|
|
Post by canucksgm on Jun 6, 2013 15:19:46 GMT -5
To Bruins:
VAN 1st 1989
VAN 1st 1990
Richard Brodeur
To Canucks
Bill Ranford
BOS 3rd 1988
Stiff price to pay, but got my future netminder, which is tough to acquire in this league! Thanks Rob.. pretty quick talks
|
|
|
|
Post by bruinsboss on Jun 6, 2013 19:20:36 GMT -5
Agreed on this trade, I stated in advance that to me Brodeur had no value whatsoever considering A. I won't use him, B. He's walking at the end of the season, and C. I had no intentions on receiving a goalie in return, however he wanted to keep his salary low instead of paying for 3 goalies, so I agreed to take him on.
The actual part that I care about are the draft picks, and they happen to be in a favorable draft in 1990 and a decent at best draft with 1989... I agreed to pay the 3rd round in the amazing 88 draft as compensation for giving up 2 1sts instead of a 1st and a 2nd.
Thanks Ramage, have a great one...
|
|
|
|
Post by jimaymay on Jun 7, 2013 0:50:23 GMT -5
approved
|
|
|
|
Post by Whalers on Jun 7, 2013 12:44:25 GMT -5
Vetoed - No way is Ranford worth 2 #1 picks in deep draft pools. Maybe One 1st round, but not Two
|
|
|
|
Post by bruinsboss on Jun 7, 2013 17:11:04 GMT -5
89 is not a deep draft pool... sorry... Donald Audette at 11th and Travis green at 13th, give me a break
Lidstrom, is the only real highlight in that draft, Sundin is good as well but its not as deep as 88 or 90
|
|
|
|
Post by bruinsboss on Jun 7, 2013 17:14:44 GMT -5
|
|
Rangers GM
Junior Member
Everything is better on Broadway
Posts: 67
|
Post by Rangers GM on Jun 7, 2013 17:41:17 GMT -5
While I do agree that 89 was not THAT great, to say Lidstrom and Sundin are the only worthwhile picks in a draft that also includes Pavel Bure and Sergei Fedorov is downright silly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Whalers on Jun 7, 2013 17:47:38 GMT -5
There are other board members who can vote. Want to name the top 20 players in the '90 draft as well? Hence the vetoing of the trade. I clearly mentioned that one 1st is fine for Ranford, but not 2 and the '90 one as well. Don't get offended, we all have our opinions and that's why there are other members to vote. If it gets vetoed, I'm sure you can rework it. If it goes through, then congratz  Don't take anything personal. We're here to make sure there is a balance in the league. |
|
|
|
Post by canucksgm on Jun 7, 2013 18:05:18 GMT -5
I disagree with Whalers tbh.. Goalies here are difficult to come by, and I feel like I got arguably the best young one... and for that you have to pay
|
|
|
|
Post by bruinsboss on Jun 9, 2013 9:01:18 GMT -5
I'm not offended, I just happen to think that due to the fact that we play in 2 leagues that are the complete opposite (Ctchl and now EHL), in CTCHL you have an abundance of goalies so paying a 2nd round pick for an 80+ goalie is common nature, however in EHL you have some teams that don't even have a 70+ rated goalie so the value of goalies especially young goalies are much much higher. In this league easily a goalies value is the highest value out of all 3 positions, due to the rarity of good young goalies. To contradict the rangers statement, that's 4 players out of a draft that included close to 200 names.... I also must state that if Vancouver was a bottom dwelling team obviously his picks would be much more valuable, but as we see it now, he's a mid pack team which of course means no lidstrom, no bure, no hall of fame players for his picks... agreed?
|
|
|
|
Post by flameon on Jun 9, 2013 10:01:49 GMT -5
First of all, the hyperbole in this thread is astounding. '88 is not a 2 man draft. And unless your criteria is age 20 to 20 or you add "that isn't already a clear-cut starter" Bill Ranford is clearly not the best young goalie.
That said, the Canucks could use a young goalie who at least has potential. And I'm betting the goalie market is sparse. And while the picks are quite good with a definite worthy return in 1990, it's a long-term wait for Boston. With Brodeur gone (and he's up there in age anyway) Ranford will perhaps get starts immediately and with some luck look half decent by 89-90.
So I'll approve the deal, as Ranford ought to be starter material down the road and Vancouver needs it.
|
|
|
|
Post by 80sCommish on Jun 9, 2013 11:58:04 GMT -5
Trade will be processed after the afternoon sim.
|
|
