Value of: Marco Rossi
- Thread starter Luceni
- Start date
MK9
Registered User
Dr Jan Itor
Registered User
I don't believe the assets aren't there.
I don't believe any team truly runs out of assets I've watched this sport for to long and seen to many trades.
Some of them could barely be called trades so when I hear people say a team, any team doesn't have the assets I never believe it.
Particularly when the fanbase is talking like some of the Minnesota fanbase is and giving off the impression that he's not just available but that Geruin doesn't want him.
Which if true is a whole different thing and also really weird and a mistake.
To be clear I don't think Minnesota should do this.
MK9
Registered User
- Dec 10, 2012
- 40,598
- 20,521
Okay but the best individual piece you have to offer is Easton Cowan, and although he's a fine prospect, there are several better pieces in this very thread being discussed that their teams would part with. It's not that you have nothing of value, but you don't have pieces as good as what the other teams can or probably will offer.
Obviously this is me assuming that Nylander, Knies, Matthews are off the table, but let me know if I'm mistaken there.
- Dec 10, 2012
- 40,598
- 20,521
This isn't the trade deadline and Rossi isn't a rental, I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make. The idea is to trade Rossi for a piece we can use long term, not trade him for a rental.
- Dec 10, 2012
- 40,598
- 20,521
I guess you need to do a better job of articulating the point here, because it seems you think we ultimately want to turn Rossi into a rental, and that's why we should trade him for picks
I guess you need to do a better job at reading, because the post I quoted quite literally said he didn't think it was a good idea to use picks generated from a Rossi trade to overpay for a rental at the deadline and I agreed...
Shit I literally cited Detroit turning Bertuzzi into Debrincat as an example in a post replying to you.
- Dec 10, 2012
- 40,598
- 20,521
The entire conversation from the first time you quoted me has been about not trading Rossi for pure futures because you usually lose value on the flip. Instead, you trade Rossi for a close-to-NHL-ready prospect or younger player similar to Rossi that you want, and plan on keeping for a while.
I'm not sure you ever understood that point.
Somebody doesn't understand the point, that's quite clear.
Weird that you suddenly diverted from discussing my reply to @KaprizovSaveUs once it was explained to you.
- Dec 10, 2012
- 40,598
- 20,521
Your response was to "get in ahead of the deadline" but that doesn't change anything. It's still flipping assets you receive for Rossi for a rental two months before the deadline.
And if you want to cling to your DeBrincat example, all you did was trade Bertuzzi (1st) + for DeBrincat in the end. That's exactly what I said from the start, but cutting out the middle man where they had to add additional assets.
Regardless, nothing you have said changes the fact that it's better to get what you want than to try to flip assets you don't want down the line.
Get in ahead of the deadline kinda suggested that it wouldn't be for a rental. The Debrincat example a page before kinda indicated that too...
"All you did was trade Bertuzzi for Debrincat in the end". Yeah no shit, that's kinda the point that I literally made here:
- Dec 10, 2012
- 40,598
- 20,521
Right, okay, so we're talking about rentals, and you think "get ahead of the deadline" somehow clearly communicates that you're no longer talking about rentals?
I mean the post you quoted with that response said this:
And your response was, "well you don't understand that those pieces can be flipped"
??????
Back to exhibit A for a second?
I think what you meant to say is something to effect of "you don't have to use them on a rental, you can use them to get a different roster player when one becomes available".
Like I said, you need to do a better job of articulating your point next time.
At no point, not one time, did I suggest moving futures received from Rossi for a rental. In fact, in the initial post, I used Bertuzzi for pick for Debrincat as an example of what I was actually suggesting. Additionally, when @KaprizovSaveUs said he'd rather not overpay for a rental at the TDL, I agreed and said the ideal move would be to flip the assets before the TDL.
Again, at no point was I talking about a rental. You latched onto that shit and took off with it even though I told you multiple times I was not talking about a rental.
So no, the problem here is not my communication. It's that you did a shit job at reading.
So, now that I've said for the 5th time that I'm not talking about flipping the futures for a rental, maybe you finally get it and we can move on?
- Dec 10, 2012
- 40,598
- 20,521
Both of the posters and their posts that you were replying to were talking about moving assets for a rental, that's why when you come in talking about something else, you need to clearly articulate what you're saying.
The Wild spent assets "before the deadline" for Gustav Nyquist, noted rental, this year. "Before the TDL" does not in any way preclude it being for a rental. That's why you need to clearly articulate that it's not for a rental, when both @KaprizovSaveUs and I were talking about rentals.
I read what you wrote, the problem is that you changed the subject in your head, and decided not to tell the rest of us. That's on you.
You didn't actually say anything about trading them for a non-rental until several posts into the conversation.
Then this was your response when I moved on from thinking you were talking about rentals after you finally articulated that that you weren't talking about rentals like the rest of us were.
Since then we've been discussing how you needed to articulate better.
I hope that helps, and yeah, you should probably move on.
- Dec 10, 2012
- 40,598
- 20,521
When I'm talking about flipping picks for rentals at the deadline, and your response back is " people don't consider that picks can be flipped", it doesn't really matter what example you used, you clearly articulated your point was about flipping picks.
That's what you should have said if you wanted to make your point about not flipping them for rentals. That's an articulate, coherent thought about not using the picks on rentals at the deadline.
"People don't understand picks can be flipped" is not an articulate, coherent way to say "you don't have to use them at the deadline on a rental, you can use them later in the summer on a long term piece" in response to "I don't see how picks are interesting to a team unless they're going to flip them at the deadline".
Again, I really hope this helps you in the future.
- Dec 10, 2012
- 40,598
- 20,521
This is the part you didn't bother to tell us. We were talking about flipping picks rentals. You came in saying "people don't understand you can flip picks". Of course we understand you can flip picks, it's literally what we were talking about. What you should have said was "you don't have to flip them for a rental". That would have made your point clear.
This is like if I was talking about my favorite pizza toppings, and you came in and said you like putting honey mustard on top, and then half an hour after discussing why you would put honey mustard on a pizza, you said "I was clearly talking about sandwich toppings".
