CamPopplestone
Registered User
- Sep 27, 2017
- 2,515
- 2,896
Riley SutterIf someone accurately predicts who we'll pick with our first pick in the 4th round, I'd be truly amazed.
Riley SutterIf someone accurately predicts who we'll pick with our first pick in the 4th round, I'd be truly amazed.
Brent KrahnIt's literally not anything. No GM worth a damn will listen to fans over scouts on who to draft. You say alot of crazy things, but this has to be up there as one of the worst.
That would be f***ing stupidityHamilton for NYI two 1st rounders this year and their unprotected 1st next year.
Hamilton for NYI two 1st rounders this year and their unprotected 1st next year.
That would be ****ing stupidity
The idea would then be to package two of the picks to move up in the draft and get Brady Tkachuk.
That's still not a good move.
To be fair, he's also getting a lot of doubt because of the suspicion that his hype is more due to Matthew.Dougie Hamilton for Brady Tkachuk.
Lateral, at best.
Brady Tkachuk is getting a bit of a following, mostly because of Matty.
David LevinIf someone accurately predicts who we'll pick with our first pick in the 4th round, I'd be truly amazed.
And it's still a terrible f***ing ideaThe idea would then be to package two of the picks to move up in the draft and get Brady Tkachuk.
Dougie Hamilton for Brady Tkachuk.
Lateral, at best.
Brady Tkachuk is getting a bit of a following, mostly because of Matty.
That's why he said at best., ;likely meaning when Brady is fully developed, he will (at best) be as valuable as DougieNot sure how you view trading a young, signed to a good deal top pairing defenseman for a really good, but complete magic bean prospect is a lateral move.
May I remind Flames fans around here that everyone was frothing at the mouth at the idea of moving for Dougie or a Dougie like defenseman before we got him. How times have changed.
That's why he said at best., ;likely meaning when Brady is fully developed, he will (at best) be as valuable as Dougie
I think that is the point Volica was making too.That's now how I read it, but I can see that interpretation I suppose. Still not worth the risk factor.
What, a top 15 forward in the league? That's certainly debatable.That's why he said at best., ;likely meaning when Brady is fully developed, he will (at best) be as valuable as Dougie
That's really the only thing that statement can mean. "At best" implies a range of possibilities, and discusses the most optimistic of those. Not sure what else you would think that meant, FF.
That's also the sentiment of someone whose criticism is that at best, the move is lateral. Meaning that in any scenario other than best-case, we lose.Because what I'm trying (and failing apparently) to say is that even if Tkachuk turns out to be equal value someday, it's not a lateral move ever due to the huge risk we'd be taking.
Spending $20 on a lottery ticket that guarentee's you $20 return at max and winning is not a lateral move is the closest comparison I can make.
I think you’re over simplifying it.Because what I'm trying (and failing apparently) to say is that even if Tkachuk turns out to be equal value someday, it's not a lateral move ever due to the huge risk we'd be taking.
Spending $20 on a lottery ticket that guarentee's you $20 return at max and winning is not a lateral move is the closest comparison I can make.
And it's still a terrible ****ing idea
Source?The Tkachuks are going to want to play together. Simple as that, either Calgary makes it happen or Matthew will leave for where they will.
The idea would then be to package two of the picks to move up in the draft and get Brady Tkachuk.
This is just as stupid of a statement as the trade suggestion. Brothers play on different NHL teams all the damn time and they don't have issues.The Tkachuks are going to want to play together. Simple as that, either Calgary makes it happen or Matthew will leave for where they will.