2016/2017 Trade Speculation and Rumors

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Eberle would be a great fit for teams that don't care much for defensive responsibilities, puck pursuit/battles, and the salary cap.

[socalwingfan]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

Eberle would be a great fit for teams that don't care much for defensive responsibilities, puck pursuit/battles, and the salary cap.

So the Oilers?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by bax

Bob Mckenzie reporting that the Oilers have offers on the table for Eberle

"We'll give you a third for Eberle and a second"

Offers on the table does not necessarily mean good offers on the table.

[bax]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

"We'll give you a third for Eberle and a second"



Offers on the table does not necessarily mean good offers on the table.

Well I never said he reported they were good offers. I guarantee it will be for much more than you're speculating though.

Justin Schultz got a third

[MissTeeks]

TSN's trade bait board:

http://www.tsn.ca/quality-defencemen...board-1.768885

No Flames. They do have MacKinnon as number 30.

Goalies are Fleury at 10, Grubauer at 14 and Raanta at 15.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by bax

Well I never said he reported they were good offers. I guarantee it will be for much more than you're speculating though.

Justin Schultz got a third

I never said that you did.

And I wasn't speculating - I was making a point that 'offers' can mean anything. And again, that wasn't directed at you.

(I quoted your post because I was quoting Mackenzie's comment)

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Ummm no I didn't say anything like that.
I said if people find something offensive to let us know so we can consider it. Did I say that we would automatically "censor" anything?
I did not.

If you would even consider deleting a multi-year, multi-thousand-post thread, to which hundreds of users have contributed, because ONE anonymous person on the Internet claimed to find it offensive, then you are censoring with a far broader brush than most professional censors would dare to apply.

Are people really upset that they can't use a childish name like "sisters" anymore?

There is such a thing as principle. To paraphrase Voltaire, I say this to people who use the term ‘Sedin sisters’ to refer to the NHL players:

‘You look like a perfect fathead saying that, but I will defend to the death your right to look like a perfect fathead.’

When people actually speak truth or sense about any controversial topic, they will look like fatheads and worse to those who take the position opposed. If the principle is granted that appearing to be a fathead is grounds for being silenced, no substantive discussion of any topic will thereafter be permissible.

As I mentioned before, my own profession has been virtually ruined by the practice of silencing people for any form of speech that some self-appointed Internet cop deemed ‘inappropriate’ or ‘offensive’ (usually by saying that they themselves were not offended, but some third party might be). It soon led to organized campaigns to expel people from the profession for making statements that did not agree with the political, religious, and social agenda of the prevailing ideological claque. I know people who lost their livelihoods over it, and people who were harassed to the point of having mental and physical breakdowns.

The language you use strongly suggests that you would be on the side of the self-appointed cops in this matter. If true, that would be reprehensible.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I never said that you did.

And I wasn't speculating - I was making a point that 'offers' can mean anything. And again, that wasn't directed at you.

(I quoted your post because I was quoting Mackenzie's comment)

Isnt that kind of obvious? Offers means offers.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

If you would even consider deleting a multi-year, multi-thousand-post thread, to which hundreds of users have contributed, because ONE anonymous person on the Internet claimed to find it offensive, then you are censoring with a far broader brush than most professional censors would dare to apply.



There is such a thing as principle. To paraphrase Voltaire, I say this to people who use the term ‘Sedin sisters’ to refer to the NHL players:

‘You look like a perfect fathead saying that, but I will defend to the death your right to look like a perfect fathead.’

When people actually speak truth or sense about any controversial topic, they will look like fatheads and worse to those who take the position opposed. If the principle is granted that appearing to be a fathead is grounds for being silenced, no substantive discussion of any topic will thereafter be permissible.

As I mentioned before, my own profession has been virtually ruined by the practice of silencing people for any form of speech that some self-appointed Internet cop deemed ‘inappropriate’ or ‘offensive’ (usually by saying that they themselves were not offended, but some third party might be). It soon led to organized campaigns to expel people from the profession for making statements that did not agree with the political, religious, and social agenda of the prevailing ideological claque. I know people who lost their livelihoods over it, and people who were harassed to the point of having mental and physical breakdowns.

The language you use strongly suggests that you would be on the side of the self-appointed cops in this matter. If true, that would be reprehensible.

This post is terrible, the mods do a great job and you're completely overreacting.

As someone who has used the report feature enough, I can tell you that the mods absolutely do look at situations and consider more than just one person being offended. That is very clearly what Jiri meant, that when things get reported they get looked at and, if deemed appropriate, they get removed. Out of maybe 10 things I've found over the line, they've noticeably acted on 2 of them.

It's an Internet forum where, when people use the report feature, mods look at the content being reported and consider what to take (or not to take). This is hardly revolutionary.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Isnt that kind of obvious? Offers means offers.

A couple people reacted to the original quote from Mackenzie by suggesting that they weren't surprised (i.e. offers implied real demand). I was making the point that his comment doesn't necessarily lead to that conclusion.

But thank you for your literal interpretation of my post.

[Vinny01]

Hamonic would be a perfect partner for Brodie. Big, mean, shutdown type signed to an amazing contract.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by bax

Well I never said he reported they were good offers. I guarantee it will be for much more than you're speculating though.

Justin Schultz got a third

eberle has a 6 million cap hit for two more years though... shultz was dealt on an expiring contract...

i think Eberle might be of interest for someone, but he isn't going to fetch a 3rd, imo, with that kind of cap hit...the Oilers would have to eat some of that contract or take on a bad contract coming back...

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

A couple people reacted to the original quote from Mackenzie by suggesting that they weren't surprised (i.e. offers implied real demand). I was making the point that his comment doesn't necessarily lead to that conclusion.

But thank you for your literal interpretation of my post.

Offers does imply real demand.

That's why people make offers to acquire something... because there is demand. If there's no demand, there are no offers.

[bigpete]

You play ball like a girl!

...

What'd you say?

You heard me.

Tomorrow. Noon. Our field.

[TheScorpion]

Jeez, are we still talking about this? We could be talking about where Dennis Wideman will sign!

[chockfullofgoodness]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

This post is terrible, the mods do a great job and you're completely overreacting.

As someone who has used the report feature enough, I can tell you that the mods absolutely do look at situations and consider more than just one person being offended. That is very clearly what Jiri meant, that when things get reported they get looked at and, if deemed appropriate, they get removed. Out of maybe 10 things I've found over the line, they've noticeably acted on 2 of them.

It's an Internet forum where, when people use the report feature, mods look at the content being reported and consider what to take (or not to take). This is hardly revolutionary.

Crybaby snitch. Sad.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by chockfullofgoodness

Crybaby snitch. Sad.

OMG reported!

[memphusk]

There is a report feature? Why would anybody ever need this?

[Love]

Originally Posted by chockfullofgoodness

Crybaby snitch. Sad.

lmfao

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by memphusk

There is a report feature? Why would anybody ever need this?

Because the internet is apparently a serious place