Aladeen Posted May 19, 2017 Share Posted May 19, 2017 41 minutes ago, timberz21 said: These are the ones I found quickly, but i'm not about to go through 208 pages to prove my point. If you want to see for yourself, go ahead I gave you the link To which I responded: "I agree, [...] So we can't expect top 10 pick + late first or 2015 first + A grade prospect or top 6 player. Either two of the above. But I still think the best offer we could get would be Anaheim, since they seem more willing to overpay, as they should since they are rivals." How does that prove your point? 1 guy said that is what we'd better get minus boner (junkyard dog) others were obviously joking with lol at the end of their posts. Others thought maybe the 10th pick would be included but that's about it not sure how that "proves" your point that all of CDC expected 2 firsts Bonino and stud d prospect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aladeen Posted May 19, 2017 Share Posted May 19, 2017 To add to that one of the posts that "proves" your point says no way we would get Bonino in that trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timberz21 Posted May 19, 2017 Share Posted May 19, 2017 53 minutes ago, Aladeen said: How does that prove your point? 1 guy said that is what we'd better get minus boner (junkyard dog) others were obviously joking with lol at the end of their posts. Others thought maybe the 10th pick would be included but that's about it not sure how that "proves" your point that all of CDC expected 2 firsts Bonino and stud d prospect? those were some comments in the thread, there were probably 100 more similar in the Proposal section, not going to count how many posts there actually was. When I say CDC, I didn't mean EVERY single user, jeez i'm not that stupid. I was talking figuratively, that a lot of CDC proposed a deal like that at the time. Wow, you seem to be offended by that. Just like now a lot of people are throwing crazy optimistic proposal for Tanev, while a lot of other people argues that these proposals are crazy. 50 minutes ago, Aladeen said: To add to that one of the posts that "proves" your point says no way we would get Bonino in that trade. OMG if I would have known you were going to take me so literally, I would have been more precise. My point was a lot of CDC proposal requested 10th, 24th + 1 or 2 other players, they weren't necessarily ALL 10th, 24th, Bonino + Other, but something in that area. Neway, sorry for those that were offended...I didn't want to include ALL of you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aladeen Posted May 19, 2017 Share Posted May 19, 2017 58 minutes ago, timberz21 said: those were some comments in the thread, there were probably 100 more similar in the Proposal section, not going to count how many posts there actually was. When I say CDC, I didn't mean EVERY single user, jeez i'm not that stupid. I was talking figuratively, that a lot of CDC proposed a deal like that at the time. Wow, you seem to be offended by that. Just like now a lot of people are throwing crazy optimistic proposal for Tanev, while a lot of other people argues that these proposals are crazy. OMG if I would have known you were going to take me so literally, I would have been more precise. My point was a lot of CDC proposal requested 10th, 24th + 1 or 2 other players, they weren't necessarily ALL 10th, 24th, Bonino + Other, but something in that area. Neway, sorry for those that were offended...I didn't want to include ALL of you! lol It just irks me when CDC posters criticize all of CDC for what a few posters post and then fail to realize that by themselves posting on CDC they must themselves be included in that broad stroke they make. Ultimately Tanev will be moved or he won't and either his return will be good or it won't and since neither you nor I nor CDC has any real say in it who cares if CDC posters over or under value him. The only valuation that matters whatsoever are those done by interested GMs and JB. But let the posters have their fun and if Sky's the limit for their valuation who cares really? Let them dream for the time being and time will let us all know what reality actual is in terms of Tanev's true value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
48MPHSlapShot Posted May 19, 2017 Share Posted May 19, 2017 6 hours ago, timberz21 said: Any player's value is whatever somebody is willing to pay to land him...pretty much the definition of Fair Market Value...doesn't mean you'll get the same return for each of them. It's not impossible that a GM has a brain fart and overpays badly for a player (i.e Forsberg/Erat), but highly improbable, you probably won't see as bad a trade as this one for another 10 years. But realistically, if you look at Tanev's value, you can't expect to land a lopsided deal like this, which most proposal in here pretty much suggest. CDC was expecting 10th, 24th, Bonino + Vatanen/Fowler/Lindholm/Theodore for Kesler. Again the realistic return was a late 1st, middle 6 center and bottom pairing defenseman. OK no. That wasn't fair value at all. That was all Kesler could land us because of the position he put us in (only have 2 teams on his list, 1 of which couldn't afford him). Had Kesler opened up his list, you damn right we would have gotten more for him. To claim what what we got for Kesler was anything other than an underpayment is simply asinine, and to use is as a gauge of anything is even more so. As far as Tanev goes, I'll simply say that I'm glad your opinion is not the determining factor of what his value is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.