|
|
Post by Calgary Flames on Feb 25, 2012 18:55:37 GMT -5
i love how people on this site always feel like they need to put their two cents in, when it doesn't concern them.
Miss Phillie I'm glad your happy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Bruins on Feb 25, 2012 19:12:22 GMT -5
i love how people on this site always feel like they need to put their two cents in, when it doesn't concern them. Miss Phillie I'm glad your happy. I know right! WHATS UP WITH THAT!!?? It can really be annoying! But that is just my 2 cents. |
|
|
|
Post by Pittsburgh Penguins on Feb 25, 2012 19:32:23 GMT -5
I don't want to feel left out so year is my "2 cents"
|
|
|
|
Post by Calgary Flames on Feb 25, 2012 19:48:52 GMT -5
hahahaa Jokes.. Bruins and Pens...
|
|
|
|
Post by Dallas Stars on Feb 25, 2012 22:09:42 GMT -5
at least I won the deal
|
|
|
|
Post by Vancouver Canucks on Feb 25, 2012 22:49:43 GMT -5
I just noticed Phili was a female haha. Thought this was a all ManNHL sim site (no pun intended)
|
|
|
|
Post by Toronto Maple Leafs on Feb 26, 2012 0:14:16 GMT -5
lol Man doesn't mean what you think it does.
|
|
|
|
Post by Personnel Representative on Feb 26, 2012 17:27:01 GMT -5
Here is why I'm actually alright with it. Bolts was informed via the trade that he had to be cap compliant by Friday at midnight, and he wasn't. Flames wanted to make a deal to bolster his club immediately and moving away from a trade he was somewhat locked into while Bolts GM seemingly did nothing to correct the issue isn't fair to Flames. Flames did what he had to do for his club, and I respect his decision to walk away from a trade that was hours away from being rejected anyway. I have several problems with this statement as it sits. 1) I could be wrong, but I don't recall a trade being rejected on this site ever before based on the POTENTIAL for a team to be over cap at the end of deadline. If Tampa wanted to waive half his expensive players to complete the deal, I don't see how it's our business to reject the trade as a result. 2) Calgary had no chance to accept the trade publicly, because you basically pre-rejected it prior to Calgary coming online. 3) Since ACTUAL trade deadline is not posted somewhere other than the c-box (at least based on all the PMs I keep getting about it), it's unfair to continually push the deadline back while at the same time claiming someone is not doing enough to get under the cap to complete a deal. In this rare case, I happen to know for a fact that Tampa was working very hard to get under cap, and from PM communications, I was also told he had 2 GMs offering to take cap for him. Then this deal was posted, and everything went to hell. Just adding my 3 cents. |
|
|
|
Post by Personnel Representative on Feb 26, 2012 17:34:05 GMT -5
That said, I have also been informed that this deal was agreed to in PMs days before Calgary negotiated the Stamkos deal. Thus making the whole situation even shadier. But Calgary has asked me to stop talking about this publicly, as it annoys him, so possibly aside from a reply to whatever Leafs says next, I'll leave this alone for now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toronto Maple Leafs on Feb 27, 2012 9:04:56 GMT -5
approved, finalized.
calgary can consider the shenanigans a warning for future trades, or we'll Blues-Season-1 him.
|
|
