That was completely different though. We were trying to trade them but they would veto deals. Which was entirely in their right
- PatC80

Careful, he’s trying to bait us.

Yay or nay?

This season Toronto is the first team since Pittsburgh with Lemieux and Nedved in 96 (???) , to have two 40 goal centers.

Careful, he’s trying to bait us.
- shack67

Imagine that, we were trying to trade players and they refused.. Kinda makes you wonder if any of the Muskoka 5 even paid taxes.

Imagine that, we were trying to trade players and they refused.. Kinda makes you wonder if any of the Muskoka 5 even paid taxes.
- PatC80

https://media1.giphy.com/...a/RL0xU1daTlMoE/giphy.gif

I remember being pretty F'ing pissed at the Muskoka 5.
Let the Isles fan be bitter, we probably would be too.


- Unholy-Goalie

I remember being more disappointed. But I was really . . conflicted. I've always felt that the CBA should make it against the rules for a team to ask a player with an NTC or NMC to waive. Basically, you offered them that clause to get a discount on the contract, and now you want to violate that clause to further benefit yourself?

Yay or nay?

This season Toronto is the first team since Pittsburgh with Lemieux and Nedved in 96 (???) , to have two 40 goal centers.
- Blazed

Nay.

Matthews hits 50 though.

isles thread is an absolute joy right now

You really do have the reading comprehension of a 5 year old.
- Thecakeisalie

Lose the argument, resort to insults. Well done.

How have you missed me repeatedly saying I'm not actually arguing that the Leafs are contenders, and merely had a problem with your argument about a team needing to prove it in the season before you could label them as such if they made good moves in the offseason?

And for the 100th time, yes, a team has to (frank)ing prove they are contenders. A team like Tampa Bay isn't a contender because they add a new player, they are a contender because they've proven they deserve that label AND added a better player.

Can a Cup champion be a Cup champion if the team doesn't prove they are champions? So how could a contender be a contender without proving it? If this were boxing, a #1 contender isn't a #1 contender because of how hard he can hit a heavy bag. He's a #1 contender because he beat everybody else and earned to be the #1 contender.

And yes, there are few contenders, as I already explained to you. Not every team can be considered a contender otherwise the word loses it's meaning.

I've repeatedly told you, forget about the Leafs, or I agree they aren't contenders. Yet you keep going back to bashing them because you would rather bash your supposed favorite team than actually try to understand what I'm actually saying.

I'm not bashing the Leafs. I'm simply stating the facts. They are a young team, full of potential but they are not a contender yet. They haven't proved it. They haven't won a playoff series, they haven't gone deep, they don't have award winners or league leaders. They have young players with potential.

Everything you've said to me in the last several posts is useless garbage because I'm not arguing about the Leafs being contenders... Get it?

Same poop from you, losing an argument, resort to insults.

How do I explain this to you well enough for you to understand?

You made an illogical argument when you stated a team couldn't be a contender unless they'd "proven it". I argued that if a team that was fairly good went and made moves that elevated them, you definitely could relabel them a contender without needing to see them play the next season. Nothing specifically about the Leafs at all, only in general.

Once again, I'm annoyed I've wasted so much time just trying to get through that thick head of yours what I'm even arguing with you about.

It's not illogical at all. The Minnesota Wild have finished with 100+ points two years in a row. They lost in the 1st round both times. They are not a contender. They are a pretender. They haven't proven they can be considered a contender.

Can you add a player and be considered a contender? It depends. Did your team truly add the player or did you lose other players (like the Leafs)? Did the team achieve significant signs of success before (like Tampa Bay)? You are constantly talking about a team making moves to add players but you refuse to acknowledge that if that same team loses impact players that it also plays into the equation. The whole picture matters.

You wasted your own time by trying to change the original discussion which was whether or not the Leafs were a top 5 team and/or a contender. That's on you.

Lose the argument, resort to insults. Well done.



And for the 100th time, yes, a team has to (frank)ing prove they are contenders. A team like Tampa Bay isn't a contender because they add a new player, they are a contender because they've proven they deserve that label AND added a better player.

Can a Cup champion be a Cup champion if the team doesn't prove they are champions? So how could a contender be a contender without proving it? If this were boxing, a #1 contender isn't a #1 contender because of how hard he can hit a heavy bag. He's a #1 contender because he beat everybody else and earned to be the #1 contender.

And yes, there are few contenders, as I already explained to you. Not every team can be considered a contender otherwise the word loses it's meaning.



I'm not bashing the Leafs. I'm simply stating the facts. They are a young team, full of potential but they are not a contender yet. They haven't proved it. They haven't won a playoff series, they haven't gone deep, they don't have award winners or league leaders. They have young players with potential.



Same poop from you, losing an argument, resort to insults.



It's not illogical at all. The Minnesota Wild have finished with 100+ points two years in a row. They lost in the 1st round both times. They are not a contender. They are a pretender. They haven't proven they can be considered a contender.

Can you add a player and be considered a contender? It depends. Did your team truly add the player or did you lose other players (like the Leafs)? Did the team achieve significant signs of success before (like Tampa Bay)? You are constantly talking about a team making moves to add players but you refuse to acknowledge that if that same team loses impact players that it also plays into the equation. The whole picture matters.

You wasted your own time by trying to change the original discussion which was whether or not the Leafs were a top 5 team and/or a contender. That's on you.
- Unholy_Goalie

Dude, you keep repeating the same nonsense you've already said. Move on already. Holy (frank)ing Christ..

Lose the argument, resort to insults. Well done.



And for the 100th time, yes, a team has to (frank)ing prove they are contenders. A team like Tampa Bay isn't a contender because they add a new player, they are a contender because they've proven they deserve that label AND added a better player.

Can a Cup champion be a Cup champion if the team doesn't prove they are champions? So how could a contender be a contender without proving it? If this were boxing, a #1 contender isn't a #1 contender because of how hard he can hit a heavy bag. He's a #1 contender because he beat everybody else and earned to be the #1 contender.

And yes, there are few contenders, as I already explained to you. Not every team can be considered a contender otherwise the word loses it's meaning.



I'm not bashing the Leafs. I'm simply stating the facts. They are a young team, full of potential but they are not a contender yet. They haven't proved it. They haven't won a playoff series, they haven't gone deep, they don't have award winners or league leaders. They have young players with potential.



Same poop from you, losing an argument, resort to insults.



It's not illogical at all. The Minnesota Wild have finished with 100+ points two years in a row. They lost in the 1st round both times. They are not a contender. They are a pretender. They haven't proven they can be considered a contender.

Can you add a player and be considered a contender? It depends. Did your team truly add the player or did you lose other players (like the Leafs)? Did the team achieve significant signs of success before (like Tampa Bay)? You are constantly talking about a team making moves to add players but you refuse to acknowledge that if that same team loses impact players that it also plays into the equation. The whole picture matters.

You wasted your own time by trying to change the original discussion which was whether or not the Leafs were a top 5 team and/or a contender. That's on you.
- Unholy_Goalie

No argument lost UG. Just frustrating trying to talk sense to someone that doesn't have any. I rarely ever insult anyone. When a lot of people that don't normally throw insults, direct them at you, perhaps you should be asking yourself why that is.

You spent five or six posts debating about the Leafs when I stated each time that I wasn't even talking about them.

I never changed the argument. I jumped in your argument with someone else because I disliked your logical reasoning. I didn't care about your previous argument. That's on you for not understanding after several posts in which I explicitly stated as much.

You were so focused on your past argument you never bothered to figure out what I was even debating with you, which was your reasoning to get to your previous conclusion, not the conclusion you reached.

I think we're at an impasse here because of you're insane definition of contenders and inability to understand if enough off-season moves were made, a non contender could vault into contender status (and intelligent people could recognize this before seeing them play again), which is all I was ever trying to say.

(frank) it. Think whatever you want. You're wrong, but I know you'll never understand that. Go ahead and post some rebuttal so you can get the last word in, cause I'm done wasting my time.

That Islanders thread is really something.

Some of them are decent, rational posters, but others...

Then there's that ridiculous Sens guy in there talking about how Karlsson is just as terrible a person as Tavares for wanting to leave that tire fire organization that did nothing for months while his wife was being abused online about her miscarriage.

Not to mention I'm pretty sure noone knows even now what Melnyk offered Karlsson for $. If they didn't lowball him and want to keep it quiet, you'd think the details would be known by now.

No argument lost UG. Just frustrating trying to talk sense to someone that doesn't have any. I rarely ever insult anyone. When a lot of people that don't normally throw insults, direct them at you, perhaps you should be asking yourself why that is.

You spent five or six posts debating about the Leafs when I stated each time that I wasn't even talking about them.

I never changed the argument. I jumped in your argument with someone else because I disliked your logical reasoning. I didn't care about your previous argument. That's on you for not understanding after several posts in which I explicitly stated as much.

You were so focused on your past argument you never bothered to figure out what I was even debating with you, which was your reasoning to get to your previous conclusion, not the conclusion you reached.

I think we're at an impasse here because of you're insane definition of contenders and inability to understand if enough off-season moves were made, a non contender could vault into contender status (and intelligent people could recognize this before seeing them play again), which is all I was ever trying to say.

(frank) it. Think whatever you want. You're wrong, but I know you'll never understand that. Go ahead and post some rebuttal so you can get the last word in, cause I'm done wasting my time.
- Thecakeisalie

Ok, you're wrong. Cool.

(frank)ing ridiculous.

(frank)ing ridiculous.
- GreatGigInTheSky

#Headliner

What a nice morning not having to back read a bunch of nonsense. Lets hope this continues! Sadly, it won't

What a nice morning not having to back read a bunch of nonsense. Lets hope this continues! Sadly, it won't
- LeafGuy89

If everyone that b!tched about his posts would stop responding to him, he'd probably just go away. Or at very minimum just have a very lonely conversation with himself.

Ya'll jump on the bait like a bunch of (frank)ing walleyes.


STOP RESPONDING TO HIM.

(frank)ing ridiculous.
- GreatGigInTheSky

If everyone that b!tched about his posts would stop responding to him, he'd probably just go away. Or at very minimum just have a very lonely conversation with himself like he does every waking moment because nobody can stand being around him.

Ya'll jump on the bait like a bunch of (frank)ing walleyes.


STOP RESPONDING TO HIM.


- .OHOH.

Agreed.

Agreed.
- Steven_Seagull

I'm back baby!

I'm back baby!
- .HOHO.

oh hi

I'm back baby!
- .HOHO.

flagged!

***sees UG***

Islanders thread....

Islanders thread....




- Steven_Seagull

They need a therapist, not a ref in there.

Islanders thread....




- Steven_Seagull