DougieSmash
WE'RE IN! WE'RE IN! YES! YES! WOO!
- Jan 2, 2009
- 14,795
- 15,968
What a stupid trade why did Waddell get rid of Victor "Plays well with Skinner" Rask?
@HisIceness is having it out @HisIceness over their stupid opinions At some point it'll be a blood feud... I wonder when @HisIceness will have to seperate them or maybe it'll be our old mods... (Not a chance)
Because Victor "One pick before Brandon Saad" Rask was terrible you idiot. And Skinner isn't here anyone either, did you just wake up from a year-long nap or something?. My God you are incredibly stupid, how the hell you function day to day w/o managing to hurt yourself is amazing.
Coyle and Granlund are a lot better than they have shown so far, and Donato is probably worse. Nino and Coyle are different sorts of players, but Coyle was thought of as at least as good, if not better than Nino. His ability to play a competent C(you know, the thing that Rask doesn't do) as well as RW is valuable.Fenton's post-Nino trades seem a lot more competent, especially getting Ryan Donato for a low-scoring Coyle. However, Nino is the picture-perfect example of why selling low is usually dumb (and why I was so happy this off-season that we kept Faulk rather than trade him after his off-year). Glad that Waddell of all folks was there to capitalize on a severe rookie GM mistake.
Ok, we'll go with that.Rask misses the net because he sucks.
Nino misses the net because he knows Staal will be there to bank the rebound in off of the goalie for the OT winner.
Ok, we'll go with that.
Rask misses the net because he sucks.
Nino misses the net because he knows Staal will be there to bank the rebound in off of the goalie for the OT winner.
Can't believe that you fools thought that the Wild did this trade for hockey reasons. You do understand that Nino is a mole, don't you? A deep cover operative? Because...that's really good for us...somehow...you'll see.. mwhahahahahhahaha...you'll never see it coming, when it comes... mwhahaha-mwhahaha...YOU"LL PAY , SOMEDAY!!!!
However, Nino is the picture-perfect example of why selling low is usually dumb
We probably actually sold high. Given the way he played even after getting a fresh start in a new franchise, his value probably dropped lower, and it might never recover again. I would not be surprised to see Rask out of the NHL in the next season or two. Reminds me a lot of Tlusty and Nestrasil in that way.We sold low on Rask though, just saying
Bumping this because this popped up on my Twitter feed:
I can't imagine this is true, because it seems like a very piss poor way to do a very important job, but it is one way to explain why this deal happened.