Rich Posted June 26, 2015 Report Share Posted June 26, 2015 Sorry, I don't have a crystal ball like you and I can't see that stuff....we will never know because it didn't happen. Hard concept to grasp? Maybe one day you will get your crystal ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atomic Posted June 26, 2015 Report Share Posted June 26, 2015 Sorry, I don't have a crystal ball like you and I can't see that stuff....we will never know because it didn't happen. Hard concept to grasp? Pretty simple concept really, I think most reasonable hockey fans understand how deadline deals work. Maybe follow the league for a couple more years and you'll start to get it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goalie Posted June 26, 2015 Report Share Posted June 26, 2015 I guess, if it's such a hard concept to grasp, why bring it up in the first place there Ducky? I mean, you were the one that started the whole should have traded frolik at the deadline, they didn't tho right? it Didn't happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrostyWinnipeg Posted June 27, 2015 Report Share Posted June 27, 2015 So basically what you're saying is you'd be okay with playing a worse lineup this year in the interest of building for the future. I feel like we're past that point. Missing the playoffs this season would be a huge step backwards and the city will NOT take it well. Yes. And then next year? "Well Ladd isn't really a #1 LW and he's going to want to be paid like one so we better get rid of him." And the year after that -- "Well Perreault isn't a #2 C/LW and he's going to want to be paid like one so we better get rid of him." And so on, and so on. I mean, who exactly are you comparing Frolik to when you say he's a sub-par 2RW? Look around the league and you might be surprised by who is passing for a #2 RW on other teams. We could do a lot worse. And Burmi is a lot worse, if that's the solution. You can't look at Chicago and say "Well player X wouldn't be a second liner on Chicago so we shouldn't pay him like a second liner." No, I'd be prepared to pay Ladd more then I am Frolik. As for Perreault,if he is looking for 5 - 6M AAV, then I'm not sure I would take him at that price either. I'd give Perreault $5M per based on what he showed last season. I think he's a better player than Frolik, he just needs to show that he can stay healthy. Tough to do on this team. Just about everyone was injured at one point last year. Coach says its not related to their style of play but come on.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goalie Posted June 27, 2015 Report Share Posted June 27, 2015 It's because for 90 percent of the year they played 3 lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atomic Posted June 29, 2015 Report Share Posted June 29, 2015 It's because every team gets injuries. Winnipeg was 15th in man games lost to injury. As average as it gets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweep the leg Posted June 29, 2015 Report Share Posted June 29, 2015 Perreault has never played more than 70 games in a season. It's not just a Winnipeg thing for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrostyWinnipeg Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 Conundrum no more. Frolik signs with Calgary. And THIS is why you TRADE your UFA's before the deadline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted July 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 Conundrum no more. Frolik signs with Calgary. And THIS is why you TRADE your UFA's before the deadline. As discussed to death it was a good move not trading Frolik at the deadline. Very very shortsighted if people don't grasp that yet Goalie 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goalie Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 Guess he didn't wanna be here. Happy wife happy life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrostyWinnipeg Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 As discussed to death it was a good move not trading Frolik at the deadline. Very very shortsighted if people don't grasp that yet Too many peeps thinking we made the playoffs because of one player IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted July 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 As discussed to death it was a good move not trading Frolik at the deadline. Very very shortsighted if people don't grasp that yetToo many peeps thinking we made the playoffs because of one player IMHO. Havent heard that all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrostyWinnipeg Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 As discussed to death it was a good move not trading Frolik at the deadline. Very very shortsighted if people don't grasp that yet Too many peeps thinking we made the playoffs because of one player IMHO. Havent heard that all. Actually it was your post that I had in mind. http://morningbigblue.com/community/topic/7226-frolik-conundrum/page-5#entry128527 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted July 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 Except I never said one player was the difference. I suppose I could have gone into a far greater detailed explanation but I figured most people weren't that dense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted July 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 Although saying that, they hve to sign Ladd and buff or trade them this summer. Cannot be in a Frolik scenario with those two guys next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 Everyone keeps saying we have to trade a player because losing them in free agency is the worst thing ever. If this were true why would any other team trade for them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrostyWinnipeg Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 Everyone keeps saying we have to trade a player because losing them in free agency is the worst thing ever. If this were true why would any other team trade for them? To me a UFA you trade for at deadline is quite different then someone at end of contract and whose been here a couple of seasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelownabomberfan Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 Given Frolik went to Calgary, Chevy should have traded him for Monahan at the deadline. Chevy sure screwed that one up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted July 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 If Frolik was not a jet and we traded for him at the deadline as a rental, no one would say squat. We got our "rental" and it cost us nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 I can see Buff potentially being traded because of the depth on D. No way Ladd is traded before the season starts even if doesn't sign. Our forward depth isn't there to do it. And depending what is coming back, if we trade both and take $10M out of our lineup we are in danger of not reaching the cap floor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted July 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 I agree. I can't imagine they wouldn't get a deal done. Since they've been deep into negotiations they know what it will take to sign Ladd. That deal will get done. Buff...it would not surprise me if he is re-signed. A trade would surprise me more actually. But I think a trade is better for the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardCoreBlue Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 I can see Buff potentially being traded because of the depth on D. No way Ladd is traded before the season starts even if doesn't sign. Our forward depth isn't there to do it. And depending what is coming back, if we trade both and take $10M out of our lineup we are in danger of not reaching the cap floor. Trade an elite, unique, 'puts bums in seats' type player in his prime for a player who probably isn't in his prime. Does not compute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 I can see Buff potentially being traded because of the depth on D. No way Ladd is traded before the season starts even if doesn't sign. Our forward depth isn't there to do it. And depending what is coming back, if we trade both and take $10M out of our lineup we are in danger of not reaching the cap floor. Trade an elite, unique, 'puts bums in seats' type player in his prime for a player who probably isn't in his prime. Does not compute. Where did I say I want to trade him for a player who isn't in his prime? You are probably getting a good 3rd line forward (maybe 2nd), a prospect, and a pick. Either way we need the depth on forward more than a D-man right now. Unfortunately we also need roster players more than we need prospects right now. But you can always package up prospects in a trade. But if Buff's camp is standing pat on wanting a 6 - 7 year deal, than the Jets have a choice to make: A - Sign him to that deal and likely regret it for the last 3 - 4 years as an ageing Buff deteriorates fast. B - Trade him C - Keep him next year and lose him in free agency Given those options, I would be fine with either B or C. I would absolutely hate it if we gave Buff, a 260+ pound man with a history of not being in the best of shape and working out, a deal that would take him to 36+ years of age making 7+ million dollars (probably higher), regardless of how unique he is or how many bums he puts into a guaranteed sold out arena. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted July 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 Why is it the anti-trade people always compare buff at his best against worst possible return in a trade? Who's suggesting we trade buff for nothing? Goalie 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HardCoreBlue Posted July 1, 2015 Report Share Posted July 1, 2015 I can see Buff potentially being traded because of the depth on D. No way Ladd is traded before the season starts even if doesn't sign. Our forward depth isn't there to do it. And depending what is coming back, if we trade both and take $10M out of our lineup we are in danger of not reaching the cap floor. Trade an elite, unique, 'puts bums in seats' type player in his prime for a player who probably isn't in his prime. Does not compute. Where did I say I want to trade him for a player who isn't in his prime? You are probably getting a good 3rd line forward (maybe 2nd), a prospect, and a pick. Either way we need the depth on forward more than a D-man right now. Unfortunately we also need roster players more than we need prospects right now. But you can always package up prospects in a trade. But if Buff's camp is standing pat on wanting a 6 - 7 year deal, than the Jets have a choice to make: A - Sign him to that deal and likely regret it for the last 3 - 4 years as an ageing Buff deteriorates fast. B - Trade him C - Keep him next year and lose him in free agency Given those options, I would be fine with either B or C. I would absolutely hate it if we gave Buff, a 260+ pound man with a history of not being in the best of shape and working out, a deal that would take him to 36+ years of age making 7+ million dollars (probably higher), regardless of how unique he is or how many bums he puts into a guaranteed sold out arena. I never said you personally want him traded. i was reacting to your speculation, hence the bolded part. Also, I keep reading about his fitness. I don't have the exact stats on me, but he seemed to be able to play a higher amount of minutes for us this past season. Ironically he was being criticized for taking too long of shifts. We're both guessing on which route he takes as he gets older. You assume his history will dictate that, fair enough. I assume he's a competitor and will commit to being fit at the level he needs to be a impact player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now