krsmith17 7,191 Report post Posted January 5, 2020 1 minute ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said: NO mAtTeR hOW LazY YoU tHInK hE Is, OR hOw MAnY dRUgS yoU THinK hE DoES Whatever you gotta tell urself my man No, but you seem to have real problem with it Do you think he's lazy? Do you think he does drugs? I'm really confused as to what your issue is... Another dumb conversation that I'm done with... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022 Report post Posted January 6, 2020 10 minutes ago, krsmith17 said: Do you think he's lazy? Do you think he does drugs? I'm really confused as to what your issue is... Another dumb conversation that I'm done with... Pretty much what I expected was your motivation You butthurt about our conversation about Comrie and Nielsen that you chickened out of, and so now you're bringing the drama to a different thread. I think there's a possibility Larkin has done drugs before. But even if he has, I don't really care. I've made that painfully obvious. No I don't think he's lazy. I think he made some really stupid comments about the ASG that make him appear lazy. All in all, I don't think he's as untouchable as he once was. And this season so far isn't reflecting great on his leadership, which is why I created the Seider for Captain thread to discuss that. And these are also the reasons Dabura and I were discussing what a Larkin trade would like if it happened, until you butted in. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
krsmith17 7,191 Report post Posted January 6, 2020 13 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said: Pretty much what I expected was your motivation You butthurt about our conversation about Comrie and Nielsen that you chickened out of, and so now you're bringing the drama to a different thread. I think there's a possibility Larkin has done drugs before. But even if he has, I don't really care. I've made that painfully obvious. No I don't think he's lazy. I think he made some really stupid comments about the ASG that make him appear lazy. All in all, I don't think he's as untouchable as he once was. And this season so far isn't reflecting great on his leadership, which is why I created the Seider for Captain thread to discuss that. And these are also the reasons Dabura and I were discussing what a Larkin trade would like if it happened, until you butted in. No motivation at all, but sure, keep telling yourself this is a carryover from a previous conversation... It's not, and I'm not "butthurt" over said conversation. I think your constant digging is annoying as s***. You can't accept that we have differing opinions. You can't accept that an NHL manager / coach can make a bad decision. Continue digging... Sorry for "butting in" on yours and Dabura's private conversation. I was voicing my opinion that it would be dumb to trade a 1C for a much older 3C and 3D... My bad... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022 Report post Posted January 6, 2020 2 minutes ago, krsmith17 said: No motivation at all, but sure, keep telling yourself this is a carryover from a previous conversation... It's not, and I'm not "butthurt" over said conversation. I think your constant digging is annoying as s***. You can't accept that we have differing opinions. You can't accept that an NHL manager / coach can make a bad decision. "I'm not butthurt!" *proceeds to post a bunch of stuff he's butthurt about* 3 minutes ago, krsmith17 said: I think your constant digging is annoying as s***. Constant digging on what? 5 minutes ago, krsmith17 said: You can't accept that we have differing opinions. No, I very much can. I recognize we have differing opinions all the time. Seems you just don't like that I challenge yours. 6 minutes ago, krsmith17 said: You can't accept that an NHL manager / coach can make a bad decision. Just a flat out lie and you know it. I've said multiple times I think Comrie and Perlini were bad decisions. 8 minutes ago, krsmith17 said: Sorry for "butting in" on yours and Dabura's private conversation. I was voicing my opinion that it would be dumb to trade a 1C for a much older 3C and 3D... My bad... Everyone was having a calm constructive conversation till you joined in. Hmmm. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083 Report post Posted January 6, 2020 1 hour ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said: It's unfortunate that you have Larkin on such a high pedestal that he's immune to criticism. This is a player expected to be around a 70 pt center at this point in his career. He's currently on pace to be a 50 pt center. He deserves every bit of examination and criticism. I don't play favorites where Nielsen falling short of expectations gets all the bashing, but Larkin doesn't. The coke thing is a rumor. I've never said otherwise. In fact, I said I really don't care if he is using... To be fair, accusing, or even suggesting, a player is involved in an illegal/immoral activity without any real proof is out of bounds. Saying that YOU don't care if they are is irrelevant. And doesn't negate the fact that you might unfairly sully someone's reputation in the eye's of others who might find that act deplorable. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022 Report post Posted January 6, 2020 1 minute ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said: To be fair, accusing, or even suggesting, a player is involved in an illegal/immoral activity without any real proof is out of bounds. Saying that YOU don't care if they are is irrelevant. And doesn't negate the fact that you might unfairly sully someone's reputation in the eye's of others who might find that act deplorable. No. It's literally not. Rumors are rumors and we're allowed to discuss them as such. If you want censorship where people can't talk about things you personally don't like head over to reddit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083 Report post Posted January 6, 2020 5 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said: No. It's literally not. Rumors are rumors and we're allowed to discuss them as such. If you want censorship where people can't talk about things you personally don't like head over to reddit. Really? I mean, trading Larkin is a rumor. Firing Blashill is a rumor. But accusing Larkin of being a coke head...you don't think that might be a little unfair? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
krsmith17 7,191 Report post Posted January 6, 2020 13 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said: "I'm not butthurt!" *proceeds to post a bunch of stuff he's butthurt about* Constant digging on what? No, I very much can. I recognize we have differing opinions all the time. Seems you just don't like that I challenge yours. Just a flat out lie and you know it. I've said multiple times I think Comrie and Perlini were bad decisions. Everyone was having a calm constructive conversation till you joined in. Hmmm. So I guess that makes you really "butthurt"? Me: "Agree to disagree". You: "No, I want to continue this conversation that is going nowhere, because I can't accept that you don't agree with everything I say"... You think those trades were bad in hindsight. You said both trades were smart at the time. Now that they haven't worked out, you say they were bad decisions. Yes, because I disagreed with you. You don't like that... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022 Report post Posted January 6, 2020 3 minutes ago, Neomaxizoomdweebie said: Really? I mean, trading Larkin is a rumor. Firing Blashill is a rumor. But accusing Larkin of being a coke head...you don't think that might be a little unfair? No one's saying Larkin IS a cokehead. It's a rumor. If a rumor starts that Larkin is ga-y are we allowed to discuss it? It's not illegal to be ga-y, but could still really effect his career. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
krsmith17 7,191 Report post Posted January 6, 2020 2 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said: No one's saying Larkin IS a cokehead. It's a rumor. If a rumor starts that Larkin is ga-y are we allowed to discuss it? It's not illegal to be ga-y, but could still really effect his career. Are you for real? How the f*** would being *** effect a players career in 2020? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022 Report post Posted January 6, 2020 4 minutes ago, krsmith17 said: So I guess that makes you really "butthurt"? Me: "Agree to disagree". You: "No, I want to continue this conversation that is going nowhere, because I can't accept that you don't agree with everything I say".... Literally, what're you talking about? 5 minutes ago, krsmith17 said: You think those trades were bad in hindsight. You said both trades were smart at the time. Now that they haven't worked out, you say they were bad decisions. Lol Yes. That's how these things work. I liked both trades at the time they were made. Neither worked out. I'm not gonna pretend they were good decisions now because I liked them back in October/November lmao 8 minutes ago, krsmith17 said: Yes, because I disagreed with you. You don't like that... You came in with an obvious attitude and its persisted throughout this discussion. If you have something constructive to contribute about a Larkin trade I'll hear it. But you wanted to make this about drugs and perceived laziness. 2 minutes ago, krsmith17 said: Are you for real? How the f*** would being *** effect a players career in 2020? You're not that naive Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
krsmith17 7,191 Report post Posted January 6, 2020 2 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said: Literally, what're you talking about? Lol Yes. That's how these things work. I liked both trades at the time they were made. Neither worked out. I'm not gonna pretend they were good decisions now because I liked them back in October/November lmao You came in with an obvious attitude and its persisted throughout this discussion. If you have something constructive to contribute about a Larkin trade I'll hear it. But you wanted to make this about drugs and perceived laziness. You're not that naive No it's not "how these things work". Every trade Yzerman has made have been low risk, potential high reward. They weren't "bad decisions", just because they didn't work out. Obvious attitude? Yeah, okay... I've contributed to the discussion. Larkin isn't being traded for a subpar return. Your trade proposal was subpar. Dabura's was not. That hurt your feelings = butthurt. I guess I'm very naive to think that Larkin or any player would be the same person and player if they were *** or straight... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022 Report post Posted January 6, 2020 7 minutes ago, krsmith17 said: No it's not "how these things work". Every trade Yzerman has made have been low risk, potential high reward. They weren't "bad decisions", just because they didn't work out. So trades that don't work out are good decisions now? Explain the logic. I agree that those trades are low risk high reward. And I do not fault Yzerman at all for making them. But in hindsight I would not have made those particular deals based on what I know now. So yes, I definitely classify them as "failed trades" but we will see on Perlini still yet. 12 minutes ago, krsmith17 said: Obvious attitude? Yeah, okay... I've contributed to the discussion. Larkin isn't being traded for a subpar return. Your trade proposal was subpar. Dabura's was not. That hurt your feelings = butthurt. You came in to a discussion about a trade with offtopic ranting about laziness and drugs... I don't really care that you don't like my off the cuff trade proposal lol 14 minutes ago, krsmith17 said: I guess I'm very naive to think that Larkin or any player would be the same person and player if they were *** or straight... How virtuous and progressive of you. Sadly that's not how much of the real world actually works. Taken from the Danish player who recently came out: https://www.outsports.com/2019/10/7/20901262/pro-hockey-player-jon-lee-olsen-comes-out-as-*** Quote The 27 year old becomes the first professional male ice hockey player to come out publicly as *** in Denmark and may be the only openly *** ice hockey player competing professionally in the world "There’s a risk that some people might shout and heckle me while I’m playing matches. It’s something I have to be ready for, and be mature about. But I feel that I’m ready to show that you can be *** and play ice hockey" “It’s special,” Eller has said. “You might say that about any sport, but ice hockey has a very macho culture, so I think it must not have been an easy decision for him. It’s very brave.” Even outside the NHL there’s been very little representation of *** men in the sport globally. Lars Peter Karlsson played in the Swedish national hockey league until 1993 and was killed in 1995 by a man who claimed Karlsson was ***. Ex-OHL player Brock McGillis came out publicly only after retiring, but he has since become an advocate for LGBTQ inclusion in the sport and an ambassador for the #OneTeam initiative. “Hockey has always been very homophobic because it has always been hyper-masculine, meant for the manliest of men,” McGillis has said. Pretending homophobia doesn't exist is part of the problem Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
krsmith17 7,191 Report post Posted January 6, 2020 9 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said: So trades that don't work out are good decisions now? Explain the logic. I agree that those trades are low risk high reward. And I do not fault Yzerman at all for making them. But in hindsight I would not have made those particular deals based on what I know now. So yes, I definitely classify them as "failed trades" but we will see on Perlini still yet. You came in to a discussion about a trade with offtopic ranting about laziness and drugs... I don't really care that you don't like my off the cuff trade proposal lol Saarijarvi sucks and Regula may never play a game in the NHL. I'd make both trades even knowing how this past month has played out. No, I came into a discussion saying your trade proposal was dumb. You've been really down on Larkin for the past few weeks. Last year you wouldn't have suggested such a dumb trade. Next year you will agree in hindsight it would have been a dumb trade. If you don't care, why are you still bitching and moaning about it? 14 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said: How virtuous and progressive of you. Sadly that's not how much of the real world actually works. Taken from the Danish player who recently came out: https://www.outsports.com/2019/10/7/20901262/pro-hockey-player-jon-lee-olsen-comes-out-as-*** Pretending homophobia doesn't exist is part of the problem I never said homophobia doesn't exist. I'm saying that being *** wouldn't effect a player the same way hard drugs would... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022 Report post Posted January 6, 2020 5 minutes ago, krsmith17 said: Saarijarvi sucks and Regula may never play a game in the NHL. I'd make both trades even knowing how this past month has played out. Ok. Would you still play Comrie over Howard in hindsight? 8 minutes ago, krsmith17 said: No, I came into a discussion saying your trade proposal was dumb. .... and came at me about Larkin being lazy and using drugs as well. Which no one was discussing. 10 minutes ago, krsmith17 said: If you don't care, why are you still bitching and moaning about it? Here come the strawmen... I haven't bitched and moaned about you not liking my trade proposal even once. I think I responded with something along the lines of I think Yzerman would want a roster player in a deal, and maybe that's Fabbro.... On the other hand I have moaned about you coming in with a chip on your shoulder about Larkin being lazy and doing drugs. Which no ones was discussing. 14 minutes ago, krsmith17 said: I never said homophobia doesn't exist. I'm saying that being *** wouldn't effect a player the same way hard drugs would... My point was not about what effects a player more. It was about what we are allowed to discuss and not discuss. @Neomaxizoomdweebie asserted that we shouldn't discuss coke rumors because it is an illegal act and will unfairly damage Larkin's career. My point was that an unfounded rumor about Larkin being ga-y would certainly also unfairly effect his career, even though it's perfectly legal to be ga-y. Severity of the effect has no bearing. Here's better example for you, lets say a rumor pops up that Larkin has a serious drinking problem. It's not illegal to have a drinking problem, but it will still adversely effect him in the eyes of fans. Are we allowed to discuss it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
krsmith17 7,191 Report post Posted January 6, 2020 8 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said: Ok. Would you still play Comrie over Howard in hindsight? .... and came at me about Larkin being lazy and using drugs as well. Which no one was discussing. Here come the strawmen... I haven't bitched and moaned about you not liking my trade proposal even once. I think I responded with something along the lines of I think Yzerman would want a roster player in a deal, and maybe that's Fabbro.... On the other hand I have moaned about you coming in with a chip on your shoulder about Larkin being lazy and doing drugs. Which no ones was discussing. Would I (as a GM of a rebuilding team) keep a young player with potential over an old player that is likely to retire after this season? Yes. Every. Single. Time... Is that saying that I think that player will ever become a significant piece? No. It's saying that he could. Maybe you can ask me that question again for the 10th time. That would be fun... "Came at you"... LOL Okay... "Coming in with a chip on my shoulder"... Maybe the "chip on my shoulder" was about all the nonsense you've been spewing about Larkin the past couple weeks, and has nothing to do with our dumb debate about Comrie... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022 Report post Posted January 6, 2020 (edited) 8 minutes ago, krsmith17 said: Would I (as a GM of a rebuilding team) keep a young player with potential over an old player that is likely to retire after this season? Yes. Every. Single. Time... Is that saying that I think that player will ever become a significant piece? No. It's saying that he could. Maybe you can ask me that question again for the 10th time. That would be fun... I won't ask you that again. I'll ask you again: Why do you think Yzerman didn't keep Comire over Howard if that's the case then? 8 minutes ago, krsmith17 said: "Coming in with a chip on my shoulder"... Maybe the "chip on my shoulder" was about all the nonsense you've been spewing about Larkin the past couple weeks, and has nothing to do with our dumb debate about Comrie... At least you can finally admit you came in with a weird attitude. What's the "nonsense" about Larkin you don't like? You don't like my take on his ASG comments? You don't like that coke rumors exist? Don't like my take on he and AA's momentary sickness after a night in Winnipeg? Think I've been pretty fair about all three Edited January 6, 2020 by ChristopherReevesLegs Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
krsmith17 7,191 Report post Posted January 6, 2020 16 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said: I won't ask you that again. I'll ask you again: Why do you think Yzerman didn't keep Comire over Howard if that's the case then? At least you can finally admit you came in with a weird attitude. What's the "nonsense" about Larkin you don't like? You don't like my take on his ASG comments? You don't like that coke rumors exist? Don't like my take on he and AA's momentary sickness after a night in Winnipeg? Think I've been pretty fair about all three How the f*** would I know or even care why Yzerman didn't keep Comrie? Any other dumb questions? Yeah, completely fair to assume Larkin was out on a bender, and that's why he was a game time decision the following night. Definitely wasn't a cold or anything... I've yet to see anything on Larkin doing coke, other than from you on here. Where did you even come up with that one?... And yeah, to say that Larkin is lazy because he'd rather not be voted in to a dumb All-Star game is completely fair... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022 Report post Posted January 6, 2020 22 minutes ago, krsmith17 said: How the f*** would I know or even care why Yzerman didn't keep Comrie? Any other dumb questions? Aside from the childish ad hominem, I think it's sad that you don't care to understand why Yzerman did what he did. Trying to determine why things happen the way they do is part of the fun and builds out one's knowledge of the business. If it's so obvious to you that Comrie should have remained on the roster over Howard, one would think you'd care to know why. If Yzerman sunk Hronek into the AHL tomorow and called up McIlrath to replace him, I'd have a lot of questions and would be trying to figure out exactly why in the world he would do that. Oh well I guess. 30 minutes ago, krsmith17 said: Yeah, completely fair to assume Larkin was out on a bender, and that's why he was a game time decision the following night. Definitely wasn't a cold or anything... I've never had a cold that only lasted 10-24 hours. Regardless it's just a rumor my dood. 33 minutes ago, krsmith17 said: I've yet to see anything on Larkin doing coke, other than from you on here. Where did you even come up with that one?... It's a twitter rumor from back in June-ish of 2019 I believe. Patrick Kane was in the rumors as a cocaine user as well. A lot of it stemmed from Kuznetsov getting caught. 41 minutes ago, krsmith17 said: And yeah, to say that Larkin is lazy because he'd rather not be voted in to a dumb All-Star game is completely fair... It's definitely not a good look given his year and the teams position Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mackel 681 Report post Posted January 6, 2020 3 hours ago, krsmith17 said: No motivation at all, but sure, keep telling yourself this is a carryover from a previous conversation... It's not, and I'm not "butthurt" over said conversation. I think your constant digging is annoying as s***. You can't accept that we have differing opinions. You can't accept that an NHL manager / coach can make a bad decision. Continue digging... Sorry for "butting in" on yours and Dabura's private conversation. I was voicing my opinion that it would be dumb to trade a 1C for a much older 3C and 3D... My bad... 2C Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
krsmith17 7,191 Report post Posted January 6, 2020 23 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said: Aside from the childish ad hominem, I think it's sad that you don't care to understand why Yzerman did what he did. Trying to determine why things happen the way they do is part of the fun and builds out one's knowledge of the business. If it's so obvious to you that Comrie should have remained on the roster over Howard, one would think you'd care to know why. If Yzerman sunk Hronek into the AHL tomorow and called up McIlrath to replace him, I'd have a lot of questions and would be trying to figure out exactly why in the world he would do that. Oh well I guess. I've never had a cold that only lasted 10-24 hours. Regardless it's just a rumor my dood. It's a twitter rumor from back in June-ish of 2019 I believe. Patrick Kane was in the rumors as a cocaine user as well. A lot of it stemmed from Kuznetsov getting caught. It's definitely not a good look given his year and the teams position One of the first things I said regarding that whole situation is that Yzerman might prefer to keep Howard because of the old boys club mentality that so many NHL general managers have. Howard has been around for years, and it would be a disservice to just throw him away (waive him) with (likely) only a few months left of his career. That doesn't make it the right decision though. I always try to understand why coaches / management make decisions they do. That doesn't mean they always make sense from a fan perspective. Hronek for McIlrath is a bit of a different scenario. How about the Nielsen for Turgeon one I brought up... You might try to wrap your head around why Yzerman would waive an old vet in favor of a young kid, and you'd likely even come up with some plausible reasons he might have made that decision. But you wouldn't "know" why he did it. You've seriously never had a 24 hour cold? I find that hard to believe... Have you also never gone to work with a bit of a cold? Ah, Twitter rumor. Makes sense now... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Neomaxizoomdweebie 3,083 Report post Posted January 6, 2020 For those of you keeping score, on this page alone, we've had: 11 uses of the word g-a-y 7 uses of the word butt, butted, or butt-hurt I fear what kind of ads and pop ups I am going to be getting now. 1 AtlantaHotWings reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022 Report post Posted January 6, 2020 36 minutes ago, krsmith17 said: One of the first things I said regarding that whole situation is that Yzerman might prefer to keep Howard because of the old boys club mentality that so many NHL general managers have. Howard has been around for years, and it would be a disservice to just throw him away (waive him) with (likely) only a few months left of his career. That doesn't make it the right decision though. Ok now we're talking, that's a reason. I would simply counter that Yzerman has so far not displayed any old boys club type mentality. In fact he's done quite the opposite. Constantly trading for younger players to put on top of his vets. And the most glaring example of all of this is the waiving of Ericsson. A player who - just like like Howard - has been around for years and is nearing retirement. Maybe you think Yzerman makes an exception for Howard for some reason? IDK, you tell me. I think in reality Howard is a lot more valuable to Yzerman for the rest of this season than Comrie will ever be in the future. Yzerman could have easily claimed Comrie back when Winnipeg sent him to Manitoba. He did not. That speaks volumes. It doesn't seem like Yzerman or Winnipeg sees much of a future for Comrie in the NHL. 50 minutes ago, krsmith17 said: Hronek for McIlrath is a bit of a different scenario. How about the Nielsen for Turgeon one I brought up... You might try to wrap your head around why Yzerman would waive an old vet in favor of a young kid, and you'd likely even come up with some plausible reasons he might have made that decision. But you wouldn't "know" why he did it. If Yzerman waived Nielsen for Turgeon, I wouldn't care too much, but I assume it would be because he wants a look at Turgeon in the pros and he's not too worried about losing Nielsen one way or the other. Personally I think Turgeon is awful and doesn't deserve a callup thou. 56 minutes ago, krsmith17 said: You've seriously never had a 24 hour cold? I find that hard to believe... Have you also never gone to work with a bit of a cold? 24 hour old cold is called a hangover where I'm from. Sure I've gone to work with "a bit of cold" but that's either at the beginning or tail end of cold. According to WedMD the worst of a cold typically lasts 3 days, with milder symptoms usually persisting for 7 to 10 days. I would agree with that. If I catch a bad cold where I can't work it's usually about 3-4 days in length. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
krsmith17 7,191 Report post Posted January 6, 2020 7 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said: Ok now we're talking, that's a reason. I would simply counter that Yzerman has so far not displayed any old boys club type mentality. In fact he's done quite the opposite. Constantly trading for younger players to put on top of his vets. And the most glaring example of all of this is the waiving of Ericsson. A player who - just like like Howard - has been around for years and is nearing retirement. Maybe you think Yzerman makes an exception for Howard for some reason? IDK, you tell me. I think in reality Howard is a lot more valuable to Yzerman for the rest of this season than Comrie will ever be in the future. Yzerman could have easily claimed Comrie back when Winnipeg sent him to Manitoba. He did not. That speaks volumes. It doesn't seem like Yzerman or Winnipeg sees much of a future for Comrie in the NHL. If Yzerman waived Nielsen for Turgeon, I wouldn't care too much, but I assume it would be because he wants a look at Turgeon in the pros and he's not too worried about losing Nielsen one way or the other. Personally I think Turgeon is awful and doesn't deserve a callup thou. 24 hour old cold is called a hangover where I'm from. Sure I've gone to work with "a bit of cold" but that's either at the beginning or tail end of cold. According to WedMD the worst of a cold typically lasts 3 days, with milder symptoms usually persisting for 7 to 10 days. I would agree with that. If I catch a bad cold where I can't work it's usually about 3-4 days in length. So far Yzerman has traded a 4th round pick for a 24 year old bottom six winger, a 25 year old depth winger for a 31 year old depth defenseman, a 19 year old defensive prospect for a 23 year old middle (bottom) six winger, a 24 year old bottom six winger for a 23 year old middle six winger, a 22 year old depth defenseman for a 24 year old depth goaltender, a 24 year old depth defenseman for a 23 year old depth defenseman... Not a single one of those trades have displayed "the opposite" of an old boys club mentality... It's not like he's trading any of the 30+ year old vets for picks or prospects. The ONLY move Yzerman has made that displayed that he doesn't favor the old vets, is waiving Ericsson. 95% of Red Wings fans loved that move, and for good reason. I think the same would have been the case if he elected to waive Howard over Comrie, or if he were to waive Nielsen in favor of a Turgeon. It shows a commitment to a youth movement, and gives young guys an opportunity to show they might not suck, over an old guy we know sucks... Another thing I said was very obvious when Yzerman elected not to bring Comrie back was that he clearly doesn't see any value in him going forward. Does that mean that he's right? No, not necessarily. Could he be right? Absolutely. However, there's nothing you can say that will convince me that not bringing Comrie back as a free asset for Grand Rapids was the right decision, regardless how this situation plays out. We lack goaltending depth. At worst, Comrie is a solid depth goaltender. At best, Comrie could pull a Jordan Bennington and become a starter for a few seasons, and maybe even help us go on a run in the playoffs. He likely falls somewhere in between, but again, even that's worth acquiring for free... I would have kept Comrie over Howard. In the end, it likely won't matter much. But it might... Anyway, I've said all I will say on this now. I've made my point very clear. As did you. You're just asking the same dumb questions over and over again, and I'm just repeating myself over and over again... Regarding the common cold. I've never taken more than a day or two (max) off work due to a cold. Anyone that needs three plus days off for a cold are just milking it... It's entirely possible that Larkin felt a cold coming on in Winnipeg, got it really bad later that night, had it at it's worst the next day and a half, and started feeling a little better the following day. Still had cold symptoms which is why he was a game time decision, and decided to man up and play through it. He did, so good on him. Or you know, he could have been out all night after the game in Winnipeg drinking and doing coke, because he's a young, rich, white guy... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dabura 12,207 Report post Posted January 6, 2020 18 hours ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said: I figure a deal for Larkin would have to include roster players. Jarnkrok + Ekholm + 1st (top 5 protection) + 2nd Bu yeah realistically there probably do not exist very many scenarios where Larkin gets traded. 18 hours ago, krsmith17 said: 23 year old 1C for 28 year old 3C and 29 year old 3D + a couple picks... Yeah, no thanks... Dabura's package is much closer to what Yzerman would be looking for. That's if he were trading him. Larkin isn't getting traded though, no matter how "lazy" you think he is, or how many drugs you think he does... The lazy thing couldn't be further from the truth, and the drugs thing is an unsubstantiated rumor... I agree that Yzerman would want at least one significant roster player; in my hypothetical package, that would be Fabbro, who seems to have established a foothold in the NHL this season. I think my hypothetical package is pretty close to what Yzerman would want...and I think there's no way Poile would pay that price. And that's the dilemma (if you want to call it a dilemma) -- Larkin means more to us than he does to a team with, y'know, *actual depth*. I could refine the package to make it look a little more realistic, maybe add Turris to the equation, maybe add Cholowski or Athanasiou to the equation. But I think we're all in agreement that Larkin isn't going anywhere and all of this is therefore moot. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
