Re: Winchester to Ducks
Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2011 2:03 pm
DaDitka wrote: What difference does it make? It's not like Jackman is playing D either.
Discuss the St. Louis Blues, the NHL, or whatever.
http://letsgoblues.com/phpBB/
DaDitka wrote: What difference does it make? It's not like Jackman is playing D either.
Great conversationalist, you are.DaDitka wrote:What difference does it make? It's not like Jackman is playing D either.northwest dave wrote:But the Blues would need a dman coming back. Vancouver wouldn't do that.DaDitka wrote:northwest dave wrote:DaDitka wrote:northwest dave wrote:If your name is Brad or Eric...lookout, the Blues will trade you.
Quick, change his name to Brad-Eric Jackman
Wondering if Vancouver has sights on Jax. However, Blues need something in return (not a draft), the defense is very thin already. Maybe there is a 3-way deal somehow.
Petro - Cola - Polak - Nitikin - Shatty - and then Strachan or Cole....Yikes.
Vancouver would have to send someone back (or they would have to send someone down) because they are against the cap.
northwest dave wrote: Great conversationalist, you are.
There you go, that wasn't too hard. It's very well-known you hate Jackman, so a flippant comment doesn't really add to the discussion. Now if you could have said, "I'm ok with it because Cole can take his spot and learn."DaDitka wrote:northwest dave wrote: Great conversationalist, you are.
Sorry I don't share your high regard for Jackman, but considering how bad he's been the step down can't be that far to Cole or anyone else.
It's not that f*&%ing hard to stand there and watch your opponent put the puck in the back of your net.
The only thing Cole would have to work on is punching guys AFTER the official gets between them.
Yeah, figured he might waive it for Vancouver since he is from the area, but it would take a roster player coming back to the blues.TheoSqua wrote:Jackman has a full no trade clause and made it known yesterday that he would not waive it. At least according to Darren Pang via some guy on Blues Talk.
You can still sponsor the Winchester rifle. They're pretty badass. Not to mention valuable.thedoc wrote:I no longer sponsor anyone
I suggest you now sponsor True Dat Boguniecki.thedoc wrote:I no longer sponsor anyone
Considering he was a first rounder last time they judged him at that age, I'd say he'd be a first rounder. He was an inexpensive player that had size and some scoring touch. He won't be easy to replace at that cost.ProngerBlues44 wrote:It's a win for the Blues because I didn't think anyone would take a bite at Winchester.
I look at it this way: If Winchester was 18 years old this summer, where would he be taken in the draft?
The answer is later than the 3rd round.
What he means is if you know this is the player he will turn into, would you draft him in the first round?tjk002 wrote:Considering he was a first rounder last time they judged him at that age, I'd say he'd be a first rounder. He was an inexpensive player that had size and some scoring touch. He won't be easy to replace at that cost.ProngerBlues44 wrote:It's a win for the Blues because I didn't think anyone would take a bite at Winchester.
I look at it this way: If Winchester was 18 years old this summer, where would he be taken in the draft?
The answer is later than the 3rd round.
I'm glad somebody understands me.cardsfan04 wrote:What he means is if you know this is the player he will turn into, would you draft him in the first round?tjk002 wrote:Considering he was a first rounder last time they judged him at that age, I'd say he'd be a first rounder. He was an inexpensive player that had size and some scoring touch. He won't be easy to replace at that cost.ProngerBlues44 wrote:It's a win for the Blues because I didn't think anyone would take a bite at Winchester.
I look at it this way: If Winchester was 18 years old this summer, where would he be taken in the draft?
The answer is later than the 3rd round.