Just because they don't have a future here doesn't mean they won't be good else where? Janmark has upside
Janmark is far down on the depth chart. He had very little trade value. A prospect like him is never gonna bring in any high profile players in a trade. We literally gave up no noteworthy prospects, and may get high 3rd round pick in return (with the exception being a fun playoff run if we don't). You have attachment issues to our prospects lol.
Like I said before I like cole and he's the guy I wanted us to get ... Also didn't think he would cost us this much though ... He could be a complete bust but i liked janmarks upside and even though our prospect pool is high doesn't mean we should just give them away for older ufa's
What's funny is just today on twitter I was going on to someone about how I hope janmark convinces backman to come down fulltime next year and now there both gone lol
Are you serious? Please tell me this is a joke. Because this is a great trade for the Wings. We lost two prospects who have zero future here. Two prospects who have very little value. And by trading them, this team has a better shot at a deep playoff run.
We traded what is basically a 2nd round pick and a minor prospect for an aging UFA power forward with maybe two or three more years in the tank. Is it the mot exciting trade ever ? Nope. But it's a low (almost no) risk, high reward kind of trade which will definitely make us better. What is not to like ?
I don't want anymore additions to this team unless we lose guys like weiss andersen miller kindl off our lineups
Dread to think what we'd give up next for some one who's not a 36 yr old ufa
Doesn't mean everything Kenny does is gold
Please point out where I said that in my post. However last year it was the exact same thing when they traded Jarnkrok, you were angry about that as well stating how great he was going to be. Do you want to stay mediocre forever while we hope Backman comes back and Janmark hopefully become an elite center behind Larkin, AA, Sheahan... we can't keep everyone. Cole makes a better team right now. If Helm misses a lot of time who will replace him? Cole is still pretty quick. Yea, 33 points in 57 games isn't too bad either.
Posted by Nevermind
on 24 February 2015 - 09:57 AM
Because he was pissed off and it was a rivalry game? I'm not sure why you think that's some sort of objective standard by which to measure fighting's impact on the game. Furthermore, as I've stated before, if you want to understand how one variable impacts another, you use science...not an interview with Claude Lemieux. Scientific research has consistently shown that fighting does not positively impact the game. The fact that a bunch of people say otherwise doesn't mean anything unless they're qualified to say so professionally and empirically. For quite a long time everybody just "knew" that the sun orbited the earth, and the world was flat. It was common knowledge...duh.
Science says fighting is harmful for the individual and unnecessary for the game. I don't really give a s*** what the athletes say. These are the same types of guys who still regularly use sterdoids, chewing tobacco, etc. They're not exactly to be trusted for their keen insights and objective thinking.
I agree that fighting is harmful in that it can leave a player with long-term issues related to concussions, brain trauma, etc. If that's your only argument, fine.
But to say a genuine fight doesn't impact a hockey game is silly. That's like saying a big hit or shot block doesn't affect the momentum of a game either. Or the crowd even. There are too many variables and differing scenarios that a scientific study won't be able to capture this.
Also, chemistry and camaraderie are vital to any hockey club. Sticking up for your linemate after a dirty hit is part of being a good teammate. You don't think that brings a team closer together?