Quote:
Originally Posted by jayswin
No, its just internet posting. Just find it funny that Johnston proposals went through a whole cycle a month ago that were debunked as unrealistic and then here we are again. The "markstrom for 10th overall, but we shouldn't have to find up our late first" should be a meme response to most CP trade proposals at this point.  |
Debunked? No, nothing was debunked. To "debunk" a statement or prove that it is not true means that you have proof that the statement is false.
People like you posting your opinion is not a fact, it is just your opinion, and thus has no proof to it. You have performed no great act of proving anything, you are just running your virtual mouth. That is why the idea of bundling Andersson up for a bigger asset is still a possible outcome of a future trade and you have proved nothing to the contrary.
Most of the negative posters to the concept of a Johnston-Andersson trade do not even take the time to contribute something useful, it is just saying "that cannot happen" over and over again in an act of filibuster. The other negative posters just try to jump to "that cannot happen without an untouchable asset" (Wolf, Parekh) which is equally thoughtless and unhelpful to the conversation.
It would be far more interesting if you guys would take a second to try and evaulate package values. I have tried to do so a few times in this thread and most of the negative posters get scared and run away to "that cannot happen" land.