JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK
Twenty f*ckin years
- Oct 8, 2010
- 79,374
- 16,838
Remember when TSN said that Edmonton was talking about #16 OA for Talbot?
They could have talked about it, and the conversation could have been a simple "no".
Remember when TSN said that Edmonton was talking about #16 OA for Talbot?
Why? I thought Sather said Yandle was a player he had his eye on for a long time when the Rangers acquired him. Did the team see something it doesn't like in his play within the context of the Rangers team system that the scouts didn't notice when watching him play for Arizona?
That's interesting, especially post-draft.
Supposedly Shattenkirk is in play. His cap hit is 4.25 for the next 2 years. He's a righty.
Yandle and Klein for Shattenkirk +?
Use Diaz and McIlrath as 6/7.
It's possible the Rangers heard his price to re-sign and figured out now is the time to make a move. It's also possible this rumor is complete bull****....
“@HartnettHockey: You don't trade Yandle. That would be nuts considering AZ taking on half his cap hit, what Rangers gave up to get him, how good Yandle is.â€
Supposedly Shattenkirk is in play. His cap hit is 4.25 for the next 2 years. He's a righty.
Yandle and Klein for Shattenkirk +?
Use Diaz and McIlrath as 6/7.[/QUOTE]
Oh God no.
They could have talked about it, and the conversation could have been a simple "no".
Gorton trades Yandle and we instantly realize it's more of the same.
While Girardi eats up cap space blowing it on the ice.
A new GM can't all the sudden give a certain player value.
But I thought it was a good move to trade Duclair and a first for Yandle.
AV giving MSL what should've been Yandle's PP minutes doesn't make Yandle not worth it, it makes the Rangers incapable of handling a talented d-man.
Pretty much this. Pay a premium and then use him as a 3rd pairing defender .
Maybe that was the plan all along, so they could trade yandle for a large return.