• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Dabura

Rumors Thread

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

I disagree. Any player in the league can be traded, and that includes Ericsson. I believer there would be teams that would show interest in Ericsson at a lowered cap hit. All you need is one. The question is, what would we have to give up that would make it worth it? I don't think we'd have to give up much more than a mid round pick, and maybe a mid-tier prospect. Do you think that sort of trade would set us back? I don't. Unfortunately, we'll never know if such a deal could be made because Holland would never do it.

I've noticed that many Wings (not pointing fingers) fans tend to undervalue the players on the team that they feel are underperforming, while fans of other teams see a lot more value. I've seen fans of other teams comment that they would actually love to have guys like Abby or Helm on their teams, particularly when those players fill a void their team is lacking. There would be interest for sure, although there would also most likely be concessions.

Sheahan is an example. Pens saw value where many Wings fans did not. He was something Pitt needed, and they saw more than just his goal totals. I thought Holland got a good return considering the numbers he was putting up, which he would not have gotten if the Pens thought Sheahan was as bad as so many Wings fans thought he was.

I think you could say the same thing about E. Some Wings fans think he is hot garbage and want him sent down to GR, bought out, whatever. If Holland wanted to trade him (which I don't think he does), there are teams out there who would be interested because they see more value than a lot of us do (although probably not at that salary admittedly). And I think the return would be a lot better than people think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's worth it to trade Ericsson if we have to "pay" someone to take him. A middle round pick and  retained salary for someone to take Ericsson off our hands?  Gee... wonder what the return on that would actually be?  A slightly higher, middling pick and a defensive prospect that probably isn't much better than what we've already got.

It certainly wouldn't set us back but ultimately, you're looking at a deal that is essentially: 

"What else can we give you to essentially get nothing of worth back?"  

We either need to suck it up and deal with the last of his contract, OR if we really need the cap space; buy him out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

I disagree. Any player in the league can be traded, and that includes Ericsson. I believer there would be teams that would show interest in Ericsson at a lowered cap hit. All you need is one. The question is, what would we have to give up that would make it worth it? I don't think we'd have to give up much more than a mid round pick, and maybe a mid-tier prospect. Do you think that sort of trade would set us back? I don't. Unfortunately, we'll never know if such a deal could be made because Holland would never do it.

Are you seriously trying to disagree with me saying we couldn't trade him without paying someone to take him by suggesting that we could pay someone to take him? 

Maybe paying a mid-round pick wouldn't "set us back". ~80% chance that player wouldn't be anything of note. But at the same time, a $1.4M cap hit three and four years down the road isn't likely to handicap us in any significant way either (not to mention that there probably isn't going to be any good reason to clear the cap short-term either). What's your plan in 20-21 that makes a little cap space worth more than a chance at drafting another Franzen/Nyquist/AA/etc.?

If, and that's a big if, we have some pressing need for a couple extra million in cap space, paying someone to take E is probably not the best way to get it. Depending on the exact price, buying him out could be a better option. 

Share this post


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

I've noticed that many Wings (not pointing fingers) fans tend to undervalue the players on the team that they feel are underperforming, while fans of other teams see a lot more value. I've seen fans of other teams comment that they would actually love to have guys like Abby or Helm on their teams, particularly when those players fill a void their team is lacking. There would be interest for sure, although there would also most likely be concessions.

Sheahan is an example. Pens saw value where many Wings fans did not. He was something Pitt needed, and they saw more than just his goal totals. I thought Holland got a good return considering the numbers he was putting up, which he would not have gotten if the Pens thought Sheahan was as bad as so many Wings fans thought he was.

I think you could say the same thing about E. Some Wings fans think he is hot garbage and want him sent down to GR, bought out, whatever. If Holland wanted to trade him (which I don't think he does), there are teams out there who would be interested because they see more value than a lot of us do (although probably not at that salary admittedly). And I think the return would be a lot better than people think.

Completely agree. Wings fans have a tendency to be at either one extreme or the other.

Here is a good example of the other extreme:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't over or under value Ericsson.  He is what he is.  What he has in upside (size) I don't think he tends to use it effectively and what people see as his downside (a lack of puck handling ability in pressure situations) is scrutinized to the utmost detail.  Would I rather have Ericsson at a more reasonable cap hit? Absolutely.  Would I mind if he were traded? Not one bit.  Would I mind retaining salary and giving something else away (pick or prospect) just to have him off this squad?  Hell Yes! I would.  

Just keep him or buy him out.

/broken record

Share this post


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

Are you seriously trying to disagree with me saying we couldn't trade him without paying someone to take him by suggesting that we could pay someone to take him? 

Maybe paying a mid-round pick wouldn't "set us back". ~80% chance that player wouldn't be anything of note. But at the same time, a $1.4M cap hit three and four years down the road isn't likely to handicap us in any significant way either (not to mention that there probably isn't going to be any good reason to clear the cap short-term either). What's your plan in 20-21 that makes a little cap space worth more than a chance at drafting another Franzen/Nyquist/AA/etc.?

If, and that's a big if, we have some pressing need for a couple extra million in cap space, paying someone to take E is probably not the best way to get it. Depending on the exact price, buying him out could be a better option. 

Surprise, surprise, Buppy trying to twist someone's words... You said "I think very few teams, if any, would be interested in E even at $2.25M with two years left." That's what is disagree with. Not whatever you're trying to say there...

To answer your question about why not buy him out? I just don't agree with buyouts unless they're an absolute necessity. They rarely are, because there's almost always a team willing to take on a bad contract. I didn't really like the Weiss buyout either, but whatever. It is what it is.

Maybe trading Ericsson isn't the best way to clear cap space. In my opinion it is. We disagree... again. No big deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, e_prime said:

I don't over or under value Ericsson.  He is what he is.  What he has in upside (size) I don't think he tends to use it effectively and what people see as his downside (a lack of puck handling ability in pressure situations) is scrutinized to the utmost detail.  Would I rather have Ericsson at a more reasonable cap hit? Absolutely.  Would I mind if he were traded? Not one bit.  Would I mind retaining salary and giving something else away (pick or prospect) just to have him off this squad?  Hell Yes! I would.  

Just keep him or buy him out.

/broken record

I'm with you 100% until that last part... What's the harm in retaining salary and giving up mid range assets? I don't get that. I'm not saying we must move him at any cost, but if the cost isn't significant, I'd do it. Is giving up a 3rd round pick (just an example) going to cripple us? Not at all. 

A buyout hurts us more long term in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cost of buyout without giving up an additional asset: $1,416,667 x 4 years. 

$2.8 million in savings over the next two years when it probably matters most in signing RFAs.  

EVEN IF Holland were able to move Ericsson and garner more savings than $2.8 million, I still don't think giving up mid-range assets or draft picks just to unload a guy who has only two years left on his contract makes sense. 

That mid-range asset may just be the guy that takes Ericsson's spot for a fraction of the cost in two years.

That doesn't help us in the long run.  

Ultimately, this point is mute.  We aren't going to need the $2 million, or 2.8 million, or even 3 million in Ericsson savings to get any of our RFAs re-signed. Which is the only reason he'll be traded or bought out. Those dollars are going to come from Green being traded, a forward being traded, and/or Howard or Mrazek not being on the books next year.

I'll just say it right now.  Jonathan Ericsson will finish out his contract in the Wings organization.

Somebody save this post because if I'm wrong, I'll buy a round for the pool party.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

Surprise, surprise, Buppy trying to twist someone's words... You said "I think very few teams, if any, would be interested in E even at $2.25M with two years left." That's what is disagree with. Not whatever you're trying to say there...

To answer your question about why not buy him out? I just don't agree with buyouts unless they're an absolute necessity. They rarely are, because there's almost always a team willing to take on a bad contract. I didn't really like the Weiss buyout either, but whatever. It is what it is.

Maybe trading Ericsson isn't the best way to clear cap space. In my opinion it is. We disagree... again. No big deal.

Oh, the irony. Accuse me of twisting your words while you ignore the rest of the very paragraph you're quoting. It would be an epic troll if you weren't serious. 

6 hours ago, Buppy said:

I think very few teams, if any, would be interested in E even at $2.25M with two years left. Very few, if any, recent examples of similar defensemen being traded with term. Significant injury history, plus a known chronic hip condition. I can't see it happening without paying a team to take him, or taking back something just as bad. The former could be worse than a buyout, and the latter makes it all pointless. 

Made it big and bold for you. So there you go, I wasn't twisting your words at all, you just maybe didn't realize what you were saying. In the future, you should read more carefully and make an effort to understand someone before responding. Certainly before insulting someone's character.

Share this post


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

Oh, the irony. Accuse me of twisting your words while you ignore the rest of the very paragraph you're quoting. It would be an epic troll if you weren't serious. 

Made it big and bold for you. So there you go, I wasn't twisting your words at all, you just maybe didn't realize what you were saying. In the future, you should read more carefully and make an effort to understand someone before responding. Certainly before insulting someone's character.

This is LGW.com

That's going to happen Bups. Real world arguing doesn't work here. You WILL BE INSULTED. Muhahhah. 

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


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

Cost of buyout without giving up an additional asset: $1,416,667 x 4 years. 

$2.8 million in savings over the next two years when it probably matters most in signing RFAs.  

EVEN IF Holland were able to move Ericsson and garner more savings than $2.8 million, I still don't think giving up mid-range assets or draft picks just to unload a guy who has only two years left on his contract makes sense. 

That mid-range asset may just be the guy that takes Ericsson's spot for a fraction of the cost in two years.

That doesn't help us in the long run.  

Ultimately, this point is mute.  We aren't going to need the $2 million, or 2.8 million, or even 3 million in Ericsson savings to get any of our RFAs re-signed. Which is the only reason he'll be traded or bought out. Those dollars are going to come from Green being traded, a forward being traded, and/or Howard or Mrazek not being on the books next year.

I'll just say it right now.  Jonathan Ericsson will finish out his contract in the Wings organization.

Somebody save this post because if I'm wrong, I'll buy a round for the pool party.  

The bolded, I completely agree with. The underlined, I'm not so sure about. Green may very well be re-signed, and if he's not, I'd be shocked if Holland (assuming he's still the GM) doesn't go after some sort of UFA defenseman to replace him. Which forward is going to be traded? And what makes that forward more likely to be traded than Ericsson? I don't see anyone being traded (including Ericsson). Howard won't be traded, and if Mrazek is let walk in the offseason, I will have lost all faith in this management group...

Share this post


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

Oh, the irony. Accuse me of twisting your words while you ignore the rest of the very paragraph you're quoting. It would be an epic troll if you weren't serious. 

Made it big and bold for you. So there you go, I wasn't twisting your words at all, you just maybe didn't realize what you were saying. In the future, you should read more carefully and make an effort to understand someone before responding. Certainly before insulting someone's character.

Yes, I quoted your post, but I very specifically bolded a part of your post in which I was referring to and disagree with. So what if you think it can happen if we pay a team to take him. That's stating the obvious. The part I completely disagree with is that very few teams, if any, would be interested in Ericsson at roughly half his cap hit. 

I apologize if I offended your character... but you do often times try to twist what people say to fit your argument. I'm not the first to say this... Anyway, my point was that we could trade Ericsson without giving up too much on the future, but somehow it will get turned into we must trade Ericsson at all cost...

I'm one of the very few here that pick up for Ericsson and say he's not near as bad as people make him out to be. I'm okay with keeping him for the next two seasons, but if it were up to me, I'd trade him. But then again, I'd be trading a lot of pieces in order to do what I believe this team needs to properly rebuild.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ericsson has 2 years left after this season at 4.25 per. Although that sounds high, the average 2nd pairing defensemen makes like 4 mil+ and 3rd pairing around 2 mil. 

1st pairing d-men aren't available via free agency anymore, so the 2nd pair guys that are available are getting bigger paychecks because of it. Brendan Smith was just signed over the summer with the NYR to a 4yr/17.4 mil contract. The Oilers signed Kris Russell to a 4yr/16 mil contract. Both are 2nd pair D AT BEST. That also trickles down to good 3rd pair guys too. I wouldn't be surprised to see this pattern continue this summer as well. That will only help in Ericsson's case.

Ericsson IMO is a 4/5. (Good 3rd pair guy who can fill-in for 2nd pair when needed) I believe that most GMs would rate him about the same. So based on current salaries for d-men at that level, Ericsson is overpaid; but not as much as you might think. I don't think that Holland would have to throw in picks to trade him unless it was a higher for a lower. 

If he had to withhold salary, I don't think it would even take more than 1 mil. 3.25 for a 4/5 d-man sounds reasonable to me. If Holland was to keep 2 mil, Ericsson would be a good value at 2.5 per for 2 years. I think there would definitely be interest there. Although I think Holland would get a better return if he waited until the trade deadline next season.

All of this is probably meaningless cuz Holland isn't trading E anyway. I think the best course is just to wait it out for 2 more years.

Edited by Neomaxizoomdweebie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, krsmith17 said:

Yes, I quoted your post, but I very specifically bolded a part of your post in which I was referring to and disagree with. So what if you think it can happen if we pay a team to take him. That's stating the obvious. The part I completely disagree with is that very few teams, if any, would be interested in Ericsson at roughly half his cap hit. 

I apologize if I offended your character... but you do often times try to twist what people say to fit your argument. I'm not the first to say this... Anyway, my point was that we could trade Ericsson without giving up too much on the future, but somehow it will get turned into we must trade Ericsson at all cost...

I'm one of the very few here that pick up for Ericsson and say he's not near as bad as people make him out to be. I'm okay with keeping him for the next two seasons, but if it were up to me, I'd trade him. But then again, I'd be trading a lot of pieces in order to do what I believe this team needs to properly rebuild.

Holy s***. Do you not understand the concept of taking something out of context? Acknowledging that you're doing it doesn't make it ok.

You have now said three times, just on this page, that you believe we would have to pay someone to take Ericsson. That is exactly what I was saying, if you look at the entire post rather than cherry-picking a single sentence. You actually agree with me on that. Don't apologize for insulting me, apologize for being completely wrong in your interpretation of what I was saying. Twisting my words, some might say. Apologize for that.

The only thing we disagree on is whether giving up a mid-round pick/prospect is worse than a buyout. I think it could be, depending on the specific deal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Neomaxizoomdweebie Holland won’t trade E because he thinks he’s an asset to the team

11 minutes ago, Buppy said:

... Don't apologize for insulting me, apologize for being completely wrong in your interpretation of what I was saying. 

 

Dejavu. They say you should try not to communicate with your significant other via texts because of misinterpretation leading to fights and arguments. I say misinterpretation leads to fun flame wars. :w00t:

I’ll just be quiet now and let my brethren continue this senseless love/hate. 

Btw, am I the only one who thinks Ericsson has actually played well the last few games? 

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said:

Ericsson has 2 years left after this season at 4.25 per. Although that sounds high, the average 2nd pairing defensemen makes like 4 mil+ and 3rd pairing around 2 mil. 

1st pairing d-men aren't available via free agency anymore, so the 2nd pair guys that are available are getting bigger paychecks because of it. Brendan Smith was just signed over the summer with the NYR to a 4yr/17.4 mil contract. The Oilers signed Kris Russell to a 4yr/16 mil contract. Both are 2nd pair D AT BEST. That also trickles down to good 3rd pair guys too. I wouldn't be surprised to see this pattern continue this summer as well. That will only help in Ericsson's case.

Ericsson IMO is a 4/5. (Good 3rd pair guy who can fill-in for 2nd pair when needed) I believe that most GMs would rate him about the same. So based on current salaries for d-men at that level, Ericsson is overpaid; but not as much as you might think. I don't think that Holland would have to throw in picks to trade him unless it was a higher for a lower. 

If he had to withhold salary, I don't think it would even take more than 1 mil. 3.25 for a 4/5 d-man sounds reasonable to me. If Holland was to keep 2 mil, Ericsson would be a good value at 2.5 per for 2 years. I think there would definitely be interest there. Although I think Holland would get a better return if he waited until the trade deadline next season.

All of this is probably meaningless cuz Holland isn't trading E anyway. I think the best course is just to wait it out for 2 more years.

Logically, you have a point (though maybe overstating a bit the average rates) and I can understand why you might believe this; in practice you just hardly ever see trades like that. For whatever reason teams seem very reluctant to add players with term. Older players at least. The closer we get to the end of the deal, the more likely a deal would become, provided that injuries and further decline don't negate that value.

But at the same time, the longer we wait, the more likely that 2nd part becomes true and also the benefit to is lessened as well. Waiting until the deadline next year doesn't help with signing/resigning anyone this summer. Considering the hypothetical need for cap space this summer is the sole impetus behind trading him or buying him out, it goes without saying that if we don't need the space (and most likely we wont) then we don't buy him out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Buppy said:

Holy s***. Do you not understand the concept of taking something out of context? Acknowledging that you're doing it doesn't make it ok.

You have now said three times, just on this page, that you believe we would have to pay someone to take Ericsson. That is exactly what I was saying, if you look at the entire post rather than cherry-picking a single sentence. You actually agree with me on that. Don't apologize for insulting me, apologize for being completely wrong in your interpretation of what I was saying. Twisting my words, some might say. Apologize for that.

The only thing we disagree on is whether giving up a mid-round pick/prospect is worse than a buyout. I think it could be, depending on the specific deal. 

Yes I do understand the concept of taking something out of context... Please tell me what I took out of context. We agree that we'd have to give up something (likely nothing of major significance) to trade Ericsson. We disagree whether or not teams would be interested in Ericsson at a fraction of his salary. There's nothing more to it. But like always, you're going to spin this into something it's not.

What the hell is wrong with cherry picking one sentence if that's the sentence I disagree with?

Explain to me how I'm "wrong" in my interpretation when you said, and I quote "I think very few teams, if any, would be interested in E even at $2.25M with two years left. That's the part I "cherry picked", because THAT'S the part I disagree with...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, kickazz said:

@Neomaxizoomdweebie Holland won’t trade E because he thinks he’s an asset to the team

Dejavu. They say you should try not to communicate with your significant other via texts because of misinterpretation leading to fights and arguments. I say misinterpretation leads to fun flame wars. :w00t:

I’ll just be quiet now and let my brethren continue this senseless love/hate. 

Btw, am I the only one who thinks Ericsson has actually played well the last few games? 

Not a single person is arguing that.

No you're not. Ericsson has played well all season in my opinion. Of course he's had his share of turnovers, but so has every other defenseman in the league playing big minutes like E. Of course those turnovers get magnified to the Nth degree here on LGW, because "Errorsson" or "Erection" or whatever other clever name people come up with...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

The bolded, I completely agree with. The underlined, I'm not so sure about. Green may very well be re-signed, and if he's not, I'd be shocked if Holland (assuming he's still the GM) doesn't go after some sort of UFA defenseman to replace him. Which forward is going to be traded? And what makes that forward more likely to be traded than Ericsson? I don't see anyone being traded (including Ericsson). Howard won't be traded, and if Mrazek is let walk in the offseason, I will have lost all faith in this management group...

I certainly don't think we can build a roster with all of our important RFAs, Green, Ericsson and trade no forwards.  SO, I'd love to see you crunch the numbers and build a roster with Green, Larkin, Mantha, Athanasiou, Mrazek, and whatever other RFAs you deem worthy of keeping, while also retaining $2.25 million in Ericsson cap dollars and not moving a currently signed forward.  I'm not saying it can't be done.  I'd just like to see your thoughts on it.  PM me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Buppy said:

Actually, E's "payday" was two years after we lost Lidstrom. While he is much better than fans give him credit for, I doubt it would have hurt to let him walk. Water under the bridge though; E isn't the reason we don't have better defensemen.

Buyouts should be used to free up cap space for something better, and should only be used when the alternatives are worse. Buying out E could be a good option, depending on what we could do with the savings. More likely though all we could do is sign Green or Jack Johnson. and probably to a deal that hurts us even more long term. 

I think very few teams, if any, would be interested in E even at $2.25M with two years left. Very few, if any, recent examples of similar defensemen being traded with term. Significant injury history, plus a known chronic hip condition. I can't see it happening without paying a team to take him, or taking back something just as bad. The former could be worse than a buyout, and the latter makes it all pointless. 

While I am one of the biggest critics of E and have talked about buying him out, I agree that it'd be useless to buy him out to just promote Hicketts or some other player in our system. Now, if Holland somehow acquired a top 2 defenseman, even someone like Montour or Hamilton, getting rid of E at any cost is a must. If we luck out enough to draft Dahlin, E is on a very short pier and will be offered a long walk. Its a must. Now if Kronwall retires after this season, we can keep E on as #6/#7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote
 

Craig Custance of The Athletic: The Red Wings aren’t actively shopping forward Gustav Nyquist. Nyquist also has some trade protection in his deal. (No-trade clause according to CapFriendly) Teams have been evaluating what they have now and could start to look for outside help.

“Teams that feel like they’re underperforming might be looking (to make a move),” said one NHL general manager on Thursday.

“I think now, guys are starting to call again,” said an assistant GM on Thursday about the trade market.

Nyquist could interest some teams. Two subpar seasons decreased Nyquist’s value, and the Red Wings plan heading into the season was to allow Nyquist and others to improve their value.

Nyquist has scored four goals this season and has been playing with Henrik Zetterberg and Tomas Tatar.

Nyquist has another season left on his contract at a $4.75 million salary cap hit, but his salary increases to $5.5 million next year.

“His contract might be a little rich based on the contract, not the cap,” said the assistant GM. “It’s all about the role you’re going to put him in and the players you’re going to play him with. The guy is intriguing because of his skill and his contract is not terrible.”

The Red Wings would like to add a younger defenseman, but if the Red Wings are to move a winger, Andreas Athanasiou may have more value. If the Red Wings retain some of Nyquist’s salary, that could increase his value.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, e_prime said:

I certainly don't think we can build a roster with all of our important RFAs, Green, Ericsson and trade no forwards.  SO, I'd love to see you crunch the numbers and build a roster with Green, Larkin, Mantha, Athanasiou, Mrazek, and whatever other RFAs you deem worthy of keeping, while also retaining $2.25 million in Ericsson cap dollars and not moving a currently signed forward.  I'm not saying it can't be done.  I'd just like to see your thoughts on it.  PM me.

I agree. I don't think we can either. All I'm saying is that I don't see Holland trading any of his bigger contracts (including Ericsson), and to me that's a problem. Holland has done a TON of good for this organization over the past couple decades, but in my opinion, it's time to move on. I don't think he has what it takes to get this organization back on top. I'd love for him to prove me wrong, but as of now, I don't have much confidence in his ability to manage this team through another rebuild.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

Yes I do understand the concept of taking something out of context... Please tell me what I took out of context. We agree that we'd have to give up something (likely nothing of major significance) to trade Ericsson. We disagree whether or not teams would be interested in Ericsson at a fraction of his salary. There's nothing more to it. But like always, you're going to spin this into something it's not.

What the hell is wrong with cherry picking one sentence if that's the sentence I disagree with?

Explain to me how I'm "wrong" in my interpretation when you said, and I quote "I think very few teams, if any, would be interested in E even at $2.25M with two years left. That's the part I "cherry picked", because THAT'S the part I disagree with...

Wow. You genuinely do not understand context. 

The problem with taking just that part, is that it is only a part of the idea being expressed. Looking at just that sentence, independent of the rest of the post, changes the meaning. That sentence, and the two that followed, are the reasons why I say we would have to pay someone to take E. Not, as you are trying to imply, an assertion that we could not trade him. Teams aren't interested enough to take him without additional incentive, is the whole idea. Understand?

 

Share this post


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

Wow. You genuinely do not understand context. 

The problem with taking just that part, is that it is only a part of the idea being expressed. Looking at just that sentence, independent of the rest of the post, changes the meaning. That sentence, and the two that followed, are the reasons why I say we would have to pay someone to take E. Not, as you are trying to imply, an assertion that we could not trade him. Teams aren't interested enough to take him without additional incentive, is the whole idea. Understand?

I don't care why you believe little to no teams would be interested in Ericsson. The point is that you do believe this, regardless how you came to this conclusion. I disagree. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

Regarding the bolded, are you f***ing serious? I said you'd turn this into something it's not, and here we are... I've said countless times that we "could trade Ericsson", just that Holland won't. Teams would want additional incentive to take on a bad contract? Really? What a concept... If only I had thought of that... :sleepy:

Share this post


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

 

Yes! Move him! Now the rules on the CBA..... not sure if putting cash into a deal is allowed anymore. We have cash.... we need the cap. Heck I would take another pick for him. To resign Mantha, Larkin, AA, and Mrasek its going to take 12+ million and we dont have it. It might be closer to 16 million to get all 4 resigned.

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