Horvat Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 this happens: trade: lack + higgins to san jose for a 2nd and a 4th trade: Bieksa + Burrows + 4th to montreal for a 1st trade: Hamhuis + Corrado + montreals 1st _________________________________________________________________________________ (6)(19)(43)(109)(139)(146) who would you draft? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horvat Posted March 16, 2015 Author Share Posted March 16, 2015 (6): Rantanen (19): Kylington (43): Hintz (109): Gagne (139): Juulsen (146): Kovacs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gstank29 Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 So basically we demolish our team to get a 6th overall pick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Monahan Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 (6): Rantanen (19): Kylington (43): Hintz (109): Gagne (139): Juulsen (146): Kovacs At 6 I'd rather see strome (if available) and if not then provorov or werenski. But I also wouldn't want to see these deals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zfetch Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 (6): Rantanen (19): Kylington (43): Hintz (109): Gagne (139): Juulsen (146): Kovacs No, just no. We don't need to draft 2 Virtanens back-to-back with the 6th overalls. (Only difference is one passes, the other shoots) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horvat Posted March 16, 2015 Author Share Posted March 16, 2015 At 6 I'd rather see strome (if available) and if not then provorov or werenski. But I also wouldn't want to see these deals. trades aren't the point, i couldn't even make a thread with the picks we already have, lol propose your own trades? people are to friggin lazy its ridiculous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horvat Posted March 16, 2015 Author Share Posted March 16, 2015 No, just no. We don't need to draft 2 Virtanens back-to-back with the 6th overalls. (Only difference is one passes, the other shoots) isnt that a good thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Monahan Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 trades aren't the point, i couldn't even make a thread with the picks we already have, lol propose your own trades? people are to friggin lazy its ridiculous The trades may not be the focal point but it's a dam big part of it when you're talking about drafting with a pick we'd have to acquire. To draft sixth overall, which I believe would be Toronto's pick, I'd be okay with something like: Van 2015 1st, corrado, and Shinkaruk for the pick and maybe another in a late round or a low prospect. At sixth overall we can draft a high end D or centre prospect, two things we lack (especially the d man). But I don't know if Toronto does that deal with shinkaruk's perceived value taking a hit since he was drafted. Key word is perceived, I still like shink. It would also depend on where our first rounder lands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejazz97 Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 Lack and Higgins are worth at least a late 1st or two 2nds. And we're not trading Lack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Jane Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 Who says Hamhuis and Bieska want to be traded anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horvat Posted March 16, 2015 Author Share Posted March 16, 2015 Lack and Higgins are worth at least a late 1st or two 2nds. And we're not trading Lack. YOU THINK WERE ARENT TRADING LACK? HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH OMG HOW COULD YOU NOT OMGOMG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Jane Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 YOU THINK WERE ARENT TRADING LACK? HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH OMG HOW COULD YOU NOT OMGOMG If the price is right..we will be keeping Lack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuktravella Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 this happens: trade: lack + higgins to san jose for a 2nd and a 4th trade: Bieksa + Burrows + 4th to montreal for a 1st trade: Hamhuis + Corrado + montreals 1st _________________________________________________________________________________ (6)(19)(43)(109)(139)(146) who would you draft? horrible trades higgins can get us a second or a third, we are not trading lack but markstrom can get us a third at least , burrows with 1.5 mill retained would get us a secind rounder, bieska coukd get us a firstbut wont waive ntc so hes staying, hamhuis will get us a first and a young a prospect , corrado stays Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejazz97 Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 YOU THINK WERE ARENT TRADING LACK? HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH OMG HOW COULD YOU NOT OMGOMG Bro. Everyone loves him. To trade him would be anarchy EDIT: Everyone except you loves Lack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuktravella Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 but if we did trade them id draft 12th barzal 18th harkins 35th pilon 43rd meloche 75th rasmus andersonn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter.S-Kerouac Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 No, just no. We don't need to draft 2 Virtanens back-to-back with the 6th overalls. (Only difference is one passes, the other shoots) I could have sworn the difference was Ran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skirbs11 Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 Outside the obvious top 4 players there is only 2 players i would trade up for Lawson Crouse and Matt Barzal which i think could be around in the 9-12 spots Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horvat Posted March 16, 2015 Author Share Posted March 16, 2015 Bro. Everyone loves him. To trade him would be anarchy EDIT: Everyone except you loves Lack lol i dont have emotional problems with players, i dont feel guilt trading a player, i like him but thats not even close to a reason to keep a player, he doesnt fit on next years roster its pretty simple... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horvat Posted March 16, 2015 Author Share Posted March 16, 2015 but if we did trade them id draft 12th barzal 18th harkins 35th pilon 43rd meloche 75th rasmus andersonn lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Monahan Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 lol So you get pissy when people shoot down your proposals without offering their own but you laugh at a poster that does offer proposals, which IMO weren't all that unrealistic. That is not the Horvatian way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.