No point in signing Cirelli for 4 years (which carries him to unrestricted free agency) rather than 5 since the compensation remains the same.

We'll wait and see what we got in Heinen -- no need to move him after less than 10 games.

Anaheim would just sign Janmark and not give up Heinen

no, because Heinen isn't a good fit for them and janmark could potentially be a great fit for them and Heinen a great one for Dallas

how is there no point in signing cirelli, he is among best defensive forward talks and will get a big contract

Is this a language problem? I didn't say that there was no point in signing Cirelli; I said that there was no point in signing him for 4 years instead of 5. Let me try it again a different way: signing Cirelli is a good idea, but you should sign him for 5 years, not 4. Signing him for only 4 years lets him go directly to free agency.

I don't think that your purposely mis-stating what I said; I have the feeling that my meaning isn't getting across to you, perhaps because English is not your first language. That's okay; if you were writing in French, I would have difficulty understanding every nuance of what you were trying to express.

ok I agree with you with the Cirelli signing but don't come out here as an old guy who thinks knows everything about the sport and all the players, when u build a team, u cant just have offensive forwards and some offensive defensemen, you need some balance and you have to pay those players at the right price. you argue every single decision I do and every single trade, instead of just arguing, look at it first, and analyze it so you understand where I'm getting the ideas from, unless your some scout for a NHL team, I don't see how your opinions are better and that my trades and signings are bad.

Yeah but why wouldn't Anaheim just sign Janmark in free agency and not give anything up

they will eventually get problems with cap space and players will want a trade because of their playing time and also they don't need two players who both look similar.

(1) I don't begin to think that I know everything about the sport, let alone pretend to; I do know more than most about my four favorite teams (my two local teams, the Islanders and Toronto) and limit my comments on other teams to what I think is generally accepted wisdom.

(2) The statement that I argue every single decision and every trade you do is demonstrably and objectively false; I've commented on only two of the 11 teams you've posted so far, and my comment regarding this Dallas team cannot be construed as negative by even the most sensitive flower because all I did was point out the advantage of signing Cirelli for 5 years instead of 4. Over-reaching statements like that make you sound as if you can't stand any differing, let alone opposing, viewpoint, which implies a rather narrow mind.

(3) Opinions of people who have followed the sport for more than 40 years are generally given more weight than the opinions of less experienced fans. That's just natural, because the a priori expectation is that the voice of experience is more likely to be right than the voice of inexperience. The principle is true not just in hockey fandom but life at large, so you had better get used to it. Your only defense is to become knowledgeable yourself, which can only be achieved with an open mind. And here's something that may not have occurred to you: the one thing that all my experience has taught me is that I can be wrong, and others can be right, about anything.

Then they could just trade Heinen for a decent pick

i told you that you were right about the cirelli signing but i think your a bit too old and that the game has changed