View Single Post
03-14-2013, 03:21 PM
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Land of no calls..
Country: United States
Posts: 16,298
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Kwayry View Post
My post was pretty clear, I did not advocate replacing Pyatt with Lindberg, I said that was one example of the many ways Sather can massage the cap if there was a cap issue, and I clearly don't agree there is or will be a cap issue.
How exactly is "massaging the cap" different than replacing one player with another? If Fasth or Lindberg can't replace someone on the roster, how exactly does one massage the cap at that point? Call it whatever you like, it's still a bogus solution. All so we can keep a guy who clearly isn't fitting in with the team at this point.

You're just choosing not to acknowledge the facts if you don't think the cap will be an issue. I can't help you if you want to justify your opinion on a bunch of hypothetical scenarios and the same "rookie will replace established player" lines we read over and over on this board every year.

We started this discussion with "Why do people say Rangers HAVE to trade Gaborik for cap reasons?".
Took a little while, but you have reached the same conclusion as me, they don't.
Uh, no. That wasn't my conclusion at all. My conclusion is that the cap is one of several reasons that they have to trade Gaborik.

Trxjw is offline