Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
Blob Mckenzie wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:53 am
Why not take a 4th or 5th ? You are already doing CBJ a favour by taking Jokinnen. Makes little sense. Both these little guys acquired today have to clear waivers next year.
Garbage out and garbage in I guess
Well maybe there were no takers?
Motte:
22
5'10
In AHL
C/LW
Jokinnen:
C/LW/RW
UFA July 1st
Shannon just reported trade not confirmed as to players. Perhaps Jokinnen who has a MTC .......
Blob Mckenzie wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:53 am
Why not take a 4th or 5th ? You are already doing CBJ a favour by taking Jokinnen. Makes little sense. Both these little guys acquired today have to clear waivers next year.
Garbage out and garbage in I guess
If 26 years old Kane can only get a conditional 1st (only if he re-signs with the Sharks, else 2nd in 2019), a 24 years old 5'10" centre, and a fourth rounder in 2020, I am not sure what we can expect for 34 years old Vanek. The market is clearly not favoring the seller this deadline.
Jovocop wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:35 am
Here are the details:
Pierre LeBrun@PierreVLeBrun
Here's the condition of the first-round 2019 pick in the Evander Kane deal: if the Sharks re-sign Kane, it's a first; but if Kane walks into free agency, it's a second-round pick in 2019
OOooo I like it... Sharks more likely to let him walk, Nucks more likely to have a shot at him as a UFA.
Blob Mckenzie wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:53 am
Why not take a 4th or 5th ? You are already doing CBJ a favour by taking Jokinnen. Makes little sense. Both these little guys acquired today have to clear waivers next year.
Garbage out and garbage in I guess
If 26 years old Kane can only get a conditional 1st (only if he re-signs with the Sharks, else 2nd in 2019), a 24 years old 5'10" centre, and a fourth rounder in 2020, I am not sure what we can expect for 34 years old Vanek. The market is clearly not favoring the seller this deadline.
Then keep Vanek.
Vanek > Jokinen
We don’t need another small AHL player.
It’s shit like this that makes people question Benning.
Blob Mckenzie wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:53 am
Why not take a 4th or 5th ? You are already doing CBJ a favour by taking Jokinnen. Makes little sense. Both these little guys acquired today have to clear waivers next year.
Garbage out and garbage in I guess
If 26 years old Kane can only get a conditional 1st (only if he re-signs with the Sharks, else 2nd in 2019), a 24 years old 5'10" centre, and a fourth rounder in 2020, I am not sure what we can expect for 34 years old Vanek. The market is clearly not favoring the seller this deadline.
Then keep Vanek.
Vanek > Jokinen
We don’t need another small AHL player.
It’s shit like this that makes people question Benning.
Blob Mckenzie wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:53 am
Why not take a 4th or 5th ? You are already doing CBJ a favour by taking Jokinnen. Makes little sense. Both these little guys acquired today have to clear waivers next year.
Garbage out and garbage in I guess
If 26 years old Kane can only get a conditional 1st (only if he re-signs with the Sharks, else 2nd in 2019), a 24 years old 5'10" centre, and a fourth rounder in 2020, I am not sure what we can expect for 34 years old Vanek. The market is clearly not favoring the seller this deadline.
Then keep Vanek.
Vanek > Jokinen
We don’t need another small AHL player.
It’s shit like this that makes people question Benning.
Oh Christ! If he didn't trade Vanek you'd be all over him like flies to shit.
Blob Mckenzie wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:53 am
Why not take a 4th or 5th ? You are already doing CBJ a favour by taking Jokinnen. Makes little sense. Both these little guys acquired today have to clear waivers next year.
Garbage out and garbage in I guess
If 26 years old Kane can only get a conditional 1st (only if he re-signs with the Sharks, else 2nd in 2019), a 24 years old 5'10" centre, and a fourth rounder in 2020, I am not sure what we can expect for 34 years old Vanek. The market is clearly not favoring the seller this deadline.
Then keep Vanek.
Vanek > Jokinen
We don’t need another small AHL player.
It’s shit like this that makes people question Benning.
Oh Christ! If he didn't trade Vanek you'd be all over him like flies to shit.
Blob Mckenzie wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:53 am
Why not take a 4th or 5th ? You are already doing CBJ a favour by taking Jokinnen. Makes little sense. Both these little guys acquired today have to clear waivers next year.
Garbage out and garbage in I guess
If 26 years old Kane can only get a conditional 1st (only if he re-signs with the Sharks, else 2nd in 2019), a 24 years old 5'10" centre, and a fourth rounder in 2020, I am not sure what we can expect for 34 years old Vanek. The market is clearly not favoring the seller this deadline.
Then keep Vanek.
Vanek > Jokinen
We don’t need another small AHL player.
It’s shit like this that makes people question Benning.
the whole deal looks like something Bennnig did just to say he traded Vanek. It was a damned if you do and damned if you don't option for Vanek. Seems he had minimal to no trade value so what was Benning supposed to get for him?
Maybe a better option would of been to sign him for another year unless it was felt that he was taking a position from a young guy.
Blob Mckenzie wrote: ↑Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:53 am
Why not take a 4th or 5th ? You are already doing CBJ a favour by taking Jokinnen. Makes little sense. Both these little guys acquired today have to clear waivers next year.
Garbage out and garbage in I guess
If 26 years old Kane can only get a conditional 1st (only if he re-signs with the Sharks, else 2nd in 2019), a 24 years old 5'10" centre, and a fourth rounder in 2020, I am not sure what we can expect for 34 years old Vanek. The market is clearly not favoring the seller this deadline.
Then keep Vanek.
Vanek > Jokinen
We don’t need another small AHL player.
It’s shit like this that makes people question Benning.
the whole deal looks like something Bennnig did just to say he traded Vanek. It was a damned if you do and damned if you don't option for Vanek. Seems he had minimal to no trade value so what was Benning supposed to get for him?
Maybe a better option would of been to sign him for another year unless it was felt that he was taking a position from a young guy.