Rumor: Trade Rumours and Proposals Thread: Las Vegas Exp Part 3: Who are they taking?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Seachd

Registered User
Mar 16, 2002
24,977
9,029
He's buds for example with the Islanders organization I believe since he worked there before. He's willing to give them a pass on the expansion draft.

But you think the Oilers are affected negatively by losing Reinhart? He's not the same type of player other teams are trying not to lose.
 

Diamondillium

DO YOU WANT ANTS!?
Aug 22, 2011
5,704
66
Edmonton, AB
What a terrible move by Chia. Should have paid to protect him. Trade just got worse. I don't have the blind faith like some of you when he makes moves like this

No, that's what MacT would have done. Paying to protect an asset you have no faith in just because you paid high is not a good GM move. It is a move of somebody who is afraid of 'losing' a trade.

He realized he lost the trade, and cut his losses because it makes no sense to pay even more to protect him.
 

Raab

Registered User
Oct 6, 2007
18,085
2,777
He's not a bust just yet. That trade sure as hell is a bust though.

What stings for me is Montreal didn't even lose the player we thought we were going to lose AND we lost more depth at D. I'm an Oesterle fan as well, but he's a UFA, might not even be back.

Yep, makes that Davidsoin deal sting even more now. Especially with Sekera out.
 

Oilersfan93

Registered User
Jun 22, 2016
66
11
hopefully losing reinhart will light up a fire under chiapete's ass, and he gets to work and gets us a better deal on the jordan "gap-teeth" eberle.
 

oilers4life5

Registered User
Nov 6, 2007
2,439
990
City of Champions
No, that's what MacT would have done. Paying to protect an asset you have no faith in just because you paid high is not a good GM move. It is a move of somebody who is afraid of 'losing' a trade.

He realized he lost the trade, and cut his losses because it makes no sense to pay even more to protect him.

We are just so flush with cheap NHL ready d men we can afford to lose them for nothing. I don't think so. Griff was progressing well. Would have been an ideal #7
 

rickysusedsht

Registered User
Feb 25, 2015
6,409
4,844
Home of your Prince Albert Raiders
You're suggesting Reinhart isn't a scrub? He's tweener who needs waivers starting next season. I give it better than 50% odds we'd be able to grab him come the start of next season off waivers.

yes he isnt great but after what was given up and also being a D .just feel like someone stole my car after i over paid for it and still making payments on it
 

Beerfish

Registered User
Apr 14, 2007
19,513
5,665
Yeah, he made one bad deal. Pretty sure his deals in general have good outweighing the bad, but keep on the "Chiarelli sucks" narrative. I guess you prefer MacT and Tambo.

He listened to mact and green on that one (both still employed by the team) so he deserves every bit of flack he is going to get. It was an AWFUL AWFUL deal from day one.
 

McDrai

Registered User
Mar 29, 2009
24,363
19,206
How the **** does Vegas take Engelland without compensation from Calgary? 35 years old, UFA, and a career high of 17 points. Mcphee is dumb as hell
 

Seachd

Registered User
Mar 16, 2002
24,977
9,029
We are just so flush with cheap NHL ready d men we can afford to lose them for nothing. I don't think so. Griff was progressing well. Would have been an ideal #7

It's an expansion draft. You can't really lose anything less than a #7 defenseman. They're lucky that's all they lost.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad