Who here is actually happy with the Hronek trade?

[-AJ-]

3 minutes ago, Dr. Crossbar said:

 

When you say this take wasn't unpopular at the time ... are you saying the popular take was that people were actually happy with Hronek? I don't remember it that way at all.

 

No, I mean to say that when Clutch said Burrows was useless, he was flamed instantly. By contrast, when people said they didn't like the Hronek trade, many others agreed.

[Dr. Crossbar]

On 11/16/2023 at 1:39 PM, Blue said:

This perfectly encapsulates the reaction in the market to the original trade

 

That reads like the first four pages of the original thread. Still laughably bad. 

 

[Dr. Crossbar]

1 minute ago, -AJ- said:

 

No, I mean to say that when Clutch said Burrows was useless, he was flamed instantly. By contrast, when people said they didn't like the Hronek trade, many others agreed.

 

Thanks. That's what I thought you meant but then was like ... did he actually mean??

 

Will be interesting to see who still has their arms crossed, waiting and seeing, still holding out on Hronek to be right by the end of the season. 

 

[aGENT]

1 hour ago, Bob Long said:

 

When was there a real chance to move Garland? Haven't they been trying since last year?

Same time Columbus wisely moved Bjorkstrand.

[Bob Long]

Just now, aGENT said:

Same time Columbus wisely moved Bjorkstrand.

 

Was there an actual rumor of it being possible?

[aGENT]

1 hour ago, The Lock said:

 

The problem with this line of thinking is, because it didn't happen, we'll never know if it was even an option to begin with. Not only that, even if it was an option, we don't know how serious of an option it would have been. We don't know how serious another team would have been willing to trade for Garland. We, as fans, could of course theorize why a team would want Garland, but that does not make the team actually want Garland.

 

Just because something's easy to say it does not make it easy to do.

 

3 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

Was there an actual rumor of it being possible?

 

 

IIRC, it was reported management wasn't thrilled with the offers (likely ~a couple mid picks, like Bjorkstrand got) and figured they could do better if they waited. 

 

They're still waiting...

[Bob Long]

1 hour ago, aGENT said:

 

 

 

IIRC, it was reported management wasn't thrilled with the offers (likely ~a couple mid picks, like Bjorkstrand got) and figured they could do better if they waited. 

 

They're still waiting...

 

Huh. Well there it is then.

[Dr. Crossbar]

On 9/20/2023 at 7:06 AM, HorvatToBaertschi said:

Anybody with a brain is happy with this trade

 

Especially now that we've moved past the wait and see. 

[steviewonder20]

On 9/19/2023 at 6:53 PM, Odd. said:

Last thread had 49 pages. 

Yeah anyways I can’t belieeeeeeeeeeeve we traded a 1st and 2nd round pick for Hronek

This hasn’t aged well. He’s 4th in the NHL for points by a D. Yes, I know he plays with Huggy.

[Bure10Kuzmenko96]

Me! At first I wasn't even though I was in Paris when I heard about the trade going to India, but after watching him play I've been proven wrong. 

[The Lock]

4 hours ago, aGENT said:

IIRC, it was reported management wasn't thrilled with the offers (likely ~a couple mid picks, like Bjorkstrand got) and figured they could do better if they waited. 

 

They're still waiting...

 

What if they weren't even offered a couple of mid-round picks? Perhaps they were offered something less and "Bjorkstrand-ing" wasn't even an option.

 

When you say "likely" that really just indicates what you think happened, not what actually happened. This is just you assuming rather than actually knowing. There's a big difference there.

Edited November 21, 2023 by The Lock

[aGENT]

10 minutes ago, The Lock said:

 

What if they weren't even offered a couple of mid-round picks? Perhaps they were offered something less and "Bjorkstrand-ing" wasn't even an option.

 

When you say "likely" that really just indicates what you think happened, not what actually happened. This is just you assuming rather than actually knowing. There's a big difference there.

 

We're never going to "know" 99% of what GM's discuss. May as well close down the trades section for any rumours or discussion outside of trades that have happened then.

[The Lock]

1 minute ago, aGENT said:

We're never going to "know" 99% of what GM's discuss. May as well close down the trades section for any rumours or discussion outside of trades that have happened then.

 

We're not talking about rumours though. We're talking about assumptions. Those assumptions could be based on rumours, which is better than just assuming.

 

No need to overreact. I'm just stating the assumption that we got something like Bjorkland fetched, unless if something's actually mentioned somewhere about it, there's no sense in assuming we did given nothing has happened yet.

[aGENT]

3 minutes ago, The Lock said:

 

We're not talking about rumours though. We're talking about assumptions. Those assumptions could be based on rumours, which is better than just assuming.

 

No need to overreact. I'm just stating the assumption that we got something like Bjorkland fetched, unless if something's actually mentioned somewhere about it, there's no sense in assuming we did given nothing has happened yet.

 

There were rumours...

[5forFighting]

I will say that I have come around on the trade. At the time, it was a lot to give up but if you could have told me we could draft a 26 year old that would allow Quinn to be the NHL points leader in his first year on the team, I would say sign me up. 

[The Lock]

13 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

There were rumours...

 

So then it's a little better than an assumption but obviously we still don't know if true.

 

Simple. Again, no need to overthink.

Edited November 21, 2023 by The Lock

[aGENT]

31 minutes ago, The Lock said:

 

So then it's a little better than an assumption but obviously we still don't know if true.

 

Simple. Again, no need to overthink.

 

[The Lock]

1 minute ago, aGENT said:

 

 

It would be nice to think that we can get for Garland what Bjorkstrand fetched; however, we don't know if that's true.

 

This also does not mean we have to burn down the rumour forum just because what I'm telling you is to take it with a grain of salt.

[aGENT]

4 minutes ago, The Lock said:

 

It would be nice to think that we can get for Garland what Bjorkstrand fetched; however, we don't know if that's true.

 

Yeah...its a rumour....

 

4 minutes ago, The Lock said:

 

This also does not mean we have to burn down the rumour forum just because what I'm telling you is to take it with a grain of salt.

 

 

Again this all started because the only "debateable" (OP I quoted) part about adding Mik was not reducing winger roster and cap first and putting themselves a bit behind that 8 ball. That's the main point I made. Any potential return for Garland doesn't really matter for that point. It could have been a 4th and a lollipop for all I care.

 

Garland was, and continues to be rumoured to be available. Management was rumoured to have had middling picks/offers on the table that they felt they'd be able to do better on.

 

[The Lock]

4 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

Yeah...its a rumour....

 

 

 

Again this all started because the only "debateable" (OP I quoted) part about adding Mik was not reducing winger roster and cap first and putting themselves a bit behind that 8 ball. That's the main point I made. Any potential return for Garland doesn't really matter for that point. It could have been a 4th and a lollipop for all I care.

 

Garland was, and continues to be rumoured to be available. Management was rumoured to have had middling picks/offers on the table that they felt they'd be able to do better on.

 

 

And none of that I was disagreeing with. What I was pointing out is that you were making it seem like we were given a "Bjorkstrand" deal and seemingly not happy management hadn't pulled said deal... even though, as you just said, it was just a rumour and we don't know if it was even true.

 

I didn't say anything about Garland not being available. I didn't say anything about there not being an offer at all (as per rumours have stated, we just don't know the value... at all).

 

I get that you want Garland traded, but given the trades that have actually happened so far with this management team; often actual reasonable trades for once; there could easily be just nothing worth it in order to trade him as of yet. None of us know what was actually offered; therefore, to imply a "Bjorklund" return was on the table is just an ASSUMPTION based on the RUMOUR we were offered middling picks, etc. Therefore, no point in assuming the value because we DON'T KNOW the value.

[The Lock]

@aGENT

 

Anyway, I stand by what I've said 100%. You don't have to agree with me. You strike me as a highly convicted person when you have an opinion and hard to convince.

 

Maybe one day soon we'll see Garland traded. Until that time, I just don't see the point in thinking much about it nor this conversation really. lol

[aGENT]

49 minutes ago, The Lock said:

 

And none of that I was disagreeing with. What I was pointing out is that you were making it seem like we were given a "Bjorkstrand" deal and seemingly not happy management hadn't pulled said deal... even though, as you just said, it was just a rumour and we don't know if it was even true.

 

I didn't say anything about Garland not being available. I didn't say anything about there not being an offer at all (as per rumours have stated, we just don't know the value... at all).

 

I get that you want Garland traded, but given the trades that have actually happened so far with this management team; often actual reasonable trades for once; there could easily be just nothing worth it in order to trade him as of yet. None of us know what was actually offered; therefore, to imply a "Bjorklund" return was on the table is just an ASSUMPTION based on the RUMOUR we were offered middling picks, etc. Therefore, no point in assuming the value because we DON'T KNOW the value.

 

The actual value (rumour, fact, assumed or otherwise) isn't trrribly relevant to my point.

 

My reference to "Bjorkstrand'ing" him was in that Bjorkstrand was moved for perceived "below value" at the time as a means to clear cap for CBJ. Whether offers for Garland were near equal to what Bjorkstrand got is pretty immaterial.

 

Honestly don't even know what you're arguing about.

 

 

 

Edited November 22, 2023 by aGENT

[The Lock]

17 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

The actual value (rumour, fact, assumed or otherwise) isn't trrribly relevant to my point.

 

My reference to "Bjorkstrand'ing" him was in that Bjorkstrand was moved for perceived "below value" at the time as a means to clear cap for CBJ. Whether offers for Garland were near equal to what Bjorkstrand got is pretty immaterial.

 

Honestly don't even know what you're arguing about.

 

 

Well, I tried to explain it in as many ways as I could. Even asked someone else in real life if what I was saying made sense (they read our conversation) and they said it did make sense. So I kind of give up at this point. You have your ideas set. lol

Edited November 22, 2023 by The Lock

[NoHeart]

The trade was so good that we can’t afford him now lol. 

[Dr. Crossbar]

2 hours ago, 5forFighting said:

I will say that I have come around on the trade. At the time, it was a lot to give up but if you could have told me we could draft a 26 year old that would allow Quinn to be the NHL points leader in his first year on the team, I would say sign me up. 

 

It's nice to see people coming around. I mean, now it's pretty obvious. The issue for me is ... he's exactly what we need right now. I mean, waiting for a guy of this caliber doesn't make much sense when the window for this core is now.