Wouldn't Louongoal be a Leaf right now if Burke was the only thing standing in the way?
- Leafland

Probably not. Gillis is probably trying to drive up the price if other teams are interested.

Besides, Gillis might have a different opinion on trades and who he wants to include.

The only difference is, I know it's just speculation. You however are either too blind, or stupid to realize it.
- Pen15

As jbold would put it, white the white flag.

Which Lebrun speculates. Unless he has a time machine he used to travel forward in time, to an alternate universe and came back with that information.

But I'm sure you would believe that too.
- Two_For_Truth

don't be a hypocrite.

You're believing Dreger and BobMac. Which they're also speculating.

I'll gladly take Lebruns opinion over some loser Devils fan who acts like a Leafs fan, who has 10 different alt accounts.

Wouldn't Louongoal be a Leaf right now if Burke was the only thing standing in the way?
- Leafland

Facts have no place here.

Just like the fact that Burke got fired for not making a trade even though it was five days before he was even allowed to make a trade.

As jbold would put it, white the white flag.
- Two_For_Truth

So what Dregs and Mack say is fact...

But what Lebrun or Spector say is just speculation...

Thanks for the insightful education.

don't be a hypocrite.

You're believing Dreger and BobMac. Which they're also speculating.
- jbold

Except all three said the same thing; he got fired because of his style.

Except all three said the same thing; he got fired because of his style.
- Two_For_Truth

Speculation is invalid when it makes you look like a fool.

But speculation is a fact when it supports your argument.





Lebrun stated Burke didnt want to pay the price for Lu. Ownership disagreed.

But, Lebrun speculating with inside sources are invalid, according to you. He's no dreger.

Speculation is invalid when it makes you look like a fool.

But speculation is a fact when it supports your argument.




Lebrun stated Burke didnt want to pay the price for Lu. Ownership disagreed.

But, Lebrun speculating with inside sources are invalid, according to you. He's no dreger.
- jbold

Except, when Burke was asked if not getting Luongo was why he got fired, he said no.

But I guess Burke denying that isn't a fact right? It's just more speculation.

Right. White the white flag.

Speculation is invalid when it makes you look like a fool.

But speculation is a fact when it supports your argument.





Lebrun stated Burke didnt want to pay the price for Lu. Ownership disagreed.

But, Lebrun speculating with inside sources are invalid, according to you. He's no dreger.
- jbold

I'm literally just shaking my head at the fact that he can't see the simple breakdown in his logic.

Speculation is invalid when it makes you look like a fool.

But speculation is a fact when it supports your argument.





Lebrun stated Burke didnt want to pay the price for Lu. Ownership disagreed.

But, Lebrun speculating with inside sources are invalid, according to you. He's no dreger.
- jbold

Who is???

Except, when Burke was asked if not getting Luongo was why he got fired, he said no.


- Two_For_Truth

LMAO

Except, when Burke was asked if not getting Luongo was why he got fired, he said no.

But I guess Burke denying that isn't a fact right? It's just more speculation.

Right. White the white flag.
- Two_For_Truth

Not true. He didn't say no.

He said it wasn't one of the reason's given to him...but if the media really wanted to know, they should go ask ownership.

Stop twisting words to suit your argument, it won't work.

I'm literally just shaking my head at the fact that he can't see the simple breakdown in his logic.
- Pen15

He can't comprehend, and doesn't want to believe, that Burke didn't want to pay the price for Luongo.

It's quite sad, really.

Something so simple, and he doesn't understand it

Except, when Burke was asked if not getting Luongo was why he got fired, he said no.

But I guess Burke denying that isn't a fact right? It's just more speculation.

Right. White the white flag.
- Two_For_Truth

He actually said that he can't comment on Luongo as that would be construed as tampering (which, of course, it would be).

Though I do agree that that the comments about "his style" are the ones almost certainly closest to the truth (mainly due to that it makes most sense).

Not true. He didn't say no.

He said it wasn't one of the reason's given to him...but if the media really wanted to know, they should go ask ownership.

Stop twisting words to suit your argument, it won't work.
- Pen15

Oh so he said no but it doesn't really mean no. It just means whatever you want it to mean to fit your argument.

Excellent work.

He can't comprehend, and doesn't want to believe, that Burke didn't want to pay the price for Luongo.

It's quite sad, really.

Something so simple, and he doesn't understand it
- jbold

I think the fundamental reason he doesn't want to believe, is that if he did, he'd have to admit Burke wasn't such a bad GM.

Which is why I don't ever expect him to concede his obvious flaw in logic...

He can't comprehend, and doesn't want to believe, that Burke didn't want to pay the price for Luongo.

It's quite sad, really.

Something so simple, and he doesn't understand it
- jbold

Its easy to understand. I wouldn't pay that price. I'd happily employ him next season after he's been bought out, or pay a SIGNIFICANTLY lower price now.

Oh so he said no but it doesn't really mean no. It just means whatever you want it to mean to fit your argument.

Excellent work.
- Two_For_Truth

Go re-watch the interview....your listening and comprehension of it are quite inaccurate....

He actually said that he can't comment on Luongo as that would be construed as tampering (which, of course, it would be).

Though I do agree that that the comments about "his style" are the ones almost certainly closest to the truth (mainly due to that it makes most sense).
- lumlums

He said that just to avoid getting into any kind of trouble but then he addressed it by saying it wasn't an issue that was brought up.

But, most sane and normal people would realize that if it was such a massive issue, that he couldn't just brush it aside as he did.

fasd

He said that just to avoid getting into any kind of trouble but then he addressed it by saying it wasn't an issue that was brought up.

But, most sane and normal people would realize that if it was such a massive issue, that he couldn't just brush it aside as he did.
- Two_For_Truth

And what kind of trouble do you think he would've gotten into if he said it was (or he thinks it was) one of the reasons?

Go re-watch the interview....your listening and comprehension of it are quite inaccurate....
- Pen15

Yeah, maybe if I watch the interview again, he'll magically change his answer from "no" to "yes, they definitely fired my ass because I didn't want to get Luongo for whatever price Gillis wanted".

It could happen.

And what kind of trouble do you think he would've gotten into if he said it was (or he thinks it was) one of the reasons?
- Pen15

Death penalty.

Yeah, maybe if I watch the interview again, he'll magically change his answer from "no" to "yes, they definitely fired my ass because I didn't want to get Luongo for whatever price Gillis wanted".

It could happen.
- Two_For_Truth

I feel sorry for you.

Death penalty.
- Two_For_Truth

Tampering. But no big deal.