Quote:
Originally Posted by Boreal
Great, now use your finely tuned analytical skills to evaluate how the word “not” applies to the word “could”.
I asked a yes/no question.
“Could Yzerman have secured him for nothing (no assets) or not?
You replied, not.
Followed up with some rambling disconnected rationalizations to the question.
Yzerman obviously did the Oilers a favour and it’s nonsense to think he didn’t.
|
They could have in the sense that “anything could happen” I guess, sure. But as I pointed out and can explain in simpler terms for you: in the real world we all live in, no, they could not have had him for “nothing.” Let me know if you need the word “nothing” explained to you. I prefer Oxford if that’s OK.
“Could Yzerman have secured Kostin for nothing or not?”
Not
“Could Yzerman have secured Kostin for the same value he spent on Kostin + the buyout?”
Sure, but it would have been harder to do, as a whole bunch of other “could”s enter the situation, as pointed out. The value of buying out Yamamoto’s contract was having Kostin as an RFA and being able to have exclusive negotiating rights for a player who likely would have gotten at least 2.5 and probably more than 2 years as a UFA. Not sure why you’re struggling so hard with that.
You’re free to keep believing everyone is just helping out a mid-market Canadian team with the biggest superstar in the league out of the kindness of their hearts though, if you want.