You are not connected. Please login or register

Proposal Challenge

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Go down  Message [Page 3 of 6]

31 Re: Proposal Challenge on Tue Aug 19, 2008 9:30 am

Mosky


Rookie
Rookie
How about Auld, Foligno and a 1st in '09? Not enough? throw in another pick maybe lol

32 Re: Proposal Challenge on Tue Aug 19, 2008 10:05 am

Cap'n Clutch


Co-Founder
Co-Founder
I think I've got another one to ponder.

Who can we send Gerber to? I think an Auld-Elliot tandem would save us about 2.7M on the cap and allows more flexibility as to what we add to the roster on D and forward.

33 Re: Proposal Challenge on Tue Aug 19, 2008 10:20 am

Mosky


Rookie
Rookie
Well we could throw him in for a luongo trade Smile but my other option was Auld, Vermette, Foligno and a 1st for Bouwmeester and Anderson. Anderson is soo sick, as i posted somewhere else his first two NHL games, he got shutouts, and faced over 50 shots in both games. and then we don't really need to talk about Bouw, lol we all know who he is.

And then after that we could pawn Gerbs off on someone else and start Anderson, cuz i really think he will be able to hold a teams weight as early as next year.

34 Re: Proposal Challenge on Tue Aug 19, 2008 7:00 pm

Acrobat

avatar
Veteran
Veteran
Mosky wrote:Well we could throw him in for a luongo trade Smile but my other option was Auld, Vermette, Foligno and a 1st for Bouwmeester and Anderson. Anderson is soo sick, as i posted somewhere else his first two NHL games, he got shutouts, and faced over 50 shots in both games. and then we don't really need to talk about Bouw, lol we all know who he is.

And then after that we could pawn Gerbs off on someone else and start Anderson, cuz i really think he will be able to hold a teams weight as early as next year.

OK - what about Gerber/Vermett/Foligno for Luongo?

They get scoring and grit as well as a servicable, mid/upper average goalie, and we get a goalie. They're taking on an extra $500k in salary, so we could send a draft pick, or something to compensate if required.

Gerber can be the man for this year, then they have Schneider for next, so they are set between the pipes. They have two forwards who are ready to step up to the next level. And I keep hearing rumblings that Luongo doesn't like the travel in the west (although Vancouver has much nicer weather than Ottawa)

35 Re: Proposal Challenge on Tue Aug 19, 2008 11:35 pm

PTFlea

avatar
Co-Founder
Co-Founder
Cronenbergfan wrote:O.k. valid point. I got a little ahead of myself there... We can't trade Elliot away, and Auld, I have a feeling, is going to be HUGE this year and next, so parting with them is no good, and I don't Vancouver would bite at either of them, or if they would, Elliot would be there choice... Ummm... Perhaps I'll retract that proposal as it is and ponder it a little more and repost in a bit.

This is something that would be very, very hard to regotiate. Think of how hard it would for Vancouver management to try to explain that they just traded the best goalie in the game - and one of the best hockey players in the world. It's PR suicide.

The only way this works...and it hardly works, is for it to be a superstar for superstar trade. And...it's gonna hurt either way.

I think they think about it if it's:

Spezza
Volchenkov
1st

for

Luongo

That's if you catch Vancouver in a deal-making mood. None of us should kid ourselves for a second, there's almost no way Vancouver trades a franchise goalie.

36 Re: Proposal Challenge on Tue Aug 19, 2008 11:38 pm

PTFlea

avatar
Co-Founder
Co-Founder
Cap'n' Clutch wrote:I think I've got another one to ponder.

Who can we send Gerber to? I think an Auld-Elliot tandem would save us about 2.7M on the cap and allows more flexibility as to what we add to the roster on D and forward.

Think how valuable that space is gonna be at the deadline. Man...

I think he's gone by the deadline. There's no reason to keep him and he doesn't have a NTC. He's going somewhere at the deadline - even if it's for insurance to a team that already has a strong starter. We just have to wait until mid-season/trade deadline IMO.

37 Re: Proposal Challenge on Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:02 am

rooneypoo

avatar
All-Star
All-Star
Mosky wrote:Well we could throw him in for a luongo trade Smile but my other option was Auld, Vermette, Foligno and a 1st for Bouwmeester and Anderson. Anderson is soo sick, as i posted somewhere else his first two NHL games, he got shutouts, and faced over 50 shots in both games. and then we don't really need to talk about Bouw, lol we all know who he is.

And then after that we could pawn Gerbs off on someone else and start Anderson, cuz i really think he will be able to hold a teams weight as early as next year.

Auld was shuttled out of both VAN and FLA. Neither team is going to want anything to do with him. VAN is certainly not going to take him back for the all-star goalie they gleefully traded him for in the first place.

I can't see Luongo going anywhere this year; next year, who knows, but there's no reason to move him this year. Bouwmeester will be available for slightly less then you're suggesting, I think, come deadline day -- no one's going to give up a serious roster player because they'd be needed on a playoff run. No, if he's shopped at deadline day, the deal would have to be heavy in prospects and picks. Look what Hossa + Depuis commanded: a somewhat questionable top prospect (Esposito), a 1st, a banger (Armstrong), and a 3rd-liner with some upside (Christensen). There's no one who holds present-day value akin to Vermette's in that deal, unless you think Armstrong is a hidden gem -- and Hossa is, arguably, more valuable than Bouw. Still, even that is pretty expensive, and I might just want to wait until July 1.

As for Anderson, I don't think he's the answer to our problems. He's shown some promise, yes, but all he's ever been is a backup. With Ottawa's problems in net over the years, could you imagine the uproar if we went with Auld/Anderson as our duo in next? It could cost Murray his job. No, goaltending has been our problem for so long that I have to think Murray will do something in the next year (either at the deadline or at July 1st) to address the problem, if only to show that he's working on it to maintain his job. If either guy becomes available, I think someone like Lehtonen or Backstrom is the type of guy we'll target. If not, I think we go with a more established guy on a short term, like Legace, who will allow us to prepare Elliott as our goalie of the future, if that's how we plan on playing it. Either way, I don't see us bringing in an unknown/question mark to be our starter for 2009.

38 Re: Proposal Challenge on Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:14 am

rooneypoo

avatar
All-Star
All-Star
504Heater wrote:

Think how valuable that space is gonna be at the deadline. Man...

I think he's gone by the deadline. There's no reason to keep him and he doesn't have a NTC. He's going somewhere at the deadline - even if it's for insurance to a team that already has a strong starter. We just have to wait until mid-season/trade deadline IMO.

Wow, I dunno; I think shipping off your #1 at deadline day says bad things to your fan base... unless, of course, Elliott can be our Price... but then again, the playoffs didn't go so well for him either.

Here's a question to ponder, tho': what team would really want Gerber come February? Any team in the playoff hunt at that time is probably already going to have as good a goalie as Gerber, and his contract -- even at 1/4th the price (just under $1 mil) -- is a lot of money to bring in a backup, considering how short teams usually are in cap space come that time of year. I don't deny that it's possible, I'm just not sure I really see a market for trading him.

Here's another question, too: what could we honestly expect to get for him in a pure salary dump trade? A 2nd rounder? A mid-level prospect? The other team's backup / failed goaltender whom they're desperate enough to replace with Gerber? Are any of those options enticing enough to ship off our (admittedly embattled, mediocre) #1 and force us to put our playoff hopes in Elliott/Auld?

Unless something amazing happens with Auld and/or Elliott, or unless (oh, hope of all hopes) we can use him as one very small piece in a bigger trade for a better goalie -- Lehtonen, for instance, should he become available in February -- I think we let Gerber's contract play out for the season and let him walk for nothing. That's just me, tho'.

39 Re: Proposal Challenge on Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:16 am

PTFlea

avatar
Co-Founder
Co-Founder
rooneypoo wrote:
Wow, I dunno; I think shipping off your #1 at deadline day says bad things to your fan base... unless, of course, Elliott can be our Price... but then again, the playoffs didn't go so well for him either.

Here's a question to ponder, tho': what team would really want Gerber come February? Any team in the playoff hunt at that time is probably already going to have as good a goalie as Gerber, and his contract -- even at 1/4th the price (just under $1 mil) -- is a lot of money to bring in a backup, considering how short teams usually are in cap space come that time of year. I don't deny that it's possible, I'm just not sure I really see a market for trading him.

Here's another question, too: what could we honestly expect to get for him in a pure salary dump trade? A 2nd rounder? A mid-level prospect? The other team's backup / failed goaltender whom they're desperate enough to replace with Gerber? Are any of those options enticing enough to ship off our (admittedly embattled, mediocre) #1 and force us to put our playoff hopes in Elliott/Auld?

Unless something amazing happens with Auld and/or Elliott, or unless (oh, hope of all hopes) we can use him as one very small piece in a bigger trade for a better goalie -- Lehtonen, for instance, should he become available in February -- I think we let Gerber's contract play out for the season and let him walk for nothing. That's just me, tho'.

That's the thing, I think one of Auld or Elliot will be our number one by Christmas to January. I hope Gerber lights it up, but I think he's very Auld-esque.

We could hope for a veteran plugger for him, but nothing much. Just nice cap space.

Depends on how he's doing though of course.

40 Re: Proposal Challenge on Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:22 am

Phoenix30

avatar
Veteran
Veteran
OK I put this in the wrong post I think. Here is my suggestion:

I am of the opinion that if Murray can't get Mez signed at the latest early in the season then he needs to trade him. As much as we need a PMD I wonder if Mez could fetch us O'Sullivan if he remains unsigned with LA.

LA could be a trading partner option as they are set with quality young players and have some prospects that are ready to move up but need another D-man.

If they were to get Mez they get a player who has played on a successful team and is still young himself so he could grow with the team. Moving Mez for a forwards isnt all that bad as we fill a need up front with a young quality player that can also grow with the team. I suspect though that we might be able to get a pick or prospect as well as Mez has had more consitent seasons than O'Sullivan at the moment.

We would still have the same problem though of not having a PMD. This is where I think Murray would need to put trust in Hartsburg to develop either Bell or Nycolat until he could get creative to trade for another D-man.

41 Re: Proposal Challenge on Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:34 am

Phoenix30

avatar
Veteran
Veteran
rooneypoo wrote:
504Heater wrote:

Think how valuable that space is gonna be at the deadline. Man...

I think he's gone by the deadline. There's no reason to keep him and he doesn't have a NTC. He's going somewhere at the deadline - even if it's for insurance to a team that already has a strong starter. We just have to wait until mid-season/trade deadline IMO.

Wow, I dunno; I think shipping off your #1 at deadline day says bad things to your fan base... unless, of course, Elliott can be our Price... but then again, the playoffs didn't go so well for him either.

Here's a question to ponder, tho': what team would really want Gerber come February? Any team in the playoff hunt at that time is probably already going to have as good a goalie as Gerber, and his contract -- even at 1/4th the price (just under $1 mil) -- is a lot of money to bring in a backup, considering how short teams usually are in cap space come that time of year. I don't deny that it's possible, I'm just not sure I really see a market for trading him.

Here's another question, too: what could we honestly expect to get for him in a pure salary dump trade? A 2nd rounder? A mid-level prospect? The other team's backup / failed goaltender whom they're desperate enough to replace with Gerber? Are any of those options enticing enough to ship off our (admittedly embattled, mediocre) #1 and force us to put our playoff hopes in Elliott/Auld?

Unless something amazing happens with Auld and/or Elliott, or unless (oh, hope of all hopes) we can use him as one very small piece in a bigger trade for a better goalie -- Lehtonen, for instance, should he become available in February -- I think we let Gerber's contract play out for the season and let him walk for nothing. That's just me, tho'.

I would really hate to see Gerber go as I think he is a good goalie and will finally prove it this year. Alot will depend on how Elliott, Gerber and the team does will dictate what Murray does. If the team in not a playoff position I think Murray would move Gerber for a 2nd or prospect.

42 Re: Proposal Challenge on Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:53 am

PKC

avatar
All-Star
All-Star
rooneypoo wrote:
504Heater wrote:

Think how valuable that space is gonna be at the deadline. Man...

I think he's gone by the deadline. There's no reason to keep him and he doesn't have a NTC. He's going somewhere at the deadline - even if it's for insurance to a team that already has a strong starter. We just have to wait until mid-season/trade deadline IMO.

Wow, I dunno; I think shipping off your #1 at deadline day says bad things to your fan base... unless, of course, Elliott can be our Price... but then again, the playoffs didn't go so well for him either.

Here's a question to ponder, tho': what team would really want Gerber come February? Any team in the playoff hunt at that time is probably already going to have as good a goalie as Gerber, and his contract -- even at 1/4th the price (just under $1 mil) -- is a lot of money to bring in a backup, considering how short teams usually are in cap space come that time of year. I don't deny that it's possible, I'm just not sure I really see a market for trading him.

Here's another question, too: what could we honestly expect to get for him in a pure salary dump trade? A 2nd rounder? A mid-level prospect? The other team's backup / failed goaltender whom they're desperate enough to replace with Gerber? Are any of those options enticing enough to ship off our (admittedly embattled, mediocre) #1 and force us to put our playoff hopes in Elliott/Auld?

Unless something amazing happens with Auld and/or Elliott, or unless (oh, hope of all hopes) we can use him as one very small piece in a bigger trade for a better goalie -- Lehtonen, for instance, should he become available in February -- I think we let Gerber's contract play out for the season and let him walk for nothing. That's just me, tho'.

I agree. Unfortunately, I believe that this will be Gerber's last contract in the NHL. I really can't see anyone signing him on after he becomes a UFA, since the market is flooded with goaltenders and most teams these days have 2/3/4 goaltending prospects waiting in the wings.

43 Re: Proposal Challenge on Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:35 am

rooneypoo

avatar
All-Star
All-Star
Phoenix30 wrote:OK I put this in the wrong post I think. Here is my suggestion:

I am of the opinion that if Murray can't get Mez signed at the latest early in the season then he needs to trade him. As much as we need a PMD I wonder if Mez could fetch us O'Sullivan if he remains unsigned with LA.

LA could be a trading partner option as they are set with quality young players and have some prospects that are ready to move up but need another D-man.

If they were to get Mez they get a player who has played on a successful team and is still young himself so he could grow with the team. Moving Mez for a forwards isnt all that bad as we fill a need up front with a young quality player that can also grow with the team. I suspect though that we might be able to get a pick or prospect as well as Mez has had more consitent seasons than O'Sullivan at the moment.

We would still have the same problem though of not having a PMD. This is where I think Murray would need to put trust in Hartsburg to develop either Bell or Nycolat until he could get creative to trade for another D-man.

Getting O'Sullivan I like... being left with Lee and Nycholat as our top offensive / puck-moving / PP QB Ds I don't like at all.

Don't worry, I think we'll have the Mesz situation sorted out for the better come the regular season. As jamvan (I think?) has reminded us, unsigned RFAs at this point in the season are pretty regular occurences, whereas sit-outs in these same situations are very, very rare. I share in people's anxiety and impatience, but it's important to recognize that this is a standard process, and that Mesz will in all probability be on our blueline at the start of the season.

44 Re: Proposal Challenge on Wed Aug 20, 2008 10:39 am

PTFlea

avatar
Co-Founder
Co-Founder
Phoenix30 wrote:OK I put this in the wrong post I think. Here is my suggestion:


What a cool avatar.

45 Re: Proposal Challenge on Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:14 pm

Guest


Guest
jamvan wrote:Nycholat, Glass and Hennessey for Jokinen

A 4th round draft pick for Scneider.
why would Anaheim and Tampa trade desent players(especially Jussi) for our scraps? confused

46 Re: Proposal Challenge on Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:26 pm

Cap'n Clutch

avatar
Co-Founder
Co-Founder
tukker wrote:
jamvan wrote:Nycholat, Glass and Hennessey for Jokinen

A 4th round draft pick for Scneider.
why would Anaheim and Tampa trade desent players(especially Jussi) for our scraps? confused

I think the idea stems from the fact that they have cap issues but, I agree with you that we'd need to sweeten the pot for Jokinen and for Schnieder it would maybe take a prospect or a slightly higher pick I would think.


_________________
"A child with Autism is not ignoring you, they are waiting for you to enter their world."

- Unknown Author

47 Re: Proposal Challenge on Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:37 pm

jamvan

avatar
Veteran
Veteran
Cap'n' Clutch wrote:
tukker wrote:
jamvan wrote:Nycholat, Glass and Hennessey for Jokinen

A 4th round draft pick for Scneider.
why would Anaheim and Tampa trade desent players(especially Jussi) for our scraps? confused

I think the idea stems from the fact that they have cap issues but, I agree with you that we'd need to sweeten the pot for Jokinen and for Schnieder it would maybe take a prospect or a slightly higher pick I would think.
Burke has already publicly said Scneider can be had for a pick and a lower one at that.

This trade proposal was two proposals, not two trades happening at the same time or in conjunction with each other.

48 Re: Proposal Challenge on Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:19 pm

Phoenix30

avatar
Veteran
Veteran
504Heater wrote:
Phoenix30 wrote:OK I put this in the wrong post I think. Here is my suggestion:


What a cool avatar.

Thanks, I'm stuck on 12 overnights at them moment so I had time find it while sitting around work. I was hoping to tweak it a bit and put a Sens Logo on it. I think a phoenix with a Sens logo could be a sign of them raising from the Ashes after a disastrous season. Unfortunately I dont have a program to improve the photo, let alone now how to alter it to look flawless.

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 3 of 6]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum