Jump to content

We Got Rutuu


Daniel
 Share

Recommended Posts

I wonder how much salary was retained.

Rutuu at 3m isn't quite as insulting. I'm hoping Lou threw that third in there to get them to keep a significant amount of salary.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

I really wanna know what the condition is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cute! It's just a case of Semantics Mike striking again. I bet the next reply is going to be "i can see him" being equal to "could".

I don't think you have any idea what "semantics" are. I've also always said that I think Bernier is capable of breaking out and being productive offensively. What he is now and what I think he has the potential for are two different things. Semantics has nothing to do with it. These are entirely separate concepts. I'm not too sure where you're having trouble understanding.

supposedly he wasn't happy and let Lou know as much, so it can't be a shock to him. There was no way he was staying here anyway...

I could tell. Just last night, there was a shot of him on the bench, and it just always felt like he was never a part of the fabric of this team. Just looking at him sitting there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cute! It's just a case of Semantics Mike striking again. I bet the next reply is going to be "i can see him" being equal to "could".

 

Hugh Jessiman was picked before Parise, too.  So he must have potential and COULD be a great player.  Just ask any Ranger fan.  He's got 11 points this year...in the KHL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you have any idea what "semantics" are. I've also always said that I think Bernier is capable of breaking out and being productive offensively. What he is now and what I think he has the potential for are two different things. Semantics has nothing to do with it. These are entirely separate concepts. I'm not too sure where you're having trouble understanding.

 

Look, RingDings, we've been over this before...when search comes back i'll show you.

 

I suggest *you* go and understand the meaning and see how it applies to Mike's posting style. 

Edited by TheRedStorm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever you think of Lou, the trade deadline, the Ruutu trade, or anything else...the fact that he referenced 2009 when discussing Ruutu (his last good year) and the reasons for bringing him...is not only strange, not only concerning, but more like 'code red Lou might have lost it' bad.

 

It's 2014. He has two more years left on his deal. This is fvcking insane.

 

It used to be cute when Lou brought in ex-Devil after ex-Devil back, no matter how many years in between. But it has become quite clear that Lou knows very little and trusts very few people to help him scout at the NHL level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

supposedly he wasn't happy and let Lou know as much, so it can't be a shock to him. There was no way he was staying here anyway...

not happy about what? he blew anyway .. he looks like an awkward guy maybe he just had no friends over here...weirdo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever you think of Lou, the trade deadline, the Ruutu trade, or anything else...the fact that he referenced 2009 when discussing Ruutu (his last good year) and the reasons for bringing him...is not only strange, not only concerning, but more like 'code red Lou might have lost it' bad.

 

It's 2014. He has two more years left on his deal. This is fvcking insane.

 

It used to be cute when Lou brought in ex-Devil after ex-Devil back, no matter how many years in between. But it has become quite clear that Lou knows very little and trusts very few people to help him scout at the NHL level.

 

Yeah, it's pretty bad. I will say this though, Shutdown Line has been giving Ruutu some praise, and I trust that guy. It's been evident that Ruutu hasn't gotten any puck luck (nor good linemates) but puck luck isn't exactly abundant in NJ either...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, RingDings, we've been over it before. You don't understand his style. That's not how it went. He first said "i could see" Bernier being a 50 point player then he says "COULD". That's two different things.

 

I suggest *you* go and understand the meaning and see how it applies to Mike's posting style. Perhaps you'll understand a lot better. Then afterwards, you can go an call out the half dozen or so others here who accuse him of the very same thing.

"I could see" Bernier getting 50 points. Right. I also could see that. But right now, Tuomo Ruutu is better than Steve Bernier. I personally think Bernier has been playing well since the break. That's neither here nor there.

 

I can almost guarantee that I have spent a lot more time studying in the field of linguistics than you have. I understand semantics. You, clearly, do not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, RingDings, we've been over this before...when search comes back i'll show you.

 

I suggest *you* go and understand the meaning and see how it applies to Mike's posting style. 

 

Do you seriously not know the difference between "could be" and "is / was"?

Edited by Mike Brown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever you think of Lou, the trade deadline, the Ruutu trade, or anything else...the fact that he referenced 2009 when discussing Ruutu (his last good year) and the reasons for bringing him...is not only strange, not only concerning, but more like 'code red Lou might have lost it' bad.

 

It's 2014. He has two more years left on his deal. This is fvcking insane.

 

It used to be cute when Lou brought in ex-Devil after ex-Devil back, no matter how many years in between. But it has become quite clear that Lou knows very little and trusts very few people to help him scout at the NHL level.

 

 

THIS!!! THIS!! FREAKING A THIS!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I could see" Bernier getting 50 points. Right. I also could see that. But right now, Tuomo Ruutu is better than Steve Bernier. I personally think Bernier has been playing well since the break. That's neither here nor there.

 

I can almost guarantee that I have spent a lot more time studying in the field of linguistics than you have. I understand semantics. You, clearly, do not.

 

Here's what Mike said before:

 

"Bernier was a first round pick, and was picked before Parise.  He has the ability.  If he got legit 2nd line minutes, I can see him hitting 50 points."

 

Here's what Mike said today:

 

"Well I think Bernier COULD be a 50 point player."

 

It's two statements trying to be passed off as the same thing by context, but different in actual meaning. Sure, it's not as completely asinine as Mike trying to argue "on par" is the same as "equal", but it's an aggravating posting style he possesses. 

Edited by TheRedStorm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.