Foppa2118 said:
First of all, why the hell did you waste like ten posts covering everything I said in this thread. You obviously didn't bother reading it very carefully, because if you had, you would have seen that we already covered everything you talked about, especially the Sundin issue.
Because I wasn't satisfied with the way you addressed the gaping holes in your arguments. You tossed Sundin into the Lindros trade to weigh it more heavily in Quebec's favour. When you got busted, you blew it off like it was a minor point. That is a HUGE discrepancy and you were trying to get off too easy on it. If you don't like it, get your facts straight next time.
Foppa2118 said:
Second, I never said I was objective
Super, I never said you were objective either.
Foppa2118 said:
However, I was trying to be as objective as I could.
Failed.
Foppa2118 said:
BTW, both Lindros and Forsberg had many injuries plagued seasons, so that can't be factored into it.
It certainly can. Just as there is no comparison between the 2 players at their peak, there is no comparison between the severity and the frequency of the injuries they suffered and the effects they have had on their respective careers. Clearly Lindros' career has been hampered by injuries to a FAR greater extent.
Foppa2118 said:
I think their intangables are a bit even
You are completely out of your mind. Forsberg is a good all around player but is he feared? Of course not. Has he ever been feared? Of course not. Yes, he could hurt you on the score board which is scary in itself, but if we're talking about intangibles, no, they are not even 'a bit' even.
Foppa2118 said:
so if you look at it from a stat point, in their first eight seasons in the league (which is right up until the Stevens hit) Peter out scores him, 686 to 659.
Not true at all. In those 8 seasons (94-95 through 99-00) Lindros outscored Forsberg 659 to 580 - a 79 point differential. Forsberg would need nearly a full season to make up that enormous gap. AND Lindros scored a whopping 121 MORE goals than Forsberg over that period.
I don't know why you try to present facts that are so obviously incorrect. Do you honestly think you can get away with it and nobody will call you on it?
Foppa2118 said:
I think it's quite ridiculouse to imply that Lindros is so much better than Forsberg, by saying it's no comparison if you take away the injuries. I think they were very close, but I would give Peter the edge, but like you said, I'm biased.
I suppose if I lived in a fantasy land with made up statistics I might feel the same way.
Foppa2118 said:
Once, again it was already covered, I forgot to mention him, it wasn't intentional, and I was just connecting the dots, on how some of the players in the Philly deal, were involved in other big deals.
Like I said, rather convenient you forgot to mention that centerpiece of one of the biggest trades of the past 15 years.
Foppa2118 said:
Well then we disagree. Neither one of us knows for sure, so there is no sense in getting all riled up about it. I don't see why there isn't any reason to believe they wouldn't have got that arena a few years down the road,
Neither of us has a crystal ball that allows us to see into the future. However, just as we are able to add 1 plus 1 and arrive at the answer 2, we are able to add up the facts in this case and arrive at the correct answer. The Flyers tried for MANY years to get an arena built and were unable to do so. The hype surrounding the acquisition of Lindros allowed them to sellout the luxury suites before the arena was even built, enabling them to secure the financing to build that arena. There was not the hype around Forsberg to accomplish that. And it is simply not the same to bring in a player and develop him and the team. People just don't have the same sense of anticipation about seeing a player who they have already watched the past 2 or 3 years.
Foppa2118 said:
after Forsberg was there, and they had a very strong team with Ricci, and all those other guys, who could also have been traded for a quality defensmen or forward. I think they would have had a very good chance at the cup, especially in 97' when they made it to the finals, and that could very easily have brought a new arena.
UGH! Without Lindros the finals appearance in 97 is nothing but a dream! He was the reason they got there in the first place!
Foppa2118 said:
Plus the extra $15 million they gave Quebec, could have signed a couple free agents in the offseason.
They couldn't be the free spending big market team they have become without the arena and they wouldn't have had the arena without the Lindros trade. So they wouldn't have had that $15 million in the budget for UFA's.
Foppa2118 said:
I'm aware Montreal was desperate to deal Roy, but I don't think that means the deal would have gone down without Thibault, and I'm not going to waste time explaining why again just because you dind't read the whole thread. It's pure speculation on both our parts, so there is no reason arguing about opinions.
Of course it would have gone down without Thibault. Nothing speculative about it. Roy was going to Colorado to play for his former agent. He was NEVER going to play for the Habs again. These are all commonly accepted facts. I'm not sure why you'd want to debate them.
Foppa2118 said:
I agree, and in a sense you are proving my point, because I don't think they could have said that with Fiset.
Of course they could. Like I said, it didn't matter if it was true or not. What mattered was could they sell it to their fans. No, Fiset didn't turn out to be the next Patrick Roy. Neither did Thibault. But it got them through the days and weeks after the Roy trade, didn't it? And like I said, they'd have needed to get more from Colorado with Fiset than they did with Thibault.
Foppa2118 said:
This is true, but I still don't think Rucinsky and Fiset as the major parts of that deal, would have got Roy.
That's not what I said. I said Colorado would need to add more to rest of the package. Obviously Rucinsky and Fiset wouldn't get the deal done. Maybe Rucinsky, Fiset and Deadmarsh. Maybe Rucinsky, Fiset, Kovalenko and a first. Maybe Rucinsky, Fiset and Ricci. Who knows? But one thing is for sure - Roy was going to Colorado one way or another.
Foppa2118 said:
That's just the way I look at it, and there's no way to prove either side anyway.
Like I said, it's as easy as adding 1 and 1.