SixthSens
RIP Fugu
- Dec 5, 2007
- 11,969
- 644
Karlsson for ten Gretzkys, straight up.
Can we talk some more about Mrazek and what it would take?
...just asking.
He's not for sale. He's the future for their team, they have no incentive to move him bar insane overpayment by us which of course is never going to happen.
Therefore any talk about acquiring him is pointless.
Ok then. Seems like a logical argument. I trust that same logic will be reflected in all future trade discussion on this board.
He's a 24 year old #1 goalie for a divisional rival which has no successor apparent. With the expansion draft looming he isn't available. Pretty logical imo. Unless you can think of a reason why it would make sense from their end.
so, we need a top 6 forward & a number 1 goalie. We may even need a top 4 d soon enough.
should be a piece of cake.
I think Ryan Dzingel is giving us every reason to think he's going to step up into MacArthur's role, no need yet for a top 6 forward.
It'd be nice to have a reliable back up for Anderson, I've been saying that since last year.
I think the big need still lies in the form of a good bottom pairing guy who can play some top 4 minutes here and there, especially if Chabot is designated back to junior.
Tobias Enstrom to really solidify our D, put everyone in better slotting. Thoughts? Assets required to actually acquire him?
I believe it was I who suggested you had presented a logical argument. No sarcasm intended. I hope to see the logic employed when others suggest trades that are equally as unlikely to occur.
Ana: Lindholm
Ott: Ceci, Lazar or Colin White
Okay I'll put it to you this;
What would it take to trade the following;
Quick
Crawford
Lundqvist
The only reason I'm throwing those guys in, is because they're the bonafide #1 on their teams. Like Detroit, they have no reason to trade away their #1 unless it's for a significant overpayment. The only difference is these guys are older than Petr.
Enough logic?
Those two players have massively different values right now...
I don't know why you're arguing with me - I agreed your point was logical. I suggested that it was my hope that others would employ the same logic in their proposals. B the logic you present why would Tampa trade Bishop? Why would the Pens trade Fleury?