Comments on: Rick Jackman Available

By: greatlife15

greatlife15 — Tue, 10 Feb 2004 16:53:33 +0000

He’s a great young offense-minded defenseman but I don’t think that that is what the Leafs are looking for. Jackman will be a solid defender in a couple of years but not by playing the “7th man” role for the Leafs, I wonder where and who he’ll be traded for…

By: mojo19

mojo19 — Mon, 09 Feb 2004 23:18:20 +0000

i never said tons of potential. I said he could potentialy be a solid NHL defensman, this is not a lie. And if you don’t like reading about minor trade news then don’t read the articles with Jackman-esk names in the title.

By: mojo19

mojo19 — Mon, 09 Feb 2004 23:16:24 +0000

I said he has potential to be a solid NHL defensman, lots of guys don’t really make it until they are 27-30.

By: mojo19

mojo19 — Mon, 09 Feb 2004 23:14:38 +0000

Berg is playing like a fine 4th or 5th D-man this year. Nothing spectacular, but no real mistakes.

By: dlo44

dlo44 — Mon, 09 Feb 2004 22:44:36 +0000

Jackman for Chris Pronger

BLAM!

By: afanofthelakings

afanofthelakings — Mon, 09 Feb 2004 09:39:50 +0000

Montreal’s Karl Dykhuis is also available, but who cares ??? LOL

By: big_booty

big_booty — Mon, 09 Feb 2004 08:43:48 +0000

I'm sick and tired of hearing about Leafs "prospects" who have tons of "potential" but no place to play.

If these stiffs were anywhere near NHL-ready they'd be playing full-time by now.

Potential and a bottle of Stoli will get you drunk.

By: swedishvoice

swedishvoice — Mon, 09 Feb 2004 02:07:24 +0000

What trade news... Thats a real minor, I mean the Leafs will be luckey to get a 7th pic for Jackman, but they will probably get nothing at all.

If the leafs wants him gone they have to put him on waiver.

By: gr8haluschak

gr8haluschak — Mon, 09 Feb 2004 00:33:34 +0000

Is that not like saying Scott Ferguson (or however the hell it is spelled, I don’t care) is available from the Oilers.

By: bruinexpert

bruinexpert — Sun, 08 Feb 2004 23:46:36 +0000

i’m not saying he’s good..i’m just saying your justification for potential seemed to be in form of current points which i wouldn’t use as a determinant of potential…that’s all