Can't see anybody having an issue with this trade. Jackman was a lesser version of Mcgratton and you only need one of these guys in the lineup.
He took dumb penalties that he wasn't able to learn from. I don't recall the last time he won a fight. Surprised we got anything for this guy. Agreed he was good in 10-11.
Excited to see what Jones can do, even with limited ice time.
The Following User Says Thank You to Bandwagon In Flames For This Useful Post:
I can't believe that many people thought I was serious. There is no way someone should believe that trading Jackman for a draft pick would ever be considered a win now move.
It was a joke, but obviously if I have to explain it, it wasn't a good one.
It was either funny because it was blatant sarcasm, or funny because it was completely ridiculous.
Either way, your joke was juuuuust fine.
I don't know why so many challenged you, it'd be like someone coming up to you and saying "The sky is made of MILKSHAKES!" ....you just don't engage if someone is that kind of crazy.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to strombad For This Useful Post:
Great stuff by Feaster. It does make me wonder what he has up his sleeve. At 45 contracts there has to be something coming in the shape of an imbalanced deal. Three of those contracts is for Gaudreau, Arnold and Agostino, so that leaves two contracts open in a deal or two. Should be very interesting next couple of months!
It was either funny because it was blatant sarcasm, or funny because it was completely ridiculous.
Either way, your joke was juuuuust fine.
I don't know why so many challenged you, it'd be like someone coming up to you and saying "The sky is made of MILKSHAKES!" ....you just don't engage if someone is that kind of crazy.
Usually a sarcastic joke is a 1 sentence kind of thing. He had 2 sentences of sarcasm which is a short paragraph, not a one line joke. Also following it up with some 'oh well' analysis makes the reader question whether or not it's a joke.
Reasonable to question posters especially considering the recent 'factual' comments a recent poster's been making on the forum (thank goodness that's over).
And no I don't have anything better to do than break down comments on a forum.
The Following User Says Thank You to Bandwagon In Flames For This Useful Post:
You must have missed that post a while back when EE told us about how tough and feared he was in a road rage incident.
You've don't even know the full story... Estrada intimidating Jackman was the reason for his decline in play. After Tim meet a real tough guy h just didn't have it in him anymore.
I can't believe that many people thought I was serious. There is no way someone should believe that trading Jackman for a draft pick would ever be considered a win now move.
It was a joke, but obviously if I have to explain it, it wasn't a good one.
With the crap that Rerun spouts and the nonsense out of that troll JobHopper earlier, it's somewhat harder to tell trolling from actual stupidity.
__________________
Until the Flames make the Western Finals again, this signature shall remain frozen.
Jackman became less effective as his time wore on here, but I think he gave it everything he had on the ice. He would try and give the team energy by fighting - and he would often willing try to do it against guys who he must have known would beat him. You have to respect that.
Good on Bob for playing Jackman to the point that he had some value in a trade. This probably wouldn't happen if Jackman was benched. Wasn't it against Anaheim (or was it LA?) where he slotted Jackman on Monahan's wing?
This is a rebuild, so the Flames are smart to try and increase value where they can. The kids on the farm are all developing along nicely there in a winning environment and being contributors.
Hartley doesn't have a grudge against Blair Jones. If there was, Jones would not be getting called up. I think the 'argument' was that he expected much more out of Jones, and wasn't getting it. Jones has become a better player since then I would say - back to his old self when the Flames first traded for him. Hopefully he continues that from now on.
That's good. You are probably my favorite (and arguably the most level headed) poster on the site and it is always nice to hear your insight and see things from your perspective. Don't do that to me again.
__________________
Disregard any and all THANKS I give. I'm a dirty, dirty thanks-whore.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Trailer Fire For This Useful Post:
People keep saying the Flames are at 45 contracts....but doesn't Sieloff's contract slide if he doesn't play 10 NHL games this season?
That would put us at 44 then, amirite?
correct, but I believe his contract still counts right now ... only slides after Calgarys 73rd game, I think. That's March 26 ... so that probably opens up a contract spot just in time for one of our college players.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to devo22 For This Useful Post:
