HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Value of Oilers' at the trade deadline?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-06-2011, 10:45 AM
  #101
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halibut View Post
Quite possible, they may end up with less points but that will be because of injuries. If there were no injuries to either team I like what we have this year a lot more than what we had last year. It's better built for long term success, I feel the players they have up front are better as a unit and there are fewer problems on the blueline even if there arent as many strengths. In net Dubnyk looks better than Deslaurier did last year and if Khabibulin goes down Gerber was an adequate fill in.
Of course long term isn't being discussed, despite your repeated attempts to bring it up, but at any rate I sure love your optimism...you're nothing if not entertaining.

Thanks for that.

copperandblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2011, 10:56 AM
  #102
Halibut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,034
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by copperandblue View Post
Of course long term isn't being discussed, despite your repeated attempts to bring it up, but at any rate I sure love your optimism...you're nothing if not entertaining.

Thanks for that.
How can you not talk about long term? Neither team had much of a chance at the playoffs, both are bad teams if you try and say one was worse than the other you are splitting hairs. If you are not looking to the future you are wasting your time. That is the only place where either team stood a chance, somewhere down the road.

Halibut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2011, 10:58 AM
  #103
tv14
Registered User
 
tv14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,011
vCash: 50
Oilers are in a tough position. We dont really have anything to sell this year (another than our best players; Hemsky and Penner) so I dont think we will see any major moves. And Im fine with that. Just stand pat and just look forward to the draft.

tv14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2011, 11:18 AM
  #104
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halibut View Post
How can you not talk about long term?
For starters it's because the discussion was if THIS team was better than last year's. It is what it is.

Second, despite the optimism and general good feeling about tomorrow, you really can't proclaim tomorrow's team to be better, worse or the same because we just don't know what will shake out. It's all a leap of faith at this point.

You don't know if injuries are going to play a part of some of these youngsters development or not. When Eberle went down the other day I bet most people had that fleeting moment where they thought all that long suffering for a good prospect can be gone in a second.

You don't know if all that promise we are seeing is going to be realized or not. A good lesson in getting ahead of ourselves should have been learned by watching the different paths of Gagner, Cogliano and Nilsson ended up taking.

We don't know if tanking this year and getting a high pick is going to bare fruit either. The draft doesn't look as strong as last year and given Jersey's horrible run, the Islanders inability todo anything and a little bd luck at the draft lottery and Edmonton could be in a position where they are drafting 4th or 5th despite being worse than last years team.

And most importantly, as I was saying the distractions of the flashy rookies are good but this is just a poorly constructed team. I count 11 or 12 guys that can be planned on to build around which means this team getting better falls squarely on the shoulders of a a GM that has proven anything but an ability to actually build/manage a team successfully.

So I guess what I am saying is that if you take a deep breath and lookatthebig picture it isn't that hard to not count the so called chicken before the hatch and just talk about this team...the 10/11 version of the Oilers.

And none of that is trying to be the pessimist because I am as excited as the next guy, but we really don't know if the organization is going to get it right or not.

copperandblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2011, 11:20 AM
  #105
misfit
Moderator
 
misfit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: just north of...everything
Posts: 15,575
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halibut View Post
Points, goals for and goals against have all improved with a rookie laden lineup as well as position in the standings. We are a better team moving forward, this year not significantly but still better.
Better results while giving up more shots and putting fewer pucks on the other team's net. So it's a matter of percentages which begs the question; Is the team really any better, or are they just getting better bounces than a year ago? Because the answer surely isn't that they're not getting outplayed as badly.

I'm as optomistic about this team as the next guy about the future, but to come out and say that the Oilers are a better team today than they were a year ago doesn't really fly from where I'm sitting.

misfit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2011, 11:56 AM
  #106
oilexport
Registered User
 
oilexport's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 870
vCash: 500
We are in great shape this year compared to last. It's still very exciting to watch our young stars. Thier is more comming, hope we get a high pick again this year. Lets build right, no shortcuts with trying to re-build to quick like Toronto.

Trading away bit players at the deadline that provide depth to other teams for thier playoff runs could net some lower draft picks.

oilexport is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2011, 12:14 PM
  #107
Halibut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,034
vCash: 500
Last year they lost 39 games by two goals or more (by my count may not be exact). So far this year they've lost 13 at almost the half way point that's a significant reduction. The team is more competitive on most nights. When they lose they are usually in the games at least, staying close enough that they could come back. It may just be goaltending it may just be lucky bounces but I'd much rather watch this team as is than the team that was on the ice last year and it isnt just about hope for the future.

I'm not a super optimist. In the off season while many were clamoring for a Colorado type turn around I said they were much more likely to end in the bottom 3 than they were to get a playoff spot. But I'd take watching this team anyday over last years.

As for shooting percentages I'd be willing to be that Hall will have a better career shooting percentage than Patrick O'Sullivan, Eberle will have a better one than Ethan Moreau, and Omark will have a better one than Marc Pouliot. So I dont think the fact this team is scoring more despite getting fewer shots is an aberration. The good news is that when they start to get more shots they'll end up putting more in the net.


Last edited by Halibut: 01-06-2011 at 12:38 PM.
Halibut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2011, 12:33 PM
  #108
Joe Hallenback
Registered User
 
Joe Hallenback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 7,336
vCash: 500
Cogs for a 2nd
Jimmy V for a 4th
JFJ for a 5th
Hemsky to East conf team for 1st,prospect/money dump

Joe Hallenback is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2011, 12:37 PM
  #109
Booya42
ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) What the...
 
Booya42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,616
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halibut View Post
Last year they lost 39 games by two goals or more (by my count may not be exact). So far this year they've lost 13 at almost the half way point that's a significant reduction. The team is more competitive on most nights. When they lose they are usually in the games at least, staying close enough that they could come back. It may just be goaltending it may just be lucky bounces but I'd much rather watch this team as is than the team that was on the ice last year and it isnt just about hope for the future.

I'm not a super optimist. In the off season while many were clamoring for a Colorado type turn around I said they were much more likely to end in the bottom 3 than they were to get a playoff spot. But I'd take watching this team anyday over last years.
It also helps not to have Moreau around to get a penalty in the last 5 minutes (in the offensive zone) to kill any comeback attempts.


Last edited by Booya42: 01-06-2011 at 12:39 PM. Reason: because i forgot the true ineptness of his ability
Booya42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2011, 02:23 PM
  #110
Fourier
Registered User
 
Fourier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Waterloo Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,701
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by copperandblue View Post
Spin has everything to do with it. My point, maybe more clarity was needed, was that Penner's lackadaisical approach to the game makes him a suspect leader on a team stacked with futures that needs to learn how to play the right way. Given that he has already been put in a position of leader he can hardly be relegated to follower at this point and as such should be a contender to get shipped out.

From there the conversation went to Penner VS past players, Penner VS past leaders, Penner as a key cog on a bad team to Penner being handicapped by his size (which was supposed to be an asset) to it being OK to take nights off, having the bar set to high for a 30th or 28th team in the league, to inexplicably suggesting that the way last nights game played out was an indictement on the Wings and not the Oilers for showing up forty minutes late. None of which really addresses the issue of Penner not being a consistant performer and as such isn't the best leader.

I don't know what to tell you, it all reads as spin and excuse making.
I wasn't going to respond to this. But since you dismissed what I thought was a reasonable debate as spin and excuse making perhaps I will.

Letís see where this started:

You made two specific claims in your op that I disagreed with. The first:


Quote:
Not to go off topic but but does anyone else wonder about the connection between the so called leadership on this team getting reduced to Penner and Hemsky because of injuries and the teams more glaring inability to show up for the start of games?
This is a clear assertion that the recent difficulties the Oilers have had in starting games can be attributed to injuries to their actual leaders, and the ascension of Hemsky and Penner to that role. It would seem to me that if it can be established that the same issue was present under the previous leadership, or that that the team played poorly on whole despite Hemsky and Penner playing very well then that is a clear contradiction to the causal effect you have asserted. (No spin).

And later you added:

Quote:
He is very similar to the guy he was when he got here and will be veruy similar next year. What has changed is the team aroudn hima nd the circumstances that he is playing under.

He looked horrible on a team of hard working players, he has looked like dynamite as one of the real NHLers on a banged up AHL squad last year and he looks comfortable amongst a line up of raw rookies even though he hasn't exactly seperated himself from the pack.
While this was again a set of direct assertions that triggered comparisons with past players and past leaders (hence not my spin) you were not able to provide any evidence that this statement had a basis in fact. In fact, since there was virtually no significant turnover between the time Penner was horrible and the time he was the leader of a team in the tank there seems to be a clear logical inconsistency in one of your core premises.

Instead your response was:

Quote:
But here is the thing, pointing at other players who haven't exactly lit the hockey worl on fire is their issue not Penner's. Each player stands alone in how he approaches the game.
The curious part is that the last sentence seems to suggest that individuals are responsible for their own motivation. This not only contradicts you original premise but also supports my assertion that many of the players on this team need to take a good look in the mirror and evaluate their own efforts.

Of course this is tied in with the second comment in your initial post which was:


Quote:
In Penner you have a guy that a cardiologist would find difficult to detect a heartbeat from. The guy shows up one period out of three, just like the Oilers have been doing.
While the first part is subjective, and I gave my reasons why I felt he did show leadership, I claim the part where you state he plays 1 period in 3 is clear hyperbole especially if this is intended to suggest that the measure of true effort is full-out for 60 minutes per game.

The issue here is two fold. If Penner's effort is realy only 1/3 of what it should be compared with his peers, and if the standard is 60 minutes full-out, then an immediate corollay is that if he did play up to his potential we would be looking at a guy whose numbers are astronomical. 25 goals and even 50 points for 1/3 the effort should convert to at least 50 goals and 100 points if the guy cared.

Now of course the other possibility is that you are under recognizing his effort relative to his peers, or that going all out 60 minutes per game is not a realistic measure of a leader. The first being subjective, we can debate. But if your statement was intended to assert the necessity of 60 minutes of effort game in and game out to be a leader, then I brought up Messier as a counter example to show that the statement itself is false. This is not spin or a comparison of Penner and Messier, but rather Logic 101.

In fact While I specifically said that it was not my intention to compare Penner and Messier, it was you who tried to make the point that one earned the right to coast, the other did not. Again, this had nothing to do with the reason for Messier being brought into the conversation. (See above).

Ironically you also said:

Quote:
One thing that needs repeating throughout your argument is - 'on one of the worst teams in the league for consecutive seasons.'

It's not enough, he's not doing enough and as the team gets better he will start to look worse and worse.
Dismissing any potential evidence of Penner's leadership by deflecting the spotlight to the quality of the team, it would seem to me is the very definition of spin.

As to the rest, I have no problem with you believing that what Penner does is not enough. We disagree but in each case it is opinion.

However, the latter part of the statement that as the team gets better he will look worse is what I did actually challenge. And it is here where I again asked for specific evidence. You gave none.


And finally in what I can only assume was suppose to be evidence to support your claim that top teams play 60 minutes a game, game in and game out even when they do not need to you pointed to the Red Wings game against the Oilers.

Now while I completely agree that the Wings are a team to emulate as far as dedication is concerned there is no team or player that brings it shift after shift 82 games a year. So to show that your example of the Wings/Oiler game did not support your premise I pointed out that the fact that a team with far less experience and far less talent dominated the Wings for nearly a full period again contradicts your basic thesis. In particular, if a team being outplayed for long stretches in games is only attributable to lack of professionalism and lack of leadership, (rather than such things as lack of talent for example), then the fact that the Oilers were able to dominate the wings for such a period would imply as a corollary that the Wings suffer from the same lack of leadership and professionalism. Since both of us agree this is not the case, basic logic again shows your original assertion to be false. Again no spin.

Where I was probably guilty of spin was in my reference to Penner carying 245LBs as justification for him coasting at times. I'll give you this.

And to your specific question:

Quote:
Honest question though, how do you rate Penner's game from last night? Just Penner's though. For me that was quite representative of what kind of player he is and I am curious if that was acceptable in your eyes.
I did not think he had a very good game. He played well in the third, but di not for much of the first two periods? Was it bad enough to be considered unacceptable. No. Would I be concerned if this happened 82 games a year? Yes. But as I said I think you hold him to unreasonable standards and of course you disagree.

As to the last part, I would ask who is guilty of spin:

It began with a response to a very specific statement:

Quote:
For this little nugget I do wonder how they are better, if anything they look like they have further to go now in becoming a decent team than they did at almost any point last season. I'll concede that the dressing room seems better but on the ice this is a bad team. Easily as bad if not worse than last years.

This began as an assertion about their distance from being a decent team. That is what I responded to. You have now somehow turned this into a quest for statistical evidence to show that they are out performing last years team.

It seems to me that the goal posts have been moved.

Fourier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2011, 03:28 PM
  #111
copperandblue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 10,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourier View Post
I wasn't going to respond to this. But since you dismissed what I thought was a reasonable debate as spin and excuse making perhaps I will.
I made an effort to explain my 'spin' reference. I thought it was pretty clear, if it wasn't then that's unfortunate but I have no interest in doing it again.

There are certain assumptions that I made including that some innuendo would be enough to get the point accross and that there is enough recognition for things and situations changing that the little details don't need to be drawn out, constantly qualified or always explained.

That mistake is on me, it doesn't change what I feel is a correct or accurate observation it is just bowing out from getting drawn into the long drawn out elementary school explanation I thought I could avoid in the first place.

For the record I wasn't dismissing what you offered up, it just seemed off point to what I contended.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourier View Post
I did not think he had a very good game. He played well in the third, but di not for much of the first two periods? Was it bad enough to be considered unacceptable. No. Would I be concerned if this happened 82 games a year? Yes. But as I said I think you hold him to unreasonable standards and of course you disagree.
And that pretty much sums it up I guess. I thought his game was completely representative of what not only ails him as a hockey player but ails the Oilers as a hockey team. I also think that the best chance this team has to eliminate this problem is to move the people that foster it.

But whatever, there have always been fans that had the 'it's OK, we just...' approach to things. That's not going to change but it does get tiring when 6 months later alot of the same fans are bemoaning the Oilers position in the league.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourier View Post
This began as an assertion about their distance from being a decent team. That is what I responded to. You have now somehow turned this into a quest for statistical evidence to show that they are out performing last years team.

It seems to me that the goal posts have been moved.
I'm not really sure what you are looking for here.

I told you that my proof re Penner is anecdotal based on observation and intimated that it's pointless to go through it because we clearly don't see eye to eye on how things have transpired here.

In terms of how this year's team is vs last years I offered some cursory numbers to make a point. How that point was going to get responded to, I don't care so it's hardly a quest for statistical evidence on my part.

If I buggered up your point about how far they are from being a decent team by using last years team as a bench mark, then so be it. It was unintentional but it is what it is.


Last edited by copperandblue: 01-06-2011 at 03:35 PM.
copperandblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2011, 03:37 PM
  #112
Seedling
Fan level 7?
 
Seedling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,504
vCash: 50
Sorry, I don't want to read the entire thread, but has anyone thought about Foster getting moved?

It makes sense from our POV to move him, I guess the other side of it is would anyone want/need him especially with one year left on his deal?

I have to think the Oilers are not entirely happy with how he's performed, and seeing him scratched today, I would have to think he's a guy quietly being know as available.

He might be a good depth guy for a playoff team that wants a big shot on the blueline and already has a stable D to cover his obviously poor play in his own end.

Just throwing spaghetti here.

Seedling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2011, 03:41 PM
  #113
Fourier
Registered User
 
Fourier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Waterloo Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,701
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by copperandblue View Post
I made an effort to explain my 'spin' reference. I thought it was pretty clear, if it wasn't then that's unfortunate but I have no interest in doing it again.

There are certain assumptions that I made including that some innuendo would be enough to get the point accross and that there is enough recognition for things and situations changing that the little details don't need to be drawn out, constantly qualified or always explained.

That mistake is on me, it doesn't change what I feel is a correct or accurate observation it is just bowing out from getting drawn into the long drawn out elementary school explanation I thought I could avoid in the first place.

For the record I wasn't dismissing what you offered up, it just seemed off point to what I contended.



And that pretty much sums it up I guess. I thought his game was completely representative of what not only ails him as a hockey player but ails the Oilers as a hockey team. I also think that the best chance this team has to eliminate this problem is to move the people that foster it.

But whatever, there have always been fans that had the 'it's OK, we just...' approach to things. That's not going to change but it does get tiring when 6 months later alot of the same fans are bemoaning the Oilers position in the league.



I'm not really sure what you are looking for here.

I told you that my proof is anecdotal based on observation and intimated that it's pointless to go through it because we clearly don't see eye to eye on how things have transpired here.

In terms of how this year's team is vs last years I offered some cursory numbers to make a point. How that point was going to get responded to, I don't care so it's hardly a quest for statistical evidence on my part.

If I buggered up your point about how far they are from being a decent team by using last years team as a bench mark, then so be it. It was unintentional but it is what it is.
Well you caught me in the midst of what has been a series of bad days. To be honest I should have gone with my first instinct and not submitted the last post because in the end I likely just wasted your time and mine (and everyone else who might read it), which really was not my intention.

For the record, I respect you as a thoughtful poster. I also understand why people see Penner differently than I do. Perhaps there are things that I see in his game that you do not and of course vise versa.

To end this rather tedious debate on topic, I will simply say that if the Oilers can get value for Penner, I am all for it. I'm pretty sure that in the ned we are looking for the same thing, a return to respectability for this team at the very least and hopefully a shot at another title.


Last edited by Fourier: 01-06-2011 at 06:51 PM.
Fourier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2011, 03:43 PM
  #114
mindmasher
Registered User
 
mindmasher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 371
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PenzOil View Post
There is difference between trading and giving away. I said Gagner would be the best trading chip. Trading a 21yo on pace for 60 points would fetch us a good return.
There is also a difference between building a winner and filling in roster spots. A winning team would have a bigger C who would be clicking with 2 of Hall, Eberle, Hemsky, Penner, Pajaarvi or Omark. Gagner has yet to look confortable playing alonside any of the names mentioned above.

If Gagner+ can fetch us someone we need to become a contending team then I would be all for it.
We need a productive second line centerman. So I'm not sure what you are getting at. There is of course a right price to make a Gagner deal but I doubt anyone is giving up elite pieces for him.

mindmasher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2011, 05:36 PM
  #115
Njoy Oilers
Registered User
 
Njoy Oilers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Southern Alberta.
Posts: 3,333
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seedling View Post
Sorry, I don't want to read the entire thread, but has anyone thought about Foster getting moved?

It makes sense from our POV to move him, I guess the other side of it is would anyone want/need him especially with one year left on his deal?

I have to think the Oilers are not entirely happy with how he's performed, and seeing him scratched today, I would have to think he's a guy quietly being know as available.

He might be a good depth guy for a playoff team that wants a big shot on the blueline and already has a stable D to cover his obviously poor play in his own end.

Just throwing spaghetti here.
No one has the time.

Njoy Oilers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2011, 05:45 PM
  #116
Seedling
Fan level 7?
 
Seedling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,504
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Njoy Oilers View Post
No one has the time.
So I see. Oh well.

Seedling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 08:46 AM
  #117
proppski
Registered User
 
proppski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Khon Kaen
Country: Thailand
Posts: 599
vCash: 500
FFS i hope omark got a fast trade from here, he got 10 min when they doubleshifted hall and hemsky for about 20 min like it was the 7 th game in a stanley-cup final. at 4 and 4 they played mps and reddox nothing against reddox but the first rounders have a free ticket to everything and mps really need oklahoma time he mess up every line hes in, he hasnt any confident and looking scared with the puck. I heard recently from a old Nhl player from sweden that it is 2 clubs in nhl who is very intrested in omark so we who like omark can only hope something happens quick.

proppski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 09:57 AM
  #118
Little Fury
Registered User
 
Little Fury's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,657
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by proppski View Post
FFS i hope omark got a fast trade from here, he got 10 min when they doubleshifted hall and hemsky for about 20 min like it was the 7 th game in a stanley-cup final. at 4 and 4 they played mps and reddox nothing against reddox but the first rounders have a free ticket to everything and mps really need oklahoma time he mess up every line hes in, he hasnt any confident and looking scared with the puck. I heard recently from a old Nhl player from sweden that it is 2 clubs in nhl who is very intrested in omark so we who like omark can only hope something happens quick.
I'm not liking how Omark has become the Swedish Rob Schremp. Not liking it one bit.

Little Fury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 10:11 AM
  #119
proppski
Registered User
 
proppski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Khon Kaen
Country: Thailand
Posts: 599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Fury View Post
I'm not liking how Omark has become the Swedish Rob Schremp. Not liking it one bit.
this is a tradethread if you want cheap points from doubters of omark start a new thread!

Its obvious oilers have more wingers they can handle and certainly the give omark no time too prove himself! So i dont understand why oilers not let him play a lot and get some more tradevalue in him i dont know what they planning for him. I vote for a trade from this so called build up!

proppski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 10:17 AM
  #120
Little Fury
Registered User
 
Little Fury's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,657
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by proppski View Post
this is a tradethread if you want cheap points from doubters of omark start a new thread!

Its obvious oilers have more wingers they can handle and certainly the give omark no time too prove himself! So i dont understand why oilers not let him play a lot and get some more tradevalue in him i dont know what they planning for him. I vote for a trade from this so called build up!
Probably because they have no plans to trade him at this time. Nor should they.

Little Fury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2011, 11:02 AM
  #121
proppski
Registered User
 
proppski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Khon Kaen
Country: Thailand
Posts: 599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Fury View Post
Probably because they have no plans to trade him at this time. Nor should they.
It shore doesnt seems so how they play him and when eberle is back hes going oklahama again. is it him or waivers or what?i think trade omark when u have value in him! after u burried him a season hes been certainly been reduced in value or gone back khl for a season.

proppski 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 06:54 AM.

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.