HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
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.

Toronto-Philadephia

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-14-2009, 03:36 PM
  #76
phlocky
Registered User
 
phlocky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,361
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by embracedbias View Post
Can you please supply a link for this. I recall that some have said that this may be the deepest draft since 2003, but I haven't read anything that quoted a scout saying that this draft will be "similar" to 2003.

I don't want to burst your bubble, but it isn't 2003. I'm interested to see some links that demonstrate your position that all of the experts predict that players projected in the mid-to-late 1st round in this years draft are guaranteed to become as good as Richards and Getzlaf.



You are sure that there are scouts that have people rated in the same position as Richards was in 2003. I want you to re-read this and think about it.

If a scout has a player ranked in the same position as Richards was in 2003 (lets say, 25th overall) does that mean that a player that is ranked 25th overall in this years draft will become as good as Richards? You are taking a general statement about the relative strength of this years draft as compared to 2003 and applying it to individual prospects. Do you honestly believe that NHL scouts think that players that are as good as Richards and Getzlaf are all but guaranteed picks? My God man.

Perhaps you should look at the individual scouting reports for the prospects that are expected to be chosen ~20. You'll find that these projections, written by PROFESSIONAL SCOUTs (ZOMG - ROFLMFAO!!) remember, aren't nearly as amazing as you might think. Will some players improve pass their projections? Absolutely. Will some players bust? Absolutely. Its a ****ing draft.



No, because you didn't have a reasonable argument. Yours is just a whole lot of ranting and raving about 2003.
So if it's not that great of a draft then why not trade your picks this year for picks next year??? Because not even you honestly believe that this years draft will fit into the pigonhole catagories you so proudly point toward in the article you linked.

And sorry, I don't save links to past article talking about the depth of this draft or the 03 draft. I know what I've read and it's similar to what they said about the 03 draft. I fully believe that the 03 draft turned out even better than they anticipated but that doesn't mean that the same thing is can't happen or is even unlikely to happen with this years draft. For you to dismiss that fact that your chances of drafting a top end player in the #20 slot of this years draft as unlikely simply because the "average" draft doesn't produce on such a rate is absurd. To dismiss this years draft class and having no better chance than any other simply because it may or may not be as good as the 03 draft when pretty much EVERYONE is calling this draft, in your own words, "the best since the 03 draft" (and I have read it a number of times wher they say this draft will rival the 03 draft) is absurd.

YOU are the one who brought an article into this discussion that discusses "averages" and examined all picks over a 10 year period where there were quitea few very weak draft classes included in the sample period. Did you actualy look at the draft classes from his sample period??? I wuldn't exactly call the 95 class even average, and certainly not good. 96 was actually pretty bad. Other than the guys at the top the 97 1st rnd was pretty weak. The 98 draft was pretty decent, average to slightly above average. 99, meh, average at best. 00, average. 01, a lot of quality depth players but shirt on elite players. 02, average to slightly above average. 03,elite. 04, still a little early to tell. Overall you have more weaker drafts included in this sample then you d quality draft clasees exapmined. If you only examine draft classes that at the time were expected to be similar to this draft class then your numbers would be far far better. If you can't understand this then I certainly don't have the time nor desire to teach you a course on statistics on here.


Last edited by phlocky: 05-14-2009 at 03:58 PM.
phlocky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2009, 03:51 PM
  #77
embracedbias
Registered User
 
embracedbias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Waterloo
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,925
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by phlocky View Post
So if it's not that great of a draft then why not trade your picks this year for picks next year??? Because not even you honestly believe that this years draft will fit into the pigonhole catagories you so proudly point toward in the article you linked.


When did I say that it won't be a good draft? I don't expect players as good as Richards to be drafted ~20. However, there will be some players that turn out to be very good (there is every year). The draft is all about opportunity. However, one would be foolish to expect high caliber players. This is the case every year.

There is talk that this is a strong draft year so the more picks this year the better. However, I should reiterate, this does not mean that almost every pick in the first round is a guaranteed success. In 5 years if we look at this draft in comparison to the overall pattern of past drafts (as determined by the article that I linked) I suspect that it will be looked back on as a solid draft (as it is projected to be). Thus, I am not questioning the scouts. I am questioning your certainty, for anything with respect to prospects (as history has shown) is anything but certain.

embracedbias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2009, 04:10 PM
  #78
phlocky
Registered User
 
phlocky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,361
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by embracedbias View Post


When did I say that it won't be a good draft? I don't expect players as good as Richards to be drafted ~20. However, there will be some players that turn out to be very good (there is every year). The draft is all about opportunity. However, one would be foolish to expect high caliber players. This is the case every year.

There is talk that this is a strong draft year so the more picks this year the better. However, I should reiterate, this does not mean that almost every pick in the first round is a guaranteed success. In 5 years if we look at this draft in comparison to the overall pattern of past drafts (as determined by the article that I linked) I suspect that it will be looked back on as a solid draft (as it is projected to be). Thus, I am not questioning the scouts. I am questioning your certainty, for anything with respect to prospects (as history has shown) is anything but certain.
When did I ever say that with the #20 pick that you'd DEFINETELY get a Mike Richards. I said that you CAN draft one like him, or Getzlaf, or Perry or Kessler. Maybe you don't but I don't know any GM that makes a pick believing his guy is going to be the one that busts. Burke has been very very good in the draft. Can he pick a guy who busts??? Certainly. however I'd feel much more comfortable having him, the Flyers staff or the Wings staff drafting for my team than anyone else in the league. Most teams are pretty bad but Burke isn't like them. honestly, if I were a Leafs fan this is the thing that I'd be most excited about. Burke rarely mis-reads a player whether it's someone he's drafting or someone he's trading to get or give away.

If Burke believes that all the guys left at about #20 are fairly crappy then he won't make the trade. If he feels there is a player who is potentially great then he might be willing to make the deal and take less for Kaberle or Kubina.

Plain and simply, we can argue back and forth all we want on here and it really doesn't matter. Burke is one of the most knowledgable people in hockey and he's going to make the right decission 95% of the time. I'd certainly place blind faith in him if he were here in Philly, I think his past track record warrents such. Holmgren has done very well in a short period of time but now there are cap concerns in Philly. It's not dire straights here yet, but Holmgrens done a good enough job so far to give him the benefit of the dobt. However, his body of work isn't large enough yet to warrent blind faith. Burke HAS earned it.


Now, as for what I put in RED, most team may not be able to find that gem in the late 1st but I'd put faith in the Redwings, Flyers, and specifically Brian Burke in finding them. THAT'S the point I was making. Maybe it doesn't make much sense for other teams because their risk vs reward is no better than 50/50 but I'd certainly view certain teams as being much higher than 50/50.

Also, I forgot to mention that the Devils diserve respect on this subject. they seem ot draft very well too with typically drafting late in the draft.

phlocky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2009, 04:15 PM
  #79
grabo84
Registered User
 
grabo84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Atlantic Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,607
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by phlocky View Post
If you only examine draft classes that at the time were expected to be similar to this draft class then your numbers would be far far better. If you can't understand this then I certainly don't have the time nor desire to teach you a course on statistics on here.
Nor the ability evidently.

Seriously though, you're getting worked up over nothing. There's no reason to think this draft is going to be "the best since 2003". Even if an article said that, they also said that about last years draft. It's only natural to hype up a draft year. To take that general statement and apply it literally is very, very shaky logic - and even if we accept your argument, you still have a better than even chance of drafting players like Pouliot, Bernier, and Nilsson. Conveniently, you forgot to mention these names.

grabo84 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2009, 04:18 PM
  #80
twenty2
 
twenty2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 966
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by phlocky View Post
Plain and simply, we can argue back and forth all we want on here and it really doesn't matter. Burke is one of the most knowledgable people in hockey and he's going to make the right decission 95% of the time. I'd certainly place blind faith in him if he were here in Philly, I think his past track record warrents such. Holmgren has done very well in a short period of time but now there are cap concerns in Philly. It's not dire straights here yet, but Holmgrens done a good enough job so far to give him the benefit of the dobt. However, his body of work isn't large enough yet to warrent blind faith. Burke HAS earned it.
I have a pretty solid faith in Holmgren. His only glaring mistake was the Jones debacle which led to other things of course, and I'm not so sure we can rightfully blame him without taking a look at how big a role Stevens played in that decision.

I have no problem with the contracts Holmgren has handed out, and while a lot of the Flyers' board complains about certain contracts they're really not all that bad. It's all overreacting. It could be far, far worse. We're not even really in serious cap trouble, and though people speculate about the future re-signings the future hasn't even arrived yet.

Holmgren is on pair with some of the best GMs in the NHL based on his first few years. If he continues he could certainly be up there. Ken Holland of course has proven his worth, and Brian Burke is certainly up there.

twenty2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2009, 04:20 PM
  #81
phlocky
Registered User
 
phlocky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,361
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by grabo84 View Post
Nor the ability evidently.

Seriously though, you're getting worked up over nothing. There's no reason to think this draft is going to be "the best since 2003". Even if an article said that, they also said that about last years draft. It's only natural to hype up a draft year. To take that general statement and apply it literally is very, very shaky logic - and even if we accept your argument, you still have a better than even chance of drafting players like Pouliot, Bernier, and Nilsson. Conveniently, you forgot to mention these names.

How often does Burke blow a draft pick??? How often do the Flyers, Wings and Devils blow draft picks??? To say that all teams are equal in their scouting and ability to project player careers is pretty naive. If you are sayig that Burke is as bad at drafting as say the Rangers then I'm gonna have a great nigt, I'll be laughing all night long.

phlocky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2009, 04:24 PM
  #82
My Sweet Shadow
Registered User
 
My Sweet Shadow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sioux Lookout, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,666
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am The Mush View Post
Deep Orange: Take out Carle and add a Toronto 2nd or 3rd?
I'd be fine with that... Kubina and a 2nd/3rd for Lupul and a 1st.

My Sweet Shadow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2009, 04:28 PM
  #83
embracedbias
Registered User
 
embracedbias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Waterloo
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,925
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by phlocky View Post
When did I ever say that with the #20 pick that you'd DEFINETELY get a Mike Richards. I said that you CAN draft one like him, or Getzlaf, or Perry or Kessler. Maybe you don't but I don't know any GM that makes a pick believing his guy is going to be the one that busts. Burke has been very very good in the draft. Can he pick a guy who busts??? Certainly. however I'd feel much more comfortable having him, the Flyers staff or the Wings staff drafting for my team than anyone else in the league. Most teams are pretty bad but Burke isn't like them. honestly, if I were a Leafs fan this is the thing that I'd be most excited about. Burke rarely mis-reads a player whether it's someone he's drafting or someone he's trading to get or give away.
Well you didn't say "definitely" or "can". You said "should".

Quote:
Originally Posted by phlocky View Post
Our first is going to be either 21st, 20th or 19th, we'll find out tonight. That should get you a player like Mike Richards. Kubina has never and will never be worth anywhere close to a Mike Richards type player (even as just a prospect) even in your wildest dreams. If you think that Kubina is worth our 1st straight up then Briere is worth YOUR first this year.
"That should get you a player like Mike Richards" is a lot different than "that CAN get you a player like Mike Richards". The former is ridiculous and the latter is reasonable. I'm glad that you've come around on the subject.

Also, just because you CAN draft a player of that caliber doesn't mean that you should bank on it (and therefore place too much stake in it when discussing the value of a 1st round pick - which was the original subject). Teams CAN draft a player of Datsyuk's value in the late rounds. It doesn't happen often though, so those picks don't hold much value.

In the end, the chances of drafting a player of Kubina's caliber with the 20th overall pick in this draft is higher then in normal years (hence the lack of 1st round picks changing hands at the deadline - salary cap considerations also played a factor) so the question of whether he is worth a first is up to contention. However, the answer isn't nearly as clear as you'd have people believe. There are never any guarantees in the draft, and GM's take that into consideration.

embracedbias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2009, 04:30 PM
  #84
RJ8812*
Hellooooo ladiiiies
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sudbury
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,092
vCash: 500
Flyers say no

RJ8812* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2009, 05:12 PM
  #85
LEIFey
Context Matters!
 
LEIFey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 7,414
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to LEIFey
Quote:
Originally Posted by embracedbias View Post
to remain at that efficiency Lupul will have to score at a 1.0115 PPG pace
which i doubt he does. he's going to have a dip in that efficiency rating; i was just trying to demonstrate that he's not as awful as people keep painting him.

LEIFey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2009, 06:01 PM
  #86
captainpaxil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 2,179
vCash: 500
some drafts are top heavy some are bottom heavy this one is both. theres pretty much 3 studs in hedman tavarres and duchene then thers your pick of the litter guys who could be argued about for days and thats picks 4 to 16 but who fits where is really depending on what your teams need. the 2nd best guy at whatever your team needs is probably going to be available 17 - 45. the flyers are in a postion where they are at to draft the best player in the draft at thier biggest position of need goaltender. thats a high value pick for us. toronto probably could have made something happen if they still had the pick they traded to the islanders but they dont.

the deal that would have worked

kubina 37

for

jones 22

thats assuming

jones = 2nd
kubina = 1st
people will argue it from both sides lets just assume theyre right.

value at 22 > 37 + 2.25 million = kubina > jones


the flyers would downgrade draft position and take on salary in order to improve thier defense. while not removingh ourselves from addressing our greater position of need.

if the second part could be done (32 - 40 for jones) wed again be in a position to deal the first for kubina but salarywise and draftwise it just doesnt work.

captainpaxil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2009, 07:00 PM
  #87
wayne98
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 589
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LEIFey View Post
i'm thinking no. hartnell has a NTC and is in love with the team/city. he'd nix any deal. how about briere?
i wouldnt want brier, his price tag is rediculous. for someone who is injury prone.

wayne98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2009, 07:37 PM
  #88
Hockeypete49
How you like me now!
 
Hockeypete49's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: South Jersey
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 4,860
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=Amateur Hour;19560791]This really isn't far off. Pretty decent proposal overall, especially given the crap that normally gets thrown around here. And this is coming from a Flyers fan.[/QUOTE
No chance the flyers would do this deal. Way over payment for him. Lupul and Carle for Kubina and Toronto's 2nd seems about right.

Hockeypete49 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2009, 07:49 PM
  #89
lancer247
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,221
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redlighting View Post
I posted this in the other TOR-PHI proposal and wanted to see what kind of reaction it'd get.

To Toronto: Joffrey Lupul, Matt Carle, Philadelphia's 1st rounder
To Philadelphia: Pavel Kubina

The reasoning is that Philadelphia probably needs a big physical top pairing defenseman (Kubina) more than than they need a puck moving defenseman (Kaberle) right now, especially considering they already have Timonen who plays a similar role.

Lupul and Carle are both salary dumps for the Flyers, and the 1st is added as a sweetener (realistically, Kubina is probably worth a 2nd, but because Toronto swallows the bad contracts, it's upped to a late 1st).

Both players are young and get a chance to prove themselves on a rebuilding Leafs team. Carle replaces Kubina on the blueline and Lupul gets an opportunity to replace a departing player (ex. Ponikarovsky, Stempniak, etc) who might be traded at the draft or in the summer.

Burke is also already familiar with Lupul from his days in Anahiem, and aside from Dustin Penner, he usually likes bringing in players he's familiar with.
just to get back to the original post...

THIS IS A BRUTAL PROPOSAL FROM THE FLYERS PERSPECTIVE!

ENOUGH ALREADY WITH LUPUL BEING A SALARY DUMP...he is a 25 y/o forward that scores 25+ goals w/o a playmaking center (i love carter but if you are on his line you better be able to create a lot of your own chances)

i posted a thread on TOR boards

PHI- lupul & carle
TOR - kubina & stajan

i think that is still a bad trade for the flyers but they are dealing from a position that they have a lot of depth at (forward -gagne, hartnell, giroux, lupul, briere, JVR)

lancer247 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2009, 07:53 PM
  #90
mercury
Registered User
 
mercury's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: South Philly/SoCal
Country: United States
Posts: 11,114
vCash: 500
I don't want to deal Carle, period. What we need to do is get rid of Jones and replace him with someone physical and defensive-minded.

Timonen
Parent
Carle
Coburn
Sbisa
UFA
Alberts/UFA/Phantom

is pretty good, IMHO.

mercury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2009, 08:09 PM
  #91
DougGilmour93
Registered User
 
DougGilmour93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,342
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebel Banker View Post
just to get back to the original post...

THIS IS A BRUTAL PROPOSAL FROM THE FLYERS PERSPECTIVE!

ENOUGH ALREADY WITH LUPUL BEING A SALARY DUMP...he is a 25 y/o forward that scores 25+ goals w/o a playmaking center (i love carter but if you are on his line you better be able to create a lot of your own chances)

i posted a thread on TOR boards

PHI- lupul & carle
TOR - kubina & stajan

i think that is still a bad trade for the flyers but they are dealing from a position that they have a lot of depth at (forward -gagne, hartnell, giroux, lupul, briere, JVR)
Terrible proposal

Lupul is too inconsistent. Terrible skater. Than add the fact that he has a ******** contract kicking in next yr for another 4 years...ya, he's definetely negative asset. C'mon, who are you trying to kid? Yourselves? Cause your not fooling us.

What about this...


Kubina, 2nd in 09

for

1st in 09, Parent

DougGilmour93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2009, 08:15 PM
  #92
mercury
Registered User
 
mercury's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: South Philly/SoCal
Country: United States
Posts: 11,114
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DougGilmour93 View Post
Terrible proposal

Lupul is too inconsistent. Terrible skater. Than add the fact that he has a ******** contract kicking in next yr for another 4 years...ya, he's definetely negative asset. C'mon, who are you trying to kid? Yourselves? Cause your not fooling us.

What about this...


Kubina, 2nd in 09

for

1st in 09, Parent


Lupul is not a negative asset (which would be a liability, BTW). In fact, Wild fans seem to be ready to accept Lupul and San Jose's 3rd rounder for Harding before the draft. So, you're wrong.

Secondly, in what planet do you think you'll get Parent and a 1st for Pavel Kubina? Jesus, at least do some research and see that we cannot take on that kind of salary. You should stop posting in this thread, because you have no handle on the situation at all.

mercury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2009, 08:37 PM
  #93
DougGilmour93
Registered User
 
DougGilmour93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,342
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mercury View Post
Lupul is not a negative asset (which would be a liability, BTW). In fact, Wild fans seem to be ready to accept Lupul and San Jose's 3rd rounder for Harding before the draft. So, you're wrong.

Secondly, in what planet do you think you'll get Parent and a 1st for Pavel Kubina? Jesus, at least do some research and see that we cannot take on that kind of salary. You should stop posting in this thread, because you have no handle on the situation at all.
Lupul = negative (as in bad)

In order for us to take him on...you have to make it worth our while. Does that explain it better. Maybe I wasn't clear before.

DougGilmour93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2009, 08:47 PM
  #94
embracedbias
Registered User
 
embracedbias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Waterloo
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,925
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebel Banker View Post
PHI- lupul & carle
TOR - kubina & stajan
Lupul (25) - 79 GP, 25 G, 25 A, 50 Pts (4.25 Million - 4 yl)
Stajan (25) - 76 GP, 15 G, 40 A, 55 Pts (1.75 Million - 1 yl)

Carle (25) - 64 GP, 4 G, 20 A, 24 Pts (3.5 Million - 3 yl)
Kubina (32) - 82 GP, 14 G, 16 A, 40 Pts (5 Million - 1 yl)

why would Toronto do that again?


Last edited by embracedbias: 05-15-2009 at 12:00 AM.
embracedbias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2009, 08:49 PM
  #95
LEIFey
Context Matters!
 
LEIFey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 7,414
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to LEIFey
Quote:
Originally Posted by DougGilmour93 View Post
Lupul = negative (as in bad)

In order for us to take him on...you have to make it worth our while. Does that explain it better. Maybe I wasn't clear before.
if the flyers want to deal lupul, there will be takers. maybe toronto won't be one of them, but i'm sure burke has at least considered it.

LEIFey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2009, 08:58 PM
  #96
drofnats
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 310
vCash: 500
I don't want any part of Lupol's contract. He may have been be a 50 pt player last year, but keep in mind that he was also playing along side Carter and Hartnell... I don't think he'd be able to put up nearly as many if he were playing with Stajan and Stempiak, which means his 4.25M contract becomes even worse.

I'd much rather take Jones as a salary dump, because at least we'd only be stuck with him for 1 year.

Kubina for 1st + Jones.

drofnats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2009, 09:10 PM
  #97
FlyLife
Nuthin but a G Thang
 
FlyLife's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Livin the High Life
Country: United States
Posts: 2,381
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by drofnats View Post
I don't want any part of Lupol's contract. He may have been be a 50 pt player last year, but keep in mind that he was also playing along side Carter and Hartnell... I don't think he'd be able to put up nearly as many if he were playing with Stajan and Stempiak, which means his 4.25M contract becomes even worse.

I'd much rather take Jones as a salary dump, because at least we'd only be stuck with him for 1 year.

Kubina for 1st + Jones.
Carter is the furthest from a playmaking center as you can get, he has to have the puck on his stick as much as possible. Lupul plays much better when he is with a playmaker, since his best attribute is a sniper. When Lupul played alongside Richards a year ago, Lupul was a 0.82 PPG player. When he played along Carter, he was a 0.63 PPG player.

FlyLife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2009, 09:11 PM
  #98
AK
Registered User
 
AK's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 15,538
vCash: 500
Maybe a bit much, maybe not enough.

Lupul and Carle could both be viewed as having negative value, or they could be viewed as valuable assets.

If it's worth questioning, it's probably pretty close.

AK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2009, 09:40 PM
  #99
Tripod
Registered User
 
Tripod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,497
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff VanRichards View Post
Thats not the point I'm trying to make, I'm talking about the way the OP came up with the trade. He said that the 2nd would have to get bumped up to a 1st because Lupul and Carle have negative value, which is ********.

Besides, if Kubina does have 1st round value like you say (just like Antropov was), then why the hell are we adding on Lupul and Carle on top of the 1st round pick???
And if he has that value...why is he still a Leaf? If everone is offering their 1st for him...Burke would have went to Kubina and got the NTC waived.

Tripod is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2009, 09:43 PM
  #100
KingJet*
Welcome Back
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,651
vCash: 500
I'd take that if I were Brian Burke

KingJet* is offline   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 07:13 PM.

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.