Can we Trade for Martin St. Louis

[fanaticV3.0]

Lindros wasn't drafted by Philly. We traded 6 players, 2 -1st round picks and $15 million for him...I'd HOPE they'd have some patience. Richards and Carter were traded for whatever reasons before they reached their prime. That leaves Simon Gagne, drafted in 1998. What about Bobrovsky? JVR? Sbisa? Seidenberg? I'm just talking about Holmgren whose been gm since 2007.(Clarke was worse) In that time he's traded away 4-1st round picks, 8 - 2nd round picks, and 8- 3rd round picks. That ain't patience.

You're right, but he didn't play a second in the NHL for another team, so it's pretty much the same thing. He was a young player they acquired, gave the keys to the car, put pieces around him, and gave him plenty of time to grown.

For what ever reasons? Are you for real? Are you really going to sit there and act all baffled as to why they had to go?

Before they hit their prime? Richards and Carter had their best years here and have not duplicated that level since leaving. The only reason they have a Cup is because they were surrounded by better players on a better team and the pressure is off them. LA wins that cup with or without them.

What about them? Bob has had one legitimately good year since leaving. You cannot take that single season and say, "Ok, well that's it. Huge mistake trading him away." There's simply not enough to work there with yet. If he continues that level of play, that sucks for us, one year is one year chief. He could tank or simply be average the rest of his career. JVR and Sbisa are the same exact players they were when they left. Neither was an impact player when here and neither is now. Could they be one day? Yeah, but you're just pulling young players names out of thin air and and saying the fact they are gone is proof of your argument (regardless of how they are playing).

Seidenberg is a good player and I would love to have him on the team, but your argument is poop. You're just pulling names of players they traded away out of your ass, stating that they are gone, stating that it is a mistake, and aren't even taking into account what kind of player they are, their situation here, etc. And again, that's not to say they haven't rushed to judgement with some youth. There are a few players they drafted, traded for when they were very young, or signed as a FA I'd like to have back. But are there a ton of superstars or even impact players we have "lost out" on because we weren't patient enough with? Can you honestly say that? Off the top of my head, I'd like Sharp and Seidenberg back. Bob might be added to that list one day, but after one good year, I can't say we threw away the keys to the castle just yet. It's not just about simply having young players, it's about having good ones. You seem to think being young and drafted by the organization means we should hold onto them regardless of how they perform.

Edited August 6, 2013 by fanaticV3.0

[fanaticV3.0]

I hated the Pronger deal the day it happened. The evidence is on one of the few websites I've posted on. May even be here. Can't remember chronology.

Gave away too much for too long with too much immediate risk.

He cost too much money and it absolutely sucks we lost another guy to concussions, but come on. They came to within in one game of a cup - closer than they have been in my whole lifetime - because of him. That team had no business in the cup. Their season was a nightmare, it literally took until the last day of the regular season to even make the POs, but he was steady for them that entire season. He played really well in his short time here.

Plus, look at the bright side. Him being here kind of exposed some of the problems in the locker room. We already suspected they were there, but the entire frat boy mentality really had become a legitimate issue in the locker room. Pronger, Timonen, and some others pointed out guy snot trying as hard as they can and what not.

[Mad Dog]

in a 30 team NHL, you have to be both good and lucky to win a cup. the flyers have been good, and the flyers have been lucky, but they haven't been both at the same time. that's not the fault of the guys building the team.

Ok, but they didn't win the Cup in almost 40 years. Think about this number for a second. 40 years! It's staggering and frightening especially for a big market team like the Flyers. And at least in my mind, the reason they did not win the Cup is because they tried to employ the same tactics of building the team for pretty much all these 38 years. So think again when you claim it's not the fault of the guys buidling the team. When you do it once and fail, OK, fine... one can chalk it up to bad luck. But when they tried the same exact blueprint for so many years and it generated the same result over and over again, how can it be attributed to anything else but the fundementally flawed approach?? I just don't undertsand your theory one bit.

In those seasons when they actually came close to winning, I would say only one year, they actually had a legit shot at winning the Cup. And that was in 2004 when they had every reason to beat the Bolts and till this day, I am convinced that if it wasn't for a beyond ridiculous array of injuries to key players, they would have handled the Lightining and would've beat the Flames in the SCF.

What other year did they have a legit shot at winning? And you can't fail to acknowedge that the futility and failure was essentially a direct result of how the management approached buidling the team. Bad luck for 38 years staright? Sorry, I am not buying it.

Edited August 6, 2013 by Mad Dog

[aziz]

But when they tried the same exact blueprint for so many years and it generated the same result over and over again, how can it be attributed to anything else but the fundementally flawed approach?? I just don't undertsand your theory one bit.

because you are stuck on using cup wins as the only measuring stick. boston used the same approach to team building (the same internal approach, not saying the same as philly's approach) for 39 years and got nothing for it. how could that be anything else but a fundamentally flawed approach, you say. and then they won a cup in '11. and *POOF*, the bruins' team building philosophy is suddenly the way to win cups. what was an obviously incorrect way to construct a team in 2010 (39 years of failure) turned into the exactly correct way to build a team in 2011 (a cup win). which means that method of evaluating is completely worthless. the reality is that the stars aligned for boston on several fronts and they ended up with rings. it was only partially because of the team they put together. if luongo gives 7 strong showing in those finals, rather that following every strong game with a bad one, boston doesn't get rings, and the bruins' approach is still "fundamentally flawed". and, bonus, Vancouver's 40 seasons of no cups ends, so now they are the model of team building. except it didn't happen that way, so Vancouver's continued drought means their approach is "fundamentally flawed".

deciding on whether a strategy is effective or not can not be based entirely on something so dependent on factors outside of your control. the blackjack analogy is the best way i can put it, you can make the right play every single hand and walk away broke. you can make the wrong play every single hand and walk away up. your decisions aren't the only thing determining your outcome. the way the cards are shuffled, how many decks in the shoe, what the other players at the table are doing, what the house's rules are....your hit-or-stay really is only a small part of it. you can hit on 8's, double on 11's, and stay when the dealer shows 6 all night long...and end up losing. that doesn't mean you did it wrong, it means doing it the right way didn't work out.

the flyers have made mistakes. briere was a mistake. biron was a mistake. zherdev, bryzgalov, daigle, nedved and york were mistakes. pronger was to me the right move, but it didn't work out. bryzgalov was a bryzaster. ultimately, i have problems with some specific things the flyers have done, to the point of questioning management's intelligence, even. but i have no problem at all with the overall approach of putting the best team they could on the ice year after year.

[fanaticV3.0]

Just because he wasn't particularly physical doesn't mean that Carle couldn't play defense. He was fine in his own end. Not a shut down guy, but good enough. Almost certainly Streit (who I like) will be worse defensively. I think a lot of people tend to judge Carle through glasses that are tinted by the things he lacks (shot, hitting) and they overlook the reality that he was pretty good at pretty much everything else. Mike Green is a one way defenseman, Carle isn't.

I'm not sure where him not being physical means he can't play D comes into play, I don't recall saying that. I also don't recall saying Streit could play D. So, you will have to excuse my confusion as to why you are interjecting those two points into the conversation, because I certainly didn't insinuate them.

[flyercanuck]

@fanaticV3.0

You're right, but he didn't play a second in the NHL for another team, so it's pretty much the same thing. He was a young player they acquired, gave the keys to the car, put pieces around him, and gave him plenty of time to grown.

My point wasn't so much Philly didn't draft Lindros, but that they sent half a team to acquire him. Trading him away without letting him play a few years would have been pretty embarrassing. So in that he wasn't like a draft pick.

For what ever reasons? Are you for real? Are you really going to sit there and act all baffled as to why they had to go?

Before they hit their prime? Richards and Carter had their best years here and have not duplicated that level since leaving. The only reason they have a Cup is because they were surrounded by better players on a better team and the pressure is off them. LA wins that cup with or without them.

I know why Richards and Carter were dealt, and wasn't pretending I didn't. They weren't traded because management didn't think they were developing. As for the Kings win the cup without them, I highly doubt that. I'm not saying either was MVP, but they were 4th and 6th in playoff scoring on the team. Carter tied for lead in goals. We all know Richards game without the puck. They were as important as Brown, Kopitar or Doughty. Nobody was as important as Quick. And Quick became Quick because the Kings saw they had something and let him develop.

Unlike....

.

What about them? Bob has had one legitimately good year since leaving. You cannot take that single season and say, "Ok, well that's it. Huge mistake trading him away." There's simply not enough to work there with yet. If he continues that level of play, that sucks for us, one year is one year chief. He could tank or simply be average the rest of his career.

Bob has had only one great season. But anyone with a brain could see he had great reflexes, quickness, attitude and work ethic. We discussed it on here all the time. We haven't had that combination in a goalie prospect in decades, so lets rush out and get a 30 something year old headcase (who gave us NO great seasons and cost $20 million and counting for 14 more years) and dump Bob. Which is the point about every young player they have to dump because they overpaid some old guy to win now

JVR and Sbisa are the same exact players they were when they left. Neither was an impact player when here and neither is now. Could they be one day? Yeah, but you're just pulling young players names out of thin air and and saying the fact they are gone is proof of your argument (regardless of how they are playing).

Seidenberg is a good player and I would love to have him on the team, but your argument is poop. You're just pulling names of players they traded away out of your ass, stating that they are gone, stating that it is a mistake, and aren't even taking into account what kind of player they are, their situation here, etc. And again, that's not to say they haven't rushed to judgement with some youth. There are a few players they drafted, traded for when they were very young, or signed as a FA I'd like to have back. But are there a ton of superstars or even impact players we have "lost out" on because we weren't patient enough with? Can you honestly say that? Off the top of my head, I'd like Sharp and Seidenberg back. Bob might be added to that list one day, but after one good year, I can't say we threw away the keys to the castle just yet. It's not just about simply having young players, it's about having good ones. You seem to think being young and drafted by the organization means we should hold onto them regardless of how they perform.

No, I'd like to see them hang on to draft picks or prospects and actually use them instead of throwing them away on another shot this year, and another shot next year, and another shot the year after. Trading JVR for Schenn is a heck of a lot better move for this franchise than trading JVR for say LeCavalier. Not RIGHT NOW, but in 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 years it is. But so many of our moves were made like that...go for it now. How good would the Flyers be, right now, if Holmgren would have gone old school on the Richards Carter trades? We'd have 2- 30 something year old guys making a ton of dough whose careers are just about done, and we WOULDN'T have Simmonds, Voracek, Couturier, Schenn or Cousins. Heck they even hung on to their picks this year and may finally have addressed the D. Holmgren and Clarke both threw 2nd rounders away like they were lepers. We end up getting Hagg there when they had him rated in the 1st. Maybe him and Morin never make it. Maybe they end up our future #1 and #2. They won't if you trade them away, that's for sure.

[fanaticV3.0]

Ok, but they didn't win the Cup in almost 40 years. Think about this number for a second. 40 years! It's staggering and frightening especially for a big market team like the Flyers. And at least in my mind, the reason they did not win the Cup is because they tried to employ the same tactics of building the team for pretty much all these 38 years. So think again when you claim it's not the fault of the guys buidling the team. When you do it once and fail, OK, fine... one can chalk it up to bad luck. But when they tried the same exact blueprint for so many years and it generated the same result over and over again, how can it be attributed to anything else but the fundementally flawed approach?? I just don't undertsand your theory one bit.

In those seasons when they actually came close to winning, I would say only one year, they actually had a legit shot at winning the Cup. And that was in 2004 when they had every reason to beat the Bolts and till this day, I am convinced that if it wasn't for a beyond ridiculous array of injuries to key players, they would have handled the Lightining and would've beat the Flames in the SCF.

What other year did they have a legit shot at winning? And you can't fail to acknowedge that the futility and failure was essentially a direct result of how the management approached buidling the team. Bad luck for 38 years staright? Sorry, I am not buying it.

The organIzation has focused a lot on youth in recent years. They tanked last year and in 06 or 07 they were the worst team in the league. Even in going to the Cup just a few years ago, they barely made it to the POs. All of these years and several leading up to them had a lot of young players on the team.

Again, I have to reiterate I'm not against youth. I'm not in a rush to move any of our young guys. But I'm not anti-veteran either. We have seen what going all (mostly) young can result in. They were in over their heads last year. Same thing happened the year we handed the reigns to Carter, Richards, Upshall, Umberger in 06/07. You need both veterans and youth.

Edited August 6, 2013 by fanaticV3.0

[fanaticV3.0]

@fanaticV3.0

No, I'd like to see them hang on to draft picks or prospects and actually use them instead of throwing them away on another shot this year, and another shot next year, and another shot the year after. Trading JVR for Schenn is a heck of a lot better move for this franchise than trading JVR for say LeCavalier. Not RIGHT NOW, but in 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 years it is. But so many of our moves were made like that...go for it now. How good would the Flyers be, right now, if Holmgren would have gone old school on the Richards Carter trades? We'd have 2- 30 something year old guys making a ton of dough whose careers are just about done, and we WOULDN'T have Simmonds, Voracek, Couturier, Schenn or Cousins. Heck they even hung on to their picks this year and may finally have addressed the D. Holmgren and Clarke both threw 2nd rounders away like they were lepers. We end up getting Hagg there when they had him rated in the 1st. Maybe him and Morin never make it. Maybe they end up our future #1 and #2. They won't if you trade them away, that's for sure.

Richards and Carter were trading because "management believed" they weren't developing? Stop it. Just stop.

First of all, both of their stats dropped drastically after they each had a breaktout year. Richards was 07-09 and Carter 08-09 (which was also another great year for Richards). You cannot deny Their play hasn't come close to their production from those years. There is not "believing" they regressed a little, it's a fact. It's in the numbers.

That wasn't even my point though. If you are going to deny they had become a problem in the locker room, we have nothing to talk about. If you are so blinded by your opinoin you harp on any and every instance, regardless of the players performance or other circumstances, your opinion isn't worth the time it just took my to type this.

Before you go getting all offended, I have to reiterate there are times I wish they were more patient with youth and even certain players I wish they held on to. But I can count on one hand the recent ones who actually turned into decent players to the point you actually regret trading them. You, you're just upset about all of them, regardless of what the player ends up doing when he leaves or any other circumstances surrounding the situation. You're too extreme. You're bothered by every young player we ever traded away.

Edited August 6, 2013 by fanaticV3.0

[flyercanuck]

Richards and Carter were trading because "management believed" they weren't developing? Stop it. Just stop.

First of all, both of their stats dropped drastically after they each had a breaktout year. Richards was 07-09 and Carter 08-09 (which was also another great year for Richards). You cannot deny Their play hasn't come close to their production from those years. There is not "believing" they regressed a little, it's a fact. It's in the numbers.

Carter scored 26 goals in 48 games last season. Pro rate that and tell me his stats have dropped and his production isn't close. That's about equal to his best year ever (it's 44 g over 82 g). His "breakout" year was playing with one of the greatest playmakers in NHL history. And far from the norm of any other year he had, until last season when he basically equalled it, playing with Richards. Richards has had some concussion issues. He's also not THE man in LA. He doesn't get top pp minutes or top line duties.

Ask King fans if they want a redo on that trade. Or if they would have won without them.

That wasn't even my point though. If you are going to deny they had become a problem in the locker room, we have nothing to talk about. If you are so blinded by your opinoin you harp on any and every instance, regardless of the players performance or other circumstances, your opinion isn't worth the time it just took my to type this.

Deny? Did you even read what I wrote? I said and I quote"They weren't traded because management didn't think they were developing". Meaning their development WASN'T the reason they were traded. Apparently there's more than one white cane needed in this thread.

Before you go getting all offended, I have to reiterate there are times I wish they were more patient with youth and even certain players I wish they held on to. But I can count on one hand the recent ones who actually turned into decent players to the point you actually regret trading them. You, you're just upset about all of them, regardless of what the player ends up doing when he leaves or any other circumstances surrounding the situation. You're too extreme. You're bothered by every young player we ever traded away.

And no, I'm not complaining about every player. When they traded JVR, I was fine with it. Why? Because it was a fairly equal trade age/player-wise but also for a need. When they traded Richards and Carter, I was OK with it because I thought they actually were going to try and rebuild from top to bottom. Then they signed Bryz. What was the plan there? I mentioned earlier in the thread the list of players they've traded for who aren't even playing anymore, and all the picks and prospects they gave up for them who've won cups on other teams or are still producing. If you're fine with the memories of those 7 - 2nd place finishes, enjoy. I'd like to see another cup before I die. They've been trying the same method of building for 3 + decades. It hasn't worked. I'd like to see the try something different.

Here's that quote

"But bringing in a Kubina, Pronger, Nedved, Zhamnov, Markov, Amonte, Oates etc etc has brought us a grand total of squat. Yet, it's what we do...over and over and over.

Just an FYI for those who love the idea of bringing in a 38 year old player who'd likely cost us something like Simmonds and Laughton +, just from those players we traded for mentioned above, NONE of whom are still playing hockey, we gave up Lupul, Sbisa, Seidenberg, Williams, Fraser (3 have won cups) plus 3-1sts, 3-2nds 2 - 3rds and 3-4ths (not to mention prospects...and those who don't think they're worth anything, Brandon Dubinsky and Bryan Bickel were taken with two of those 4ths) plus we're saddled with a 5 million caphit we have to comply with at the start of each season for 4 more years. Ya, we traded all that for....nothing.

So what would help the team more right now... memories of Amonte and Pronger, or having Seidenberg Sbisa, Lupul etc (or players still playing we traded them for instead of trading for someone who USED to be ) or whatever we could have drafted with those 11 draft picks, 6 in the first 2 rounds?

[radoran]

He cost too much money and it absolutely sucks we lost another guy to concussions, but come on. They came to within in one game of a cup - closer than they have been in my whole lifetime - because of him. That team had no business in the cup. Their season was a nightmare, it literally took until the last day of the regular season to even make the POs, but he was steady for them that entire season. He played really well in his short time here.

Plus, look at the bright side. Him being here kind of exposed some of the problems in the locker room. We already suspected they were there, but the entire frat boy mentality really had become a legitimate issue in the locker room. Pronger, Timonen, and some others pointed out guy snot trying as hard as they can and what not.

Well, you see, in many ways I agree with you. He did straighten up the team.

But, again - and this isn't at all "hindsight" - it goes back to pushing Richards into a "leadership" role and then the captaincy too quickly. They wrote the script for Richards as "the next Bobby Clarke" practically in their press releases about the draft. They had created a young core, complemented it with veterans and could make a run.

Putting the young core in charge was the problem.

So, if they don't make the mistake of putting Richards in that position they don't have to make the move to bring in Pronger. They can continue to complement their team with the assets they have to deal to bring in a Pronger. But they don't. They make another mistake and sign Bryzgalov.

And then they almost immediately put the C on Giroux. Who then misses the playoffs in his first year.

And they press the reset button again.

Reset buttons don't win championships. They put you in a position to win in the next 3-5 years.

I do believe that they are in a solid position. I do believe that this roster - pending how the defense gels and the goalies play - can win and make the playoffs.

But I'm still looking not next year but the 2-3 year period after that as the real time this team can make some serious noise again.

[fanaticV3.0]

And no, I'm not complaining about every player. When they traded JVR, I was fine with it. Why? Because it was a fairly equal trade age/player-wise but also for a need. When they traded Richards and Carter, I was OK with it because I thought they actually were going to try and rebuild from top to bottom. Then they signed Bryz. What was the plan there? I mentioned earlier in the thread the list of players they've traded for who aren't even playing anymore, and all the picks and prospects they gave up for them who've won cups on other teams or are still producing. If you're fine with the memories of those 7 - 2nd place finishes, enjoy. I'd like to see another cup before I die. They've been trying the same method of building for 3 + decades. It hasn't worked. I'd like to see the try something different.

Here's that quote

"But bringing in a Kubina, Pronger, Nedved, Zhamnov, Markov, Amonte, Oates etc etc has brought us a grand total of squat. Yet, it's what we do...over and over and over.

Just an FYI for those who love the idea of bringing in a 38 year old player who'd likely cost us something like Simmonds and Laughton +, just from those players we traded for mentioned above, NONE of whom are still playing hockey, we gave up Lupul, Sbisa, Seidenberg, Williams, Fraser (3 have won cups) plus 3-1sts, 3-2nds 2 - 3rds and 3-4ths (not to mention prospects...and those who don't think they're worth anything, Brandon Dubinsky and Bryan Bickel were taken with two of those 4ths) plus we're saddled with a 5 million caphit we have to comply with at the start of each season for 4 more years. Ya, we traded all that for....nothing.

So what would help the team more right now... memories of Amonte and Pronger, or having Seidenberg Sbisa, Lupul etc (or players still playing we traded them for instead of trading for someone who USED to be ) or whatever we could have drafted with those 11 draft picks, 6 in the first 2 rounds?

See, stuff like this is where your argument goes to ****. I admit I'd like to have Seidenberg back, but seriously, who gives a **** about Sbisa, Lupul, or Williams? These are not impact players. These are not players who would have helped this team win a Cup or who's current team won a Cup because of them. Simply stated that so-and-so happens to be a young players who is no longer here and won a Cup elsewhere and using that as the backbone of your argument is weak as hell. It's completely illogical, because you aren't even examining what that player did here, with is new team, etc. You're just stating that they're no longer here and won a Cup elsewhere. It's kind of a strawman.

[flyercanuck]

@fanaticV3.0

I agree that none of those players is a franchise type player. I never said they were. I'm saying that trading assets like that for guys who's careers are over before these guys even reach their prime is foolish management. Maybe a Justin Williams isn't enough to win a cup on his own (who is?). He was tied for 4th in scoring on that cup winning team. That's pretty important in my books. (I'll quote you here "See, stuff like this is where your argument goes to ****.".... so far you've said Richards, Carter and Williams won't help your team win a cup, they accounted for over 1/4 of their teams offence when they DID in fact win a cup. One quarter in 3 players sounds like they did in fact matter) It's a lot more important than finishing first on a team that doesn't win the cup. There are a lot of players who've put up nice numbers who'd give it all for ONE cup. Williams now has two. But that's just one guy.

We all know how the Flyers seem to value second round picks like gum on the bottom of a shoe. I won't go into all the great players taken in the 2nd round over the years. But I'd rather have a shot at the entire career of the next Shea Weber than a couple weeks of "didn't you used to be" Adam Oates. And the Flyers history is full of those trades. I'm not saying don't ever trade youth for old guys, just stop making it a part of every years trade deadline.

[JackStraw]

I'm not sure where him not being physical means he can't play D comes into play, I don't recall saying that. I also don't recall saying Streit could play D. So, you will have to excuse my confusion as to why you are interjecting those two points into the conversation, because I certainly didn't insinuate them.

Neither of those two things were central to the point of my post, which is that Carle was not bad defensively.

[fanaticV3.0]

Neither of those two things were central to the point of my post, which is that Carle was not bad defensively.

Then don't bring them into the conversation.

[Dynamo 47]

@Mario99

As much as I like MSL, isn't it high time we got away from trading youth/picks away for some guy whose wheels are about to fall off?

I agree. One of the players I wanted to target as an RFA last season was Chris Stewart of the Blues, huge kid with talent and physical. He just came off an 18 , 18 season. Those are the types of guys we need to go after - young with talent but not proven

[JackStraw]

Then don't bring them into the conversation.

I'm sorry, are you the thread police? I didn't see a badge. Why are you even talking about Matt Carle, since this thread is about MSL?

Never mind, don't answer. I don't really care.

[jammer2]

I agree. One of the players I wanted to target as an RFA last season was Chris Stewart of the Blues, huge kid with talent and physical. He just came off an 18 , 18 season. Those are the types of guys we need to go after - young with talent but not proven

Agreed Dyn, you have to target guys that first have obvious talent and for some reason or another just could not put it together with their current team. Stewart has pretty well struggled under Hitch's system since arriving in St.Louis, but the talent is undeniable, a change of pace to a "just score, baby" kinda guy like Lavi could translate into a huge break out year, good call. These are the kinda hidden gems we should be looking for!

[Dynamo 47]

Right, it was the secure the cup bit. No player trade, signing, anything else secures a cup. If your team waits on adds for the moment they can secure a cup, they'll be waiting forever.

A player either helps or he doesn't. If he can help you win 16 games in the spring, then he can help you win 50 during the season.

The only time I buy the "last piece of the puzzle" concept, as regards do or don't on a given player, is if it's a high risk move with short term gain. E.g., trading high picks for a rental at the deadline. Trading for a player with two years left on a deal during the off-season...he either helps or he doesn't.

I agree Aziz. I look at Pittsburgh this past season with some of their trade deadline acquisitions. They essentially went all and it didn't pay off. The difference is that they acquired Iginla and he walked after the season. The Flyers MO would have been to trade for him at the deadline and then sign him to a 3 or 4 year extension at a higher rate.

[fanaticV3.0]

I'm sorry, are you the thread police? I didn't see a badge. Why are you even talking about Matt Carle, since this thread is about MSL?

Never mind, don't answer. I don't really care.

The board police? Really? Ok dork.

[JackStraw]

The board police? Really? Ok dork.

I was once privileged to be a member of the Dorks, but that group no longer exists.

[blocker]

I was once privileged to be a member of the Dorks

A Dork is what you call the offspring of a pig and a duck.

In Quebec, they call them Dorques. I saw one once. They called it Raymond.

Raymond Dorque.

[JackStraw]

A Dork is what you call the offspring of a pig and a duck.

In Quebec, they call them Dorques. I saw one once. They called it Raymond.

Raymond Dorque.

I don't even know what to say. I have no response for that.

[jammer2]

@JackStraw The friggin dorks, that was some funny stuff back in the day. Forget exactly why the group was formed, think it was a response to some troll activity.

[peter puck]

What happened to trading for St Louis?

[radoran]

What happened to trading for St Louis?

That was four pages ago