robrob74 Posted June 2 Report Share Posted June 2 Why don't you guys put together rules on what we are allowed and not allowed to discuss. maybe it's just the positive stuff from the past we are allowed to discuss. maybe put a list of topics that are okayed. Maybe you should form a committee and decide and then we can know what is or isn't allowed. plus no negativity or no criticizing any moves and praise everything. Because we can't know how it will turn out for about five years and then we aren't allowed to reminisce on the fact we didn't like it, and then we are living in hindsight. what else are we not allowed to discuss, please let us know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robrob74 Posted June 2 Report Share Posted June 2 Maybe you guys can also tell Coleman he's not allowed to discuss his feelings around that history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cberg Posted June 2 Report Share Posted June 2 11 hours ago, robrob74 said: Maybe you guys can also tell Coleman he's not allowed to discuss his feelings around that history. At least he is bringing some actual facts into the discussions. I don’t mind at all. As for BT, he almost always low-balled in negotiations, except Huberdeau, which to the plus side provided more cap room, but I think also alienated players and was a direct factor in departures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cberg Posted June 2 Report Share Posted June 2 4 minutes ago, cberg said: At least he is bringing some actual facts into the discussions. I don’t mind at all. As for BT, he almost always low-balled in negotiations, except Huberdeau, which to the plus side provided more cap room, but I think also alienated players and was a direct factor in departures. If we look at Florida’s successful push to consecutive SCF appearances, which is extremely impressive and occurs less than once every decade, led by two ex-Flames that BT drafted/developed(good) but eventually traded away(bad) we see the full competance of our former GM. He brought in many great players but was not able to fully develop them/sign them. Now, who knows what factor owners had in that, we will never know… 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sak22 Posted June 2 Report Share Posted June 2 13 hours ago, robrob74 said: Maybe you guys can also tell Coleman he's not allowed to discuss his feelings around that history. The thing is he mentioned nothing new. Pretty much common knowledge as Guy had even mentioned the contract negotiations from the year before, but the Tkachuk part is purely speculation on his part. Nothing new and nothing concrete, worth discussing for sure but nothing changes. Many posters on here said Tkachuk wouldn’t be worth 9.5 without Gaudreau, can we insult them constantly? At this point can we be glad we didn’t sign Gaudreau Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cross16 Posted June 3 Report Share Posted June 3 I think it’s fine to discuss this but it’s not new. Coleman just repeated what has been said for other a year now. And I mean no offense here but if Johnny took that personally and that was part of the reason he didn’t want to sign that tells you something about him, and it’s not positive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now