Quote:
Originally Posted by jonkaupp
Because Vinnys deal contains significantly less assets then what you offered which reflects the fact that Stone is an upcoming UFA and there are zero guarantees that you will sign him.
|
It does? Vinny's deal has NO guarantees of an extension. My deal GUARANTEED the extension of both players before the consummation of the deal. So Vinny's deal is likely good assets thrown away for 30 games of a player. My proposal was to have three players added at positions of need, and all with term. MASSIVE difference. My suggestion was to move a promising young player for three guys in their prime, two of which would be signed with term, and two guys that would provide more up front than what we were giving up. I can't believe that this is being overlooked; the actual outcome provides us another top line player AND a second line player AND a depth defenseman - with term!
Quote:
|
What you pitched was something that absolutely did not reflect the actual situation the senators are in. It’s fine to have the opinion that that is not a deal you would do, but then to turn around and come up with a preposterous and unrealistic deal and nay say everyone else’s much more realistic suggestions is what you are getting criticized for.
|
Why is expecting an agreement on a contract extension unrealistic? This happens quite often. A deal is made, then the contract extension is announce a day or two later. The contract is usually agreed to long before the trade is done, especially for good assets. This is no different.
Quote:
|
Stone will likely be moved for a 1st round pick and a b prospect with some conditional picks thrown in. Whether the Flames should be in on that is worth debating. I personally would absolutely be in on it but I understand the concerns from the other side.
|
And the Flames have stated, quite clearly, they will not move those assets for a short term add. Any assets will be moved only when they have a commitment from the player. Seems that is exactly what I've been saying.
Quote:
|
And I completely disagree that Frolik is a player the senators wouldn’t want. 1 year left at low cash and a higher cap hit and a good veteran presence for a rebuild. Sure, he’d be more desirable for a playoff team but if he’s part of a deal for Mark Stone then that is fine by me. Same goes for Sam Bennett.
|
We'll have to disagree on that. I don't see Frolik being a good fit for Ottawa. They should be focusing on futures, and Frolik is definitely not a future player. If they grab him, they should flip him.