Pens eyeing Kulemin
View Single Post
02-07-2013, 08:26 AM
Join Date: Aug 2005
Originally Posted by
Maatta or Bennett + 1st seemed to be acceptable to many leaf fans
Maatta or Bennett + 2nd seemed to be acceptable to many pens fans
Maatta or Bennett + 1st (~24-30) + 2nd (~54-60)
Kulemin + 2nd (~30-40)
yay or nay?
Addition: I'm a leaf fan and don't want to give Kulemin up for die rolls either, but if him and malkin are BFFs like everyone says combined with Pitts being a contender he's probably going to sign with the pens in two seasons anyway. We're not contending this year or next so we might as well get some value for him and the pens get the Kuli+Malkin combo for 2 extra "win now" playoff runs so worth it to trade rather than wait for him to be ufa.
I'd much rather something around morrow though...
That's why I suggested Maatta, Blueger (last years 2nd and was excellent at WJC for **** Latvia team), and 2nd.
I seems like, IF Nonis likes a guy like Maatta as biggest piece, then it seems like you just need to find that middle ground as you suggest.
That said, I really, really could see Shero, when Niskanen returns, doing something like seanlinden's Despres + Kennedy for Kuli + Holzer.
I'm not saying that I like it. I'm saying that I could see Shero doing that.
Could you see Nonis doing something like that?
Note: Leave aside whether you like it. Just tell me if you could see Nonis doing that.
Originally Posted by
Based on your comments, you don't like Despres at all. Weren't you about to send him to the Twin Cities for that former 30-goal scoring bum that is on the fourth line and right now couldn't hit water if he fell out of a boat?
So, you are all for dealing Despres and Niskanen in deals, so who exactly plays on the blueline for Pittsburgh? Please don't say Holzer.
We don't need Kulemin.
We need a winger for Crosby more than Malkin
. It's not hard to figure out. Bad asset management making deals like that when you truly only need one winger.
Actually, the Penguins need both. It's not hard to figure out. They have the assets to get both and still have a lot more left in the cupboard than when they went shopping in 2008. You address each need as the solution presents itself, and you don't say 'I'm not handling this need until I handle the other one first'. That's just naive.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by KIRK