- Oct 12, 2012
- 56,891
- 8,977
Last edited:
Why would I remove my expectation of the 10OA. That was my expectation.Lol at the meh. This is a great return if you remove the expectation of a 10th overall. I was expecting something closer to holtz + second
Because it’s unrealistic and was never grounded in sound logic. It was floated out there a few times by dreamers and it took on a life of its own. But it really didn’t make sense. Sure, sometimes you get the trade of a lifetime, but considering his age and nmc and whatnot, and considering that New Jersey’s Gm has a pulse and is interesting in negotiations beyond “I bend over,” ya this is far more in line with reality.Why would I remove my expectation of the 10OA. That was my expectation.
Fitzgerald floated it out there. Maybe he was just messing trying to see who crawled out of the woodwork with a goalie, maybe there was something there. It did make sense, the way some gms overvalue goalies. It wasn't outlandish to hope conroy pulled it off.Because it’s unrealistic and was never grounded in sound logic. It was floated out there a few times by dreamers and it took on a life of its own. But it really didn’t make sense. Sure, sometimes you get the trade of a lifetime, but considering his age and nmc and whatnot, and considering that New Jersey’s Gm has a pulse and is interesting in negotiations beyond “I bend over,” ya this is far more in line with reality.
Same thing with lindholm for a third ov; makes total sense for us, but the other team is going to think differently.
Never saw the bolded anywhere. But putting that aside, where are the comparables to support that sort of value? And why would New Jersey give up those sorts of assets for a goalie who’s only signed for 2 yrs and is in their mid-30s and has a full NMC? In essence, for a stopgap. I get it, sports are not generally a logical endeavour, but the expected return never made sense when you put it in the context of those two questions I outlined.Fitzgerald floated it out there. Maybe he was just messing trying to see who crawled out of the woodwork with a goalie, maybe there was something there. It did make sense, the way some gms overvalue goalies. It wasn't outlandish to hope conroy pulled it off.
Great return for a older goalie, young potential #4 dman and a 1st is a great package.
its pick position not standings. If New Jerseys 2025 pick is in the top 10 then the pick becomes a 2026 unprotected 1st.So can someone explain to me what top 10 protected means in this context? If NJ finishes bottom 10 in 2025 the pick will move to 2026 (unprotected) right?
I'm thinking the same. He has good defensive and PK metrics, and he's just turning 24 next week.Great deal. I think Bahl could be a hidden second pair D in the future.
The value is what someone is willing to pay. That's all I'm saying. Everyone keeps crossing their arms defaulting to "it's a 34 year old goalie..." a 34 year old has lots left in the tank for a team that feels they should be in the finals every year. It's not like Jersey is expecting to not be a cup contender until Markstrom is 39. I'm not willing to assume Fitzgerald had Schneider and Mike Smith on his mind. He wanted a goalie. Maybe he would have traded 10OA for Saros, maybe not.Never saw the bolded anywhere. But putting that aside, where are the comparables to support that sort of value? And why would New Jersey give up those sorts of assets for a goalie who’s only signed for 2 yrs and is in their mid-30s and has a full NMC? In essence, for a stopgap. I get it, sports are not generally a logical endeavour, but the expected return never made sense when you put it in the context of those two questions I outlined.
The last time a goalie got a top 10 pick was a prime Corey Schneider. Quite frankly, I think the comparable trade is far close to the Mike smith one than that.