SJinNewJersey
Every single one of us, the devil inside
And you had to reply twice? Will you next be saying "I am rubber and you're glue"?Irony is fun.
And you had to reply twice? Will you next be saying "I am rubber and you're glue"?Irony is fun.
I'd rather get fleeced to get a 1st than lose the same players but get a 2nd + B prospect without getting fleeced in the process. Sometimes, you gotta lose deals to do whats best for your franchise. As a Devils fan, I'm very happy with this trade.
By that logic the devils will also have nothing to show for it unless they win a cup with the assets.It will be OK. You don't need to cry to Mommy when someone disagrees with your take on something. Like I said before, after the playoffs, Isles will have nothing to show for this trade unless they win the cup. However, the Devils will.
The Isles chances are much better this year, after this trade. They could also resign Palms, or perhaps even Zajac. However, if they don't win this year, what will they have to show for this deal?By that logic the devils will also have nothing to show for it unless they win a cup with the assets.
The Islanders hands down won that trade. What’s the point you’re making here?
So both teams got assets that may or may not lead to a cup win. Seems like a weird thing to devalue for one team and not for the other, but OK. Still, you are dodging the point. Would you say the Devils gave up Palmieiri and Zajac with nothing to show for it if these assets returned don't end up leading to a cup win for NJ?The Isles chances are much better this year, after this trade. They could also resign Palms, or perhaps even Zajac. However, if they don't win this year, what will they have to show for this deal?
On the other hand, the Devils will get a couple picks. one being in the 1st round, that they will have control of for the next several seasons. We shall see what becomes of the pick, with the Devils window opening soon, it could become an asset leading to a cup. Time will tell.
And you had to reply twice? Will you next be saying "I am rubber and you're glue"?
My posts have been to say the Devils did not get "fleeced", as one juvenile poster keeps insisting. I happen to think its a good trade for both teams with where they are at. However, in the long run, the ultimate goal is to win a cup or cups. Now, you still have not answered my question, if the Isles don't win this year, what will they have to show for this deal? Will you still be happy they made the deal?So both teams got assets that may or may not lead to a cup win. Seems like a weird thing to devalue for one team and not for the other, but OK. Still, you are dodging the point. Would you say the Devils gave up Palmieiri and Zajac with nothing to show for it if these assets returned don't end up leading to a cup win for NJ?
My posts have been to say the Devils did not get "fleeced", as one juvenile poster keeps insisting. I happen to think its a good trade for both teams with where they are at. However, in the long run, the ultimate goal is to win a cup or cups. Now, you still have not answered my question, if the Isles don't win this year, what will they have to show for this deal? Will you still be happy they made the deal?
Glad you feel this way. I will be rooting for the Isles as they will have several former Devils who had to endure many losing season. Good luck.I know this was not posed to me. But as an Isles fan... If they win several rounds and put up a competitive attempt in being eliminated (similar to last playoffs). Then I would be happy with this deal.
While winning the cup is the ultimate goal, all too often people discard the necessary and incremental improvements needed to get there. As a fan since the 1980's I already have seen several Islander prospects and rebuilds laid waste because the organization wouldn't invest in being competitive in the playoffs.
Barzal, Pulock, Pelech and now Wahlstrom, Sorokin, Dobson will have several playoff rounds of experience well before the likes of Tavares, Okposo, Neilsen and Bailey ever had a chance to even make the playoffs. I could only imagine where the Isles would have been if they had invested a bit more on veteran talent.
Finally, with that all said the Islanders "brand" has been so abused by previous ownership and management that just achieving some competitive normalcy is an enormous accomplishment. Inevitably, nothing but wining a cup will be acceptable. But a year of spending on talent to improve their chances in the playoffs (even without winning a cup) just before entering a new arena is still an important accomplishment for THIS specific franchise.
With that said, I think the market this year will show that the the Devils did well. Also while I do hope the Devils get the last pick in the first round. I also hope they are the team that finds one of the steals in the draft at that pick... The next Bergeron, Aho or O'Reilly etc. There is always talent to be found in the draft.
You literally dodged the question and didn't answer it. Would you say they have nothing to show for it? But I will answer your question anyway. Yes, I will still be happy that our GM gave us the Islanders the best chance he could to win a cup while giving up a reasonable value of assets. Which is the point of a trade, to improve your chances at a cup. And I will still feel thay way even if it doesn't result in a cup.My posts have been to say the Devils did not get "fleeced", as one juvenile poster keeps insisting. I happen to think its a good trade for both teams with where they are at. However, in the long run, the ultimate goal is to win a cup or cups. Now, you still have not answered my question, if the Isles don't win this year, what will they have to show for this deal? Will you still be happy they made the deal?
My point posting in this thread was about the Devils getting "Fleeced", which I did not agree with. Hence my question about the ultimate outcome for the Islanders. The Islanders window for this trade (unless they resign Palms) is just this year as opposed to the Devils window, being different because they will have the picks then players moving forward.You literally dodged the question and didn't answer it. Would you say they have nothing to show for it? But I will answer your question anyway. Yes, I will still be happy that our GM gave us the Islanders the best chance he could to win a cup while giving up a reasonable value of assets. Which is the point of a trade, to improve your chances at a cup. And I will still feel thay way even if it doesn't result in a cup.
Acting like there is only winning a Cup or nothing as the possible results of a trade is a false binary IMO and pretty silly to try to claim, but I ask my question to you as I am curious if you apply that same logic the other direction.
You continue to dodge answering the question, even after I answered yours. I wonder why it might be that you refuse to answer a simple question like that...My point posting in this thread was about the Devils getting "Fleeced", which I did not agree with. Hence my question about the ultimate outcome for the Islanders. The Islanders window for this trade (unless they resign Palms) is just this year as opposed to the Devils window, being different because they will have the picks then players moving forward.
Bottom line is, you can use whatever requirements you want to evaluate a trade, I will use my own.
You continue to dodge answering the question, even after I answered yours. I wonder why it might be that you refuse to answer a simple question like that...
Dodging the question and talking around it isn't answering it. Though it's generally considered good form that if you demand someone else answer a question and they oblige you that you would show them the same courtesy, I am not trying to force him to do anything. Was just wondering aloud why he won't answer a pretty straight forward question.He answered it in his own way. You don’t like the answer but this isn’t court and you can’t force him to answer a series of yes or no questions. You also can’t force him to accept your definitions and parameters.
Dodging the question and talking around it isn't answering it. Though it's generally considered good form that if you demand someone else answer a question and they oblige you that you would show them the same courtesy, I am not trying to force him to do anything. Was just wondering aloud why he won't answer a pretty straight forward question.
But no worries, I'll go with his logic and remember that the Devils got fleeced and gave up Zajac and Palmieri for nothing if these assets don't win them a cup. I had thought it was a good trade for both teams since they both improved their odds somewhat of winning a cup, but now I've learned that both teams will have nothing to show for it unless they win a cup because of it.
Well, before SJ taught me otherwise, that would've been my analysis too -- both teams got what they were looking for and paid fair prices for it, AKA a win-win trade. But now thanks to him, I have now learned who got fleeced, which would be either team that doesn't win the cup as a result of this trade. May turn out to be a lose-lose trade, apparently.Withiut knowing what was offered and who was even interested it’s hard to say “who got fleeced”. Among other things, Palmieri had a partial NTC and Zajac had a full one. It’s easy to presume it was an open field of offers but who knows. I will say I doubt Zajac would have waived for any other team so I don’t think valuing him in a vacuum is fair. Palmieri also hasn’t been meshing with Hughes and really struggled all season. I think the NYI got to solid vets that will help in the playoffs. NJ got a couple of picks for guys they can make offers to as UFAs if they want. That’s a pretty good trade for both teams in my view. I think once fannies are back in the seats deadline deals will look more like pst years. This season between the flat cap and limited playoff revenue I don’t think most teams are really going for it.
Well, before SJ taught me otherwise, that would've been my analysis too -- both teams got what they were looking for and paid fair prices for it, AKA a win-win trade. But now thanks to him, I have now learned who got fleeced, which would be either team that doesn't win the cup as a result of this trade. May turn out to be a lose-lose trade, apparently.
I've agreed with him, how does that seem worked up?Meh. It’s an Internet forum where nobody is going to articulate all of their thoughts. It’s typical to misread or misinterpret posts and messages that are in artfully worded or well worded but too brief. I wouldn’t get worked up. What we are discussing makes sense and you should be pleased that you have made a good point. Once people are arguing over the shape of the table it’s rare to get any resolution.
I also said I happen to think its a good trade for both teams with where they are at. But you decided to completely ignore that and many of my statement and fixate on specific items to suit your narrative. I've ignored you like you have done to some my statements.Well, before SJ taught me otherwise, that would've been my analysis too -- both teams got what they were looking for and paid fair prices for it, AKA a win-win trade. But now thanks to him, I have now learned who got fleeced, which would be either team that doesn't win the cup as a result of this trade. May turn out to be a lose-lose trade, apparently.
That's an interesting way to look at it. But from a Devils perspective, we get a 1st and 3rd/4th for two players that most likely weren't going to be resigned after the season. Two rentals basically.
That 1st rounder could be a 20-25 overall pick. You can get a solid NHL starter in that range.
Hall trade got us a great prospect in Dawson Mercer.
My posts have been to say the Devils did not get "fleeced", as one juvenile poster keeps insisting. I happen to think its a good trade for both teams with where they are at. However, in the long run, the ultimate goal is to win a cup or cups. Now, you still have not answered my question, if the Isles don't win this year, what will they have to show for this deal? Will you still be happy they made the deal?
Seems like I could have understood your point more clearly if you would answer the question I asked, but sure, the misunderstanding is all my fault.I also said I happen to think its a good trade for both teams with where they are at. But you decided to completely ignore that and many of my statement and fixate on specific items to suit your narrative. I've ignored you like you have done to some my statements.