stawns Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 6 minutes ago, HKSR said: Yep. When you acquire a player without having to give up any assets other than handing out a contract, then the player is free. Not sure what you define as a free player acquisition. I don't consider $9m x 7 years for a 30 year old winger free, I can tell you that much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fanfor42 Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 Just now, stawns said: I don't consider $9m x 7 years for a 30 year old winger free, I can tell you that much. Arrogance is not an argument. 1 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKSR Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 2 minutes ago, stawns said: I don't consider $9m x 7 years for a 30 year old winger free, I can tell you that much. Doesn't matter how much the contract is. The fact is the acquisition cost of that player is free. What you are referring to is the value of the free asset. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 2 minutes ago, fanfor42 said: Arrogance is not an argument. He's free to be arrogant, it doesn't bother me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKSR Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 2 minutes ago, fanfor42 said: Arrogance is not an argument. So true. So true. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 Just now, HKSR said: Doesn't matter how much the contract is. The fact is the acquisition cost of that player is free. What you are referring to is the value of the free asset. You said "free", not free acquisition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKSR Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 Just now, stawns said: You said "free", not free acquisition. Give it up man. The moving of goal posts by you is ridiculous. Don't you ever question why people get fed up talking to you? 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 Just now, HKSR said: Give it up man. The moving of goal posts by you is ridiculous. Don't you ever question why people get fed up talking to you? Moving what goal posts. You didn't say free aquisition, so it seems to me that you're the one moving the goal posts, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post tas Posted June 16 Popular Post Share Posted June 16 3 minutes ago, stawns said: You said "free", not free acquisition. that's the only thing anybody ever means when they're talking about free assets. players aren't allowed to play for free. 1 1 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKSR Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 Just now, stawns said: Moving what goal posts. You didn't say free aquisition, so it seems to me that you're the one moving the goal posts, no? What did you think I meant? I said the player is free. By your definition a self drafted player isn't free either then. Talk about a stupid argument even for your standards. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKSR Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 Just now, tas said: that's the only thing anybody ever means when they're talking about free assets. players aren't allowed to play for free. Right? Gotta be one of his stupidest arguments yet. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 Just now, HKSR said: What did you think I meant? I said the player is free. By your definition a self drafted player isn't free either then. Talk about a stupid argument even for your standards. Thank you for admitting you moved the goal posts, not me. Takes a big person to that. Way to grow 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tas Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 Just now, HKSR said: Right? Gotta be one of his stupidest arguments yet. disingenuous arguments are one of his hallmarks. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKSR Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 Just now, stawns said: Thank you for admitting you moved the goal posts, not me. Takes a big person to that. Way to grow You're hopeless. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 Just now, HKSR said: You're hopeless. And you are just way too easy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKSR Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 Just now, tas said: disingenuous arguments are one of his hallmarks. Sometimes I draw him into these arguments just to have written evidence of how stupid his arguments are. Humorous content for the readers. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrJockitch Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 2 hours ago, Bob Long said: Yep I can see a path to any of those working No way NYR can take on that salary obligation. They are looking at trading their captain to find some cap, that deal is the opposite of what they are looking for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 56 minutes ago, HKSR said: Yep. When you acquire a player without having to give up any assets other than handing out a contract, then the player is free. Not sure what you define as a free player acquisition. You’re 100% correct. JG would only cost us free agent money. Don’t know why any true Canuck fan would argue that point. Or any poster that knows hockey? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 (edited) 52 minutes ago, HKSR said: Give it up man. The moving of goal posts by you is ridiculous. Don't you ever question why people get fed up talking to you? You are 100% right, again. Edited June 16 by Alflives 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammertime Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 2 hours ago, canucks curse said: Guentzel >>>>Laine and we are talking about likely 300k in cap difference lol I thought we were talking about a taker for Mik and retention on Laine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 3 hours ago, DrJockitch said: No way NYR can take on that salary obligation. They are looking at trading their captain to find some cap, that deal is the opposite of what they are looking for. I think it's more that they want to part ways with trouba Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 4 hours ago, HKSR said: Sometimes I draw him into these arguments just to have written evidence of how stupid his arguments are. Humorous content for the readers. If it wasnt for his obsession with needing to win conversations he would actually have some valid points but just remember, hes played hockey at a high level 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devron Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 (edited) Well that was a fun Saturday night read Happy Hronek Edited June 16 by Devron 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flickyoursedin Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 6 hours ago, Rick_theRyper said: I think JG gets more than 9, also Laine would be a package deal bringing some extra pieces in. JG is the #1 UFA this year no way he doesn't get an offer over 9. Yeah I think Guentzel on the low end is 9 mill he could get offers of 10 mill a year I think! I’m just not used to the Canucks winning the top FA. I do really like the idea of buying extremely low on Laine! He’s had some injuries missing time every year but he consistently scores at a 30 goal pace if he could stay on the ice and play. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kettlevalley Posted June 16 Share Posted June 16 Why are we talking about 8 and 9 mil players? When we have cap considerations too. Would Anthony Duclair not be much cheaper. Play bigger, be faster, and be just as dangerous on Petey's wing? Still could play Hogs on the other side. Maybe not as good on the PP but really he would be on PP2 anyway. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.