HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Edmonton Journalist Links Oilers to Del Zotto

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-24-2011, 02:20 PM
  #176
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,767
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGY View Post
YAWN. Yeah we'll give you credit WHEN and IF you're trade proposals actually ever come close to becoming reality or true.

It's great to know you're 100% correct (in fact more than that if mathematically possible as you claim) after a rangers loss to edmonton. But after two wins there's no way your thinking is wrong. In fact this team would essentially have to have gone 82-0 this year scoring at least 3 goals per game for trade proposals not to be present.

Knit-picking is annoying.
Confession is good for the soul ["there's no way your thinking is wrong"].
Admitting how right I actually was in this particular instance will not let you off the hook from the appropriate tongue lashing you deserve and will get once I have the time to give it. (Besides, it's not clear if you really said what is perceived you actually meant, or if one more time you, without provocation from me, erred once again!)

This effort to blunt such just rewards will not work.

I don't mind people disagreeing with me.
I mind when they are arrogant and condescending about how THEY think THEY are SO superior, when the actual facts prove them wrong.

I generally prefer to stay on topic, and not engage in vitriol as do some of my detractors from time to time. But I will make a rare exception this time, and give you your comeuppance as soon as it is convenient, so next time, you'll think twice about being this rude to ANYBODY.

I give as good as I get and then some.
More on this when time permits. Prepare to and

bernmeister is offline  
Old
10-24-2011, 04:13 PM
  #177
RGY
(Jagr68NYR94Leetch)
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,471
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bernmeister View Post
Confession is good for the soul ["there's no way your thinking is wrong"].
Admitting how right I actually was in this particular instance will not let you off the hook from the appropriate tongue lashing you deserve and will get once I have the time to give it. (Besides, it's not clear if you really said what is perceived you actually meant, or if one more time you, without provocation from me, erred once again!)

This effort to blunt such just rewards will not work.

I don't mind people disagreeing with me.
I mind when they are arrogant and condescending about how THEY think THEY are SO superior, when the actual facts prove them wrong.

I generally prefer to stay on topic, and not engage in vitriol as do some of my detractors from time to time. But I will make a rare exception this time, and give you your comeuppance as soon as it is convenient, so next time, you'll think twice about being this rude to ANYBODY.

I give as good as I get and then some.
More on this when time permits. Prepare to and
I'm still YAWNIG. You're putting us to sleep bern. No one cares. The problem here is your just like every other stubborn human being in the world. The "facts" as you claim them to be are a 2-0 loss to edmonton being the proof that you are God and everyone else are feeble minded peasants. You only accept facts that help your argument. You never accept facts, logic, or critical analysis if it goes against your OPINIONS and theories because it denounces them. That's why I'm done with you. You're a waste of time. But go ahead take the time to give me the "tongue lashing" i deserve. I'm shaking in my boots. The tongue lashing I deserve because I didnt sugarcoat it and spoon feed the opposition to you. Sorry I forgot we live in a much, much more sensitive society where everyone can lawyer up and sue anyone for basically getting their feelings hurt. Keep ranting, I hope they win tonight just to spite you. Then I can come on here and use that ONE win as "facts" as to how you're wrong.

RGY is offline  
Old
10-26-2011, 01:28 PM
  #178
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,767
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by n8 View Post
i would do MDZ Kreider 1st, 1st for Hall.
would also love MPS but is he a Torts kind of guy? Rather how is his defense because Torts ain't gonna give him the minutes he needs to develop into the player he can be if the kid doesn't play both ends of the ice. Eberle on the other hand has Torts written all over him. All good players though so can't really go too wrong acquiring either of them.
Would try to get Hall w/o giving up Kreider. Would try to keep Tyler Pitlick, but give less and not get MPS. My original suggestion was good in basic premise, but an overreach in that, while we obviously have to give massive compensation for Hall, we may be able to do something slightly less drastic and more manageable. Will have a revised proposal soon, don't wait on me if something comes to mind, though remember, in order to not be hijacking this thread, probably should have MDZ as part of proposal.

MPS in lieu of Hall for a lot less is a fine alternate.
But the demonstration thus far by RNH that he not only belongs but is probably a superstar in the making, coupled with Paajarvi being available to switch to first line, means Lowe + Oilers might be open to a deal moving Hall that improves their D and adds a Stepan with his 20g+ possibilities if it were massive overpayment.

But we should not let a coach, any coach, dictate personnel on this team.
We need to be open to the best combination and maximum number of talented players on this team, just to compete. That's the responsibility of G & G, Glen + Gordie.

bernmeister is offline  
Old
10-26-2011, 01:41 PM
  #179
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,767
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGY View Post
Listen me and you have gone at it over the past few months because every single proposal you put out there is, well quite honestly, unfathomable.

But this is me just trying to be civil with you here. Really trying to make you understand the reality of this. Yes Hall, Pajaarvi; they're solid players and yes they make our offense a world better. HOWEVER, you just cant put unproven defenseman out there on NHL ice and expect them to do well.

You say you're NOT expecting anyone to fill McD, Sauer, Girardi's shoes but you're basically implying that you honestly feel they will be a serviceable replacement and we will be able to get by with them when we absolutely will not. Theres just no way, I'm sorry. That's the reality of it. They are not ready. If they were they would've beaten out a Michael Del Zotto who still needs a lot of work on his defensive game, but yet he made the team over them. You cant just throw **** at the board and see what sticks, hoping something does. That's not how you build a contender or simply a competent team in the NHL. There is NO GAIN to this deal. The offensive acquisition does not offset the holes we'd have on defense.

You mention a guy like Gunnarrson from Toronto. First off, can we establish this was a RUMOR. That's all it was. It was as credible as eklund's rumors. There was no reputable source that said this was true. So what are you basing YOUR ASSUMPTIONS off of? On top of that how much more do you want to sacrifice in a trade after you complete the edmonton trade? So basically we're going to deal a bunch of assets just so we can add sexy names like Hall and Pajaarvi, meanwhile opening gigantic holes on our defense. Thus now since we've pushed the threshold this far we have to now make another trade to fix the holes on defense, depleting our entire farm system. It just absolutely does not make sense. You're making a trade with edmonton for the sake of making a trade. Yes they're good players but it is not an organizational need plus it is not a feasible option.

It hurts the organization more than it helps and thats the bottom line. If this can not be anymore clear in an explanation to why your trade proposal, in the nicest way possible for me to say it to you without tearing you apart as usual, JUST WONT WORK.

And I have no idea where you're getting the blackhawks from as trading partners. Again just another ASSUMPTION by YOU that there's going to be some team out there ready to "help" us out. After we go out and steal Erixon from CGY, and sign the big ticket free agent Richards....if we go out and make a deal like this with edmonton and then turn around to try and make another deal to fix the holes on defense; you can bet your ass no team is making a deal with Sather unless they are swindling him. No one is going to feel bad for the Rangers. The fact that we would be so vulnerable and desperate for defense, the asking price in ANY deal would be overpayment.

I'm really not trying to be harsh but it's the same time with everyone of your proposals, they deplete our system and our depth. It's as if you want the sexy name but you dont see the ramifications/consequences from it in other areas of the organization.
Never said Hawks would do us any favors.
But my recollection as to they still have some D prospects even after moving Campbell is correct. It is not 100% clear, but in discussion at the Chicago board, there was some agreement, albeit a minimal one in population sample, that a deal could be centered around Christian Thomas for Lalonde +

It is not likely we can get Dylan Olsen but that may be possible if we are willing to step up and add.

Whether or not we should is another story. But we may have options as I said would likely be the case.

You seem to be advocating we don't trade unless we can swindle. Is that your inference?

bernmeister is offline  
Old
10-26-2011, 02:20 PM
  #180
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,767
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGY View Post
This is why your opinion on this board means nothing. I gave you a valid and adequate response to your proposal as to why it wont work and you consider it flaming? Your a clown bernmeister. ...
And subjective conclusions? Subjective? How? It's just flat out reality. It's common sense. You make it seem like it's ok to "surrender more goals." It's not. There are too many talented forwards in the NHL, it will be a lot more surrendered goals than you think and Henrik will not be able to stand on his head like you seem to think he would. ....
If you really think puck possession is going to increase that much from adding two more talented forwards than you are more delusional than i thought. I can promise you it wouldnt be much. We wouldnt be pinning teams in their defensive end. It just wont happen. Once that puck is turned over and the opposing team is on the counter attack we will be screwed. ...
Young elite forwards are expensive, ...
And edmonton is going to want top prospects back, not just 3 proven NHL defenseman so theres another reality check. ...
As to:
"This is why your opinion on this board means nothing. I gave you a valid and adequate response to your proposal as to why it wont work and you consider it flaming? Your a clown bernmeister."

In your ERRONEOUS opinion, my opinion on this board means nothing. Opinions are valued at the merit of their statements, and I don't have to reiterate in detail just how last Saturday night's game in Edmonton PROVED who was correct and who is erroneous.

You gave me WHAT YOU THOUGHT was valid and adequate response, and I appreciate same, even though again, it was you who turned out to be in error.

As to the unkind: "Your a clown bernmeister" this is not true, and even if it were, I'd rather be a kind and courteous clown with respect for his fellow posters who is proven right than be accountable for your arrogance.

As to:
"And subjective conclusions? Subjective? How? It's just flat out reality. It's common sense. You make it seem like it's ok to "surrender more goals." It's not. There are too many talented forwards in the NHL, it will be a lot more surrendered goals than you think and Henrik will not be able to stand on his head like you seem to think he would. ....".

You are the one who speaks about reality and common sense.
But actual reality, as proved by that last game in Edmonton, was what I said, not what you said. I have already elsewhere discredited your claim of common sense as not being logical.

As to:
"If you really think puck possession is going to increase that much from adding two more talented forwards than you are more delusional than i thought. I can promise you it wouldnt be much."
As stated, your promise is based on your opinion, not fact, and the most recent experience proves I am correct, not you.

As to:
"We wouldnt be pinning teams in their defensive end. It just wont happen. Once that puck is turned over and the opposing team is on the counter attack we will be screwed. ..."
Already answered. Disagree. Our guys will not lay down and die. They won't be as good as the guys we have now. But they'll be in the other zone a whole lot less, and the D won't be as tired.

As to:
Young elite forwards are expensive, ...
And edmonton is going to want top prospects back, not just 3 proven NHL defenseman so theres another reality check. ...
There were more than 3 ds, plus Stepan and Boyle.

I agree it's too much, and open minded discussion is needed to hone the offer to a better one, probably without MPS for a bit less. That will still leave Oil w/RNH + MPS replacing Hall on 1st line, so they could actually think of surrendering Hall.

Again, I don't mind the disagreement.
I'm opposed to the arrogance, the posturing that you could not possibly be wrong.

You're wrong, whether you admit to it or not, whether you officially or not.

When you feel you can have a civil conversation and lose the arrogance, then feel free to comment in good faith, and as I have, I will keep an open mind. In the meantime, please stop with the and to have an open mind, so a comeuppance such as this, for which I have better things to do, won't be necessary.

bernmeister is offline  
Old
10-26-2011, 02:25 PM
  #181
allstar3970
Registered User
 
allstar3970's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,227
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bernmeister View Post
As to:
"This is why your opinion on this board means nothing. I gave you a valid and adequate response to your proposal as to why it wont work and you consider it flaming? Your a clown bernmeister."

In your ERRONEOUS opinion, my opinion on this board means nothing. Opinions are valued at the merit of their statements, and I don't have to reiterate in detail just how last Saturday night's game in Edmonton PROVED who was correct and who is erroneous.

You gave me WHAT YOU THOUGHT was valid and adequate response, and I appreciate same, even though again, it was you who turned out to be in error.

As to the unkind: "Your a clown bernmeister" this is not true, and even if it were, I'd rather be a kind and courteous clown with respect for his fellow posters who is proven right than be accountable for your arrogance.

As to:
"And subjective conclusions? Subjective? How? It's just flat out reality. It's common sense. You make it seem like it's ok to "surrender more goals." It's not. There are too many talented forwards in the NHL, it will be a lot more surrendered goals than you think and Henrik will not be able to stand on his head like you seem to think he would. ....".

You are the one who speaks about reality and common sense.
But actual reality, as proved by that last game in Edmonton, was what I said, not what you said. I have already elsewhere discredited your claim of common sense as not being logical.

As to:
"If you really think puck possession is going to increase that much from adding two more talented forwards than you are more delusional than i thought. I can promise you it wouldnt be much."
As stated, your promise is based on your opinion, not fact, and the most recent experience proves I am correct, not you.

As to:
"We wouldnt be pinning teams in their defensive end. It just wont happen. Once that puck is turned over and the opposing team is on the counter attack we will be screwed. ..."
Already answered. Disagree. Our guys will not lay down and die. They won't be as good as the guys we have now. But they'll be in the other zone a whole lot less, and the D won't be as tired.

As to:
Young elite forwards are expensive, ...
And edmonton is going to want top prospects back, not just 3 proven NHL defenseman so theres another reality check. ...
There were more than 3 ds, plus Stepan and Boyle.

I agree it's too much, and open minded discussion is needed to hone the offer to a better one, probably without MPS for a bit less. That will still leave Oil w/RNH + MPS replacing Hall on 1st line, so they could actually think of surrendering Hall.

Again, I don't mind the disagreement.
I'm opposed to the arrogance, the posturing that you could not possibly be wrong.

You're wrong, whether you admit to it or not, whether you officially or not.

When you feel you can have a civil conversation and lose the arrogance, then feel free to comment in good faith, and as I have, I will keep an open mind. In the meantime, please stop with the and to have an open mind, so a comeuppance such as this, for which I have better things to do, won't be necessary.
you are a parody of yourself at this point. Nobody wants to read your 5 paragraph posts 3 of which pat yourself on the back , 1 of which calls everybody who disagrees with you big meanies, with the other being a regurgitation of somebody on mushrooms playing Be A GM mode in NHL 12.

allstar3970 is offline  
Old
10-26-2011, 02:59 PM
  #182
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,767
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGY View Post
...
Just stop your embarrassing yourself. Just admit your proposal is extremely, extremely flawed and naive and that will be that.
We should just about be able to wrap this up with this correction:

"Just stop your embarrassing yourself."
I am not embarrassed by what I said. Actually in fact that exists in the real world, I am vindicated.
What is embarrassing is how although this is properly unnecessary for the 99% of my detractors who merely but politely disagreed with me, you and 1 or 2 others have given me no choice but to chastise you publicly.

I hope it is you who are embarrassed by the obvious arrogance in your comments. Remember pride comes before the fall.


"Just admit your proposal is extremely, extremely flawed and naive and that will be that."
I don't think so.
My OP could have been better, more efficient, etc., but the original premise has been proven correct.
Rangers not scoring.
Need sniper LW, not one dimensional, preferably young, and as long as we're going to market, let's get a good one, preferably pre-elite.
Since we have minimum to give up on F side of equation, must come from D.

They beat Win. Jets last night and got outplayed (outshot if I remember correctly), winning on lucky deflection. I'm glad they won. They will not continue winning if they play like this.

There is room to hope they can turn it around. I hope they do.
But your arrogant and condescending language "Just admit your proposal is extremely, extremely flawed and naive and that will be that" deserves the verbal slapping it is getting now. I was none of things. I was spot on accurate, regardless of what the crowd said.

I have posted many posts.
I have been right a lot. I have been wrong a lot.
I take compliments and also constructive criticism.
I am willing to not be too picky about the line as to that criticism, it comes with the territory, and less restriction on speech the better.
But such outrageous demands as yours, coupled with later attestations that you were still right when you were in fact wrong, is guff I will not take from you.

I accept your criticism in the spirit of open mindedness. I reject the attitude behind it.

I hope in the future we will be able to post with a spirit of civility. That will be up to you.

bernmeister is offline  
Old
10-26-2011, 03:09 PM
  #183
DrSutton*
Given Up
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,093
vCash: 500
Bern, you have not only never been right, but you've yet to have one person agree with you or support any assertion you've had - that speaks volumes.

DrSutton* is offline  
Old
10-26-2011, 03:11 PM
  #184
GarretJoseph*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 7,614
vCash: 500
Man, this thread took a turn for dumpsville.

GarretJoseph* is offline  
Old
10-26-2011, 03:12 PM
  #185
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,767
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGY View Post
YAWN. Yeah we'll give you credit WHEN and IF you're trade proposals actually ever come close to becoming reality or true.

It's great to know you're 100% correct (in fact more than that if mathematically possible as you claim) after a rangers loss to edmonton. But after two wins there's no way your thinking is wrong. In fact this team would essentially have to have gone 82-0 this year scoring at least 3 goals per game for trade proposals not to be present.

Knit-picking is annoying.
Bold: Addressed in my last post. The premise behind the proposal was true, the need to increase offense, if necessary at cost of defense is true.

Underline: establishes the bold.

"But after two wins there's no way your thinking is wrong."
Don't see ; in any event, the fundamental flaws of this team are as I said, and will be so whether we go 2, 12, or whatever number of wins or games into the season until same is adrressed.

Balance:
"In fact this team would essentially have to have gone 82-0 this year scoring at least 3 goals per game for trade proposals not to be present."

bernmeister is offline  
Old
10-26-2011, 03:19 PM
  #186
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,767
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by allstar3970 View Post
you are a parody of yourself at this point. Nobody wants to read your 5 paragraph posts 3 of which pat yourself on the back , 1 of which calls everybody who disagrees with you big meanies, with the other being a regurgitation of somebody on mushrooms playing Be A GM mode in NHL 12.
I regret that was necessary.
I am not picking fights with all my detractors (note bold "everybody who disagrees") even if they also were wrong.

I am open to objective and constructive criticism.
I am learning a lot from both friendly and adversarial posts.

But the obvious nastiness and arrogance I received is out of order, and a comeuppance was necessary.

With cordial respect,
bernmeister

bernmeister is offline  
Old
10-26-2011, 03:27 PM
  #187
NYR Viper
Moderator
 
NYR Viper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 30,000
vCash: 500
Guys, enough with this personal vendetta against each other. We have let it go on long enough.

If you want to discuss the thread topic, do so. If not, move on.

NYR Viper is offline  
Old
10-26-2011, 03:40 PM
  #188
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,767
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrSutton View Post
Bern, you have not only never been right, but you've yet to have one person agree with you or support any assertion you've had - that speaks volumes.
Not an accurate statement.
Also the Edmonton game PROVES I was correct.

My not so good Dr., you are another one on a short list who will not give credit where credit is due (as proven by above) unless it suits you, and often, IMO, does not speak objectively. That I can handle.

The fact that you are also rude and arrogant to me, seemingly at every apparent turn, is basis for me to also give you the tongue lashing you deserve.

Fortunately for you, I want to re-focus this thread on the overall point of Edmonton and Del Zotto, so I will not repeat most of what I've said in detail to RGY.

In closing for now I will say, watch yourself, you are giving me more than enough rope, whether I am asking for it or not...

bernmeister is offline  
Old
10-26-2011, 03:43 PM
  #189
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,767
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarretJoseph View Post
Man, this thread took a turn for dumpsville.
So, what do you think? Better off with MDZ? Move him? If so, what can we hope for as to a return? Is it enough? Could we package and get more?

Thoughts...


Last edited by NYR Viper: 10-26-2011 at 06:27 PM. Reason: Flaming
bernmeister is offline  
Old
10-26-2011, 08:44 PM
  #190
nyr2k2
Can't Beat Him
 
nyr2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 24,949
vCash: 50
Awards:
We're done.

__________________

It's just pain.
nyr2k2 is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:47 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.