|
|
Post by Polarice on Mar 24, 2010 6:54:20 GMT -5
This is from you know who!!
It is hard to find many people in the NHL inner circles who haven't heard some form of this rumor. And some of my best sources have informed me that the groundwork is in place. Now to be clear, the "groundwork is in place" is another way of saying this is a contingency plan for both teams. In other words should Montreal decide to move a goalie, and should the Hawks decide they need a goalie, the teams have discussed how this could get done. It all will depend on how each team's goalies perform in the post season.
Here are the two rumors I am hearing I feel have the most possibilities.
Rumor #1: Price would be dealt to Chicago for Patrick Sharp, Niemi, and a #3.
Rumor #2: Price and a #3 would be dealt to Chicago for Seabrook, Crawford, and RPI's Brandon Pirri.
To be honest I like both, but do perfer #1.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 24, 2010 8:05:10 GMT -5
Be very surprised if Seabrook goes anywhere anyway.
We'd get Sharp for 2 years at a $3.9M cap hit.
|
|
|
|
Post by blny on Mar 24, 2010 8:51:45 GMT -5
Neither one of those deals really blows my skirt up.
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Mar 24, 2010 9:23:14 GMT -5
Neither one of those deals really blows my skirt up. I’d be a little more inclined to consider the Seabrook deal, as Patrick Sharp doesn’t really do much for me. A good player, yes, but a 25-30 goal scorer on the most offensive team in the league isn’t worth giving up a potential franchise goalie, if you ask me. Seabrook on the other hand, could be a number one defensemen, and is already a solid number two. That would get my attention for sure. While neither one of them really floats my boat (who is next with a "makes me happy" expression?) the chance to get Seabrook would merit serious consideration from me, but in the end I think I would probably pass. Unless you’re pretty certain Price is finished here, he’s still the future as far as I am concerned. I would give up Halak in a heartbeat for either one of those packages, but Price? Too much potential. |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Mar 24, 2010 9:46:12 GMT -5
I'm with yah BC. Potential is still part of the equation when you're talking about Price, and he still got a higher ceiling than those two offers account for. I would take Seabrook over Sharp, but if the name Price is followed by the word "and" someone like Toews, Kane, or Keith better be coming back the other way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Mar 24, 2010 10:06:36 GMT -5
Price for Seabrook straight up? As they say around here, I'd do that in a haahht-beat.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Mar 24, 2010 11:18:21 GMT -5
Unrealized potential is nothing more than wasted energy ....
|
|
|
|
Post by blny on Mar 24, 2010 11:42:33 GMT -5
Unrealized potential is nothing more than wasted energy .... But it has more value at 22 years old than it does at 28. He's playing the hardest position in the game in the hardest market in the game. Trading him now, for nothing short of a windfall, is a HUGE mistake. |
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Mar 24, 2010 12:14:39 GMT -5
Unrealized potential is nothing more than wasted energy .... But it has more value at 22 years old than it does at 28. He's playing the hardest position in the game in the hardest market in the game. Trading him now, for nothing short of a windfall, is a HUGE mistake. You don't think Canadian Olympian Brent Seabrook isn't a windfall or at least adequate return? If that deal were on the table I bet it would be Chicago that says no. My feeling is that, despite the potential, Price isn't worth as much or regarded around the league as much as we think he is. If we can snare a top 4 dman (and a right-handed shot at that) in return for Price, I would do that deal and not look back. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Mar 24, 2010 13:00:32 GMT -5
Unrealized potential is nothing more than wasted energy .... But it has more value at 22 years old than it does at 28. He's playing the hardest position in the game in the hardest market in the game. Trading him now, for nothing short of a windfall, is a HUGE mistake. Sure it does ... and to quote Da Boss (dee plane dee plane) "Sell high". How long do you wait for potential to turn into results? How long do you wait for the perfect deal to come along? Another thing about unrealized potential is that its value decreases quickly over tme .... Now don't get me wrong, Price or Halak, I don't care as long as we get something we need in return ... but we have been sitting on our laurels waiting for potential to turn into kinetic for waaayyyyy too long in Habs-land.... at some point, we need results. And everyone talks about the 22yr old's potential, while neglecting the 24yr old's potential / results. There is value there too, IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Mar 24, 2010 13:34:27 GMT -5
When you're playing poker and have three eights with a queen, ace high; you have to give up the queen and ace to draw two.
Giving up an ace is always difficult, but you need to give up in order to draw.
At this point I'm ready to give up the Kostitsyns. We've waited patiently for the souflet to rise. After 5 years it looks less likely to ever happen. All the ingredients are there, but it didn't rise to the occasion.
Kovalev had the talent but chose to use it on odd numbered days in odd numbered months in odd numbered years.
Price had a great, "GREAT" career prior to joining the NHL. Flashes of brilliance followed by a sophomore jinx and a string of jinxed days since. Bad bounces, deflections and too many shots over a stationary gloved hand. Clock is ticking?
|
|
|
|
Post by HFTO on Mar 24, 2010 14:54:32 GMT -5
I'm with BC for Halak I'd do the deal.
I'm certainly a Price supporter and in the end I maybe proven wrong, but the way I look at things is even though Price may not have the W's his numbers aren't way off from Halaks.
IMO the upside is much greater with Price than with Jaro.
I like Jaro but I believe this is as good as it gets where I believe Price can get to that next level.
Honestly I'd wait this thing out another year and see where things fall if they can get away with it.Both are restricted so barring a revolt from one of them I play it out further and try and up the ante.
HFTO
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 24, 2010 15:05:22 GMT -5
we're talking RFAs here. If another team offers them a contract you evaluate. If the offer is low you match it. If the offer is high you take the picks and run.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Mar 24, 2010 15:41:06 GMT -5
If you don't mind moving potential then go for the whole meal deal. Throw in the brothers and Yannick Weber along with Price and it's possible Neimi, Sharpe and Seabrook will all come back the other way.
Don't know any of the cap implications. Don't know any FA statuses, don't know ... just talkin' out of my ear is all.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by blny on Mar 24, 2010 16:11:57 GMT -5
But it has more value at 22 years old than it does at 28. He's playing the hardest position in the game in the hardest market in the game. Trading him now, for nothing short of a windfall, is a HUGE mistake. You don't think Canadian Olympian Brent Seabrook isn't a windfall or at least adequate return? If that deal were on the table I bet it would be Chicago that says no. My feeling is that, despite the potential, Price isn't worth as much or regarded around the league as much as we think he is. If we can snare a top 4 dman (and a right-handed shot at that) in return for Price, I would do that deal and not look back. I didn't see Seabrook as have a huge impact on the success of team Canada. He was reasonably steady, but I'd take guys like Doughty and Keith over him. For me, Price's WJC heroics and Calder Cup heroics carry more street cred than being simply a part of the 2010 Olympic squad. Would you trade Price for Bergeron? |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Mar 24, 2010 16:15:08 GMT -5
But it has more value at 22 years old than it does at 28. He's playing the hardest position in the game in the hardest market in the game. Trading him now, for nothing short of a windfall, is a HUGE mistake. Sure it does ... and to quote Da Boss (dee plane dee plane) "Sell high". How long do you wait for potential to turn into results? How long do you wait for the perfect deal to come along? Another thing about unrealized potential is that its value decreases quickly over tme .... Now don't get me wrong, Price or Halak, I don't care as long as we get something we need in return ... but we have been sitting on our laurels waiting for potential to turn into kinetic for waaayyyyy too long in Habs-land.... at some point, we need results. And everyone talks about the 22yr old's potential, while neglecting the 24yr old's potential / results. There is value there too, IMO. Seabrook has value of course, but I see Price as having a much higher ceiling. I do strongly believe he will realize it. Whether it's in Montreal or not is another question. It's hard to put a number on how long you wait, but I wait till he's 24-25. At this point, goalies don't seem to be carrying a lot of trade value so his value at this point is not as high as it could be based on that fact alone. Factor in an average season - and a team that seems to play worse in front of him than they do in front of Halak - and you have even lesser value. Sell high? Sure, but right now isn't 'high'. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Mar 26, 2010 12:18:26 GMT -5
I'm with BC, Sharp doesn't do much for me. Certainly not the corner stone of a deal that has a player like Price going the other way (since he's not all potential, he's league-broken and his stats are already quite decent).
Seabrook I'd definitely consider.
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Mar 26, 2010 13:24:19 GMT -5
I don't think the Sharp return is good enough. He's an good forward, but not good enough to make me give up a player with Price's potential. Seabrook is more interesting - he's one of the league's best defensemen and we need an infusion of something on the blueline to help us realize our long terms goals. The possibility of having a blueline composed of Markov, Seabrook, O'Byrne, Subban and Gorges in a couple of years would have me salivating. But if you do that you essentially christen Halak the man, and I don't know if he's ready for that. Beyond Halak and Price we have Dejardains on the farm and then our cupboard is pretty bare. I don't like that. Even with the possibility of that defensive corps.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Mar 26, 2010 17:21:52 GMT -5
Of course this is all chatter, but if you have a chance to get a top pair dman, certainly a top 4 guy, in exchange for Price I would do that deal. I agree Seabrook wasn't as dominant during the Olympics as Keith and Doughty, but from what I saw he was very solid, can make plays at a quick pace, and he's a right-handed shot we need.
I think we have seen enough from Halak to say that he's starting material in the NHL. You don't need one of the top 5 goalies in the league to win a Stanley Cup. You need a very good goalie over the regular season and hope he gets hot at the right time. As for a backup, I'm sure we could sign a veteran/mid level Marty Biron type to start 30-35 games a year. There's LOTS of good goalies out there.
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Mar 30, 2010 6:31:48 GMT -5
Kevin Paul DuPont, in the Boston Globe, reports that the Flyers offered Simon Gagne for Tim Thomas.
I don't know how that reflects on any offer that they may have made for Halak or Price, given the different dynamics involved (age, potential, experience, salary and so on), but it makes me wonder what names were tossed about when Gainey made his infamous call to Holmgren way back when. The consensus is that the Flyers refused to trade a 2nd round pick, but I think that's one of those internet rumors that somehow becomes "fact." The Flyers don't even have a 2nd round pick, either this year, or next year, so if they were offering that up, then they have some 'splainin' to do...
Still, Gagne has a cap hit of $5.25 million... right around the upper limit of where most people think Plekanec should be signed at... If Pleky walks will we be hearing a lot of Gagne for Halak rumors?
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Mar 30, 2010 8:13:47 GMT -5
Kevin Paul DuPont, in the Boston Globe, reports that the Flyers offered Simon Gagne for Tim Thomas. I don't know how that reflects on any offer that they may have made for Halak or Price, given the different dynamics involved (age, potential, experience, salary and so on), but it makes me wonder what names were tossed about when Gainey made his infamous call to Holmgren way back when. The consensus is that the Flyers refused to trade a 2nd round pick, but I think that's one of those internet rumors that somehow becomes "fact." The Flyers don't even have a 2nd round pick, either this year, or next year, so if they were offering that up, then they have some 'splainin' to do... Still, Gagne has a cap hit of $5.25 million... right around the upper limit of where most people think Plekanec should be signed at... If Pleky walks will we be hearing a lot of Gagne for Halak rumors? I hope not .... But if they are willing to give value to get value I'd be targeting Jeff Carter and I'll be willing to include Price in the deal to get him ... I'd also be willing to offer up a package (Kosty-Pleky-Halak - whatever combination of players) , just saying that if it takes Price to get Carter, I would pull that trigger ... |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Mar 30, 2010 10:22:09 GMT -5
Kevin Paul DuPont, in the Boston Globe, reports that the Flyers offered Simon Gagne for Tim Thomas. Totally believable. Who else would, yet again, go after a goalie who reminds me a lot of Andrew Raycroft. One good year. Philly just can't get it through their heads that to pick up quality, it's going to cost them. Not that Gagne isn't a good player, but he is getting long in the tooth and has been injury prone recently. |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Mar 30, 2010 11:05:15 GMT -5
Tim Thomas = Raycroft = Esche = Snow = Boucher = Biron = Emery ... I'd wear out my keyboard typing in the names of Flyer goalies over the last 15 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by madhabber on Mar 30, 2010 11:23:53 GMT -5
Tim Thomas = Raycroft = Esche = Snow = Boucher = Biron = Emery ... I'd wear out my keyboard typing in the names of Flyer goalies over the last 15 years. You would wear out your keyboard, so we can tag-team this. Those guys are also = Burke = Cechmanek = Nittimaki = Vanbiesbrook = Hextall (second stint) = Roussel = Soderstrom = Wregget = Beauregard. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Mar 30, 2010 13:47:29 GMT -5
= Hackett
|
|
|
|
Post by roke on Mar 30, 2010 20:00:41 GMT -5
I don't have much to say about the Price/Halak trade... but that Thomas/Gagne thing:
With that stupid extension Boston signed Thomas to, and Rask's strong play, the Bruins would be stupid not to take a Gagne for Thomas deal if it was offered. They cut 250,000 in cap hit next season, and save 5 million otherwise owed to Thomas (regardless of him retiring or waived) the 2 seasons after that. Granted, Gagne's brittle, but if he's injured all of next season it would still be a heck of a deal
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Mar 31, 2010 6:25:33 GMT -5
But if they are willing to give value to get value I'd be targeting Jeff Carter and I'll be willing to include Price in the deal to get him ... I'd also be willing to offer up a package (Kosty-Pleky-Halak - whatever combination of players) , just saying that if it takes Price to get Carter, I would pull that trigger ... I’d love to get Carter too, but I just don’t see the Flyers being interested in dealing him, for anything. Carter is what makes them a potential Cup threat – that big, dominant center down the middle. Yes, they need a goalie to be a Cup threat too, and right now they aren’t Cup threats, but if they deal Carter to get said goalie then they are essentially robbing Peter to pay Paul. They’d have the goalie, but be missing the big, dominant center down the middle. For that reason, and given the numerous other options that they would have for goalie, I just don’t see them letting Carter go. Of course you could argue that it is not our job to make the Flyers Cup contenders, and you’d be right, but we have to balance risk and reward; can we get the equivalent of a Gagne from somebody else, for Halak? Is there any other team that might be willing to part with a player or package that would rival that? I don't have much to say about the Price/Halak trade... but that Thomas/Gagne thing: With that stupid extension Boston signed Thomas to, and Rask's strong play, the Bruins would be stupid not to take a Gagne for Thomas deal if it was offered. They cut 250,000 in cap hit next season, and save 5 million otherwise owed to Thomas (regardless of him retiring or waived) the 2 seasons after that. Granted, Gagne's brittle, but if he's injured all of next season it would still be a heck of a deal I agree with them being stupid not to dump Thomas. The ONLY explanation I can come up with is that they know Rask is going to be the future and they still want to insulate him a little bit going forward. Which brings up an old wound... going into that infamous 2005 draft Carey Price was thought to have been the best goalie available, but in the words of Bob Mackenzie "it's not necessarily unanimous." Price, as we all know, went 5th overall, a move many people, myself included, thought was way too high for a goalie to be picked. Rask went 21st. Price was rushed to the NHL, Rask was given the long route, without the expectations of a top 5 pick. And now Rask appears to be ahead of Price in his development curve, with arguably just as high an upside, if not higher. One could argue that Ondrej Pavelic and Jonathon Quick, also picked behind Price that year, are also ahead of him, with just as much upside. Not sure where I'm going with that, just that I think about it every time I see Rask's numbers... |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Mar 31, 2010 6:55:40 GMT -5
I’d love to get Carter too, but I just don’t see the Flyers being interested in dealing him, for anything. Carter is what makes them a potential Cup threat – that big, dominant center down the middle. Yes, they need a goalie to be a Cup threat too, and right now they aren’t Cup threats, but if they deal Carter to get said goalie then they are essentially robbing Peter to pay Paul. They’d have the goalie, but be missing the big, dominant center down the middle. For that reason, and given the numerous other options that they would have for goalie, I just don’t see them letting Carter go. Of course you could argue that it is not our job to make the Flyers Cup contenders, and you’d be right, but we have to balance risk and reward; can we get the equivalent of a Gagne from somebody else, for Halak? Is there any other team that might be willing to part with a player or package that would rival that? Those are good questions ... but the one I ask is "Does Gagne make us better than Plekanec?" And I come back with a resounding NO ... .... if Philly wants the goalie for the future, then we better be getting back something more than peanut brittle. Our future is all that Gauthier should concern himself about, and we need that center.... As for another team to trade with .... that Sharp deal sounds better to me than Gagne |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Mar 31, 2010 7:08:22 GMT -5
Those are good questions ... but the one I ask is "Does Gagne make us better than Plekanec?" And I come back with a resounding NO ... .... if Philly wants the goalie for the future, then we better be getting back something more than peanut brittle. Our future is all that Gauthier should concern himself about, and we need that center.... As for another team to trade with .... that Sharp deal sounds better to me than Gagne Very true, Gagne versus Plekanec is at best a wash, given age, injury and so on, and I would not do a one-for-one deal either as it would end up being Halak AND Plekanec for Gagne. But I would consider trying to expand it if Plekanec is looking for something in the $6 million range. If I was GM (any day now, any day), I’d propose Gagne and Giroux for Halak, a 2nd round pick and a throw-in (rights to Plekanec, any prospect not named Subban or Leblanc, Weber, Mathieu Carle so you can really screw up your play-by-play guy, whatever). I think Giroux has a higher upside than Halak (I really like Giroux), but obviously the Flyers need a goalie much more than they need a center. Plus we get the prodigal son in Gagne, who lest we forget did score 34 goals last year, and is three seasons removed from back-to-back 40+ goal years. Better than Gionta’s number coming here. Philly gets a solid goalie with upside (better than anything they currently have, by far), a pick in the upper round of the upcoming draft, which they currently don’t have, and a whack of cap space. Probably around $3 million and change, once all is said and done (after resigning Halak). Perhaps even enough to get them into the Kovalchuk or Marleau sweepstakes. We gamble with Price, but that’s a gamble I’d be willing to take. Then offer the brothers for Dustin Penner (and I don't really like Penner). They get more potential, we get the size. Salaries balance out. Resign Dominic Moore, hopefully for under $2 million, and we should be good to go. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Mar 31, 2010 7:43:39 GMT -5
Not sure where I'm going with that, just that I think about it every time I see Rask's numbers... Don't worry about it . . . the year is almost over and therefore Rask's run. The Bruins have this habit of one-year goalies . . . |
|
