Jump to content


the Kovalchuk trade

  • Please log in to reply
83 replies to this topic

#81 Pepperkorn


    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,559 posts

Posted 28 October 2011 - 11:26 AM

Well - that's it then -- I'm done

we have a mutual ignore setting now my former friend.
  • 0

I'm here for the party - (this is Pittsburgh, yeah?)

#82 Jerrydevil


    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,978 posts

Posted 28 October 2011 - 06:13 PM

I like the Kovalchuk threads. They are often more entertaining than the team. I applaud the good folks who start them.
  • 0

#83 Devilsfan118


    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,982 posts

Posted 28 October 2011 - 06:21 PM

Yeah I'm checking out.

Manta, you have some serious blinders on. In what aspect of life can you just selectively chooses to ignore the questions that punch holes through your logic?

Stupid troll. That's all you are, seriously. Go to HF, you'd fit in more appropriately there with the mentally handicapped Maple Leafs fans.
  • 0


Rutgers:  The Birthplace of College Football

First B1G Season: 8-5

Second B1G Season: Forgettable

#84 halfsharkalligatorhalfman


    General Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,838 posts

Posted 28 October 2011 - 08:24 PM

The trade was a steal the contract is the issue.

This is where I'm at. Blaming the trade because it lead to a change in philosophy (or whatever) or mourning the loss of the assets we gave up is foolish to me. However that contract was a huge gamble whose current results leave much to be desired.

If Manta changed his position to "I didn't like the Kovalchuk trade because it was for a player that doesn't really fit with the devils organization (pretty much true, Kovalchuk did not fit in that half season at all) even if the price was 'right.' Even though this wasn't a huge deal as the risk was alleviated by the fact that it was only for a half season, the huge blunder of Lou/Vanderbeek was giving a 17 year contract (then after penalties, a 15 year contract) to a player who really doesn't fit (and didn't fit) with the Devils. It's been like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole ever since and it's left the team disjointed, and may end up in us losing Zach Parise"

That's a reasonable if pessimistic position and I could accept it. But blaming everything on the trade itself? I can't see it.
  • 0
Devils Fan: 1994-2012
Sharks Fan: 2012-?
Posted Image

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users