HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.

Chi - Ana

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-16-2012, 03:18 PM
  #26
JabbaJabba
Registered User
 
JabbaJabba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Finland
Posts: 3,940
vCash: 552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Confound View Post
Both teams need a #2 center, I don't think they would make good trading partners when they both desperately need the same thing.
I agree with this guy.

JabbaJabba is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-16-2012, 06:45 PM
  #27
DontToewzMeBro
Registered User
 
DontToewzMeBro's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,132
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducks DVM View Post
You're the one not getting it - Anaheim has no center depth whatsoever, and their best 3C (Koivu) is likely in his last year with the team. If anything, Getzlaf is worth more because Chicago has better backup options at center.

The only reason Getzlaf's name is being tossed about is because he's entering his UFA year, the Ducks struggled last year and the GM said nobody was safe for the right price (misinterpreted by the HF hivemind as FREE PLAYERS - MAKE YOUR HORRIBLE OFFER HERE!!!!), and because Toronto fans have an unhealthy obsession with the big UFA players every year. Reverse the contract situations and team fortunes and Toews would be discussed every bit as much.
There will not be any contract discussions in regards to trades. this isn't dollar Bills team anymore Toews=Hawk for life Getzlaf= ????

DontToewzMeBro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-16-2012, 07:33 PM
  #28
Sojourn
Global Moderator
Where's the kaboom?
 
Sojourn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 24,449
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DontToewzMeBro View Post
There will not be any contract discussions in regards to trades. this isn't dollar Bills team anymore Toews=Hawk for life Getzlaf= ????
Just stop. Your trade makes zero sense for Anaheim. Your goal is to improve Chicago, but it's at the expense of another team. Two GM's go into a trade with goals in mind, not just one.

Sojourn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-16-2012, 08:09 PM
  #29
couture23
Sabres & Red Sox
 
couture23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: GTA/Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,992
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mightyquack View Post
No thanks.

Also lol @ thinking Getzlaf doesn't have as much value to Anaheim as Toews does to Chicago.

We literally have no-one to play center after Getzlaf ffs
Then why wasn't Anaheim's top priority at the draft to select a centre such as Grigorenko/Faksa/Girgensons, instead of going way off the board and taking Lindholm?

couture23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-16-2012, 08:21 PM
  #30
Suddenly7
Registered User
 
Suddenly7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Anaheim
Posts: 493
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by couture23 View Post
Then why wasn't Anaheim's top priority at the draft to select a centre such as Grigorenko/Faksa/Girgensons, instead of going way off the board and taking Lindholm?
I'm surprise as you are about Lindholm. We have Peter Holland as our center prospect hopefully coming up this year. Lindholm in my opinion was a great pick coming from our scouts. I went to the prospect practice the other day and can see why we picked him up early.

Suddenly7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-16-2012, 08:25 PM
  #31
Mrb1p
Registered User
 
Mrb1p's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Citizen of the world
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,089
vCash: 500
That's a good deal again Chicago fans.
Anaheim should add a 1st not a 2nd.. for real.


Last edited by SnS: 09-17-2012 at 04:46 PM.
Mrb1p is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-16-2012, 09:17 PM
  #32
Sojourn
Global Moderator
Where's the kaboom?
 
Sojourn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 24,449
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by couture23 View Post
Then why wasn't Anaheim's top priority at the draft to select a centre such as Grigorenko/Faksa/Girgensons, instead of going way off the board and taking Lindholm?
Because Anaheim went into the draft with the goal to draft the best player available. They had scouted Lindholm pretty heavily. Their general feeling with him was that he, while being a bit of a late-bloomer, would be the best player available at 6th overall. Drafting a center doesn't help them now.

Sojourn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-16-2012, 09:45 PM
  #33
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 8,094
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DontToewzMeBro View Post
Chicago
Getzlaf
2nd

Anaheim
Kruger
Hjarlmasson
Teravainen
1st
Assuming everybody waives their NMCs:
To Ducks
Brad Richards + Stepan

To Hawks
Getzlaf, Boyle

To Rangers
Sharp, Perry, Olsen, Saad, McNeil, Kruger


Rationale:

Ducks get a great 1a C similar to Getzlaf minus some of the offensive upside, who is locked in for several years. Not cheap, but less than anticipated increase Getz will demand. No hard evidence, but Getzlaf seems more highly regarded than Perry; so while not completely indifferent to give him away for nothing, moving Perry and getting Stepan, a solid 2c with upside for their top line W.

Hawks get complete overhaul at C, adding Getzlaf and Boyle to Toewz and Bolland. Because Rangers are gutting their Cs to accommodate, and Hawks wind up with Getzlaf, Rangers are entitled to overpayment.

the revised projected 3 lines were:
-Toews-Kane
-Getzlaf-Hossa
Shaw-Bolland-Stalberg

with Boyle in the mix, so another W will be needed, but Chicago can handle that.

The Rangers appear screwed at C, but live with Sharp as their 1c, and gamble on speedy JT Miller to replace Stepan with speedy wingmates Hagelin and Callahan. Faceoff guy Halperin is the 4c, so assuming signee Michael Haley is not the one, that leaves limited choices. You have Yogan, who is pressing and may be ready end of this year or early next. You have Kruger who is close, but probably not ready this year; or, as a stopgap, you can entertain Kreider, who has been being groomed as a W, but played C before going pro, at C. McNeil is also very close, but I understand he is W, less a possibility at C, though I'm not sure. Rupp has also been serviceable 4th line C.

The ONLY reason Rangers should even think about this is that they get enough overcompensation in other areas to make worthwhile gutting the C. So consider:

Nash Sharp Perry
Kreider Miller Gaborik
Hagelin Yogan Pyatt
Saad Halpern Asham/Rupp

If Saad is for real, right now, assuming he can't flop to RW, he makes the squad, and Rupp is trade bait [though if Yogan falters, Rupp could be 3c stopgap]. That still leaves:
Olsen -- makes the squad as #5 (third pair left) D, with upside to advance if bigger name is traded;
McNeil and Kruger valued assets who are really close

----------
It's a gamble
It's a reduction, but could be acceptable for Ducks.

It's a lot for Chicago to pay, but they get their man now without waiting for him to become UFA and take risk don't get him; it is a big risk assuming he does sign.

It's a risk for Rangers, though they move a big contract (just in case in a few years oh, say, Malkin might want to stretch his legs and leave Pitt.). There is zero established depth at C, but there is quality long term at the position.

Thoughts.....

bernmeister is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-16-2012, 09:52 PM
  #34
Ducks DVM
Moderator
There is no grunion
 
Ducks DVM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Long Beach, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 15,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DontToewzMeBro View Post
There will not be any contract discussions in regards to trades. this isn't dollar Bills team anymore Toews=Hawk for life Getzlaf= ????
A player whose RFA contract was signed before the cap circumvention contracts came about, who plays for a team that doesn't believe in ANY cap circumvention contracts, and whose UFA year is during a CBA lockout so the team and player both want to know what an allowable contract will be next year. Any more irrelevant yet easily answered questions?

Ducks DVM is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-16-2012, 10:03 PM
  #35
TurdFerguson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 763
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bernmeister View Post
Assuming everybody waives their NMCs:
To Ducks
Brad Richards + Stepan

To Hawks
Getzlaf, Boyle

To Rangers
Sharp, Perry, Olsen, Saad, McNeil, Kruger


Rationale:

Ducks get a great 1a C similar to Getzlaf minus some of the offensive upside, who is locked in for several years. Not cheap, but less than anticipated increase Getz will demand. No hard evidence, but Getzlaf seems more highly regarded than Perry; so while not completely indifferent to give him away for nothing, moving Perry and getting Stepan, a solid 2c with upside for their top line W.

Hawks get complete overhaul at C, adding Getzlaf and Boyle to Toewz and Bolland. Because Rangers are gutting their Cs to accommodate, and Hawks wind up with Getzlaf, Rangers are entitled to overpayment.

the revised projected 3 lines were:
-Toews-Kane
-Getzlaf-Hossa
Shaw-Bolland-Stalberg

with Boyle in the mix, so another W will be needed, but Chicago can handle that.

The Rangers appear screwed at C, but live with Sharp as their 1c, and gamble on speedy JT Miller to replace Stepan with speedy wingmates Hagelin and Callahan. Faceoff guy Halperin is the 4c, so assuming signee Michael Haley is not the one, that leaves limited choices. You have Yogan, who is pressing and may be ready end of this year or early next. You have Kruger who is close, but probably not ready this year; or, as a stopgap, you can entertain Kreider, who has been being groomed as a W, but played C before going pro, at C. McNeil is also very close, but I understand he is W, less a possibility at C, though I'm not sure. Rupp has also been serviceable 4th line C.

The ONLY reason Rangers should even think about this is that they get enough overcompensation in other areas to make worthwhile gutting the C. So consider:

Nash Sharp Perry
Kreider Miller Gaborik
Hagelin Yogan Pyatt
Saad Halpern Asham/Rupp

If Saad is for real, right now, assuming he can't flop to RW, he makes the squad, and Rupp is trade bait [though if Yogan falters, Rupp could be 3c stopgap]. That still leaves:
Olsen -- makes the squad as #5 (third pair left) D, with upside to advance if bigger name is traded;
McNeil and Kruger valued assets who are really close

----------
It's a gamble
It's a reduction, but could be acceptable for Ducks.

It's a lot for Chicago to pay, but they get their man now without waiting for him to become UFA and take risk don't get him; it is a big risk assuming he does sign.

It's a risk for Rangers, though they move a big contract (just in case in a few years oh, say, Malkin might want to stretch his legs and leave Pitt.). There is zero established depth at C, but there is quality long term at the position.

Thoughts.....
Let me get this straight.

Richards, Stepan and Boyle for Sharp, Perry, Olsen, Saad, McNeil and Kruger.

My head hurts. Not nearly as much as Chicago and Anaheim's collective butt after that trade.

TurdFerguson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-16-2012, 10:23 PM
  #36
ShadowDuck
Captain Anaheim
 
ShadowDuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Boston, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,898
vCash: 150
Give up Getzlaf and Perry for Richards and Stepan.... Ya I can see why that makes sense

ShadowDuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 12:54 AM
  #37
CPHawksFan
That's Hockey Baby!!
 
CPHawksFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Crown Point, IN
Country: United States
Posts: 2,615
vCash: 500
Sharp as your #1C? He doesn't even want to be the #2C in Chicago.

CPHawksFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 01:46 AM
  #38
mightyquack
Rekordtorschtze!
 
mightyquack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Perth, WA
Country: Germany
Posts: 17,335
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by couture23 View Post
Then why wasn't Anaheim's top priority at the draft to select a centre such as Grigorenko/Faksa/Girgensons, instead of going way off the board and taking Lindholm?
BPA, not position.

mightyquack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 01:55 AM
  #39
Exit Dose
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Cerritos, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 18,058
vCash: 500
None of the centers in that draft were expected to go straight to the pros. We did draft two guys that can play center this year, so it's not like it was ignored.

Exit Dose is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 03:25 AM
  #40
TheNeutrality
Living out a lie
 
TheNeutrality's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,957
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPHawksFan View Post
Sharp as your #1C? He doesn't even want to be the #2C in Chicago.
Still a better option than Saku Koivu as your #1C.

TheNeutrality is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 07:51 AM
  #41
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 8,094
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TurdFerguson View Post
Let me get this straight.

Richards, Stepan and Boyle for Sharp, Perry, Olsen, Saad, McNeil and Kruger.

My head hurts. Not nearly as much as Chicago and Anaheim's collective butt after that trade.
How badly do Hawks want Getzlaf, and upgrade at 3c w/Boyle? And do so without trading more than two pieces offer their suggested line breakdown? Besides Sharp, there is no established regular given up, with the other names mostly a cup of coffee to date, with different schedules of when they will 'arrive'.

IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF the Ducks want to pay top dollar for Getzlaf, then simple, don't do this or any other trade including Getz, and pay the guy! The OP assumes the Hawks can make a satisfactory offer. But Chicago, like Anaheim, extremely thin at C. Rangers could satisfy both, but make themselves thinner still at the pivot in the process. So these two trading partners have to overpay. The Hawks pay with players, the Ducks downgrade. [Consider Richards about 80ish% of Getzlaf, Stepan about a third of Perry.] But if Ducks are not likely to pay big bucks for both, they either let both walk and go for cap space, or trade out. Richards is close to Getzlaf, the difference between Stepan and Perry is their real cost for this deal).

bernmeister is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 07:56 AM
  #42
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 8,094
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowDuck View Post
Give up Getzlaf and Perry for Richards and Stepan.... Ya I can see why that makes sense
The OP assumes they will not resign for the same or less, which the club may not only desire but need require, depending upon new cap and other issues for your club. If Getzlaf wants top, top $$$$ no matter what, the closer you get to your trade deadline, the less you get for him, after which he walks for nothing. In the totality of those circumstances, Richards at an expensive but do-able number long term is not a bad fall back position.

Perry is another matter. But remember, Rangers are giving up their top three Cs to make this deal do-able, both trading partners have to pony up.

bernmeister is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 08:01 AM
  #43
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 8,094
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPHawksFan View Post
Sharp as your #1C? He doesn't even want to be the #2C in Chicago.
But he CAN play C if he has to. And with the Ws the Rangers have/would have he might be up for that. If that's not case, we ask him to be a good guy for a bit till we find a trading partner who can get us replacement C; then depending upon who is dealt for that pivot help, either Sharp shifted to W, or he is buh bye.

bernmeister is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 08:29 AM
  #44
Leaf Rocket
Leaf Fan Till I Die
 
Leaf Rocket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: India
Posts: 70,608
vCash: 500
Value maybe there however you'd prolly see Kruger and Pirri rather than Tervainen. If Murray really wanted him in this draft he would have selected him immediately.

Also it's very hard to part with a first line center as getzlaf, this isn't a rick nash scenario either where the team is in just a BRUTAL situation and the captain wants out. Getzlaf won a cup with this team/franchise so it's a lot harder to part with when you know the pieces for a good run is there but going through a change or transitional phase. No that doesn't mean he wouldn't love to go to chicago and chicago is a bad team, but he's the king of his own domain atm. He hasn't stated anywhere he is displeased and upset and from all the time it sounds like he just wants to resign. Don't think Murray would hang him out to dry unless there was a totally 180 change of direction of what they are doing with the franchise.

This is the humble opinion of this Leaf Mod.

__________________
Leaf Rocket is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 02:14 PM
  #45
Crazy8oooo
k ؃
 
Crazy8oooo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Orange County
Country: United States
Posts: 967
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bernmeister View Post
The OP assumes they will not resign for the same or less, which the club may not only desire but need require, depending upon new cap and other issues for your club. If Getzlaf wants top, top $$$$ no matter what, the closer you get to your trade deadline, the less you get for him, after which he walks for nothing. In the totality of those circumstances, Richards at an expensive but do-able number long term is not a bad fall back position.

Perry is another matter. But remember, Rangers are giving up their top three Cs to make this deal do-able, both trading partners have to pony up.
If your statement holds true and the Ducks 'not only desire, but need require' that Getz and Perry both resign for the same as their current rate or less than, then how on earth does trading away one of those players for a player whose current cap hit is $1.3m more than, make any sense? That logic is completely flawed. Aside from that, there has never been any indication from the Ducks that they can't or will not give raises to Getz and/or Perry. Just because they're not a team who spends to the cap doesn't mean they don't have money or are willing to pay their stars. The Ducks owner is one of the richest in hockey and hasn't, as of yet, ever been at the bottom of the salary charts as far as team salaries are concerned.

edit: and to add, IMO, I feel that if the Ducks lose either of the guys it's going to be more about the players' desire to jump ship rather than a money issue. I may be wrong, but I fully expect the Ducks to be very competitive in the contract offer (Except if it comes down to a career/retirement type contract, which I don't expect the Ducks to offer up).


Last edited by Crazy8oooo: 09-17-2012 at 02:21 PM.
Crazy8oooo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 03:05 PM
  #46
Crymson
Fire Holland
 
Crymson's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,213
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bernmeister View Post
Assuming everybody waives their NMCs:
To Ducks
Brad Richards + Stepan

To Hawks
Getzlaf, Boyle

To Rangers
Sharp, Perry, Olsen, Saad, McNeil, Kruger


Rationale:

Ducks get a great 1a C similar to Getzlaf minus some of the offensive upside, who is locked in for several years. Not cheap, but less than anticipated increase Getz will demand. No hard evidence, but Getzlaf seems more highly regarded than Perry; so while not completely indifferent to give him away for nothing, moving Perry and getting Stepan, a solid 2c with upside for their top line W.

Hawks get complete overhaul at C, adding Getzlaf and Boyle to Toewz and Bolland. Because Rangers are gutting their Cs to accommodate, and Hawks wind up with Getzlaf, Rangers are entitled to overpayment.

the revised projected 3 lines were:
-Toews-Kane
-Getzlaf-Hossa
Shaw-Bolland-Stalberg

with Boyle in the mix, so another W will be needed, but Chicago can handle that.

The Rangers appear screwed at C, but live with Sharp as their 1c, and gamble on speedy JT Miller to replace Stepan with speedy wingmates Hagelin and Callahan. Faceoff guy Halperin is the 4c, so assuming signee Michael Haley is not the one, that leaves limited choices. You have Yogan, who is pressing and may be ready end of this year or early next. You have Kruger who is close, but probably not ready this year; or, as a stopgap, you can entertain Kreider, who has been being groomed as a W, but played C before going pro, at C. McNeil is also very close, but I understand he is W, less a possibility at C, though I'm not sure. Rupp has also been serviceable 4th line C.

The ONLY reason Rangers should even think about this is that they get enough overcompensation in other areas to make worthwhile gutting the C. So consider:

Nash Sharp Perry
Kreider Miller Gaborik
Hagelin Yogan Pyatt
Saad Halpern Asham/Rupp

If Saad is for real, right now, assuming he can't flop to RW, he makes the squad, and Rupp is trade bait [though if Yogan falters, Rupp could be 3c stopgap]. That still leaves:
Olsen -- makes the squad as #5 (third pair left) D, with upside to advance if bigger name is traded;
McNeil and Kruger valued assets who are really close

----------
It's a gamble
It's a reduction, but could be acceptable for Ducks.

It's a lot for Chicago to pay, but they get their man now without waiting for him to become UFA and take risk don't get him; it is a big risk assuming he does sign.

It's a risk for Rangers, though they move a big contract (just in case in a few years oh, say, Malkin might want to stretch his legs and leave Pitt.). There is zero established depth at C, but there is quality long term at the position.

Thoughts.....
Let me guess: you're a Rangers fan.

Crymson is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 03:13 PM
  #47
Exit Dose
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Cerritos, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 18,058
vCash: 500
Wait, why can't we give either one a raise? If that were true we would have traded them before the draft.

Exit Dose is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 03:16 PM
  #48
Suddenly7
Registered User
 
Suddenly7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Anaheim
Posts: 493
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exit Dose View Post
Wait, why can't we give either one a raise? If that were true we would have traded them before the draft.
I think we are paying them around 5-6 million this year. I don't see how we can't pay them both another 3-4 million to stay.

Suddenly7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2012, 06:48 AM
  #49
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 8,094
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy8oooo View Post
If your statement holds true and the Ducks 'not only desire, but need require' that Getz and Perry both resign for the same as their current rate or less than, then how on earth does trading away one of those players for a player whose current cap hit is $1.3m more than, make any sense? That logic is completely flawed. Aside from that, there has never been any indication from the Ducks that they can't or will not give raises to Getz and/or Perry. Just because they're not a team who spends to the cap doesn't mean they don't have money or are willing to pay their stars. The Ducks owner is one of the richest in hockey and hasn't, as of yet, ever been at the bottom of the salary charts as far as team salaries are concerned.

edit: and to add, IMO, I feel that if the Ducks lose either of the guys it's going to be more about the players' desire to jump ship rather than a money issue. I may be wrong, but I fully expect the Ducks to be very competitive in the contract offer (Except if it comes down to a career/retirement type contract, which I don't expect the Ducks to offer up).
The Ducks find a way, take from elsewhere, re-sign Getzlaf assuming he wants to stay. Perry, the same, unless they feel the value of the offer, including possible cap it, makes it more attractive to move Perry.

Now that's out of the way, the point was Richards is most of Getzlaf at a number you can live with. Logic says Getzlaf wants the most he can command, and assuming no preferential discount, he will seek more, not less, $$. So the new Getzlaf contract is likely to cost Anaheim more; it may be indeed more than the cap hit for Richards.

I apologize if I did not articulate that more clearly.

bernmeister is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2012, 07:00 AM
  #50
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 8,094
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crymson View Post
Let me guess: you're a Rangers fan.
Yes.
Unless it is for a complementary exchange of proximately equal talents, i.e., a similar left D for right D, everyone is looking for a deal that has some profit. Coke for pepsi usually does not = real development/gain.

In this particular deal, the intent is not to swindle.
The intent is to say, two teams that are so thin at C, they can not do a deal unless they get help from one or more trading partners, they have to pay a premium somehow for that participation when that participator has coughed up its first three Cs.

There are limits on how far Rangers or other such team could afford to go there, especially dependent upon the depth and timetable for replacements.

Rangers accept the risk of Sharp as a stopgap 1c, Miller and his speed as a 2c, and maybe, but not a good percentage bet, Yogan at 3c, though there may be other temporary fallback positions.

For such substantial, multiple depletion all in one position, and the risk of proceeding to work around that, NY is entitled to enough reward, enough profit upfront to make that worth Rangers' while.

bernmeister is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 04:31 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.