Did you not accept that argument as fact when you said "exactly"?
In that case, please validate that fact with a quote from the other 30 GMs.
Nobody was going to trade for Methot or Ceci before an expansion draft so that’s not an option. So that leaves the option of sending a 2nd rounder (Alex Formenton) to Vegas and likely losing Wideman instead of Methot.
That's your evidence that 30 GMs weren't interested in Methot?! Are you for real ? That is not evidence in any form. Please review the definition of evidence, then to provide your evidence I am expecting the 30 quotes from each GM.
Is that the best deflection you have? You're losing your touch.
Please provide evidence to the fact that all 30 GMs weren't interested in Methot.
You always expect quotes as evidence,
Goalies are definitely a different animal in that not one starter was moved off their current team. It’s like moving a 4th liner or 7th d. Not applicable.Now you are moving goalposts. What does the return matter anyway, you said "nobody was going to trade", yet here are multiple examples proving you factually wrong.
Drouin was protected by Montreal, in other words Montreal not only traded for a player before the expansion draft, they even traded for one that they had to protect. This example fully dismantles your claim and there is no retort you can make to change that.
This is called a red herring. What Beaulieu returned is irrelevant. Methot is also a better player than Beaulieu. He was also traded and had to be protected prior to the expansion draft once again proving your claim to be wrong.
Sorry, but "common sense" is that your argument was objectively wrong.
I think in order to "win" this argument you're taking a very simplistic view to the whole thing.This literally has nothing to do with this discussion at all, and nothing I've ever claimed
You always expect quotes as evidence, please provide your evidence in quote form to your argument that all 30 GMs weren't interested in Methot. Are you incapable of meeting your own expected standards of others?
Could you provide some examples?
Lmao dude you can't be serious.
It's the only thing you do...
"handful"
You're the literal definition of a hypocrite.
Definition of hypocrite
1: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
Go find a post where I insist that, because it doesn't exist; staying on topic is very very hard for you isnt it. Weakest deflection attempts, even after you've been called out for it already, you keep trying it Embarrassing.
Now stop being a hypocrite and live up to your own requirements on others. Post the quotes, I'm waiting.
It’s pointless to have a discussion with you. A post on a message board is not a freaking legal contract yet you don’t grasp concept or spirit of the comment. You also seem to think each decision taken is done in a vacuum. Have a nice day.From "common sense" to a flimsy opinion.
Thanks for now admitting you were wrong.
Yes Beaulieu is a red herring because the return is irrelevant to the arguments being made, and to your initial point even.
I think in order to prove the other guys claim was wrong, I used actual events that occurred prior to the expansion draft, because those were in fact real, and therefore the reality.
The simplistic approach is what you are doing, speculating that things were too hard for GMPD, that is speculation. The real fact is that other teams traded players they knew they might lose for nothing, and in return received assets.
Also the post you quoted for your reply is quite odd.