to pull the trigger, but it's not like he gave up his entire team, or that Winnipeg traded Kane for a package of projects and picks.

I don't really see any grounds to veto that deal. Doing so would bring almost all trades into question.

(This isn't in any way specifically directed at you, PsychicSaw. Despite our earlier differences, I've come to respect you and your game play. Just a difference of opinion is all).
Where when I think of columbus I may not think Jack Johnson (considering he's a new aquisition himself), when I think Winnipeg I absolutley think Kane. This a deal that absolutley changes the identity of a team.

I'm not making a judgement on the trade in terms of fair value or not, just pointing out that this is the exact kind of player that is stated should take a big overpayment to have moved.

Firefoxx is offline   Reply With Quote