coho8888

Members
  • Content count

    113
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

69 Neutral

About coho8888

  • Rank
    Comets Prospect

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0
  1. I had 3 10K eggs hatch within a day and all 3 were Eevees.
  2. Metrotown has a lot of them. One morning I was able snag 4. I had a 480 cp Gastly which I evolved to a 800+ haunter but the gengar that I got from the subsequent evolve was only 1296. Kind of disappointing.
  3. Sure, if you put Ricky on his line.
  4. They were working on a "Framework" for a final deal. It probably went down like this: JB: I want Honda, +prospect +pick Nill: No. we can only give you Jokipakka, Pollock and a Third JB: We need that Third to be a conditional 2nd for a deal Nill: We'll get back to you on that. Makes a deal with Calgary. Nill: Sorry Jim we just made a deal with Calgary for Russell. We did covet Russell a bit more than your man Hamhuis. Nill: Look, we could still use another experienced D. We don't have much left give so will you take a 6th rounder? JB: Click. Look if Nill backtracked on his offer then he would be the one that looked bad and you can be sure the media would have been all over it.
  5. At the summit they were in full damage control. I believe what Dave Tomlinson said because he is close to the organization and had just spoken to TL. At the summit they said that as long as Russell was still available, there was no deal to be made. You can interpret that any way you want i.e. There was no deal to made because Dallas was not willing to give the Canucks the same deal as what they gave Calgary for Russell and the Canucks wanted more. Its true that Dallas probably used us as leverage but JB failed to call Nill's bluff.
  6. I posted this on the TDL thread shortly after the TDL was over. Hate to do my share of beating a deceased Equine but from was said by Dave Tomlinson (after he talked to Trevor Linden) that Dallas offered Jokipakka, Pollock and a third for Hamhuis. Now whether they were serious or not is another story but had JB accepted immediately, it would have forced Dallas's hand on taking Hamhuis. JB countered back by asking a for a conditional second instead of the third. This gave Dallas an out. Dallas then took that deal back to Calgary with leverage and the deal was made (basically told Calgary that they had a possible deal with the Canucks). After the deal with Calgary was made, Dallas went back to JB and offered an insulting 6th rounder for Hamhuis. Did Dallas want Russell more? Certainly. Was there a deal to be done with the Canucks? perhaps had JB not asked for more. Regardless of whether you thought the deal originally offered to the Canucks was fair or not, JB should have recognized that one, you are running out of time and two, you only have one team to deal with. JB knew that Dallas had Calgary as an option, he should have read the situation a bit better. Afterwards, they spun it to make it look like Dallas wanted Russell more which was true.
  7. I've never really considered any of the top 3 picks as ours to lose anyways. With this system, we only had the third best chance of landing a top 3. Our chances were only slightly better than Calgary, Arizona, Winnipeg or Columbus. Heck, even Toronto could have easily dropped to the 4th pick. Disappointing? yes, but saying that we are cursed when the odds were stacked against us to begin with is a bit of a stretch. That's why during the last part of this season; while everyone was fretting about our tanking abilities, I was hoping not to fall that low considering the disappointment that would result if our numbers did not come in. That said, I absolutely hate this lottery because it seems to be a bit of a farce. If the league was serious about preventing Edmonton from garnering another top pick they should have just excluded them from being eligible in the first place. IMO, they changed the rules to create more hype for the league. Non-playoff teams have not just one chance but three to get a top 3 pick. Neither the NFL nor MLB has this. I can understand the NBA having a lottery system due to the nature of the game and that one player can have a much greater impact for the entire team. But they only have the lottery for the top pick and not the top three. For those saying that our management was p***ies by agreeing to this system, don't forget that these rules were made before the season began. Nobody would have thought we would have finished 3rd last. Management thought that we would be fighting for a playoff spot and if we didn't make it, a top 3 pick would have been a great consolation prize. So don't be surprised if they supported this. As for this tanking notion, People seem to think that Toronto did a great job of intentionally tanking just to get Auston Matthews. Even if a Matthews, or Laine or Puijlarvi weren't available, I'm pretty sure they would have followed the same strategy. Toronto needed to blow things up. They needed to get rid of bad contracts and accumulate draft picks. That was their plan all along, getting the top pick was a bonus. Whatever the case may be, we have a chance at getting a good player this summer. Funny but the stuff happening off the ice seem to be more interesting than stuff happening on the ice. Hopefully that only temporary.
  8. Bingo! When a player is still an RFA, the team has some leverage in contract negotiations. There was no need to pay Sbisa that much. As a team you need to take advantage of the RFA years for all the young or younger players on the team. I have no problem with Sbisa as a bottom pair defenseman and if he was a UFA, I wouldn't have a problem with his contract either. We have a bunch of RFA's to sign next year and the subsequent years after. Both Sbisa and Dorsett's (though not an RFA contract) have set the bar too high. What do you think Hutton or Tryamkin will ask for when they come out of their ELC's? I expect both to pass Sbisa on the depth chart and based on the salary structure, Hutton could very well ask for 5 million per year. The cap room we think we have will be eaten up pretty quick.
  9. Nedved defected to North America a couple of years prior to the Draft. At the time, there was some uncertainty as to whether Jagr would be able to come over and play any time soon. I remember that Jagr was considered the BPA and compared to Lemieux. Pittsburgh took the risk and as it ended up, they were able to get him over to NA soon after. I also remember that there was great debate before the draft whether we should draft Mike Ricci or Nedved. Ricci being the safer more conservative pick.
  10. I don't necessarily have a problem with a suspension. I just have a problem with the inconsistencies on their rulings. From what has been discussed it seems that Jake's hit was perfectly legal except for the part about it being late. Had the puck been closer to the play, there might have been at the most a charging penalty and that's it. The effect of the hit on Polak would be the same but the ruling would have been drastically different. I've seen many instances this year of players "finishing their checks" along the boards well after the puck was long gone. In most cases only an interference penalty was assessed. No suspensions or hearings. So where do we draw the line? If someone gets stapled to the boards when the puck is clearly no where near the play should it get at least a 2 game suspension? Was it because it was an open ice hit that was the problem? Last time I checked, clean open ice hits not targeting the head are ok.
  11. Didn't they predict a much larger deficit than what they thought after they were elected? Pretty convenient don't you think?
  12. Yep. They ran and got elected on the platform that they were going to run a deficit. Its the size of the deficit that they are lying to us about.
  13. Its been a long season and our rookies have been put into situations that they may not have been ready for. Not saying that was a bad thing to do but you have to manage your expectations. I've been following the team for many years and the number of kids that have played in our lineup this year is unprecedented. Hutton for example was playing half the number of games at the college level last year. He's played practically the whole season at the nhl level sometimes facing top lines. He's been making quite a few mistakes lately which is to be expected. Virtanen is just a kid in a man's body. McCann is a Man in a kid's body. Both have had success at every level of hockey that they have played at. They are just learning what it takes to be professional hockey players and in some cases they are learning how to be adults. Because of their skills, they may have been able to take nights off at the junior level but are learning that they can't at the pro level. For every kid with the maturity level of a Horvat, you get a kid like Virtanen. Yes, its frustrating to lose and for someone like Daniel who has seen the "good" years and has been through it all, its perfectly understandable. I'm a big Sedin fan and not trying to be overly critical of Daniel on what he said. I was just wondering whether there was some underlying reason since its really not in his character to say those sorts of things to the media.
  14. If what you say is true then what does it say about our coach? I mean if Daniel or Henrik is talking to these players and then when not getting the results, calling them out in front of the media, aren't they effectively doing what WD's job is to do? I understand it is common for the leaders of the team to talk players individually if they are not pulling their weight, I am fine with that but when the team leaders speak out about it to the media, then aren't they usurping the authority of their coach? Maybe there is a disconnect between the Sedins and WD? Read my post again. I was not critical about Daniel talking to the player(s) in question about their effort levels. In fact I expect him as a leader to do so. I just see no purpose in doing that and then going to the media with "they know who they are" quote. Unless you are willing to name names it only serves to create speculation about who they are referring to which does nothing but make this situation even worse than it should be. Is it about a couple of our Rookies? Vets?
  15. If what you say is true then what does it say about our coach? I mean if Daniel or Henrik is talking to these players and then when not getting the results, calling them out in front of the media, aren't they effectively doing what WD's job is to do? I understand it is common for the leaders of the team to talk players individually if they are not pulling their weight, I am fine with that but when the team leaders speak out about it to the media, then aren't they usurping the authority of their coach? Maybe there is a disconnect between the Sedins and WD?