dedalus
Registered User
No, when you write "that cup was purchased" I had no need to characterize what you were writing.NYIsles1 said:Actually, you decided to create your own characterization of what I wrote.
This is only "clear" to you because you wish to see it that way. You want to claim that money was the only important thing exchanged in the trade. That's not the case.NYIsles1 said:You can acquire someone via buying them from another team which clearly happened in Messier's case
I'll take the 30 seconds to quibble here and remind you that Graves was acquired before the Messier trade. Thus your chain of logic falls apart where he is concerned. I guess I'll also take this opportunity to point out that when you said that "the Rangers also bought seven Edmonton Oilers" you listed Glen Anderson as one of those seven. I hope you're not trying to say that the Rangers bought Glen Anderson from the poor, cash-starved Toronto Maple Leafs, are you?NYIsles1 said:which led to considerations (Beukeboom) which led to another deal with cash exchanged for Lowe, the Graves signing outright
Oh I know what you wrote, and that's why I replied: "if you want to deviate from that principle I need to know what qualifies as "buying" versus "trading with money involved." What's the figure allowed to be transferred before you, personally, decide to call something "buying" a player?"NYIsles1 said:That's not what I wrote at all and I was pretty specific about it. I can repost it word for word again.
If this is referring to what I said about the feeble nature your assertion regarding Lindros, please be assured I was not trying to be insulting, merely truthful. I can say pretty safely that the vast amjority of fans will laugh in your face if you attempt to argue that the Flyers bought, not traded for, Eric Lindros. I suspect you know yourself that this is a laughable claim.NYIsles1 said:There is no call to be insulting.
So why not make it a straight cash transaction? I can assure you that Neil Smith would have preferred to keep Rice and move Nichols for something else that required a player asset. If Smith and MSG could have bought Messier's rights for nothing other than money, they would have been happy to do so. Given your claim here, Edmonton should have jumped at the chance to ignore these worthless players and prospects and simply take a larger cash payment.NYIsles1 said:Nicholls and whatever Edmonton got back was of little consequence to Edmonton in this deal, the Rangers money was.
So Forsberg, Simon, Duchesne, Huffman, Hextall, Ricci, and two 1st round picks were of little consequence to Quebec?NYIsles1 said:Just as Philadelphia's money was in the Lindros deal.
Uh-huh.
And without Nichols, Rice, Shaw, and DeBrusk, Messier and Beukeboom ALSO go to another team, so don't tell me that money was all that mattered. As for the "anti-up Leetch and Richter"[sic] point, we both agree that this simply wouldn't happen because Edmonton would have no desire to add that payroll.NYIsles1 said:Without the money Messier-Beukeboom is traded to another organiztion or the Rangers anti-up Leetch and Richter and no cash is exchanged at all.
No, cash was the overriding factor in why Edmonton had to move these players. It was merely one factor among several in how they became Rangers.NYIsles1 said:I'm not confusing anything, cash was the over-riding factor as to why these deals happened
So then we do agree that if it can be said any Oilers were purchased, it is merely these three. Kind of eats away at your "core of the Rangers" argument, no?NYIsles1 said:which is why I contend Messier, Lowe and Beukeboom were purchased.
And yet those same knowledgeable hockey fans would laugh at you for saying Philadelphia bought, not traded for, Eric Lindros, therefore you cannot use the generic hockey fan to support your point.NYIsles1 said:I have not deviated on that point at all. I think knowledgable hockey fans know the difference between two teams making a legimate trade to improve themselves vs one that is clearly a cash-grab for one side while the other get's the majority if not all of the best players.
What you're saying is that sometimes money can exchange hands and we can call it a trade, but then again sometimes money can't exchange hands. I call that a deliberately vague definition which allows you to skew your argument as appropriate.
Really? You see no difference between Bernie Nichols, Steve Rice, Louie DeBrusk, Dave Shaw, Roman Oksiuta, and a 3rd round pick and Joel Bouchard, Rico Fata, Richard Lintner and Mikael Samuelsson?NYIsles1 said:I see no difference between this and the deal/acquistion/purchase/whatever for Messier, Beukeboom, Lowe..ect. I think the only reason you do is because one led to your team winning a cup and you do not like anyone writing your team bought a championship.
So tell me then, since you see no difference between these deals, which of those latter four players equates to Bernie Nichols? Or even to Steven Rice in 1991 terms?
I'm sorry but if you can't (or won't) recognize the difference in value of talent in these two deals, I simply can't help you.
No. I find it much simpler to look at the value of the players, picks, and prospects being moved.NYIsles1 said:I guess when a trades (with money the over-riding factor) happens and the players fail you consider them bought but when they bring you a championship there is a some kind of difference
The Rangers got both the best and the second best (by your own admission) players in the Pittsburgh deal, and they got them for nothing more than 3rd liners, waiver acquisitions, and AHLers.
The Rangers traded away their first line center in the Messier deal, and it was a center who had, over the three previous seasons, out-performed the guy for whom he was traded. In fact he was one of the highest scoring centers in the league over that span.
As I said above, if you can't see the difference here, there's no helping you.
Please let's not stoop to this level of game playing. We both know what I meant when I wrote that you were attempting to deny the Rangers won a Cup.NYIsles1 said:How am I denying the Rangers won by bringing out examples of buying players? They could have spent 500m in 1994, winning is winning and that cannot be denied.