AHL- Apolyton Hockey League 09/10 (II): We're very perverse

[Ben Kenobi]

It's true. Calgary nearly forfeited. You may not like it but that's the truth.

[Ben Kenobi]

one that hockey insiders have considered possible and is absolutely technically feasible. Your trade was completely nonsensical (why would Atlanta trade for a 40-year old player who burned his bridges with a temper tantrum in Vancouver and Kevin ****ing Bieksa?).

lolololololololol

Sig material here.

Corey Schneider, ****.

And you say I'm the brainless one.

[Asher]

It's true. Calgary nearly forfeited. You may not like it but that's the truth.

What the **** does "nearly forfeited" even mean??

[Ben Kenobi]

It means that they were unable to field a full squad of 18 as required by NHL rules, because they were out of cash.

[Asher]

lolololololololol

Sig material here.

Corey Schneider, ****.

And you say I'm the brainless one.

Yes, because Mathieu Schneider's name has come up in trade talks several times this season due to his spat. You didn't specify a Schneider, so the natural assumption is you're referring to the one who's been begging for a trade when discussing a trade.

[Asher]

It means that they were unable to field a full squad of 18 as required by NHL rules, because they were out of cash.

They were not out of cash, they were out of cap space. Very different, very distinct issues.

They could have fielded more if they needed to, but the players would be subject to waivers. Which is why, with a playoff spot already locked, Sutter did not call up more players and subject them to the waivers and risk losing them. He could have also assigned various big-cap hit players to the minors for a bit to avoid their cap hit. They were nowhere near having to forfeit, there were a ton of options available.

Your characterization is, of course, dishonest.

[Ben Kenobi]

As opposed to the talented young prospect Goalie on the farm?

Now I understand why you said I wasn't talking about prospects.

Reading comprehension is a skill Asher.

[Ben Kenobi]

They could have fielded more if they needed to, but the players would be subject to waivers. Which is why, with a playoff spot already locked, Sutter did not call up more players and subject them to the waivers and risk losing them.

He had no cap space to call anyone up.

He could have also assigned various big-cap hit players to the minors for a bit to avoid their cap hit.

This was the only other option, to swap someone like Jokinen. I'd contend that Calgary would have preferred to go down with the ship, and forfeit.

The other thing is if they had an injury that game when they fielded only 18, they would have had to forfeit.

Calgary has earned scorn for their disastrous cap management, which was entirely self-inflicted.

[Asher]

He had no cap space to call anyone up.

Are you retarded? You can free up cap space by sending others down. It's not a 1-way street.

Calgary has earned scorn for their disastrous cap management, which was entirely self-inflicted.

Calgary had a cap crunch last year, yes, but who cares? Vancouver has less space now than Calgary did last year. What the **** are you talking about?

[Asher]

As opposed to the talented young prospect Goalie on the farm?

Now I understand why you said I wasn't talking about prospects.

Reading comprehension is a skill Asher.

So is Bieksa a prospect?

You constructed an ambiguous sentence. What do you expect?

You probably didn't even know the Canucks had two Schneiders in the organization. If you did, you'd have clarified to mean you were specifying the Schneider who was not asking for a trade when discussing trades.

[Ben Kenobi]

Calgary had a cap crunch last year, yes, but who cares?

It was soo awesome.

[Ben Kenobi]

You probably didn't even know the Canucks had two Schneiders in the organization. If you did, you'd have clarified to mean you were specifying the Schneider who was not asking for a trade when discussing trades.

Obviously, as I mentioned Schneider first, as a prospect, I was thinking of him.

But yeah, I can see your point here. I totally thought you'd be relatively informed about the Canuck roster. I won't make that mistake twice.

[Asher]

Obviously, as I mentioned Schneider first, as a prospect, I was thinking of him.

But yeah, I can see your point here. I totally thought you'd be relatively informed about the Canuck roster. I won't make that mistake twice.

You are a sinful ****ing liar.

The first time you mentioned "Schneider" is in this post:

If that's the best that Calgary can do, I can see Vancouver dipping in their prospect pool, and offering Schneider, Bieksa, and another couple prospects for Kovalchuk.

This is a statement that makes NO SENSE. Bieksa is 28 years old and is nowhere NEAR a prospect, which therefore INSTANTLY invalidates what your definition of prospect is.

Your new sig is retarded because it should be clear from the age in my quote that I am not referring to Corey Schneider. Not that I care, because the only people who would get the reference are hockey fans and every hockey fan here knows you don't know **** all about reading comprehension OR hockey.

[Flubber]

If that's the best that Calgary can do, I can see Vancouver dipping in their prospect pool, and offering Schneider, Bieksa, and another couple prospects for Kovalchuk.

Ben

I can see asher's point here. Since Bieska isn't a "prospect" it was reasonable to assume that "Schneider" wasn't either-- After all if one named player is an experienced NHL roster guy, why not the other?

IN any event, it doesn't matter. I think you are overvaluing Kovalchuk by quite a bit when you compare to the Thornton and Bure packages which were stars under contract for 3 years.

The Flames might be so desperate for offense they give too much but I will say this Phaneuf for Kovalchuk straight up isn't THAT crazy if you looked at the players alone. Phaneif , despite his issues is a top 4 d-man on any team and still has good upside-- The killer is that he is simply not worth his big contract right now so I could see teams be hesitant to give much for Phaneuf.

Perhaps this will be different but I just don't see a player and multiple picks being given for a rental

[Ben Kenobi]

I can see asher's point here. Since Bieska isn't a "prospect" it was reasonable to assume that "Schneider" wasn't either-- After all if one named player is an experienced NHL roster guy, why not the other?

I'd only be surprised if someone actually cared to understand but w/e. You know, this gets really tiresome Flubber.

Phaneuf for Kovalchuk would have worked 2 years ago. Now, it won't. Yes, you are right that Phaneuf has a high upside, but look at it from the perspective of Atlanta. They want someone who's pretty much a sure thing, or they gamble and go for someone who's got the high upshot, plus some speculative picks. Phaneuf is no longer a guarantee to be an effective offensive Dman, evidenced by falling in the depth chart in Calgary.

I'm actually hoping you guys get Kovalchuk. He makes the Flames an unworkable mess cap-wise and all for a rental, who likely won't have anything to play for this year. The interesting thing is that your offensive woes all can be put at the feet of Jokinen. There is a reason why he only played in the playoffs when he got to Calgary. I'm really waiting to see the light click on for y'all, but it makes me mildly amused that the kool-aid is still flowing.