• Announcements

    • StealthNuck

      All Threads Must Contain Tags!   07/25/2017

      ALL THREADS MUST CONTAIN TAGS   All threads in this forum must contain tags prefixed to topic titles. The purpose of the tags is to eliminate confusion in recent threads lists, and to create an organized and consistent environment. Moderators may immediately lock and thread that does not contain tags.    Tags must be placed at the start of your thread title, following this exact formatting:    [Tag] Thread Title   Here are some of the most used popular tags:    [Proposal]
      A trade, or trades, for next season, or even the off-season.
      [Off-Season]
      FA signings, off-season trades for RFA's, UFA's rights etc...
      [Value Of]
      (A question regarding a players worth, whether from another team, or the Canucks)
      [Speculation] Posting a rumor (with a source of course), but providing why it could be possible for the Canucks to land that player.   [Discussion]
      Thoughts on team trading strategy and composition.   Please feel free to create your own tag if none of these suit your thread.   
Sign in to follow this  
canuckmen84

(PROPOSAL) VAN-BUF “With A Hidden Agenda”.

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said:

That's the one of the biggest problems with CDC trade proposals.  The needs of the other team aren't often considered as highly as the needs of the Canucks.  That's why you get so many unrealistic trade proposals.

Yup.  It's a Canuck's board.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Yup.  It's a Canuck's board.  

So does that mean it has to be devoid of logic or intelligent conversation? You can be a fan AND understand that trades need to work for BOTH teams.  

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said:

That's the one of the biggest problems with CDC trade proposals.  The needs of the other team aren't often considered as highly as the needs of the Canucks.  That's why you get so many unrealistic trade proposals.

So Buffalo doesn't need a goalie? They have a RFA and a UFA...

Buffalo couldn't use cap space and would want to keep moulson on the books ? I think not..

Seems I thought of a couple needs buffalo has... 

Who's helping who more in this trade, Canucks just get two 4ths and a sabers cap dump. 4th rounders are hit and miss, Your just being narrow minded. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, canuckmen84 said:

So Buffalo doesn't need a goalie? They have a RFA and a UFA...

Buffalo couldn't use cap space and would want to keep moulson on the books ? I think not..

Seems I thought of a couple needs buffalo has... 

Who's helping who more in this trade, Canucks just get two 4ths and a sabers cap dump. 4th rounders are hit and miss, Your just being narrow minded. 

 

You are offering a goalie they are already very familiar with whom they had no interest in resigning a year ago. It’s not like he’s the only option they have.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, qwijibo said:

So does that mean it has to be devoid of logic or intelligent conversation? You can be a fan AND understand that trades need to work for BOTH teams.  

Sure a fan can be a fan for more than one team.  There bias for that other team might leak over here.  I accept that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Alflives said:

Yup.  It's a Canuck's board.  

 

2 hours ago, Alflives said:

Sure a fan can be a fan for more than one team.  There bias for that other team might leak over here.  I accept that. 

You're confusing bias with just plain stupid.  Sadly, this isn't anywhere near the worst post that I've seen in the CDC armchair GM section for a trade with any of the other 30 teams in the league.  I stopped even clicking on the section for a long time.

 

There's a reason why a crapload of these posts are made under regular user's alt accounts.  People know when their trade proposals are more likely to be ridiculous than not so it's easier to just abandon an ALT account rather than their main one if the collective hammer falls too hard and they get called out.

Edited by SabreFan1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, canuckmen84 said:

So Buffalo doesn't need a goalie? They have a RFA and a UFA...

There are a lot of better goalies out there than the goalie that they got rid of a year ago.  He even said that the Sabres didn't have much in the way of discussions with his agent.  That has already been pointed out once in this thread with proof of the quote and you're just willfully ignoring it trying to defend your ridiculous one-sided trade proposal.

 

Quote

Buffalo couldn't use cap space and would want to keep moulson on the books ? I think not..

The Sabres are in the bottom half of the league when it comes to how much cap space is occupied.  They also are bringing up more ELC contracts this year to play.  Reinhart is likely going to play on a bridge contract if he doesn't get traded.  Cap space is not an issue for the Sabres in the coming year no matter how much you want it to be.

 

Quote

Seems I thought of a couple needs buffalo has...

Stop trying to think.  It isn't your strong suit.

 

Quote

Who's helping who more in this trade, Canucks just get two 4ths and a sabers cap dump. 4th rounders are hit and miss, Your just being narrow minded.

If it was a bad deal for the Canucks and a win for the Sabres, you wouldn't be trying so hard to argue in favour of it.  Any GM will take what is essentially a 1st round pick over 2 4th round picks. 

 

Like I said, stop trying to think.  It isn't your strong suit.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said:

There are a lot of better goalies out there than the goalie that they got rid of a year ago.  He even said that the Sabres didn't have much in the way of discussions with his agent.  That has already been pointed out once in this thread with proof of the quote and you're just willfully ignoring it trying to defend your ridiculous one-sided trade proposal.

First off i'm not ignoring facts, if anything you are, you're simply saying it isn't possible Buffalo could want Nilsson back because of his past with the sabers which is just nonsense, news flash anythings possible.

your'e also saying it's a one sided proposal when i have already laid out how it's not...with no logical response from you.

 

44 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said:

The Sabres are in the bottom half of the league when it comes to how much cap space is occupied.  They also are bringing up more ELC contracts this year to play.  Reinhart is likely going to play on a bridge contract if he doesn't get traded.  Cap space is not an issue for the Sabres in the coming year no matter how much you want it to be.

I said they "could" use cap space not "need" but clearly you have a hard time understanding words.

Getting Moulson off the books is a gain for the sabers any way you look at it or in your case just turn a blind eye think it's a loss.

 

1 hour ago, SabreFan1 said:

If it was a bad deal for the Canucks and a win for the Sabres, you wouldn't be trying so hard to argue in favour of it.  Any GM will take what is essentially a 1st round pick over 2 4th round picks. 

 

Like I said, stop trying to think.  It isn't your strong suit.

I'm not trying to argue in favor of the offer, you're just putting words in my mouth and insulting me, pretty immature really, but hey if it makes you feel like you're right and i'm wrong good on ya. The simple fact is we have a difference of opinion, your whole argument is centered around you saying that there is a zero chance Nilsson could be traded to Buffalo where as I say anything is possible, how do we know what a GM thinks from one year to the next.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, canuckmen84 said:

First off i'm not ignoring facts, if anything you are, you're simply saying it isn't possible Buffalo could want Nilsson back because of his past with the sabers which is just nonsense, news flash anythings possible.

your'e also saying it's a one sided proposal when i have already laid out how it's not...with no logical response from you.

 

I said they "could" use cap space not "need" but clearly you have a hard time understanding words.

Getting Moulson off the books is a gain for the sabers any way you look at it or in your case just turn a blind eye think it's a loss.

 

I'm not trying to argue in favor of the offer, you're just putting words in my mouth and insulting me, pretty immature really, but hey if it makes you feel like you're right and i'm wrong good on ya. The simple fact is we have a difference of opinion, your whole argument is centered around you saying that there is a zero chance Nilsson could be traded to Buffalo where as I say anything is possible, how do we know what a GM thinks from one year to the next.

 

 

What exactly makes you think buffalo management would have any interest in bringing Nilsson back?  They walked away from him less than a year ago.  In that year he put up worse numbers in Vancouver than he did in Buffalo.  A couple of good games in a marginal tournament isn’t going to suddenly make them want him back.  Backup goalies are ridiculously easy to find on the market.  

 

Youre arguing finer points about a bout a team with a fan of that team.   I’d venture to guess he has a fair clearer idea of what that team needs than you do. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, qwijibo said:

What exactly makes you think buffalo management would have any interest in bringing Nilsson back?  They walked away from him less than a year ago.  In that year he put up worse numbers in Vancouver than he did in Buffalo.  A couple of good games in a marginal tournament isn’t going to suddenly make them want him back.  Backup goalies are ridiculously easy to find on the market.  

 

Youre arguing finer points about a bout a team with a fan of that team.   I’d venture to guess he has a fair clearer idea of what that team needs than you do. 

Who said I have a clearer idea of what the team needs ?? If you take my trade proposal and me saying anything is possible as such than you are surely mistaken. Seems you like to put words into people's mouth, interesting considering I wasn't even talking to you but thanks for your two cents.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, canuckmen84 said:

Who said I have a clearer idea of what the team needs ?? If you take my trade proposal and me saying anything is possible as such than you are surely mistaken. Seems you like to put words into people's mouth, interesting considering I wasn't even talking to you but thanks for your two cents.

 

“Anything is possible” is a crap argument. You can apply it to every  ridiculous proposal.  Possible? Sure.  Probable? Likely? Remotely realistic? Nope.  

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, qwijibo said:

“Anything is possible” is a crap argument. You can apply it to every  ridiculous proposal.  Possible? Sure.  Probable? Likely? Remotely realistic? Nope.  

 

 

Mine is possible and realistic.  

Buffalo needs a goalie...

"Anything possible" is not an argument, it's reality, unless your in tight with their GM there is no way to know how he feels about Nilsson Today. Yes I know there was no offer on the table for Nilsson after his last year there but for what reason, we don't know and it really doesn't matter because it was a year ago. I'm sorry you can't grasp my logic or see the possibility of a deal but I'm not going to try and talk you into it .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, canuckmen84 said:

Mine is possible and realistic.  

Buffalo needs a goalie...

"Anything possible" is not an argument, it's reality, unless your in tight with their GM there is no way to know how he feels about Nilsson Today. Yes I know there was no offer on the table for Nilsson after his last year there but for what reason, we don't know and it really doesn't matter because it was a year ago. I'm sorry you can't grasp my logic or see the possibility of a deal but I'm not going to try and talk you into it .

 

Tell you what. I’ll admit it’s realistic if you can find one example of a team not tendering an offer to one of their players and then trading for the same player the following season. Just one. 

 

Unrestricted free agency came into effect in 1995. That gives you 23 years of history to dig up a single example. 

Edited by qwijibo
  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, canuckmen84 said:

First off i'm not ignoring facts, if anything you are, you're simply saying it isn't possible Buffalo could want Nilsson back because of his past with the sabers which is just nonsense, news flash anythings possible.

your'e also saying it's a one sided proposal when i have already laid out how it's not...with no logical response from you.

 

I said they "could" use cap space not "need" but clearly you have a hard time understanding words.

Getting Moulson off the books is a gain for the sabers any way you look at it or in your case just turn a blind eye think it's a loss.

 

I'm not trying to argue in favor of the offer, you're just putting words in my mouth and insulting me, pretty immature really, but hey if it makes you feel like you're right and i'm wrong good on ya. The simple fact is we have a difference of opinion, your whole argument is centered around you saying that there is a zero chance Nilsson could be traded to Buffalo where as I say anything is possible, how do we know what a GM thinks from one year to the next.

You're trying to think again.  Cut it out.  It's not doing you any favours!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.