Rangers - Red Wings trade

[PigsRule]

I am not on the trade committee and I hate seeing detroit get any stronger of a team but in Tubbs defense,,,, There have been similar calibre players being dropped/bought out throughout free agency, Richards, Couture to name 2.

He managed to get a return on hossa, not sure how this deal is veto'd taking into account past transactions this season.   Although I think his timing is poor and should have made this move before FA started.

I hear ya Snug!
In Tubbs defense, yes any manager is entitled to rebuild anyway they see fit.

Of course, we've seen this strategy and approach by other teams in FNHL and given the lack of activity during ABO, prior to FA opening, throughout FA, I'm concerned about the direction and the sudden purge.

I also saw purge Malone, your purge an All-Star L1 trio and dump Couture but we've also all seen you guys actively rebuilding with some good consistency.

My issue is recruiting a new owner for a crippled franchise (that BTW doesn't own a starting goalie) down the line when the roster looks like [ fill in the blank ].

Finally, given there's a 10% overage during the off-season... not sure why the rebuilding hasn't already started ... and now we're at the end of FA and 1 week away from the Transaction Freeze period.

[snugerud]

valid points.  Wasnt aware that tubbs was a new owner or how long he had been in ownership of the Rangers.

I have a feeling there is probably some side dealage on this one that Izaman and tubbs have made.  Izaman will be over cap by several mill.  I am assuming there maybe another trade to happen or he is hoping to make a very quick trade before that transaction freeze. 

[PigsRule]

I sense the reason its so quiet in this trade thread is the last time a deal got vetoed it caused drama ... fast fwd 6 mths and 3 of the 4 key people voting in that deal are no longer around.

Let's vote and move this along.
3 Yes or 3 Veto votes. Let's hear it.

[Tubbs]

I hear ya Snug!
In Tubbs defense, yes any manager is entitled to rebuild anyway they see fit.

Of course, we've seen this strategy and approach by other teams in FNHL and given the lack of activity during ABO, prior to FA opening, throughout FA, I'm concerned about the direction and the sudden purge.

I also saw purge Malone, your purge an All-Star L1 trio and dump Couture but we've also all seen you guys actively rebuilding with some good consistency.

My issue is recruiting a new owner for a crippled franchise (that BTW doesn't own a starting goalie) down the line when the roster looks like [ fill in the blank ].

Finally, given there's a 10% overage during the off-season... not sure why the rebuilding hasn't already started ... and now we're at the end of FA and 1 week away from the Transaction Freeze period.

Thanks, I think. But Recall I inherited this Crap-arse team, including the goalies. I retained those players I thought would best help the team and did so leaving me just over the cap. So I had no room to move during FA.  Now I am trying to sell an expensive old player. Sometimes you have to take a step back before you can go forward.

BTW, regarding the suggestion that Izaman and I are colluding ......yeah,we are banging and soon I will trade him Kane for Latendresse.

[snugerud]

Sorry I didnt mean to infer you were colluding.  I was just thinking a 2 part deal.

Ie.  After the trade, Izaman is going to have to get under cap so buyout a player that you can then bid on. etc.  I dont see that as colluding.  I see it as more working within the rules.

I had a deal like that worked out with Chicago.  They bid on Brad Richards for me.  Which would free up my cap to work with.  As soon as they won the bid we were supposed to trade  Richards for Seabrook and my 2nd round pick.
In return they would buyout Seabrook so that I could re-bid for him and hopefully win him back, saving me about 3-4 million  but retain both players and out of the deal he was going to get 2nd rounder with at most losing 1.5 million in cap space.

Unfortunately , the deal feel through when someone came a knocking with a better deal for Richards....... Fail..

[jackdaniels]

I'm not on the TC but I have to say no one likes to see a team get weaker after a trade. Unfortunately one team comes away weaker if this deal gets passed.

[PsychoticPondGoons]

Snug, draft was moving to quickly and Sharks dangled Harts. Like I said to Jack about Johnny Boychuk and my girlfriend last night, drop'em! LOL

[PsychoticPondGoons]

Thought I voted but didn't so

 


I like you guys but I  on this deal. Doesn't cut it.
Hossa is always in the top 20 pts/game and top 30 RW kinda guy
Erik and Bobby can't even drop from the Hose's cup. I meant that Stanley Cup thing. LOL

[Tubbs]

I'm not on the TC but I have to say no one likes to see a team get weaker after a trade. Unfortunately one team comes away weaker if this deal gets passed.

Of course teams can get weaker in trades. Happens in all sports all of the time. Get rid of older expensive assets to allow for new assets and rebuilding.

I should be able to GM my team which allows for future development. The team I have (and inherited) sucks. Hossa ain't gonna make it much better. I should have a right to move forward without him.

[thunderblade]

I am not on trade committee. I believe the deal should stand as is. Once again its a deal to free up cap space. Just like the earlier ones. Just because the previous one sided deals were done during FA period they were accepted because it allowed teams to acquire players through FA. The deals  from a true critique of players exchanged were all one sided. Moral of story is be consistent and base trades on merit only.