Rumor: David Jiricek available

[Viqsi]

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.

This is a lie.

 

[AKL]

This is a lie.

You must have just taken my post out of context.

 

[Viqsi]

You must have just taken my post out of context.

Both Portzline and Hedger have both said the goal is a 1-for-1.

 

[SteelCityCannon]

My guy, I’m trying to figure out what the value difference is between Ohgren/Heidt and Jiricek to make a “competitive” offer. The value difference cannot be Rossi because Rossi alone has more value than Jiricek.

What part aren't you getting? If you don't want to part with your best prospects then there's nothing you can add. We don't want your spare parts. You gotta give to get.

Is...is this really that hard?

 

[AKL]

They're fielding offers on him because they sent him down and presumably he told them he'd like a change of scenery and Waddell said he'd look. So Waddell's looking. If the trade isn't there, well they looked, sorry.

I agree that if the deal isn't there, "well they looked, sorry", but I think the point of contention is what "the deal" actually looks like.

Understandably, Columbus fans want a 1 for 1, at the same time, we have reports that all 1 for 1 type deals have been rebuffed and they're still open to hearing prospect+ deals.

 

[Viqsi]

I agree that if the deal isn't there, "well they looked, sorry", but I think the point of contention is what "the deal" actually looks like.

Understandably, Columbus fans want a 1 for 1, at the same time, we have reports that all 1 for 1 type deals have been rebuffed and they're still open to hearing prospect+ deals.

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

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.

On Jan. 8, 2024, the Philadelphia Flyers traded disgruntled prospect forward Cutter Gauthier (No. 5 in 2022) to the Anaheim Ducks for defenseman Jamie Drysdale (No. 6 overall in 2020) and a second-round pick in 2025.

Then, this summer (Aug. 22), forward Rutger McGroarty (No. 14 in 2022), who refused to sign with the Winnipeg Jets, was traded to the Pittsburgh Penguins for forward Brayden Yager (No. 14 in 2023).

 

[AKL]

Both Portzline and Hedger have both said the goal is a 1-for-1.

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

You see how that's incongruent?

 

[Digitalbooya]

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 mean, my question started with a Russo article that said

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.

Russo isn’t some national hack. He’s a plugged in reporter for the Wild.

“Center around a prospect” means prospect+, not 1-for-1. “According to a source briefed on the negotiations” means these discussions are legitimate.

But I’m sure nobody wants to talk about that cause it doesn’t fit the 1-for-1 required narrative.

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

Your article is from Wednesday. Here’s an article from TODAY.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5957222/2024/11/29/wild-blackhawks-jared-spurgeon-marco-rossi/?source=user_shared_article

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]

You see how that's incongruent?

I mean, my question started with a Russo article that said


Russo isn’t some national hack. He’s a plugged in reporter for the Wild.

“Center around a prospect” means prospect+, not 1-for-1. “According to a source briefed on the negotiations” means these discussions are legitimate.

But I’m sure nobody wants to talk about that cause it doesn’t fit the 1-for-1 required narrative.


Your article is from Wednesday. Here’s an article from TODAY.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5957222/2024/11/29/wild-blackhawks-jared-spurgeon-marco-rossi/?source=user_shared_article

No, no, no. I wasn't allowed to cite other sources and time discrepancies back when it was me doing the so-called "lying", therefore y'all aren't either. Have a little consistency.

 

[SteelCityCannon]

I agree that if the deal isn't there, "well they looked, sorry", but I think the point of contention is what "the deal" actually looks like.

Understandably, Columbus fans want a 1 for 1, at the same time, we have reports that all 1 for 1 type deals have been rebuffed and they're still open to hearing prospect+ deals.

If that's the case they'll either keep them or get a better offer than Minnesota can offer. /thread

 

[AKL]

No, no, no. I wasn't allowed to cite other sources and time discrepancies

Let's be clear for the people reading along here, you claimed no one had even offered Ohgren for Jiricek yet, and when I showed you four different posters offering Ohgren for Jiricek, the "other sources" and "time discrepancies" you cited was "they said that half a week ago" and that's it.

 

[Digitalbooya]

No, no, no. I wasn't allowed to cite other sources and time discrepancies back when it was me doing the so-called "lying", therefore y'all aren't either. Have a little consistency.

Well maybe you could have the decency to not omit this part of the article you keep mentioning:

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.

Wild.

 

[AKL]

Well maybe you could have the decency to not omit this part of the article you keep mentioning:



Wow…

So we don't even have to include Ohgren?

2025 1st
Hunt/Lambos
Merrill?

This is getting more fun.

 

[Viqsi]

Let's be clear for the people reading along here, you claimed no one had even offered Ohgren for Jiricek yet

I made no such claim. You misread my post as such and you have been doggedly determined to continue to read it as such in spite of any information whatsoever to the contrary.

 

[SteelCityCannon]

So we don't even have to include Ohgren?

2025 1st
Hunt/Lambos
Merrill?

This is getting more fun.

Nobody wants your nobody prospects. Go jump in a Hoglander thread.

 

[Viqsi]

Well maybe you could have the decency to not omit this part of the article you keep mentioning:


Wild.

That would be the part where the 1st in question is a top-10 pick. It's been clarified elsewhere that that's mostly for the purpose of hearing out Kyle Dubas. It's possible he'd consider more but we don't have anything definite on that either way.

 

[AKL]

I made no such claim. You misread my post as such and you have been doggedly determined to continue to read it as such in spite of any information whatsoever to the contrary.

For the people reading along

By and large the "and you're going to like it" crowd hasn't even gone so far as to offer Ohgren.

 

[Digitalbooya]

So we don't even have to include Ohgren?

2025 1st
Hunt/Lambos
Merrill?

This is getting more fun.

1st+Spacek. Get ‘er done.

 

[Viqsi]

For the people reading along

Similarly.

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.

That they're now out of date now doesn't mean they don't exist anymore. But, y'know, outside context doesn't matter.

 

[Digitalbooya]

That would be the part where the 1st in question is a top-10 pick. It's been clarified elsewhere that that's mostly for the purpose of hearing out Kyle Dubas. It's possible he'd consider more but we don't have anything definite on that either way.

My trust is lost. Please cite sources.

 

[AKL]

Similarly.

Correct.

"The goal is 1 for 1" and "they're only considering 1 for 1" aren't mutually exclusive.

The goal is 1 for 1
They are also considering deals that aren't 1 for 1

Both are correct at the exact same time.

 

[Viqsi]

Correct.

"The goal is 1 for 1" and "they're only considering 1 for 1" aren't mutually exclusive.

The goal is 1 for 1
They are also considering deals that aren't 1 for 1

Both are correct at the exact same time.

You said that there are no such reports. Such reports exist.

Much like myself in my post, you are "wrong" on an absurd technicality that deliberately dodges what was actually being communicated.

 

[AKL]

You said that there are no such reports. Such reports exist.

Such reports exist that state their goal is 1 for 1.

No such reports exist that state they're only considering 1 for 1 deals.

 

[Viqsi]

Such reports exist that state their goal is 1 for 1.

No such reports exist that state they're only considering 1 for 1 deals.

Incorrect. Those were the reports earlier in the week - that 1-for-1 was all that the Jackets would consider.

Has that since changed? Sure. There've been subsequent reports. But you did not explicitly say that in your post, therefore by the rules of engagement you have established with your reading of my post, that context doesn't count.

Unless of course such things do count now, in which case I think this is my cue to snarkily accept an apology.

 

[AKL]

Incorrect. Those were the reports earlier in the week - that 1-for-1 was all that the Jackets would consider.

Has that since changed? Sure. There've been subsequent reports. But you did not explicitly say that in your post, therefore by the rules of engagement you have established with your reading of my post, that context doesn't count.

Unless of course such things do count now, in which case I think this is my cue to snarkily accept an apology.

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/

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.

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