Zack Kassian told by MTL not to report to the AHL

[butters]

1 hour ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Sounds like you know exactly how such things work....

Do I really need to add a /sarcasm?

[Blackberries]

37 minutes ago, LaBamba said:

A post like this only makes this situation that much sweeter. 

People also need to stop talking like he has this untapped potential waiting to be unleashed. He was drafted like 8 years ago. He has had 8 years to prepare his game for the NHL. Most players careers are half over at 25 and people act like it hasn't even started yet. That is the kind of blindness I talk about. 

Oh thank you God of CDC for showing us the light.

Have a cookie 

[LaBamba]

6 minutes ago, Blackberries said:

Oh thank you God of CDC for showing us the light.

Have a cookie 

It doesn't take a God to see, but to you I must seem like one. 

[Blackberries]

1 minute ago, LaBamba said:

It doesn't take a God to see, but to you I must seem like one. 

Aww that's cute. 

[RUPERTKBD]

2 hours ago, butters said:

Do I really need to add a /sarcasm?

My bad....damn thing must be on the fritz...

[RWMc1]

On 2015-12-27 at 7:27 PM, poetica said:

They said the team spoke to the agent, not that the agent called the team. Further, why would they need to talk to his agent to arrange a trade? There's no NTC to negotiate and I don't think other GMs are allowed to talk to a player under contract without the team's permission. And why would they talk to his agent rather than directly to the GM? So unless the offer is in Europe (where there are still likely agreements to not poach players) I doubt the agent was arranging a trade. Kass simply has no leverage. 

But yes, we will see soon. No matter what, it'll be interesting.

As I said, it made more sense that a deal was in the works. Why else would the agent have been mentioned. Also, if Montreal wanted to get rid of Kassian, why wouldn't they give his agent permission to talk to other teams. The most logical outcome happened after all. Face rub.

[poetica]

2 hours ago, RWMc1 said:

As I said, it made more sense that a deal was in the works. Why else would the agent have been mentioned. Also, if Montreal wanted to get rid of Kassian, why wouldn't they give his agent permission to talk to other teams. The most logical outcome happened after all. Face rub.

His agent could have been mentioned because, as they said, they made the decision after talking to him so he's (somehow) a part of the story. But still, as I mentioned before, we don't know why. Did Kass ask for a trade or did the team tell his agent they were going to trade him? We don't know. Since they didn't have to ask him for a trade, it may be that they needed some kind of confirmation from his agent that he would agree to certain conditions the Oilers were demanding (maybe relating to the drug program).

So yes, a deal did get done but that doesn't mean that Kass's agent got it done or had any direct part in it. Your original statement was that, "It sounds more like a GM has expressed interest to his agent and the agent has informed the team about it." There is still zero proof of that and it still makes no sense. Teams can't talk to players on contract and GMs don't outsource making deals to agents. It's literally a GMs job to get the best deal the can for the franchise, not to just leave it up to agents to get the best deal for their individual clients. Face "rub" indeed.

[RWMc1]

8 minutes ago, poetica said:

8 minutes ago, poetica said:

 

His agent could have been mentioned because, as they said, they made the decision after talking to him so he's (somehow) a part of the story. But still, as I mentioned before, we don't know why. Did Kass ask for a trade or did the team tell his agent they were going to trade him? We don't know. Since they didn't have to ask him for a trade, it may be that they needed some kind of confirmation from his agent that he would agree to certain conditions the Oilers were demanding (maybe relating to the drug program).

So yes, a deal did get done but that doesn't mean that Kass's agent got it done or had any direct part in it. Your original statement was that, "It sounds more like a GM has expressed interest to his agent and the agent has informed the team about it." There is still zero proof of that and it still makes no sense. Teams can't talk to players on contract and GMs don't outsource making deals to agents. It's literally a GMs job to get the best deal the can for the franchise, not to just leave it up to agents to get the best deal for their individual clients. Face "rub" indeed.

Agents are always part of the process. You were trying to make the case for his agent demanding a trade or letting Montreal know that he would fail a drug test. I was making the case for a trade in the works. I was right, you were wrong.

Facerub with a stinky ole glove.

[poetica]

19 minutes ago, RWMc1 said:

Agents are always part of the process. You were trying to make the case for his agent demanding a trade or letting Montreal know that he would fail a drug test. I was making the case for a trade in the works. I was right, you were wrong.

Facerub with a stinky ole glove.

No, agents are not always a part of the process. Otherwise, how could guys ever be shocked by trades? Schneider is a good example. He literally said, "It was shocking." to be traded to NJ. Likewise, Prust said he was "shocked" when he was traded to Vancouver. There are endless stories of players being shocked by trades. If their agents had been involved surely they would have given their clients a heads up, but that's just not how it works. Unless a player has standing to limit trades (like a NTC), the team doesn't have to involve them at all. They may choose to or perhaps might need to for some reason (like another team needing assurances of something, etc.) but it's not a requirement.

And if you actually read my original post I didn't "make a case" for either of those scenarios, as evidenced by the fact that they were posed as questions rather than written as statements. I merely suggested they were possibilities given the limited information we had. And, to the point, we still don't know that Kass didn't ask for a trade. Who knows what was said that would lead them to decide "after" they spoke with his agent, and that was my point. But, we can be pretty sure that unlike what you specifically argued, Kass' agent was highly unlikely to have been driving a trade, actually taking an offer to the team. That's just not likely given the rules and common sense.

But congrats on the childish "stinky ole glove" retort. I'm guessing it was the best you had to offer, so good for you! Gold star for effort!

[RWMc1]

3 minutes ago, poetica said:

No, agents are not always a part of the process. Otherwise, how could guys ever be shocked by trades? Schneider is a good example. He literally said, "It was shocking." to be traded to NJ. Likewise, Prust said he was "shocked" when he was traded to Vancouver. There are endless stories of players being shocked by trades. If their agents had been involved surely they would have given their clients a heads up, but that's just not how it works. Unless a player has standing to limit trades (like a NTC), the team doesn't have to involve them at all. They may choose to or perhaps might need to for some reason (like another team needing assurances of something, etc.) but it's not a requirement.

And if you actually read my original post I didn't "make a case" for either of those scenarios, as evidenced by the fact that they were posed as questions rather than written as statements. I merely suggested they were possibilities given the limited information we had. And, to the point, we still don't know that Kass didn't ask for a trade. Who knows what was said that would lead them to decide "after" they spoke with his agent, and that was my point. But, we can be pretty sure that unlike what you specifically argued, Kass' agent was highly unlikely to have been driving a trade, actually taking an offer to the team. That's just not likely given the rules and common sense.

But congrats on the childish "stinky ole glove" retort. I'm guessing it was the best you had to offer, so good for you! Gold star for effort!

GMs do make the decisions, but the agents are almost always involved. Cherry-picking a few exceptions won't change that. I guess you choose to ignore refuting my assertion that a trade was in the works. Referring to posing your viewpoint in the form of a question is grasping at straws. There was a trade in the works.  If you  reread my statement, you would get that my assertion was also conjecture. The fact remains that I was right and you were wrong. Many sources talked about a possible trade in the works. Not one insider mentioned a trade demand.

And your little "Gold star for effort" is much more childish. It shows that I hurt your little feelings. Sorry little guy. Didn't mean to hurt your little feelings.

 

[poetica]

19 minutes ago, RWMc1 said:

GMs do make the decisions, but the agents are almost always involved. Cherry-picking a few exceptions won't change that. I guess you choose to ignore refuting my assertion that a trade was in the works. Referring to posing your viewpoint in the form of a question is grasping at straws. There was a trade in the works.  If you  reread my statement, you would get that my assertion was also conjecture. The fact remains that I was right and you were wrong. Many sources talked about a possible trade in the works. Not one insider mentioned a trade demand.

And your little "Gold star for effort" is much more childish. It shows that I hurt your little feelings. Sorry little guy. Didn't mean to hurt your little feelings.

Those are not cherry-picked examples, they're 2 examples from a single team within the past few years. It's not my fault if you're too lazy to do your own research to find out how common it is. But if you have evidence that "agents are almost always involved" please feel free to share it. And while you're at it, you can explain why a GM would waste their time. If a player has no right to say "no" to a trade or in any other way limit it, why would they bother to call the agent? Because GMs have nothing but free time to waste who love pointless tasks? And you can explain why, if that were protocol, why some players wouldn't get that.

Good, you admit you too were guessing, even if based on nothing in reality. But your repeated "I was right and you were wrong" claim is also baseless. You guessed that a trade could happen. That was one of the 2 possibilities and I too guessed that a trade was one possibility, all be it for potentially different reasons. So, you weren't any more right than I was and neither of us gets to crow about recognizing that a trade was far more likely than letting him sit and then buying him out. I mean, really! If you are truly right, then prove that Kass's agent took a deal to the team and that Kass never asked for a trade. Otherwise, you weren't any more right than I, or everyone else for that matter, was.

Do you normally get gold stars when you hurt someone's feelings and that's what makes you think that you hurt mine and that's why I gave you one? If so, you might want to talk to someone about those teaching practices. I don't think they're healthy for you.

[RWMc1]

On 2015-12-26 at 3:35 PM, poetica said:

On 2015-12-27 at 6:37 PM, RWMc1 said:

Actually, if the decision was made after speaking with his agent, it is more likely that a trade is in the works. I doubt an agent would phone a team and tell them anything bad about his client. It sounds more like a GM has expressed interest to his agent and the agent has informed the team about it. We'll soon see.

Definitely going to be interesting to see what happens, especially since according to TSN the team made the decision "after speaking with Zack Kassian's agent". Is he making demands he has no right to make? Did his agent give them a heads up that he might fail another drug test?

Either way, it's not looking good for Kass. I'm really worried that if he doesn't get his ducks in a row soon, the next time we hear about him will be the final time.

These are the original posts. You did pose your opinions in the form of a question, but you followed it up with "Either way" which makes it seem like you consider them to be the most likely possibilities. I clearly state that my opinion was that a trade was in the works. You can cling to the manner in which the agent was involved all you want. You can cling to the merely conjecture angle. The fact is that my conjecture was correct and yours was wrong.

The fact that you are incapable of admitting you are wrong is more evidence of your immaturity. Scrivens was already at the Montreal farm team with a new uniform with his number on it waiting for him. More evidence that the trade was just waiting for the deadline to end.

I hurt your little feelings was just me matching your condescension.

[poetica]

1 hour ago, RWMc1 said:

These are the original posts. You did pose your opinions in the form of a question, but you followed it up with "Either way" which makes it seem like you consider them to be the most likely possibilities. I clearly state that my opinion was that a trade was in the works. You can cling to the manner in which the agent was involved all you want. You can cling to the merely conjecture angle. The fact is that my conjecture was correct and yours was wrong.

The fact that you are incapable of admitting you are wrong is more evidence of your immaturity. Scrivens was already at the Montreal farm team with a new uniform with his number on it waiting for him. More evidence that the trade was just waiting for the deadline to end.

I hurt your little feelings was just me matching your condescension.

You reversed the original posts, making it appear that I responded to your post when in fact it was the other way around. It may have been unintentional, but it changes the context greatly, making it appear that my comments were in response to yours when in fact yours was a response to mine.

And, as you can see in my original post I never said a trade wasn't going to happen. Rather, I posted a couple of questions about possibilities for why the team decided not to send him to the AHL after speaking with Kass's agent, including the possibility that Kass was "making demands" (which you already acknowledged that you understood to mean a trade request.) The fact that they were questions prove that I wasn't arguing that they were facts. And even if my use of the phrase "either way" indicated that I saw those as the "most likely possibilities" (which was your assumption, not anything I actually said) that still, by definition, does not mean that I ever excluded any, much less all, other possibilities. And unless you have a source that says otherwise, there's still no proof that Kassian didn't ask for a trade. So what exactly was I wrong about?

Further, I am not the one who responded a few days later to childishly say (repeatedly), "I was right and you were wrong". Without someone who actually knows the full story telling us the details, we're all just guessing. If you want to claim to be right you need proof, not just more conjecture. So share your proof. Name the source(s) that specifically says when the trade was in the works, that Kass never asked for a trade, and that the decision to tell Kass not to report to their farm team (indicating the decision to trade him imminently) was made before speaking with Kass' agent as you claimed and not after as TSN reported.

And please don't tell me that you honestly think the fact that Scrivens' name & number were already on a uniform when he arrived is proof that they started working on a deal before they spoke to Kassian's agent days ago. You might be a little overly invested in claiming to be right about something that actually matters very little to either of us but I can't believe that you actually think it takes that long to sew a few letters and numbers on a jersey.

If "I hurt your feelings" was meant to be condescension, you need more practice. Luckily, there's lots of opportunity in online forums.

[RWMc1]

4 minutes ago, poetica said:

You reversed the original posts, making it appear that I responded to your post when in fact it was the other way around. It may have been unintentional, but it changes the context greatly, making it appear that my comments were in response to yours when in fact yours was a response to mine.

And, as you can see in my original post I never said a trade wasn't going to happen. Rather, I posted a couple of questions about possibilities for why the team decided not to send him to the AHL after speaking with Kass's agent, including the possibility that Kass was "making demands" (which you already acknowledged that you understood to mean a trade request.) The fact that they were questions prove that I wasn't arguing that they were facts. And even if my use of the phrase "either way" indicated that I saw those as the "most likely possibilities" (which was your assumption, not anything I actually said) that still, by definition, does not mean that I ever excluded any, much less all, other possibilities. And unless you have a source that says otherwise, there's still no proof that Kassian didn't ask for a trade. So what exactly was I wrong about?

Further, I am not the one who responded a few days later to childishly say (repeatedly), "I was right and you were wrong". Without someone who actually knows the full story telling us the details, we're all just guessing. If you want to claim to be right you need proof, not just more conjecture. So share your proof. Name the source(s) that specifically says when the trade was in the works, that Kass never asked for a trade, and that the decision to tell Kass not to report to their farm team (indicating the decision to trade him imminently) was made before speaking with Kass' agent as you claimed and not after as TSN reported.

And please don't tell me that you honestly think the fact that Scrivens' name & number were already on a uniform when he arrived is proof that they started working on a deal before they spoke to Kassian's agent days ago. You might be a little overly invested in claiming to be right about something that actually matters very little to either of us but I can't believe that you actually think it takes that long to sew a few letters and numbers on a jersey.

If "I hurt your feelings" was meant to be condescension, you need more practice. Luckily, there's lots of opportunity in online forums.

It took you over an hour to come up with that. Truth hurts. Your conjecture was way off, mine was right.

[poetica]

Just now, RWMc1 said:

It took you over an hour to come up with that. Truth hurts. Your conjecture was way off, mine was right.

Yeah, shockingly responding to you isn't the only think I have to do.

Maybe if you put a little more time into your reply you could actually come up with an response to what I actually said. But then again, if you don't have proof to offer taking more time wouldn't really help....

[RWMc1]

5 minutes ago, poetica said:

Yeah, shockingly responding to you isn't the only think I have to do.

Maybe if you put a little more time into your reply you could actually come up with an response to what I actually said. But then again, if you don't have proof to offer taking more time wouldn't really help....

Nice try. I was doing other things and came back to check if you responded and you were on this page the entire time.

Proof is in the pudding. I said that I believed a trade was in the works. It's right there for all to see. You said that you were afraid that the next time we hear about Kassian it would be the final time. You suggested that his agent informed Montreal that he would fail a drug test. You suggested that he demanded a trade. You were wrong. I am not going to bother responding to desperate attempts to deflect from the fact that you were wrong. Oh, did I mention that you were wrong.

[poetica]

5 minutes ago, RWMc1 said:

Nice try. I was doing other things and came back to check if you responded and you were on this page the entire time.

Proof is in the pudding. I said that I believed a trade was in the works. It's right there for all to see. You said that you were afraid that the next time we hear about Kassian it would be the final time. You suggested that his agent informed Montreal that he would fail a drug test. You suggested that he demanded a trade. You were wrong. I am not going to bother responding to desperate attempts to deflect from the fact that you were wrong. Oh, did I mention that you were wrong.

LOL OMG, you were checking on me the whole time? LOL!! Gotta say, though, that it makes me a little sad that you never considered the possibility that I would be working on my reply and then have to get up and do something else IRL before coming back to finish it.

Pudding is not proof. Facts are proof and you have none, other than a trade happened which was never the point. We all agreed a trade was possible. Rather, your claim was that the trade was in the works BEFORE they spoke to Kass' agent. And then you made multiple other statements, like that maybe Kass' agent took a deal to the team rather than the team talking to him about the trade, and that agents are "almost always involved in trades". And despite repeated requests for your source, proverbial pudding is all the proof you have to offer.

Please try to get away from the forum once in a while so you can find something worthy of becoming so emotionally invested in.

[RWMc1]

2 hours ago, poetica said:

LOL OMG, you were checking on me the whole time? LOL!! Gotta say, though, that it makes me a little sad that you never considered the possibility that I would be working on my reply and then have to get up and do something else IRL before coming back to finish it.

Pudding is not proof. Facts are proof and you have none, other than a trade happened which was never the point. We all agreed a trade was possible. Rather, your claim was that the trade was in the works BEFORE they spoke to Kass' agent. And then you made multiple other statements, like that maybe Kass' agent took a deal to the team rather than the team talking to him about the trade, and that agents are "almost always involved in trades". And despite repeated requests for your source, proverbial pudding is all the proof you have to offer.

Please try to get away from the forum once in a while so you can find something worthy of becoming so emotionally invested in.

Actually that is the main point. The point that you continue to evade. You didn't acknowledge the possibility of a trade until after the fact. Awfully convenient. You keep twisting my words to try to gloss over the fact that you were totally wrong about Kassian's agent and his involvement. It's easy for anyone to go back to page 4 and see that you suggested that his agent either demanded a trade or informed Montreal that he might fail a drug test. I suggested that a trade was in the works. All the stuff that followed is you desperately trying to pretend that you weren't wrong.

LOL I could tell by your desperate attempts to pretend that you weren't wrong that you were the type of person who needs to get in the last word even though you are so obviously wrong. I came back on occasion to see your inevitable attempt to pretend that you weren't wrong. I noticed that you were on this thread the entire time. You are obviously the one who needs to get away from the forum once in a while. If you look in the left column you will see post counts. Since CDC updated the forum they started everyone’s post count from the same date. You happen to have four times as many as me.

I suppose you will prove that you aren't emotionally invested in proving you weren't wrong by taking another tangent and refusing to acknowledge that your conjecture was wrong. Again! LOL

[coastal.view]

wow canucks had to throw in a pick and take on prust with his larger contract to off load kassian

maybe montreal will have to pay a 1st round pick bundled with kassian to get a bag of pucks back

i bet they are hoping they can get such a meaningful return

[-DLC-]

On 2015-12-28 at 4:24 PM, butters said:

So a drug problem is like a cut that needs stitches? Send him to a doctor, doctor does his magic and *boom* he is fixed. Sounds very simple. I wonder why more people don't simply get "treated".

Nope, but it doesn't render people useless and of no value.  And yes, people can be fixed...it's a life long maintenance deal for them, but absolutely. 

 

More people don't get treated because it's a difficult thing to pull yourself out of...often drug abuse is part of a cycle of pain and difficulty.  It numbs.  So it's easier to stay numb than to go through the rather daunting task of exploring and "fixing" all of that.

 

But I've seen people get back to who they were meant to be...to their clean selves.  So what's your point...that everyone caught up in drug abuse is "done" and not worth it?  See, that right there is part of the problem, not the solution.