what do you want me to do man? you're saying the articles said something they didn't say. you even quoted it verbatim. it doesn't say what you are implying it says.

as for evidence - every single deadline trade that resulted in an extension in the salary cap era. every. single. one.

Provide an article or insider report about how inconsequential a rental vs. an extension trade is. I've only asked you a half dozen times.

And provide an example of trade comparisons, as I did with Orlov and Lindholm. If there are so many from every single trade deadline over the past twenty years, then it will be easy to come up with some examples.

see i'm not basing my opinion on what random writers think. i'm basing it on objective truths. in other words - the stuff that actually freaking happens.

You wanted an article and insiders for my proof, I provided them. I'm asking you to provide your sources in turn. Don't give me bull**** about objective truths. An objective truth is easy to prove, so prove it; provide an example of a trade comparison.

you didn't provide them. i never indicated i had "insider reports." Rather, I suggested that a 20 year sample size of data was my evidence. Here it is, in great detail, and searchable: https://www.capfriendly.com/trades

You can't provide any evidence, which is why you keep stalling, and saying my evidence (which I have provided) isn't good enough. You have no leg to stand on. It's clear to everyone reading this thread that your ego is preventing you from admitting you're wrong. You link the trade history here on CapFriendly, when I asked you to cite a specific example. "Player A was traded for X, Player B was traded for Y which brings up points 1, 2, and 3." If there are so many examples (as you have stated several times), you should be able to provide me with one example from the past two years, as I did when you asked.

Stop talking in circles and repeating that my points aren't valid solely because you say so. Provide evidence. The onus of proof is on you now. When you realize you can't provide the proof, you'll again turn back and say my points are invalid without providing a source to disprove them. Again, you have no leg to stand on. Set your ego aside and admit that you're wrong. Don't be a moron.

Sorry bud, you've lost this argument IMO. You're just digging yourself deeper into a hole at this point.
He's demonstrated his point with specific evidence(insider proof and comparisons) and has asked you to provide him with something similar to prove yours which I don't think is that out of the question.
It's just logical that a pending UFA with an extension gets more than one without an extension as teams don't have to worry about losing them in the offseason.

Never thought I'd see someone use the word 'onus' on CapFriendly, might steal that from you.

1. i've seen your ACGMs, i don't care what you think.
2. what evidence did he provide? what proof? what comparisons? what of anything? if you can cite one viable piece of evidence he gave, i would be happy to hear about it.

Let me save you some times, I don't not consider the following sentence evidence that extensions can provide significantly more value: "Ideally, the Stars would find a trade partner who could sign Klingberg immediately to an extension, and thus drive the price up further."

"This news article that completely disproves my point isn't sufficient proof because I said so." - Bcarlo25

I agreed with every word that writer said. It supports my point. It does nothing to support yours. did you not read it kiddo?

Here, let me help you out. This took about 30 seconds to look up. In the last 10 years, there have been four players traded around the deadline that have signed within 10 days of being traded:
Lindholm
JG Pageau
Mark Stone
Bo Horvat

Lindholm is one you could make an argument got as much as a second for an extension somewhat in place. I think it was more like Vaakainanen, valued maybe around a 4th, but whatever. The others? not a chance

1st and a 2nd for Pageau, a 26 year old shut down center on pace for 35 goals? there was no added value there. that's just the price.
Mark Stone, a point per game selke player getting a solid prospect and a second? there's no extra value there. ottawa got fleeced.
Bo Horvat - two way center on pace for north of 50 goals got a cap dump, a 1st, and a pretty good prospect. where's the extra value?


so you can continue to misread writers all you want, lie to yourself about what they said, in the case of seravelli, completely make up what they say, and take their words as you interpret them as gospel....or you can just look at what happens? good? good.

take care kiddo. best of luck in the spring semester.

What are you comparing these trades to? You've only listed the trades themselves and we've already discussed two (Lindholm and Stone). Again, you haven't done anything to refute my Lindholm-Orlov comparison. Can you show a comparison to Lindholm where the player wasn't extended and fetched a similar value?

Like the Stone trade, Pageau's trade happened in a previous era of the NHL, also, you provided no value to compare it against. You just listed what Pageau's return was.

Can you expand on the Horvat deal, perhaps compare it to another trade of a top-line centre? Horvat for the 17th overall, Aatu Raty, and Beauvillier vs. what?

1. Then why click on em?
2. His Lindholm-Orlov comparison proved his point, his Sportsnet article gave another example with the Seth Jones deal, he's brought up points made by Seravalli(a reputable NHL insider). Denying this evidence just makes you look like a fool. He's got good evidence to prove his point. You on the other hand, haven't cited any sources on this(you claim 'every trade ever' but haven't given an example.
You can deny every piece of evidence, doesn't change the fact that players with extensions are more valuable than rentals. You're only going to further embarrass yourself .

i don't check to see who makes an ACGM before i click on it. then i see that, "thread starter," thing and roll my eyes.

no, the orlov example was ridiculously stupid. I addressed it, but it's so dumb that i shouldn't have. how could someone with a brain that isn't trolling bring that up as a comp. sheesh. I actually provided comps. literally all of them in the last decade. every single one.

anyhow, Orlov cost less than lindholm because he isn't nearly as good as lindholm, and was way older than lindholm. lindholm was what, fourth in norris voting last year? what was orlov? hasn't gotten so much as a single 5th place vote since 2016? ya he had a good year though. cmon.

his evidence is like someone saying the sun is actually cold, you ask for evidence and they say, "well, there's that fish over there." his evidence has zero correlation with his point.