• Announcements

    • StealthNuck

      Forum-specific Rules   07/11/2017

      These are board specific rules for the Trades and Rumors forum designed to provide organization and a better experience for everyone. Please review these rules before posting new threads. 
        THREAD ETIQUETTE   1. Please search for an existing thread before posting. This forum can be very fast moving, so it's understandable if redundant threads are inadvertently posted. In such a case, please use the report feature to request removal of redundant threads.    2. Provide a clearly identifiable topic title so that users can readily understand the content. The title should include any and all teams involved, as well as player names or other personnel involved as appropriate.   3. All trades, signings, rumors and other news MUST include a linkable source. Simply posting the name of the source is not enough. Effort should also be made to copy and paste the full article, or at the very least the relevant portion of text from the source to the first post of the thread. Moderators may remove low-quality threads in favour of high-quality threads. 

      Affixed to the front of your title should be a label that identifies the type of transaction that is taking place. For all trades use [TRADE]. For all signings use [SIGNING]. For all waiver-wire transactions use [WAIVERS]. For all rumours use [RUMOUR].
      For articles or news items that don't fit into the above categories, affix an appropriate label of your choice such as [NEWS], [ARTICLE] or [MISC].   4. When the status of a thread changes a new thread can be created. The new thread should reflect the change and help focus the discussion on current events. e.g. Someone may create a new thread when a rumor becomes a trades. The old thread will be locked by the moderating team.    5. Do not misrepresent the contents of your thread or post false trades or rumors. Trolling will result in a permanent suspension. 

      SOURCES   The following source types are considered INVALID. Any links to posts or threads on other message boards Any links to personal blogs Any news heard on the radio that does not have a link to an audio vault or podcast Any news seen on television that does not have a link to online video Any news spread by word of mouth
      Additionally, certain sources may be be blacklisted due to poor credentials, clear traffic-mongering etc. Blacklisted sources will be posted here. 
      Thank you for your co-operation and please PM the Administrator or Moderators if you have any questions, concerns or suggestions regarding this forum.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Templeton Peck

[Discussion] Roberto Luongo Trade Thread 3.0

Recommended Posts

The only explanation is to ask a simple question: if they were so injured, why were they playing? Cody Hodgson could've been playing. And BTW, hairline fractures occur all the time and can go untreated. Don't let the jargon fool you. "Broken" does not accurately reflect the severity of the injury. And just because Boston didn't report their injuries, like the Canucks were so quick to do, does not mean that they didn't have any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our health was not the reason for the loss. The Canucks choked, plain and simple. Pooped all over themselves with fear in Boston, 3 times. The Canucks were up 2-0, and all they had to do was not lose 4/5 games to the Boston Bruins - which is exactly what happened.

You're not going to convince me that "injuries" were the cause of our loss, so if that's the goal, may as well just stop. I don't consider anybody who's playing to be "injured", no matter what Mike Gillis tells me via the radio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, almost every post on this page was in response to King, and the three that weren't, one was marvelling at the responses, another one was agreeing with another poster replying to King, and the 3rd was unrelated. Does anyone see a problem here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry; a clarification. I did not call your perspective propaganda; I called the whole presentation of the Hodgson affair by Gillis this.

I did think you expand on this viewpoint that he was pitching a tad too aggressively from time to time. Comments like "for you Hodgson lovers give it up"... If Gillis was completely right, Kassian would have been a monster for us in the play off's. I would have preferred him saying right when the trade was made that, perhaps they made some mistakes, but Hodgson wanted more than we can offer him at the moment. So we're offering him a chance and also offering Kassian the chance to the big dominating winger we also need.

Meh; back to new business.

Huh? What?

I'm not sure there is much point of engaging with this. Call my perspective propaganda if you choose - I call it keeping things in context. I can't bother to get too concerned about claims like that. Calling Gillis a "politician" is more propaganda than anything I said.

Likewise, regarding your claim that I am calling anyone who writes on Hodgson "blind" and a "blithering idiot". I have never said anything resembling that, to anyone. Play victim if you need to - I'm not talking down, I simply disagree, and have said as much - you have taken the liberty of putting a bunch of stuff in my mouth - I never called Hodgson a "wash out" - I never called you anything resembling a "tree hugger" - honestly, you're pretty defensive and have resorted to alot of embellishments - and ironically, I am as much of an "environmentalist" as the next person. If you are going to protest so much about what I have written and want me to respond honestly, you'll have to take less liberties rewriting, 'paraphrasing', and misrepresenting what I have said.

Lastly, if you are going to object to the notion that you are a Hodgson lover, you might want to edit that "Hodgson you look so very pretty" declaration of yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy crap, can you honestly read what you've written and seriously not think you are stretching to the outer limits of possibility just to satisfy your stupid claim that we weren't injured? This is worse than the Luongo/Gillis co-conspiracy to raise Schneider's value or the Oilers would say no to a Luongo for Paajarvi trade; worse than the Phaneuf is top 5 in the league, and handedness doesn't matter. This is a plain and simple straight forward published frick'n truth that you are disputing. This isn't just some half brained polar opinion of yours on some mostly intangible over flogged topic that there is no actual answer to. You are making yourself look silly. Man up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awww, did I touch a nerve?

Look, call it what you will, at the end of the day, it's an excuse! Not much else to it. I don't doubt that the Canucks were banged-up, just like I don't doubt that the Bruins were, too. The NHL playoffs has that effect.

But anybody who's deemed fit enough to play in an NHL game should be held accountable for their performance, and not be able to use the "oh, well I was injured" alibi, which seems to be the annual MO for this organization. I've heard Mike Gillis flat-out say on the radio that we lost the Cup because we were injured, which, IMO, is just ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry; a clarification. I did not call your perspective propaganda; I called the whole presentation of the Hodgson affair by Gillis this.

I did think you expand on this viewpoint that he was pitching a tad too aggressively from time to time. Comments like "for you Hodgson lovers give it up"... If Gillis was completely right, Kassian would have been a monster for us in the play off's. I would have preferred him saying right when the trade was made that, perhaps they made some mistakes, but Hodgson wanted more than we can offer him at the moment. So we're offering him a chance and also offering Kassian the chance to the big dominating winger we also need.

Meh; back to new business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this?

Luongo and Hodgson to Toronto :bigblush:

Myers and Frattin to Vancouver

Grabovski, Gardiner, and Connauton to Buffalo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd prefer:

Hodgson to Toronto

Myers and Frattin to Vancouver

Grabovski and Gardiner to Buffalo.

regards,

G.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, so you think Luongo + Connauton will get us Myers and Frattin? :lol:

oldnews' proposal isn't bad, I just can't imagine a scenario where Buffalo trades Tyler Myers. 6'8" defenceman who are mean and can score are just way, way too rare. They'd be crazy to move him.

Besides, why would they need Gardiner if they already have Ehrhoff? :bigblush:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, so you think Luongo + Connauton will get us Myers and Frattin? :lol:

oldnews' proposal isn't bad, I just can't imagine a scenario where Buffalo trades Tyler Myers. 6'8" defenceman who are mean and can score are just way, way too rare. They'd be crazy to move him.

Besides, why would they need Gardiner if they already have Ehrhoff? :bigblush:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.