Proposal: Panthers Rangers
- Thread starter RangersFan1994
- Start date
82Ninety42011
Registered User
Yes but they can flip the first round pick for something else. Rangers need a 3rd line center. Always been a fan of Lundell.
FoxysExpensiveNYDigs
Boo Nieves Truther
Why do the Panthers do this?
Yeah thats not how this works. Teams dont make trades so that they can then make another trade. Its failed bernmeister-esque logic.
pth2
Registered User
- Jan 7, 2018
- 3,148
- 2,339
There is no way Florida does this. They are a serious contender both now and in the immediate future.
Selling off players for magic beans (ie, draft picks) is what losing/rebuilding teams do... and even they don't tend to move away from a young guy like Lundell. And when they do it's either a lateral move to fix an immediate need, or it's because they just don't have a choice, cap-wise. None of this applies to Florida...
Selling off players for magic beans (ie, draft picks) is what losing/rebuilding teams do... and even they don't tend to move away from a young guy like Lundell. And when they do it's either a lateral move to fix an immediate need, or it's because they just don't have a choice, cap-wise. None of this applies to Florida...
you can also flip your 1st for something else. florida is no hurry to help their competition.
Dabeast
Registered User
In fairness, there were quite a few pick flips last year. Toronto traded for O’Reilly and then backfilled their futures pool by dealing Sandin. Washington only had the pick because of the Orlov trade. Horvat turned into Hronek indirectly. The Lundkvist pick was used similarly (Tarasenko), albeit the timeline more spaced out.
Tkachuk Norris
Registered User
- Jun 22, 2012
- 15,666
- 6,779
Why not trade Lundell for a guy like Lindholm who has proven to be magic with Tkachuk?
Old Navy Goat
Registered User
Because there's a salary cap, Lundell is cost controlled and Lindholm supposedly wants 9mil+
You guys keep saying this but Bern’s been great for months now
Cause he’s been magical with Bennett and Verhaeghe, and we get to keep Lundell, Bennett and Verhaeghe by not getting Lindholm.
Sorry, makes zero sense to move on from Lundell. I agree he has more in him, right now he’s cost controlled and not looking to get a huge raise…we need that. He’s also very defensively sound, which we also need.
I am not a bern enthusiast, but can you call ideas failures if they are all so crazy that none will ever happen?
TheImpatientPanther
Registered User
Oooo a 2024 mystery box?
How can the Panthers fans say no?
NO...well that was actually pretty easy after all.
How can the Panthers fans say no?
NO...well that was actually pretty easy after all.
Djp
Registered User
A player drafted 12OA in 2020
on year 3 of an ELC
a player who isn’t a bust
you think a pick in the 20s is what it takes to acquire him?
thrn Florida uses thr pick to acquire a replacement thst costs more in terms of valuable cap space.
Djp
Registered User
Why involve Florida when the Rangers could just trade thst for a rental.
or they could have just drafted Byfield……
RiverbottomChuck
Registered User
It has to be a running competition between Rags and Leafs fans when it comes to god awful proposals that only benefit their team on here. Oof
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
Teams love to make trades that then require them to make another trade as a result of the first trade….
I mean, FLA still can't make it work cap-wise, but with the way he's played this season, Lindholm isn't getting anywhere near $9M.
... Then again, there's always one idiot GM in the league.
Easternbull
Registered User
- Nov 18, 2016
- 725
- 846
Lundell Will be The bext 2C on the Panthers, he is not puttning up a ton of points, but Maurice can match Lundell/Luostarinen against other teams scoring lines while Barkov rests or heals and at least break even.
Put a sniper with those two instead of Nick Cousins and you will get the production.
Biiig no from Florida.
Put a sniper with those two instead of Nick Cousins and you will get the production.
Biiig no from Florida.
violaswallet
Registered User
- Apr 8, 2019
- 9,222
- 7,479
I see my name being taken in vain. fortunately for you, I am not God, only one who would serve Him.
But I am not surprised given you are one of my most persistent detractors, often critical w/o a worthy basis, who would insist if I said water was wet, you would persist with no it is not.
1. get real
2. logic > if not >>>>>>>>>>>>> irrational bs
THANKS!
Whether or not they happen is not the proper benchmark. The ? is should they be done b'c it is worthwhile + on paper sufficiently profitable to participants.
Also, over time, I am often if not usually proven right.
For example, we know I pushed for them to sell high on Buch, among other vets.
They did not listen.
Rs wound up selling him w/only a sliver of rfa status remaining, so the return was properly MUCH less.
That might not have been as obvious as when I had several props moving Buch but in hindsight we now see I was correct.
this ^
NO, no more effin rentals, OP is wrong there.
People want simple solutions to complex problems, but usually that is wrong.
In reality, you first undertake complicated solutions that actually work, and refine afterwards to smooth edges as much as possible.
While it is often not obvious w/everything on full display at sq1, moves beget follow up moves which beget more moves, usually reacting to earlier decisions.
Hence while the 'require' may not be immediate, it is not accurate to infer that all moves are in a vacuum without any related follow up
