J15
Registered User
- Mar 18, 2009
- 1,063
- 323
1) OK then. Offer up Larkin and DeKeyser, and you have an overpayment which would be accepted.
2) You are not selling a top 10 pick, ffs. Remember how San Jose supposedly traded a top 10, almost a top 5 pick for Jones? Well, we know how that turned out to be. And looking at your response, looks like that's not the only thing you didn't understand.
That counter offer was there as a reversed situation of your offer. A bunch of pieces which are not that needed in Detroit considering their depth, but still more valuable than a needed player in DeKeyser. Instead of realizing my point, you got stuck in the names. Well done.
3) "trade them for pieces" That is literally the most impressive comment of the decade. You want us to trade our defense's cornerstone for unneeded pieces, and then suggest us to trade them for even more pieces? Are you trading Larkin for bottom pairing guys? No, because quality > quantity. Same goes for Winnipeg. We need our high end guys.
4) Your offer isn't that kind of overpayment. And besides, how exactly can you guarantee finding a Trouba replacement, and if you can, why won't you acquire them and leave Winnipeg out of the trade? It sounds like you either refuse to acknowledge the scarcity of RHDs or just generally don't have a clue of how badly everyone wants them.
5) Go for it then, we will gladly keep Trouba. Have fun hunting that defenseman.
1) Larkin?! But you have a logjam at forward, he's basically useless
2) Obviously there's no guarantee, but if there was ever a time to bet against Detroit it's now. They have no #1C and no top pairing defencemen.
The names I brought up were just to show you how your example wasn't a fair comparison, and what a fair comparison. What does it even mean to be "stuck in the names"? The names make the difference between a fair analogy and an off-hand example used to make a point.
3) I have no idea why you think trade for pieces means trade for unneeded pieces. You conveniently leave out the Fowler example I brought up. In reality he's a very similar piece to Trouba except he's actually proven he can play a full season on the top pair.
You can repeat it as much as you want but none of Mantha, Tatar or a high first are bottom pairing players or scrubs.
4) Again, see the asking price of Fowler as a starting point. I'm also curious about why you think I want to trade with Winnipeg. I never suggested we make move for Trouba, I simply pointed out how ridiculous some of the offers were.
5) You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to point out why it's wrong.