|
Post by oilfansplat on Aug 25, 2010 10:29:19 GMT -5
I say the Panthers won that trade care to explain? Sure. Mostly I don't know who Erik Karlsson is. And 2nd Tuuka Rask is most likely to see success. The you have Lucic, who is a machine. I'd take Lucic for my line up anyday. Lucic will be a great boost in Florida's toughness. Then you get a good future goaltender. Though if I knew who Erik Karlsson was I may think otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by sniper93 on Aug 25, 2010 10:30:51 GMT -5
Other way around EDM lol. OTT is getting Lucic, Rask.
|
|
|
Post by Joker5123 on Aug 25, 2010 10:33:31 GMT -5
Sure. Mostly I don't know who Erik Karlsson is. And 2nd Tuuka Rask is most likely to see success. The you have Lucic, who is a machine. I'd take Lucic for my line up anyday. Lucic will be a great boost in Florida's toughness. Then you get a good future goaltender. Though if I knew who Erik Karlsson was I may think otherwise. lol it's the other way around, and erik karlsson is currently playing for Ottawa, in real life, and has really started to develop in the last few games with Ottawa, again, in real life.
|
|
|
Post by oilfansplat on Aug 25, 2010 10:33:52 GMT -5
It said Florida got Rask and Lucic on the 1st post.
|
|
|
Post by foreverno4 on Aug 25, 2010 10:37:40 GMT -5
When I had spoken with Hurricanes GM there was a rule I believe we had agreed on stating that a player in the off-season cannot be traded more than once, therefore Rask should not be involved in this trade, so I need to vote for a veto
|
|
|
Post by Joker5123 on Aug 25, 2010 10:39:03 GMT -5
I feel that the league and I discussed this, so I will be talking with the commissioner to void this trade. One illegal thing in particular has gone on in this. At this point I would not be judging who won and who lost, I think it may be nullified. I was talking to the commish all the time while making this trade to make sure it would go through, it will be approved if you ask the comish, but ask away.
|
|
|
Post by flyersgm on Aug 25, 2010 10:39:06 GMT -5
When I had spoken with Hurricanes GM there was a rule I believe we had agreed on stating that a player in the off-season cannot be traded more than once, therefore Rask should not be involved in this trade, so I need to vote for a veto That rule was never solidified. I'm not saying I disagree with it, but I'm pretty damn sure plenty of players have already been traded multiple times, so it is a bit late now.
|
|
|
Post by Joker5123 on Aug 25, 2010 10:40:09 GMT -5
It said Florida got Rask and Lucic on the 1st post. k, now it should be pretty clear.
|
|
|
Post by foreverno4 on Aug 25, 2010 10:43:39 GMT -5
Eh I think in the actual NHL you can make an argument that it's too late to investigate Luongo's contract, but they are. I'm going to just throw out some vetoed ideas and PM them to Hurricanes GM, I think the rule was in the works until he had to leave.
|
|
|
Post by flyersgm on Aug 25, 2010 10:46:31 GMT -5
Eh I think in the actual NHL you can make an argument that it's too late to investigate Luongo's contract, but they are. I'm going to just throw out some vetoed ideas and PM them to Hurricanes GM, I think the rule was in the works until he had to leave. I don't really see what the problem is dude. Why would you want to investigate further ideas to get trades vetoed? As long as the rules are being abided by and there is no cap circumvention, I think we're okay.
|
|
|
Post by foreverno4 on Aug 25, 2010 10:52:22 GMT -5
I just feel as if we were pulling for the cannot be traded more than once in the off-season rule and we basically got nothing out of that or some other reforms.
|
|
|
Post by jpavs8cluthcy on Aug 25, 2010 10:57:46 GMT -5
When I had spoken with Hurricanes GM there was a rule I believe we had agreed on stating that a player in the off-season cannot be traded more than once, therefore Rask should not be involved in this trade, so I need to vote for a veto I'm pretty sure I would have heard of that somehow, or CanesGM would have posted it somewhere. CanesGM even told me that he didn't like the idea. Look, I get that you want to go by your rules, but we're not using them. That has been established.
|
|
|
Post by jpavs8cluthcy on Aug 25, 2010 10:58:49 GMT -5
I just feel as if we were pulling for the cannot be traded more than once in the off-season rule and we basically got nothing out of that or some other reforms. Who is we? I never heard CanesGM say anything about this, except that he didn't like it.
|
|
|
Post by foreverno4 on Aug 25, 2010 11:07:35 GMT -5
I just feel as if we were pulling for the cannot be traded more than once in the off-season rule and we basically got nothing out of that or some other reforms. Who is we? I never heard CanesGM say anything about this, except that he didn't like it. Flyers, Canes and myself had a private chat discussion about this.
|
|
|
Post by flyersgm on Aug 25, 2010 11:09:37 GMT -5
Who is we? I never heard CanesGM say anything about this, except that he didn't like it. Flyers, Canes and myself had a private chat discussion about this. Nothing in that chat really materialized.
|
|