NYIsles1 said:
Seems like your putting some spin on what I wrote.
There's no spin at all. You first called the Edm-NYR deals one team "buying" another team's players. I was pointing out how you've changed your characterization of this deal from "buying" to "acquiring." Your characterization of the deals has been what this whole argument has been about from my perspective. Once you've conceded that these are acquisitions like any other acquisitions on the transaction column of the Sunday Times, I've made my point.
NYIsles1 said:
You can also acquire players with cash or absorbe larger contracts for smaller ones. In the Ranger-Oiler deals this is why the trades or signings happened in most if not all of those moves .... It does not even include Graves who signed because of a large cash offer. The later deals with Edmonton where the Rangers absorbed larger contracts for Edmonton's veterans completed the 94 core.
Aaah I see. So now in addition to any trade that involves cash, any trade that involves a lesser contract going for a greater one is ALSO buying a player. Doesn't seem like there's much a team can do to avoid "buying" players in your book, my friend, because what you're now saying is that unless the contracts match, one team has bought a player from the other.
I take it that you are now ready to concede that between these two stipualtions of yours, we can fairly state that about 90% of the "trades" that happen in the NHL are nothing more than one team buying another team's player.
NYIsles1 said:
Messier got universal credit for leading Edmonton to it's fifth cup ... To attempt to equate this deal by statistics is not an accurate barometer.
I'm not equating the deal based on stats. I'm showing Nicholls's value within the deal. Your central assertion was that the Rangers "bought" these players and thus "bought" a Cup. You have tried to refuse to acknowledge that the assets sent to Edmonton were significant and therefore as important as the money exchanged.
POinting out Nicholl's quality as a player is showing you that he was a major asset and that this transaction was a trade not a purchase. (Just as the Flyers's acquisition of Lindros was a trade, not a purchase, your feeble protestations aside.)
NYIsles1 said:
Bottom line as you have agreed with these deals do not happen with the cash therefore the Rangers do not win the 94 cup, which makes your stance completely incorrect.
No you're confusing two points. My point isn't about whether or not the NYR could win a Cup without these players. My point is that they did not buy these players as you first asserted.
NYIsles1 said:
I did not write that any deal made with cash is no more than buying a player.
You agreed with the principle that since Quebec demanded money from the Flyers, that the Flyers had bought Eric Lindros. Now if you want to deviate from that principle I need to know what qualifies as "buying" versus "trading with money involved." What's the figure allowed to be transferred before you, personally, decide to call something "buying" a player?
NYIsles1 said:
Seems like a lot of major media were out of touch with reality based on your definition .... The Rangers even paid all eight players on both sides of the deal for the remainder of the season and demanded Lacouture who was the second best player at the time of this move. I would suggest you stop defending these kinds of moves as legimate trades
Hmmm ... I think you'll be looking a long time for ANY commentary of mine regarding the Kovalev trade, so I'm not sure why you say I'm defending it. If you ask me to comment I'll say that they're two completely different cases, and no assets were sent to Pittsburgh that were even remotely comparable to those sent to Edmonton. Given that, I have no problem at all stating that the Rangers bought Kovalev from the Pens. This is the difference between us. I'll freely admit when the Rangers buy players. You will try your hardest never to admit that the Rangers acquire player legitimately,
especially those players who helped to stop you from chanting "1940!"
Now up until the comments I just made above, I've offered no definitions in this thread, so I don't know where you're going with your "media" comment." What I've tried to do here is to get
you to define what "buying" a player means.
From what I'm seeing your definition is: "Anything, no matter how far fetched, that lets me deny the Rangers won a championship in 1994."
NYIsles1 said:
As for the players you listed above they were not acquired or moved because of someone handing Edmonton a check
You're mixing your points. Those players were listed to show you that an Oilers fan current reaction to a given deal would depend on how that deal worked out over the long haul. It has nothing to do with buying players; it has to do with how fan opinion on a trade is influenced. It was a response to your suggestion that I poll Edmonton fans on a trade from 1992. Those players were all drafted after Alex Kerch, and if the Oilers had drafted any of them, Oiler fans would view differently any trade which involved that pick.