Think about an early replacement for Stuart...
If Brad Stuart really does want to go back to Northern California the he should definitively say so in order for us to trade him to a California team without losing him for nothing.
Posted 21 February 2012 - 05:22 PM
Think about an early replacement for Stuart...
Posted 21 February 2012 - 05:23 PM
huge replacement? worth a 1st round pick?? jesus at this point id much rather have gotten kubina for a 2nd and 4th , hes gonna be in the 3rd pairing and hes making 3 million a yr along with ericsson , thats 6 million total for our 3rd pairing , thats crazyyy
And yes i do expect kindl gone with brendan smith up next year but theres no way in hell kindl will fetch a 1st round pick , we'll be lucky to get a 3rd for kindl
i dont usually disagree with kenny but this is a disaster of a deal , much rather have given up the 1st for like selanne as a rental or someone of that type
Posted 21 February 2012 - 05:25 PM
maybe Holland is already working on something but it is not sure to get back a D-Man that would help us, that would fit ...but it is just guessing
If Brad Stuart really does want to go back to Northern California the he should definitively say so in order for us to trade him to a California team without losing him for nothing.
Posted 21 February 2012 - 05:27 PM



Posted 21 February 2012 - 05:27 PM
If I were Holland, I'd rather have Stuart for the playoffs.
If Brad Stuart really does want to go back to Northern California the he should definitively say so in order for us to trade him to a California team without losing him for nothing.
Posted 21 February 2012 - 05:28 PM
Posted 21 February 2012 - 05:28 PM

Posted 21 February 2012 - 05:29 PM
Posted 21 February 2012 - 05:29 PM
pierre mcguire just said detroit has alot of travis moens and cant see them going for him but rather a skilled forward .... ya well thats where the 1st rounder would of come in handy , dont see it happening now
and he also said detroit was in for rick nash bigtime and really liked him but dropped out when the demands got ridiculously high .... thank god
Posted 21 February 2012 - 05:30 PM
likes/knows quincey hahaha that makes me laugh liked him so much they put him on waivers for derek meech ... good move
Edited by Crymson, 21 February 2012 - 05:31 PM.
Posted 21 February 2012 - 05:30 PM
Ducks are 5 points or less out of the 8 spot.... Selanne isnt going anywhere. This pick will be between 25-30 in what's considered a weak draft, and Quincey will replace Hudler on the point for the 2nd PP unit... May be something else in the works also....
Posted 21 February 2012 - 05:32 PM
Agreed. It's unfortunate Detroit had to give up a first round pick for a mistake they made a few years ago and because of the disappointing play of their first round pick in Kindl.this trade just screams meh.
Posted 21 February 2012 - 05:32 PM
Edited by Crymson, 21 February 2012 - 05:33 PM.
Posted 21 February 2012 - 05:34 PM
yes i know selanne isnt going anywhere , just saying if i had to give up a 1st round pick it would be for a skilled player which i now just heard pierre mcguire says the wings are looking for ... how they gonna pull that off now?
i got a really bad feeling were gonna get ales hemsky
Posted 21 February 2012 - 05:34 PM
Posted 21 February 2012 - 05:35 PM
Posted 21 February 2012 - 05:35 PM
Quincey did not magically transform into a 20 min a night defenseman overnight, and Meech is no longer playing in the NHL.He was put on waivers because Meech constantly outplayed him. Were you watching hockey back then, or did you completely miss that Quincey did not at all attract attention whereas Meech played very well in 2008 and 2009?
Yeesh. Also--yes, grammar--it's "should have," not "should of."
Posted 21 February 2012 - 05:35 PM
Edited by GoWings1905, 21 February 2012 - 05:41 PM.

Posted 21 February 2012 - 05:36 PM
He was put on waivers because Meech constantly outplayed him. Were you watching hockey back then, or did you completely miss that Quincey did not at all attract attention whereas Meech played very well in 2008 and 2009?
Yeesh. Also--yes, grammar--it's "should have," not "should of."
| Topic | Forum | Started By | Stats | Last Post Info | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
trade idea for next year |
General Discussion | nyqvististhefuture |
|
|
|
Detroit bar in Nashville? |
General Discussion | Namtaru |
|
|
|
Pinned Round 2 Photoshop War: Chicago Blackhawks
|
General Discussion | Matt |
|
|
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users