Confirmed with Link: Kings sign Mikey Anderson to his 3 year ELC

[BigKing]

Draft day deal to send Pacioretty to Kings fell through - TSN.ca

This is the discussion from 31 thoughts, Friedman is widely considered a very reliable insider. He specifically mentions that the Habs went to MaxPac prior to the 2nd round with the potential offer. So, the Kupari pick couldn't have been involved. He also says that Muzzin was not involved. That is about the most information that we know regarding this potential trade.

However, this back and forth is a perfect example of why this has become annoying. Nobody has a clue what the potential return was, so each individual can make up their own return to make Blake look better/worse.

Agree which is why I use the trade to show that Blake was willing to move futures and was also all in on contending a mere 10 games before it was clear this team was done.

 

[redcard]

Agree which is why I use the trade to show that Blake was willing to move futures and was also all in on contending a mere 10 games before it was clear this team was done.

"The rumour mill was abuzz with speculation"
“The belief is that there was a deal in place with the Los Angeles Kings for Max Paccioretty, and that it didn’t get done because there wasn’t the ability to get a contract extension done,”

Rumors, speculation, belief.

It doesn't matter how many insiders parrot it, you can't confirm that Blake had discussions about Paccioretty, you can't confirm Blake had any interest in trading futures, you can't confirm what futures he would have traded, you can't confirm what non futures he would have traded, you can't confirm what an extension would have even looked like. There might have been discussions. There might have been a deal on the table. But Blake never signed anything.

The only thing you can say with 100% confidence is that Blake didn't trade futures for Paccioretty.

Which is why your statement about using the didn't happen trade to show Blake was willing to move futures is so outrageous to many of us, because the only concrete evidence shows the opposite.

 

[bland]

There is nothing juvenile in not taking something posted on an Internet forum as anything other than a rumour. I couldn’t tell you who on this forum is well connected or who isn’t. With all due respect, I have no idea who you are and as such no reason to trust your posts any more than anybody else.

I can say that when I’ve been in the position of having cast iron inside information on my local pro team I just kept it to myself. I never took the opportunity to spread anything my source gave me as I treated it with the appropriate level of trust. It’s why I treat any piece of ‘inside info’ on a forum with a pinch of salt as I like to think anybody trusted with such info wouldn’t share it on an Internet forum. Maybe I’m an idealist.

Fair enough.

I apologize for the tone. I don't read/post regularly and just checked in to read several responses in a row that were a little less respectful.

As far as the whole "insider" thing, yes, a great deal us know a guy who knows a guy at least, and some of us most definitely know a guy (or are related to one). So a lot of stuff gets thrown around that can never be "proven" to the satisfaction of folks who don't want to believe it or who are in the position to have to deal with verifying things in order to keep a place like this running civily.

As far as the content of my post, lets forget everything and say it is pure conjecture. Now, which single player on the Kings at the time had a contract coming up for renewal, played the same position as a player recently acquired, had a very good trade value, made very close to the same money as the player the Kings were hoping to acquire and re-sign, and just so happened to be traded within the year anyway?

Logic - forget rumor - tells you that there was only one player who fit the bill. No other Kings player was attractive enough to move that would allow the Kings the opportunity to acquire both Pacioretty AND Kovalchuk.