Modifié 3 févr. 2023 à 1 h 27
Quoting: OldNYIfan
We're still talking at cross-purposes. Both of my posts sought to make the point that the trade proposal shown represents trading Petersen at a loss. I specifically said what I think we should trade Clarke, Turcotte and the first for, so your counter-opinion is irrelevant to how we view the transaction. To put it another way, the fact that you wouldn't trade Saros for Turcotte and the first (neither would I in your position, for that matter) is irrelevant to how we feel about having Clarke in the deal which, as you and I both know, is ONLY because Petersen is in there. Your last post mentioned Walker and Lemieux, both of whom are also irrelevant to my point, but are in your mind because Kings67 said that we would consider the deal without Clarke but with Durzi or Spence or Grans added. That wasn't me. The reason why I said I would trade Turcotte and the first for Saros but not Clarke for Ekholm was to make the point that the underlying justification for this proposal is the idea that we want (to the point of having) to get rid of Petersen. We don't. Your offhand comment to the effect that acquiring Saros and Ekholm could hardly be considered a loss ignores our side of the proposal. Finally, the proposal isn't Petersen for Saros and Ekholm, so your last sentence is just silly.
I've reread the entire thread, and I'm still not sure where all your confusion is stemming from. I feel my posts have been clear and coherent, about what my thoughts on this proposal are, and who I've been replying to when I've rebutted other opinions. I'm not trying to be rude when I say this, but I can't say the same for what you're attempting to convey in this post.
You're making some assumptions here about what I'm thinking that aren't accurate (the "you and I both know.." and "but are in your mind because ..." points). I'd argue about the OP's intentions in making a Preds AGM titled Deadline Sell where LA is one of the buyers on NSH's players, as well ["the underlying justification for this proposal is the idea that we want (to the point of having) to get rid of Petersen"].
Regardless of what you're trying to say here, the message failed to get through to me. I don't think there's any point in you trying to clarify it, or for us to continue the conversation. We've both been on CF for awhile, and have had plenty of civil interactions in the past. The amount of condescension in your last post isn't something I'm used to seeing from you. It's surprising, unappreciated, and frankly unjustified.
Suffice to say, neither of us would accept the OP's proposal, for our respective team. Enjoy the rest of your night.