Speculation: Trade Rumors Part IX : All Your Goalies Are Belong To Us

[DaDucks*]

Hypothetical doesn't mean unrealistic, believe it or not.

And really? You want to go back and look at all the discussions we've had about this before? You think you come out ahead on that?

I'm not denying I don't dislike Fowler. I'm taking about this discussion. If we can't get a return similar for what I've suggested, then I'm not interested in moving him. If Lindholm wants too much money, then the same goes to him. That's everything I've been trying to say.

 

[dracom]

I'm not denying I don't dislike Fowler. I'm taking about this discussion. If we can't get a return similar for what I've suggested, then I'm not interested in moving him. If Lindholm wants too much money, then the same goes to him. That's everything I've been trying to say.

Clarify something for me, cause I don't want to go through this whole conversation. You want to move Fowler for a top center? This team doesn't need another center right now. We need Fowler more right now. With his contract, and his play, he is extremely valuable to us, especially if we want a real run at the cup. Vatanen won't get a similar return as Fowler, but he will still should get a good forward back. In the end, replacing Fowler is going to be hard, while replacing Vats won't be.

 

[Ducks DVM]

[/B]

More indication that you've given zero consideration that our return for Fowler, could be of some benefit now and the future. I have placed his value around a leon draisaitl and wouldn't consider much less. I've also suggested we could trade Lindholm, (if he wants too much $) so, you can quit the Cam hating speech now.

Draisaitl isn't for sale, RNH is the center Edmonton will move, and he's injured right now. I wouldn't trade Fowler for Eberle. We couldn't afford to pay Draisaitl at the end of next season regardless. Trading Fowler is going to either get a Bobby Ryan type futures package (which 3 years later has one guy currently contributing to our roster) or a higher priced addition which will mean we can't afford that piece + Lindholm + Vatanen anyway.

 

[Sean Garrity]

Clarify something for me, cause I don't want to go through this whole conversation. You want to move Fowler for a top center? This team doesn't need another center right now. We need Fowler more right now. With his contract, and his play, he is extremely valuable to us, especially if we want a real run at the cup. Vatanen won't get a similar return as Fowler, but he will still should get a good forward back. In the end, replacing Fowler is going to be hard, while replacing Vats won't be.

This needs to be posted everywhere, and have Lindholm added with Fowler. Of course Lindholm and Fowler will return more than Vatanen, but Vatanen still makes the most sense to be traded.

 

[Duck Off]

Not sure why you guys are even bothering with arguing with that guy. He's flat out admitted he's biased against players, and when you're biased, your analysis aren't accurate. It's really that simple.

 

[Kalv]

Which team could be in a big need for a Vatanen like player?

 

[Arthuros]

Which team could be in a big need for a Vatanen like player?

Tampa.

I wonder if we could get Killorn or something.

 

[DaDucks*]

Clarify something for me, cause I don't want to go through this whole conversation. You want to move Fowler for a top center? This team doesn't need another center right now. We need Fowler more right now. With his contract, and his play, he is extremely valuable to us, especially if we want a real run at the cup. Vatanen won't get a similar return as Fowler, but he will still should get a good forward back. In the end, replacing Fowler is going to be hard, while replacing Vats won't be.

You'll have to go back and read. Shouldn't take that long.

 

[DaDucks*]

Not sure why you guys are even bothering with arguing with that guy. He's flat out admitted he's biased against players, and when you're biased, your analysis aren't accurate. It's really that simple.

My bias is really irrelevant here... I could argue that people have a bias in favor of Cam, and it's clouding their judgment. I would probably make that argument if I cared about what they thought on this topic.

 

[DaDucks*]

Draisaitl isn't for sale, RNH is the center Edmonton will move, and he's injured right now. I wouldn't trade Fowler for Eberle. We couldn't afford to pay Draisaitl at the end of next season regardless. Trading Fowler is going to either get a Bobby Ryan type futures package (which 3 years later has one guy currently contributing to our roster) or a higher priced addition which will mean we can't afford that piece + Lindholm + Vatanen anyway.

If We can't get what I'm asking for, then I'm not interested in moving him yet. With Cam's salary going the other way and with Freddie possibly off the books, coupled with Hags's free'd up cash, I think we can make it work.

 

[Duck Off]

My bias is really irrelevant here... I could argue that people have a bias in favor of Cam, and it's clouding their judgment. I would probably make that argument if I cared about what they thought on this topic.

It's really not irrelevant. You have flat out acknowledged that you struggle and don't, compliment players you don't like. That's definitely a factor, whether you want to admit it or not. You want to be the only one that doesn't see that, be my guest. Like I told the others, it's pointless to argue or debate against someone who doesn't acknowledge when they are wrong and only sticks to their own agenda.

I agree that people that favor Cam too much wouldn't have much of an analysis either though.

 

[DaDucks*]

It's really not irrelevant. You have flat out acknowledged that you struggle and don't, compliment players you don't like. That's definitely a factor, whether you want to admit it or not. You want to be the only one that doesn't see that, be my guest. Like I told the others, it's pointless to argue or debate against someone who doesn't acknowledge when they are wrong and only sticks to their own agenda.

I agree that people that favor Cam too much wouldn't have much of an analysis either though.

This coming from the guy that struggles to see why some of the fanbase is angry at Getzlaf.

 

[Duck Off]

This coming from the guy that struggles to see why some of the fanbase is angry at Getzlaf.

Lol I never said anything like that. I said just because a player is struggling it doesn't mean they shouldn't be acknowledged when they make a good play.

Edit: I also remember citing Bieksa as an example. I probably have disliked him longer than most here, but I still acknowledge when he does well and don't let my hatred get in the way of analyzing his play.

Good try though. Keep reaching.

 

[DaDucks*]

Lol I never said anything like that. I said just because a player is struggling it doesn't mean they shouldn't be acknowledged when they make a good play.

Good try though. Keep reaching.

He's behind in production, especially goals. No even strength goals all season and you get upset nobody compliments his assists? Lol... You're actually my favorite poster as of late, please don't change.

 

[Duck Off]

He's behind in production, especially goals. No even strength goals all season and you get upset nobody compliments his assists? Lol... You're actually my favorite poster as of late, please don't change.

Like I said, you can't take the goggles off, most can. That's why it's pointless to discuss anything with you.

 

[DaDucks*]

Like I said, you can't take the goggles off, most can. That's why it's pointless to discuss anything with you.

Like I said, I'll listen, but when it comes to a 9mil player, you'll have to do better than
#give credit where it's due

 

[Duck Off]

Like I said, I'll listen, but when it comes to a 9mil player, you'll have to do better than
#give credit where it's due

I don't have to do anything. The point is that you're biased and stick to your own agenda in every conversation.

You say trade Fowler because we've been doing well with out him. If that's the thinking, then why add another goal scorer? We've been scoring fine lately? Your logic is flawed.

The reality, which many have already pointed out, is that you're biased because you don't like Fowler and want him gone. You're belittling what Fowler has done, which is lame considering he was the only one playing well to start the season.

That's fine, it's your opinion, but at least admit when another poster (Souj) is right. Not sure why you deny, sidestep, whatever when everyone already knows what you're doing.

 

[DaDucks*]

I don't have to do anything. The point is that you're biased and stick to your own agenda in every conversation.

You say trade Fowler because we've been doing well with out him. If that's the thinking, then why add another goal scorer? We've been scoring fine lately? Your logic is flawed.

The reality, which many have already pointed out, is that you're biased because you don't like Fowler and want him gone. You're belittling what Fowler has done, which is lame considering he was the only one playing well to start the season.

That's fine, it's your opinion, but at least admit when another poster (Souj) is right. Not sure why you deny, sidestep, whatever when everyone already knows what you're doing.

People like to revert and point back when they have no other points to make. My ideas are my ideas, I've never found myself in the majority thinking on this board, even before Fowler. I've mentioned we could also trade Lindholm if he demands too much money, a subject and question you asked recently. I'm not sure how that's bias against Cam.

Sounds like you took my advice about not changing though

 

[Sojourn]

People like to point out how wrong you've been, especially when you pat yourself on the back. It's a noteworthy list. A contrary opinion isn't an original one.

 

[DaDucks*]

People like to point out how wrong you've been, especially when you pat yourself on the back. It's a noteworthy list. A contrary opinion isn't an original one.

I look forward to potentially adding to my own list. I'm confused how a contrary optional can't be original.

 

[DaDucks*]

# opinion can't be original

 

[Sojourn]

I look forward to potentially adding to my own list. I'm confused how a contrary optional can't be original.

I didn't say it can't be, but that doesn't mean it is one. Just like an original idea doesn't necessarily mean it's a good one.

 

[DaDucks*]

I didn't say it can't be, but that doesn't mean it is one. Just like an original idea doesn't necessarily mean it's a good one.

a good idea seems to be biased on whether or not it's popular or not.

So you also believe that we'll keep both cam and Hamp.

Noted.

 

[Sojourn]

a good idea seems to be biased on whether or not it's popular or not.

So you also believe that we'll keep both cam and Hamp.

Noted.

It isn't. At all. It's based on logic and intelligence. A large group can definitely have bad ideas.

I do, yes. We should keep him, too. At least for another season or two. When Fowler is due for a new contract, that season I'd say all bets are off. If he and the team are far apart, trading him might be the best decision. That doesn't consider the impact a Montour or a Theodore may play into committing to him.

Anaheim is a better team with Fowler and Lindholm than they are without them. They're the foundation, and it's easier to build a blue line around two top pairing quality defensemen who can play in any situation. With Anaheim's young D, and Gibson, I think we should embrace the strength on defense that we have. You'll win a lot of games if you can keep the opposition to two goals or less, and I think we have the forwards for that too.

 

[Ducks DVM]

Time for a new thread.

Continue here