Blues Trade Proposals 2018-2019

[EastonBlues22]

Not sure about how it works there. Where I live, you have to go before the judge and request one. Most times they are handed out as an emergency o.p., and a hearing is scheduled within two weeks of the issue date. Both parties then show up and the judge hears both sides to decide on whether it is extended for up to two years, or immediately rescinded for no cause. At least it sounds like they allow for defamation suits there to help avoid abuse of the system. Often times here spouses and significant others abuse the system and use it as a way to hold control over the other. They'll get an o.p., continue to live together, and the first time the other person angers them they call the police. The petitioner cannot violate the order, so the respondent is always the one who ends up arrested.

Karlsson applied for a peace bond, which is different than a restraining order. Pretty much everything I know about that process I learned HERE.

There is apparently no provision for a temporary order, and if the accused does not sign the peace bond voluntarily after their summons, a hearing will be held within 1-2 months where both parties are allowed to give evidence before the judge decides whether to enact the peace bond or not.

 

[stl76]

You are choosing who to believe is reasonable given the choice between two unreasonable actions when you do not know the parties involved or have any evidence. Not to put words into your mouth but it sounds like you are saying: "I don't believe Mrs. Karlsson filed without evidence because it would be unreasonable and not in her best interests due to the chance of a counter-suit; however, I totally believe Ms. Caryk did something unreasonable and not in her best interest by continually insulting and bullying her boyfriend and meal ticket's more famous teammate's wife, which will end-up significantly lowering his future earnings and open her up to liability." Why does Melinda Karlsson get the assumption of reasonableness but Ms. Caryk is immediately labeled a psycho? By the very nature of assuming Melinda Karlsson wouldn't open herself up to litigation, you are assuming that Ms. Caryk did.

I find it really ironic and sad that a very large group of people who are up-in-arms about cyber-bullying and insulting people on the internet are defaming Ms. Caryk on the internet. Hoffman and Caryk shut down their social media pages due to cyber-bullying after the story broke. Read the main board thread. The terms "pycho" and scum are used dozens of times. She is insulted for her looks, perceived plastic surgery. If she is proven innocent of this, people would cringe at the awful stuff they have written about her if it ever was brought back up. All with no solid proof she did anything wrong, only the assumption of proof.

Seriously? "Not to put words in your mouth...but here are things you didn't say in quotations as if you actually said them." What the f*** is that? Seems an awful lot like putting words in my mouth...

I did not say anything even remotely close to what you've typed here, and I do not appreciate being accused of thinking/saying/imply/assuming this crap. All I did was share an article I found interesting and then lay out a logical case for the existence of evidence. I have not made any assumption of anyone's guilt or innocence.

For the record I have posted nothing to defame or cyber-bully Ms. Caryk, here or anywhere else. I have not insulted her appearance or used words like "psycho" or "scum" to describe her.

And finally, I don't enjoy having to defend myself like this. This is not fun to discuss, it's annoying and borderline insulting.

 

[LetsGoBooze]

That escalated quickly.

 

[BleedBlue14]

Seriously? "Not to put words in your mouth...but here are things you didn't say in quotations as if you actually said them." What the **** is that? Seems an awful lot like putting words in my mouth...

I did not say anything even remotely close to what you've typed here, and I do not appreciate being accused of thinking/saying/imply/assuming this crap. All I did was share an article I found interesting and then lay out a logical case for the existence of evidence. I have not made any assumption of anyone's guilt or innocence.

For the record I have posted nothing to defame or cyber-bully Ms. Caryk, here or anywhere else. I have not insulted her appearance or used words like "psycho" or "scum" to describe her.

And finally, I don't enjoy having to defend myself like this. This is not fun to discuss, it's annoying and borderline insulting.

I think the name calling was in reference to the main board threads in which there was a lot of name calling of her. That being said, I think the reasoning has a lot to do with EK being an extremely well-liked player around the league as well as the timing of the circumstances in relativity to the tragedy the Karlsson family had to go through this past year.

I would hope it was not directed at you.

 

[Ranksu]

That escalated quickly.

That anonymoys Blues fans/members fight against each other at internet just for case some NHL hockey wife has/had bad blood against to another hockey wife?

 

[Dbrownss]

Lehner’s appeal is that it lets you handle a negotiation there, and give him a clear show me opportunity with a much better blue line. Whether he takes appropriate advantage of that deal or not is secondary to getting a chance to reset and be nimble to take advantage of whatever long term goaltending opportunity presents itself.

However, I’m way down on Allen but also realize when he is calibrated he is fine.

Lehner isnt getting beat because he's outmanned. The dude let's in absolute softies. 5 hole is always open for business with him. I always hear about him staring down his teammates too. I guess I'm just tired of the carousel of goaltending.

 

[Majorityof1]

Seriously? "Not to put words in your mouth...but here are things you didn't say in quotations as if you actually said them." What the **** is that? Seems an awful lot like putting words in my mouth...

I did not say anything even remotely close to what you've typed here, and I do not appreciate being accused of thinking/saying/imply/assuming this crap. All I did was share an article I found interesting and then lay out a logical case for the existence of evidence. I have not made any assumption of anyone's guilt or innocence.

For the record I have posted nothing to defame or cyber-bully Ms. Caryk, here or anywhere else. I have not insulted her appearance or used words like "psycho" or "scum" to describe her.

And finally, I don't enjoy having to defend myself like this. This is not fun to discuss, it's annoying and borderline insulting.

First, I apologize for the 2nd paragraph. I should have been more clear. I did not mean to imply you insulted or defamed anyone. I just came from the main board thread and it was on my mind, but I didn't clearly illustrate in my post that I was shifting trains of thought and no longer referring to you. I will edit my post to clarify after this. Again, apologies.

As for the bolded, again, I probably wasn't clear there either. You don't not say any of that. You maybe don't even believe it. But taking the unbolded part, which is close to what you said, along the course of natural inferences, to its conclusion you can reasonably arrive at the bolded part. I am not saying you intended those inferences to be made, but they exist. Please forgive the crude attempt to track the logic behind it below, but here is the thought process with the asumptions and inferences highlighted.

1) Statement: "But working under the assumption that Mrs. Karlsson would not purposefully expose herself to litigation, it stands to reason that some evidence does exist."
- Phrase 1 - Assume that Mrs Karlsson would not purposefully expose herself to litigation.
- How do you get from phrase 1 to phrase 2
-Implicit assumption 1 - People know the risks of their actions
- Implicit assumption 2- Ignoring those risks would not be reasonable
-Implicit Assumption 3 - Ms Karlsson is reasonable
- Phrase 2 - It stands to reason that some evidence does exist
- What does that imply
- Inference - There is evidence that implicates Ms. Caryk
- Assumption - If there is smoke there is fire. There would probably not be solid evidence if there was no transgression. There may be coincidental evidence but not direct evidence
- Inference - Ms Caryk committed some transgression against Mrs. Karlsson to justify a Peace Order

So let's go backwards from there, using the some of the same assumptions but applied to Ms. Caryk's side.

2) Inference - Ms Caryk committed a transgression against Mrs. Karlsson
- Assumption 1 - Ms. Caryk knew the risks of such actions in terms of legal consequences and potential fall-out for her significant other.
- Asumption 2 - It would not be reasonable for Ms. Caryk to ignore those risks
Conclusion - Ms Caryk, who ignored the risks according to the inference above, must have acted against self-interest and transgressed against Mrs. Karlsson. Thus, she must not be reasonable as she knowingly ignored the risks and opened herself up to litigation.

Again, let me apologize and make explicit: I apologize to stll76. I accidentally implied that he used derogatory terms to refer to Ms. Caryk in a previous post. He absolutely did not. I was referencing the main board only, but was far from clear.

 

[Kind Sir]

Dumb question: If a team retains salary on a traded player, does that reduce the recieving teams cap-hit on said player, or just the $$$?

 

[Dbrownss]

Dumb question: If a team retains salary on a traded player, does that reduce the recieving teams cap-hit on said player, or just the $$$?

Both. Actual salary and cap hit.

 

[simon IC]

You are choosing who to believe is reasonable given the choice between two unreasonable actions when you do not know the parties involved or have any evidence. Not to put words into your mouth but it sounds like you are saying: I don't believe Mrs. Karlsson filed without evidence because it would be unreasonable and not in her best interests due to the chance of a counter-suit; however, I totally believe Ms. Caryk did something unreasonable and not in her best interest by continually insulting and bullying her boyfriend and meal ticket's more famous teammate's wife, which will end-up significantly lowering his future earnings and open her up to liability. Why does Melinda Karlsson get the assumption of reasonableness but Ms. Caryk is immediately labeled a psycho? By the very nature of assuming Melinda Karlsson wouldn't open herself up to litigation, you are assuming that Ms. Caryk did.

Switching to discuss the main board thread and social media in general, not in reference to stl76 or any Blues poster, I find it really ironic and sad that a very large group of people who are up-in-arms about cyber-bullying and insulting people on the internet are defaming Ms. Caryk on the internet. Hoffman and Caryk shut down their social media pages due to cyber-bullying after the story broke. Read the main board thread. The terms "pycho" and scum are used dozens of times. She is insulted for her looks, perceived plastic surgery. If she is proven innocent of this, people would cringe at the awful stuff they have written about her if it ever was brought back up. All with no solid proof she did anything wrong, only the assumption of proof.

Edit: I wrongly and unintentionally implied that stl76 said derogatory things about Ms Caryk. He did not. I edited my post to clarify. I only meant to imply that through inferences, he implied that Mrs. Karlsson was reasonable, which through those same inferences must assume Ms. Caryk is unreasonable.

Some of what is being said on the main boards is absolutely appalling. It is embarrassing, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it shut down. It frightens and saddens me that the relative anonymity of the internet can bring out the very worst in people.

 

[stl76]

First, I apologize for the 2nd paragraph. I should have been more clear. I did not mean to imply you insulted or defamed anyone. I just came from the main board thread and it was on my mind, but I didn't clearly illustrate in my post that I was shifting trains of thought and no longer referring to you. I will edit my post to clarify after this. Again, apologies.

As for the bolded, again, I probably wasn't clear there either. You don't not say any of that. You maybe don't even believe it. But taking the unbolded part, which is close to what you said, along the course of natural inferences, to its conclusion you can reasonably arrive at the bolded part. I am not saying you intended those inferences to be made, but they exist. Please forgive the crude attempt to track the logic behind it below, but here is the thought process with the asumptions and inferences highlighted.

1) Statement: "But working under the assumption that Mrs. Karlsson would not purposefully expose herself to litigation, it stands to reason that some evidence does exist."
- Phrase 1 - Assume that Mrs Karlsson would not purposefully expose herself to litigation.
- How do you get from phrase 1 to phrase 2
-Implicit assumption 1 - People know the risks of their actions
- Implicit assumption 2- Ignoring those risks would not be reasonable
-Implicit Assumption 3 - Ms Karlsson is reasonable
- Phrase 2 - It stands to reason that some evidence does exist
- What does that imply
- Inference - There is evidence that implicates Ms. Caryk
- Assumption - If there is smoke there is fire. There would probably not be solid evidence if there was no transgression. There may be coincidental evidence but not direct evidence
- Inference - Ms Caryk committed some transgression against Mrs. Karlsson to justify a Peace Order

So let's go backwards from there, using the some of the same assumptions but applied to Ms. Caryk's side.

2) Inference - Ms Caryk committed a transgression against Mrs. Karlsson
- Assumption 1 - Ms. Caryk knew the risks of such actions in terms of legal consequences and potential fall-out for her significant other.
- Asumption 2 - It would not be reasonable for Ms. Caryk to ignore those risks
Conclusion - Ms Caryk, who ignored the risks according to the inference above, must have acted against self-interest and transgressed against Mrs. Karlsson. Thus, she must not be reasonable as she knowingly ignored the risks and opened herself up to litigation.

Again, let me apologize and make explicit: I apologize to stll76. I accidentally implied that he used derogatory terms to refer to Ms. Caryk in a previous post. He absolutely did not. I was referencing the main board only, but was far from clear.

Don't think this apology was necessary. Regardless, it was a nice gesture, so thank you.

As for the rest of this explanation of logic and whatnot, I do not have any interest in this discussion. Ranksu hit the nail on the head, it's not a worthwhile discussion about some TMZ rumor nonsense.

Thought the forbes article was interesting and worth sharing. When folks misinterpreted my original post with quotation from the article, I tried to clarify what I thought was interesting about it. That was the end of it as far as I was concerned. That attempted clarification then spawned this far-reaching dissection of my thoughts/intentions/beliefs, which was not only inaccurate, but again simply not worth discussing.

My turn for an apology. This is currently a highly stressful few weeks for me work-wise, and that stress spilled into me overreacting against you Majorityof1. For that I apologize to you.

To be perfectly clear tho, for future reference, few things frustrate me more than having words put in my mouth or being accused of things I did not do/say. Instead of constructing an elaborate hypothetical about what I may or may not be thinking, I would much rather you simply ask for clarification if anything in my posts is unclear @Majorityof1 . It would probably save us both a lot of time and contribute to better discussion.

 

[Majorityof1]

Don't think this apology was necessary. Regardless, it was a nice gesture, so thank you.

As for the rest of this explanation of logic and whatnot, I do not have any interest in this discussion. Ranksu hit the nail on the head, it's not a worthwhile discussion about some TMZ rumor nonsense.

Thought the forbes article was interesting and worth sharing. When folks misinterpreted my original post with quotation from the article, I tried to clarify what I thought was interesting about it. That was the end of it as far as I was concerned. That attempted clarification then spawned this far-reaching dissection of my thoughts/intentions/beliefs, which was not only inaccurate, but again simply not worth discussing.

My turn for an apology. This is currently a highly stressful few weeks for me work-wise, and that stress spilled into me overreacting against you Majorityof1. For that I apologize to you.

To be perfectly clear tho, for future reference, few things frustrate me more than having words put in my mouth or being accused of things I did not do/say. Instead of constructing an elaborate hypothetical about what I may or may not be thinking, I would much rather you simply ask for clarification if anything in my posts is unclear @Majorityof1 . It would probably save us both a lot of time and contribute to better discussion.

It wasn't so much looking for clarification, as disagreeing with a leap in logic I felt you had to have taken to make the statement you did, and I see in many others making as well. I just did a poor job of explaining, apparently twice. No apology is necessary on your end. For reasons stated in a prior post, I identify with this issue strongly (not cyber bullying, but assumptions based on one side of the story). So I get a little heated on it. That was no excuse for me to link you to others behavior or put words in your mouth. As for whether the issue is worth discussing, it is the doldrums of summer and this is at least tangentially hockey related. Besides, Ranksu is never right. Whether it is worth discussing is not for him, you or I to decide for others, but up to each individual. I respect your right to decline to do so further.

 

[Reality Czech]

That anonymoys Blues fans/members fight against each other at internet just for case some NHL hockey wife has/had bad blood against to another hockey wife?

Yep, unlike debating trade rumors, goalie drama and Finnish prospects who may never be good NHL players, this topic is actually important. Feel free to not participate in this, or any other discussion. Seriously, feel free.

 

[Ranksu]

Yep, unlike debating trade rumors, goalie drama and Finnish prospects who may never be good NHL players, this topic is actually important. Feel free to not participate in this, or any other discussion. Seriously, feel free.

Looks like somebody needs a hug or two. Come here buddy.

 

[Frenzy31]

I think we need to table this discussion - Hoffman, until we have more information. Glad to see everyone moving on a bit.

So, would Carolina move Skinner in a deal around Sobi. I think Sobi has some value - (likely a couple of 2nds). Outside of maybe Pitt, who else would you think could use him?

And, Milan Lucic - would you add him to the roster, if Edmonton tossed in their 10oa - especially if we send Sobi back to them.

 

[Dbrownss]

I'd have to really like someone at 10 to take Lucic. Even then, no way Edmonton moves 10 just to dump him. I know you said Sobokta back but that's just unrealistic imo


PS....I'd still have interest in Hoffman but.......they wouldn't like the return.

 

[CaliforniaBlues310]

I think we need to table this discussion - Hoffman, until we have more information. Glad to see everyone moving on a bit.

So, would Carolina move Skinner in a deal around Sobi. I think Sobi has some value - (likely a couple of 2nds). Outside of maybe Pitt, who else would you think could use him?

And, Milan Lucic - would you add him to the roster, if Edmonton tossed in their 10oa - especially if we send Sobi back to them.

I want nothing to do with Hoffman anymore. Too much drama. Army won’t go for it.

Skinner would be cool. I wonder if we could flip Steen for him, and run Schwartz/Skinner/Fabbri on LW.

As far as Lucic, I don’t think they’d offer #10 with him, but I wouldn’t even consider it otherwise unless Edmonton’s eating 50% of his deal.

 

[Majorityof1]

I'd have to really like someone at 10 to take Lucic. Even then, no way Ottawa moves 10 just to dump him. I know you said Sobokta back but that's just unrealistic imo


PS....I'd still have interest in Hoffman but.......they wouldn't like the return.

I am actually starting to come around from a cost/benefit standpoint, even though Hoffman is low on my list of choices from a hockey standpoint. I have read Sens fans saying they want to waive him. I'll give them a mid-round pick for him. First I talk to Petro. Then I ask people close to the situation in Ottawa if this is a general problem or specific to Karlsson's wife as one of the Sens wive's tweets implied, and finally talk to Hoffman himself about how he would feel if the allegations were true (ie would he dump her, what measures we could take to separate her from other wives if it becomes an issue). But if I like the answers, I absolutely trade for him given the value being thrown around. We could get him for nothing, get Tavares for nothing and then use our trade assets to upgrade Berglund to a better RW.

Fabbri - Tavares - Tarasenko
Schwartz - Schenn - Hoffman
Steen - Thomas - Silfverberg
Sobotka - Brodziak - Jaskin

Drama aside, that is a damn good forward group.

 

[Dbrownss]

I am actually starting to come around from a cost/benefit standpoint, even though Hoffman is low on my list of choices from a hockey standpoint. I have read Sens fans saying they want to waive him. I'll give them a mid-round pick for him. First I talk to Petro. Then I ask people close to the situation in Ottawa if this is a general problem or specific to Karlsson's wife as one of the Sens wive's tweets implied, and finally talk to Hoffman himself about how he would feel if the allegations were true (ie would he dump her, what measures we could take to separate her from other wives if it becomes an issue). But if I like the answers, I absolutely trade for him given the value being thrown around. We could get him for nothing, get Tavares for nothing and then use our trade assets to upgrade Berglund to a better RW.

Fabbri - Tavares - Tarasenko
Schwartz - Schenn - Hoffman
Steen - Thomas - Silfverberg
Sobotka - Brodziak - Jaskin

Drama aside, that is a damn good forward group.

Mmmmmmmhmmmmmm

 

[LetsGoBooze]

I'm all for adding Hoff at a discounted rate. The risk is worth the reward. It's only a 2 year obligation, and Mike knows his next contract is going to bank on how not only he performs but how he 'gets along' fiance included, with his new team.

 

[Kind Sir]

I am actually starting to come around from a cost/benefit standpoint, even though Hoffman is low on my list of choices from a hockey standpoint. I have read Sens fans saying they want to waive him. I'll give them a mid-round pick for him. First I talk to Petro. Then I ask people close to the situation in Ottawa if this is a general problem or specific to Karlsson's wife as one of the Sens wive's tweets implied, and finally talk to Hoffman himself about how he would feel if the allegations were true (ie would he dump her, what measures we could take to separate her from other wives if it becomes an issue). But if I like the answers, I absolutely trade for him given the value being thrown around. We could get him for nothing, get Tavares for nothing and then use our trade assets to upgrade Berglund to a better RW.

Fabbri - Tavares - Tarasenko
Schwartz - Schenn - Hoffman
Steen - Thomas - Silfverberg
Sobotka - Brodziak - Jaskin

Drama aside, that is a damn good forward group.

Dear. God. No.

I don't ask Petro something like that until AFTER Mike Hoffman has been cleared; when Petro enters into negotiations in 2 years, I don't want this buzzing in the back of his head.

 

[Majorityof1]

Dear. God. No.

I don't ask Petro something like that until AFTER Mike Hoffman has been cleared; when Petro enters into negotiations in 2 years, I don't want this buzzing in the back of his head.

Why does asking matter? Give him full right of refusal. He may value that you cared enough to ask his opinion.

"Hey Alex, I wanted your thoughts on something. We inquired about Hoffman at the deadline before all this stuff came out about his girlfriend. Ottawa called and offered him for a 4th round pick. He still fills a needed role on this team and would make us better; however, I don't want to make our players or their wives uncomfortable. Given your recent loss, I am especially concerned about how you feel. You are far more important to this team than anyone we could bring in, so you have the full right of refusal. If you say no, I drop it. If you are ok with it, we will do our best to find out the truth of what happened and make sure it doesn't happen here. What do you think?"

 

[Alklha]

I'm not completely against Hoffman, but it's difficult to see it making sense. It has to be up the the players, there is no point in creating issues with adding someone just because he's available cheap. That's the other thing; he'd need to be really cheap.

I don't see Ottawa being overly excited by something like Gunnarsson & 3rd.

 

[Kind Sir]

Why does asking matter? Give him full right of refusal. He may value that you cared enough to ask his opinion.

"Hey Alex, I wanted your thoughts on something. We inquired about Hoffman at the deadline before all this stuff came out about his girlfriend. Ottawa called and offered him for a 4th round pick. He still fills a needed role on this team and would make us better; however, I don't want to make our players or their wives uncomfortable. Given your recent loss, I am especially concerned about how you feel. You are far more important to this team than anyone we could bring in, so you have the full right of refusal. If you say no, I drop it. If you are ok with it, we will do our best to find out the truth of what happened and make sure it doesn't happen here. What do you think?"

Really?

Petro: if you think it's good for the team, then sure.

I mean what the heck else is he gonna say? If the dust doesn't blow over on this fiasco are you going to blame HIM for signing off on this decision? All you do to an employee - who doesn't sign the checks - in this situation is gaslight him later.

Hoffman is not a "key" piece; he's cheap and useful, but not key. Petro actually is key.

If you respect Alex's opinion in the matter, at least wait until he has more facts upon which to form one before you put any onus on HIM to "help" you make the decision.

THAT shows respect.

 

[Dbrownss]

Really?

Petro: if you think it's good for the team, then sure.

I mean what the heck else is he gonna say? If the dust doesn't blow over on this fiasco are you going to blame HIM for signing off on this decision? All you do to an employee - who doesn't sign the checks - in this situation is gaslight him later.

Hoffman is not a "key" piece; he's cheap and useful, but not key. Petro actually is key.

If you respect Alex's opinion in the matter, at least wait until he has more facts upon which to form one before you put any onus on HIM to "help" you make the decision.

THAT shows respect.

If you wait and the allegations aren't true, his price goes back up as Ottawa can sit on him all summer.

I see nothing wrong with going to Pietrangelo in the first place. It's no secret the Blues have been after Hoffman for the whole season