• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

Leaf Rumours

Nonis said he wouldn't be looking for a goalie if they had an experienced one with the Marlies now. Not that he is looking for a goalie for the Marlies.
 
LeafGm said:
Ok then, so explain to me what possible rationale the Flames would have for sending him down to Abbottsford?
Click to expand...
.868 save percentage.

I read the statement. But if you think that AHL goalie is Kiprusoff, I think you're dreaming in technicolour. And you've still deftly avoided the fact that immediately upon acquiring him, we'd have to throw him on waivers to send him down to the Marlies. So again, do you think Nonis would go to all this time and effort, only to give every NHL team the chance to have Kiprusoff for free?
Click to expand...

Nonis may be dreaming in technicolor, but that's exactly what he's after, Kiprusoff fits the bill and it's gone far enough that his agent agreed to have them speak directly with Kiprusoff.
 
mbow30 said:
i doubt the rangers trade biron to a team they might well meet in teh playoffs.

and i'd bet edmonton wants to keep khabibulin around for the same reaosn the leafs may be interested in him
Click to expand...

Yeah I wouldn't think Biron would be moving either, but just an example of the type of acquisition that I think would make more sense. I guess the Oilers won't be selling much either after this little mini-streak has them back in the hunt... so yeah, not sure what options are out there really. Just know I'd rather stand pat than acquire Kipper.
 
BeLeafer said:
.868 save percentage.



Nonis may be dreaming in technicolor, but that's exactly what he's after, Kiprusoff fits the bill and it's gone far enough that his agent agreed to have them speak directly with Kiprusoff.
Click to expand...

Who in their right mind acquires a third-string goalie making $6 million this year and next?
 
Do you honestly think Nonis would request a meeting to ask Kipper to play in the minors?

You can't really believe that do you?

Nonis would be a laughing stock if he did that.
 
leafman101 said:
Nonis said he wouldn't be looking for a goalie if they had an experienced one with the Marlies now. Not that he is looking for a goalie for the Marlies.
Click to expand...

No, he says very clearly that he's looking for a goalie for the Marlies.

Again ...

Experience and depth. We feel like where we are with our goaltending with the Marlies as it’s been pretty good. But there’s not a lot of playoff experience with those goalies [the ones on the Marlies]. We’d like to get them [Marlies goalies] some… If we had someone there [on the Marlies] that played a lot of playoff games, some NHL playoff games, and was a real good third, then we wouldn’t be in the market at all. But having someone there [on the Marlies] that could help in the event that we would need them would just make sense for us.
Click to expand...

If it's not clear enough who the them, those goalies and where there might be, he points out that he's looking at a "third" goalie. It's very clear.
 
by 'havign someone there' he could mean anything.

these weren't prepared remarks.

it wouldn't make any sense to trade for kiprusoff and then waive him.

and it's pretty clear that his prerogative is still for the leafs' sake and not the marlies'. he's clearly saying they want a 3rd goalie with playoff experience to help the leafs.
 
PlayerToBeNamedLater said:
Do you honestly think Nonis would request a meeting to ask Kipper to play in the minors?

You can't really believe that do you?

Nonis would be a laughing stock if he did that.
Click to expand...
I agree.

Maybe he isn't thinking Marlies. maybe he's thinking of carrying 3 goalies just in case, and make Kipper a healthy scratch every night.

That would make more sense.
 
I can't see Kipper leaving a city where his wife and baby live for anything less than a promise of another starters job on a playoff team.

Remember, he declined an olympic position (I believe) because he wasn't named starter.

He'd be brought in to be #1.
 
mbow30 said:
by 'havign someone there' he could mean anything.
Click to expand...
No it can't. The only object he mentions is the Marlies. He says it in the first sentence. He further starts by responding to the question about experience by also mentioning depth. He's clearly talking about Marlies goaltending.
 
It's only "clearly" saying that because someone kept sticking in "(on the marlies)" in brackets in every sentence because he wasn't saying that clearly.
 
zeke said:
It's only "clearly" saying that because someone kept sticking in "(on the marlies)" in brackets in every sentence because he wasn't saying that clearly.
Click to expand...

Those pronouns are clearly referring to the Marlies. I put the object in because it seems people are having difficulty with English pronouns.
 
BeLeafer said:
He say the Marlies and then uses "them" "those goalies" and "there" and he is clearly referring to the Marlies. It's the only object those pronouns could be referring to.
Click to expand...

"There" much more likely refers to a general "in the organization" rather than specifically on the marlies, ctually.
 
Experience and depth. We feel like where we are with our goaltending with the Marlies as it’s been pretty good. But there’s not a lot of playoff experience with those goalies [the ones on the Leafs]. We’d like to get them [Leafs goalies] some… If we had someone there [on the Leafs] that played a lot of playoff games, some NHL playoff games, and was a real good third, then we wouldn’t be in the market at all. But having someone there [on the Leafs] that could help in the event that we would need them would just make sense for us.
Click to expand...

I used the Leaf instead of the Marlies. If that makes sense for anyone here, I'll stop debating pronto.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top