Rumor: David Jiricek available

[Viqsi]

Certainly not the report you posted just now to try to prove me wrong.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5951102/2024/11/27/blue-jackets-david-jiricek-trade/


Nowhere in which says it's the only option they're considering, only that they want it.

Sorry, but that's nuance, and it was made clear earlier that nuance doesn't get to apply when reading the exact words of one's post.

 

[SteelCityCannon]

How many trips around the merry go round do we have to do in this thread before someone locks it for the greater good of humanity? lol

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

How many trips around the merry go round do we have to do in this thread before someone locks it for the greater good of humanity? lol

Probably as many as it takes until your GM says he's not on the table anymore.

 

[AKL]

Sorry, but that's nuance, and it was made clear earlier that nuance doesn't get to apply when reading the exact words of one's post.

Then lets revisit the exact words

Let's not forget we also have reports that say they're open to taking packages for prospects+, and we don't have any reports saying they're only looking for 1 for 1 deals.

I said they don't have any reports stating they're only looking for 1 for 1 deals.

That report doesn't say they're only looking for 1 for 1 deals.

Yep, seems to check out.

 

[Viqsi]

My trust is lost. Please cite sources.

Sorry, the other guy's gish gallop has set me behind w/r/t finding confirmation of this. I recall it being from a podcast but I can't find which one at this time, so I may be misremembering what's actually been reported, so feel free to set it aside. I don't think it applies to the Wild's situation since y'all don't have a high 1st but I don't have a definitive source.

 

[DigitalBoldy]

It's not the only return the Jackets are considering. They're also considering packages containing a high 1st and depth defensemen.

Can you cite a source where it says it is a “high” 1st? The one article linked just says a 1st+depth defenseman

 

[AKL]

It's not the only return the Jackets are considering. They're also considering packages containing a high 1st and depth defensemen.

Yes there's apparently a report that says the 1st would need to be a high 1st but we're still waiting for someone to provide that source.

It wasn't this one:

According to a team source, the Blue Jackets told clubs last week that they wanted to make a top prospect-for-top prospect trade involving Jiricek. Those trades aren’t always easy to swing, but they can be done, as seen by two deals within the last year.

….

If Waddell can’t land a top prospect in return, he may be willing to expand his demands. A team source told The Athletic on Tuesday that he was willing to consider a trade package that would start with a first-round draft pick but may also include a depth defenseman.

It wasn't this one:

The Wild continue to pursue Columbus Blue Jackets defenseman David Jiricek, but Rossi wouldn’t be included in the package if the deal gets completed, according to a source briefed on the negotiations. If the trade does get done, it’ll likely center around a prospect because the Wild don’t want to do anything that would weaken their NHL roster.

 

[Viqsi]

Then lets revisit the exact words



I said they don't have any reports stating they're only looking for 1 for 1 deals.

That report doesn't say they're only looking for 1 for 1 deals.

Yep, seems to check out.

I think this is the part where I'm supposed to be tossing snarky thinly veiled insults and repeating the same thing over and over as though you haven't actually attempted to make a counterpoint and ignoring the relevant details you're trying to point out. Not sure how to do that, tho. Maybe something like:

It totally says they're looking for 1 for 1 deals:

the Blue Jackets told clubs last week that they wanted to make a top prospect-for-top prospect trade involving Jiricek

So something something you're wrong lol.

Does that work? Sorry, kind of new at this thing, you'll have to bear with me.

 

[AKL]

It totally says they're looking for 1 for 1 deals:

So, can you point out to me very clearly where it says that 1 for 1 deals are all they're considering?

Because what I said is we have no reports that that's the only type of deal they're considering. I didn't say they didn't prefer that, I didn't say it wasn't the goal.

It's getting really hard to continue this when you've displayed a clear disregard for the English language and what words means.

 

[SteelCityCannon]

Probably as many as it takes until your GM says he's not on the table anymore.

Well that would be a dumb thing to come out and say but who knows I guess.

 

[Crede777]

Yes there's apparently a report that says the 1st would need to be a high 1st but we're still waiting for someone to provide that source.

It wasn't this one:


It wasn't this one:

It was Chris Johnson in his recent radio segment.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

I was looking to sell my house for $30k above market. I want to sell my house for for $30k above market. I am open to selling my house for $10k above market.

 

[AKL]

It was Chris Johnson in his recent radio segment.

I guess we'll just have to trust that you're relaying that information with 100% accuracy, then.

I was looking to sell my house for $30k above market. I want to sell my house for for $30k above market. I am open to selling my house for $10k above market.

This guy got an A in English class.

 

[Viqsi]

So, can you point out to me very clearly where it says that 1 for 1 deals are all they're considering?

Because what I said is we have no reports that that's the only type of deal they're considering. I didn't say they didn't prefer that, I didn't say it wasn't the goal.

"You totally said that no such reports exist, and yet this report clearly exists no matter how much you try to deny it."

It does get stressful, doesn't it?

 

[Viqsi]

I was looking to sell my house for $30k above market. I want to sell my house for for $30k above market. I am open to selling my house for $10k above market.

The analogy breaks down because there isn't a universal measure of value to compare assets in a hockey trade. That and there's an active resistance and reluctance to give what the vague equivalent of a "$10k above market" value actually hypothetically might be because of the amount of needless petty bullshit that came about from earlier discussions. Anything would have to be ballparked, and that requires some kind of good faith presumption on both sides of the discussion, and good faith kind of died days ago.

 

[AKL]

"You totally said that no such reports exist, and yet this report clearly exists no matter how much you try to deny it."

"No such report exists that states THEY'RE ONLY CONSIDERING 1 FOR 1 DEALS."

and we don't have any reports saying they're only looking for 1 for 1 deals.

Your report does not state they're ONLY considering 1 for 1 deals.

It states that they WANT a 1 for 1 deal.

Those both exist in space at the same time without contradicting each other.

The analogy breaks down because there isn't a universal measure of value to compare assets in a hockey trade. That and there's an active resistance and reluctance to give what the vague equivalent of a "$10k above market" value actually hypothetically might be because of the amount of needless petty bullshit that came about from earlier discussions. Anything would have to be ballparked, and that requires some kind of good faith presumption on both sides of the discussion, and good faith kind of died days ago.

It's not a f***ing math problem about selling your house, it's a demonstration that you can want something without only considering that thing and nothing else

Jesus f***

 

[Viqsi]

"No such report exists that states THEY'RE ONLY CONSIDERING 1 FOR 1 DEALS."


Your report does not state they're ONLY considering 1 for 1 deals.

It states that they WANT a 1 for 1 deal.

Those both exist in space at the same time without contradicting each other.

"You said they don't have ANY reports. There's clearly a report right here. How do you keep missing that?"

Here's a hint: the quote marks mean I'm playing along with how our earlier discussion proceeded.

 

[SteelCityCannon]

I was looking to sell my house for $30k above market. I want to sell my house for for $30k above market. I am open to selling my house for $10k above market.

Nobody has a gun to your head to sell your house though.

 

[AKL]

Here's a hint: the quote marks mean I'm playing along with how our earlier discussion proceeded.

You are not proficient enough with the English language to do this. You were incorrect in both cases.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

The analogy breaks down because there isn't a universal measure of value to compare assets in a hockey trade. That and there's an active resistance and reluctance to give what the vague equivalent of a "$10k above market" value actually hypothetically might be because of the amount of needless petty bullshit that came about from earlier discussions. Anything would have to be ballparked, and that requires some kind of good faith presumption on both sides of the discussion, and good faith kind of died days ago.

It's a miracle any trade ever happens then, I guess.

 

[Viqsi]

It's not a f***ing math problem about selling your house, it's a demonstration that you can want something without only considering that thing and nothing else

Well, what we want is either Jiricek or a Jiricek-equivalent prospect. Both are options. Either we get the latter from y'all in a trade, or we keep the guy we have.

 

[Viqsi]

It's a miracle any trade ever happens then, I guess.

Just about. There's a reason why there are dozens upon dozens of rumors to every actual trade that happens.

 

[AKL]

Nobody has a gun to your head to sell your house though.

Nobody has a gun to Waddell's head to trade Jiricek.

Sounds like he might still do it.

 

[SteelCityCannon]

For how bad you guys seem to want Jirichek I think the ask would actually be Rossi. If its not that kindly step aside.

 

[Viqsi]

You are not proficient enough with the English language to do this. You were incorrect in both cases.

I said a thing and you decided it said something else. Now you're saying a thing and I've (facetiously) decided it said something else. It's a 1:1 relationship.