So like, you wanna be the pot or the kettle ?

It's never been stated there is no way. Far from it.

I realize you want to read it that way to debate your narrative . But again, it's just not fact
- Ihateallofu

Im not sure if anyone has mentioned but the Hamonic for Hall trade was brought up 2x by Chia, (I believe) I read the 1st time was at trade deadline but Snow couldn't ruin the chemistry of team going into PO's (mistake by Garf)
2nd was offseason but Hamonic rescinded his trade demand & Garf kept Hammer (mistake again) but that was reported here by 1 of the isles (so-called) insiders....
Please lets not pretend Larsson is better bc he's not........

Conversations on the Oiler thread must be very short and limited, if the only thing you guys talk about are based on "absolute fact." GMs typically don't reveal details of their negotiations, so all we have to go on is "anonymous sources" and various circumstantial evidence. After a while, you get to know who is a reliable source and who isn't. But absolute fact???? Good luck with that requirement...
- JohnScammo

Agreed

A lot of vague comments and piecing together stuff. Much like the insiders have to

Im not sure if anyone has mentioned but the Hamonic for Hall trade was brought up 2x by Chia, (I believe) I read the 1st time was at trade deadline but Snow couldn't ruin the chemistry of team going into PO's (mistake by Garf)
2nd was offseason but Hamonic rescinded his trade demand & Garf kept Hammer (mistake again) but that was reported here by 1 of the isles (so-called) insiders....
Please lets not pretend Larsson is better bc he's not........
- Ur Not Me

Chiarelli absolutely never stated he offered hall for hamonic.


Not one time

Nothing close to it actually

Furthermore, when pushed, he never even stated that he would neccesarily trade anyone or made any reference to making offers of any player other than yaks. (He explained why yaks wasn't dealt at the td cause the right returns weren't there )

Journalists certainly asked questions, made guesses, pushed for answers etc etc
As they do.

Not better today, but imo, a higher ceiling for sure. Which is what made him more desirable than hamonic IMO.

Chiarelli absolutely never stated he offered hall for hamonic.


Not one time

Nothing close to it actually

Furthermore, when pushed, he never even stated that he would neccesarily trade anyone or made any reference to making offers of any player other than yaks. (He explained why yaks wasn't dealt at the td cause the right returns weren't there )

Journalists certainly asked questions, made guesses, pushed for answers etc etc
As they do.

Not better today, but imo, a higher ceiling for sure. Which is what made him more desirable than hamonic IMO.
- Ihateallofu

So your saying if you were Chia and Garf would have said yes you would have said no I will take Larsson a maybe better player maybe in a couple of years maybe maybe maybe if if if over a true top 2 defender who plays PK, PP and is on the shut down pair and logs over 23 min per game?
Are you related to Chia

Chiarelli absolutely never stated he offered hall for hamonic.


Not one time

Nothing close to it actually

Furthermore, when pushed, he never even stated that he would neccesarily trade anyone or made any reference to making offers of any player other than yaks. (He explained why yaks wasn't dealt at the td cause the right returns weren't there )

Journalists certainly asked questions, made guesses, pushed for answers etc etc
As they do.

Not better today, but imo, a higher ceiling for sure. Which is what made him more desirable than hamonic IMO.
- Ihateallofu

Of course, Chiarelli is not going to say that Hamonic was his first choice, but that he had to settle for Larsson. Some vote of confidence that would be for his new, young defenseman!

That doesn't mean it didn't happen, and I wouldn't read much into that. BTW, I tend to agree with your assessment of the two guys. Hamonic is better now, but Larsson has a higher ceiling. It remains to be seen, of course, whether Larsson reaches that ceiling....

Chiarelli wanted our guy!!
He's the besteset ever!!

How dare you question that!?
How could you be so obtuse to use logic and dare question our guesswork that he may have not wanted our favourite guy more!!

You're so obtuse !!

And then call out the oilers fanbase





Dripping with irony
- Ihateallofu

For such a smart guy I'd think you'd have a better understanding of the English language.

So your saying if you were Chia and Garf would have said yes you would have said no I will take Larsson a maybe better player maybe in a couple of years maybe maybe maybe if if if over a true top 2 defender who plays PK, PP and is on the shut down pair and logs over 23 min per game?
Are you related to Chia
- nyisles7

Bingo

Of course, Chiarelli is not going to say that Hamonic was his first choice, but that he had to settle for Larsson. Some vote of confidence that would be for his new, young defenseman!

That doesn't mean it didn't happen, and I wouldn't read much into that. BTW, I tend to agree with your assessment of the two guys. Hamonic is better now, but Larsson has a higher ceiling. It remains to be seen, of course, whether Larsson reaches that ceiling....
- JohnScammo

Agreed

And I have no certain proof it didn't happen. It very well may have.
And neither is it even a huge stretch.

All I ever took issue with was it being stated as fact that the offer was made. Which simply put - it isn't by any means.

Plus, as we agree on Larsson's ceiling (getting there is another debate no doubt) I believe the logic is there for chiarelli wanting him as a first choice over Travis.
Youre losing at face value either way, so why not go with the guy you believe not only helps now (they both do in different amounts today ) but also could potentially make the trade a a definite win down the road ?

It was never an insult towards islanders home team guy. Just some basic logic used to try and clarify some inaccuracies.
Even if some of the faithfull couldn't stand the the slight they perceived was happening

So your saying if you were Chia and Garf would have said yes you would have said no I will take Larsson a maybe better player maybe in a couple of years maybe maybe maybe if if if over a true top 2 defender who plays PK, PP and is on the shut down pair and logs over 23 min per game?
Are you related to Chia
- nyisles7

No, I'm saying I think chiarelli DID say no.

And if you don't think ceiling and potential came into play in chiarellis considerations for the return he's getting (which is a loss at face value in either case ) for a player of halls stature, I can only assume you fundamentally misunderstand how this kind of negotiation works

No insult intended though

Bingo
- Cptmjl

Is he serious Chia doesn't need any defending on this, he did what he thought was right for his team at the time

Is he serious Chia doesn't need any defending on this, he did what he thought was right for his team at the time
- nyisles7

Absolutely serious

I think if you could tear yourself away from your bias and love of home team guy, i think you might be able to see things more clearly

No, I'm saying I think chiarelli DID say no.

And if you don't think ceiling and potential came into play in chiarellis considerations for the return he's getting (which is a loss at face value in either case ) for a player of halls statute, I can only assume you fundamentally misunderstand how these negotiations work

No insult intended
- Ihateallofu

No you don't get it obviously.
Chia wanted Hamonic, plain and simple no waiting no upside no maybes or ifs.Snow said no.
Chia went to his next best option available, Larsson.
If you don't think that happened your delusional.
No insult intended either. No go back to the Oilers thread and sell you negotiation theory to maybe someone who will listen.

No you don't get it obviously.
Chia wanted Hamonic, plain and simple no waiting no upside no maybes or ifs.Snow said no.
Chia went to his next best option available, Larsson.
If you don't think that happened your delusional.
No insult intended either. No go back to the Oilers thread and sell you negotiation theory to maybe someone who will listen.
- nyisles7

I know you desperately want this to be fact.
But it's not

Unless you misunderstand the meaning of FACT. Guesswork and conjecture are not fact.

Absolutely serious

I think if you could tear yourself away from your bias and love of home team guy, i think you might be able to see things more clearly
- Ihateallofu

I told you I think Larson will be a good player for The Oilers and is yet to be seen how lop sided this deal really is or isn't.
Also would have traded Hamonic straight up for Hall.
If any buddy is bias it's you, really
Now go away !

Agreed

And I have no certain proof it didn't happen. It very well may have.
And neither is it even a huge stretch.

All I ever took issue with was it being stated as fact that the offer was made. Which simply put - it isn't by any means.

Plus, as we agree on Larsson's ceiling (getting there is another debate no doubt) I believe the logic is there for chiarelli wanting him as a first choice over Travis.
Your losing at face value either way, so why not go with the guy you believe not only helps now (they both do in different amounts today ) but also could make the trade a a definite win down the road ?

It was never an insult towards islanders home team guy. Just some basic logic used to try and clarify some inaccuracies.
Even if some of the faithfull couldn't stand the the slight they perceived was happening
- Ihateallofu

I believe the principal source here is our blogger, Dan, in whom we have some confidence. Or maybe it came from Staple, but Staple is generally a reliable source, too. Neither may have stated it as absolute fact, but I trust their instincts on this one....

I believe the principal source here is our blogger, Dan, in whom we have some confidence. Or maybe it came from Staple, but Staple is generally a reliable source, too. Neither may have stated it as absolute fact, but I trust their instincts on this one....
- JohnScammo

It was staples . At least the one I read.
Potentially more that I haven't seen though.
(Side note- no oilers "insiders" mentioned chiarelli offering hall )

Staples mentioned the oilers having interest in hamonic and went on to say regarding hall ; "I'm not sure if that swap was discussed or offered"
He did also say I'm not sure Garth does it either way .

As you seem to be the reasonable level headed one, it's certainly not a stretch to have some faith in writers you respect though.
Fair enough

Chiarelli absolutely never stated he offered hall for hamonic.


Not one time

Nothing close to it actually

Furthermore, when pushed, he never even stated that he would neccesarily trade anyone or made any reference to making offers of any player other than yaks. (He explained why yaks wasn't dealt at the td cause the right returns weren't there )

Journalists certainly asked questions, made guesses, pushed for answers etc etc
As they do.

Not better today, but imo, a higher ceiling for sure. Which is what made him more desirable than hamonic IMO.
- Ihateallofu

you honestly think your GM would come out and say that he tried to get Hamonic and that Larsson was his second choice? what planet are you on?

I know you desperately want this to be fact.
But it's not

Unless you misunderstand the meaning of FACT. Guesswork and conjecture are not fact.
- Ihateallofu

why would any of this even matter now? either way you would have lost the trade...so..who cares?

you honestly think your GM would come out and say that he tried to get Hamonic and that Larsson was his second choice? what planet are you on?
- Isles_since_6

No, I don't honestly think he would do that

Chiarelli absolutely never stated he offered hall for hamonic.


Not one time

Nothing close to it actually

Furthermore, when pushed, he never even stated that he would neccesarily trade anyone or made any reference to making offers of any player other than yaks. (He explained why yaks wasn't dealt at the td cause the right returns weren't there )

Journalists certainly asked questions, made guesses, pushed for answers etc etc
As they do.

Not better today, but imo, a higher ceiling for sure. Which is what made him more desirable than hamonic IMO.
- Ihateallofu

No Gm would state a rebuffed trade after the fact of inquiring on another player with the same player being involved in trade talks (Hall)
2nd that's why most are pissed off bc it became factual after isles beat reporters mentioned 2x that Garf turned down the trade. If Hall for Hamonic wasn't mentioned there wouldn't be any discussion by isle fans, it would be instead of "why didn't Snow offer" but it wasn't like that.
But for what its worth, Larsson & Hamonic are nice dmen, maybe Larsson has a higher ceiling but Hammer plays with an edge. To me Larsson is a RH version of Dehaan, still a ton of potential waiting to be seen.....

why would any of this even matter now? either way you would have lost the trade...so..who cares?
- Isles_since_6

It doesn't matter actually

I just thought it was super odd that some isles fans were desperate to claim as such .


Hopefully the trade works out

No, I don't honestly think he would do that
- Ihateallofu

you can't say for sure what was offered, none of us can. who cares at this point?

No Gm would state a rebuffed trade after the fact of inquiring on another player with the same player being involved in trade talks (Hall)
2nd that's why most are pissed off bc it became factual after isles beat reporters mentioned 2x that Garf turned down the trade. If Hall for Hamonic wasn't mentioned there wouldn't be any discussion by isle fans, it would be instead of "why didn't Snow offer" but it wasn't like that.
But for what its worth, Larsson & Hamonic are nice dmen, maybe Larsson has a higher ceiling but Hammer plays with an edge. To me Larsson is a RH version of Dehaan, still a ton of potential waiting to be seen.....
- Ur Not Me

It never became factual

At any point . Not even close.

It is NOT a fact. Despite what you believe

you can't say for sure what was offered, none of us can. who cares at this point?
- Isles_since_6

I can agree with this much

Can't say for sure

But again, I thought it was odd that some are attempting to do so

There's must be some reasoning to say as such ?
That I can't figure out

It never became factual

At any point

It is NOT a fact. Despite what you believe
- Ihateallofu

I agree...there's no way to know what exactly was offered, who declined if someone did, or what else was asked for if anything

we can debate on what was reported but you're correct it's absolutely not fact unless one of us was in the room.