|
|
Post by blny on Jan 22, 2004 13:13:54 GMT -5
TFP is reporting that the Flyers obtained Mattias Timander from the Isles for a 7th rounder. That should ease the loss of Vandermeer, and be a cheap quick fix. It cost Clarke nothing really, as a 7th rounder this year amounts to jack squat.
One would think that a) Traverse is "worth" about that much if someone is desparate enough, and b) Dykhuis could garner a mid rounder.
I mention this for a couple of reasons. One, the NYR are in as bad a shape as Philly was/is, and Slats may be desparate enough to take one of either Karl or Patrick. Of the two, Traverse is the low cost quick fix. Dykhuis' contract is up this season, and $1.6 million is peanuts for the Rangers, but he'd be a bigger pill to swallow. Still, of the two Karl would be better in every way.
Does anyone think Slats contacted BG regarding blueliners, if so does one think that either of the two I mentioned would garner much interest from a team in the spot the Rags are in?
|
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Jan 22, 2004 19:03:48 GMT -5
Sather has said he is looking for 2 defensemen and the Flyers have already taken two off the market.
I think Dykhuis might interest the Rangers. He has gone to Hamilton and by all accounts played well. He has taken the demotion well and has set a good example for the younger players.
His good attitude and NHL experience would help the Rangers but Sather knows that Gainey may just want to dump the salary. I can't see the Habs getting much more than a mid range pick for him.
As for Traverse, the Habs are stuck with him.
|
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jan 22, 2004 22:43:19 GMT -5
I agree on Karl's value. It likely won't get any higher either. The Rangers are desparate, and may overpay (there's a shock) to get what they need. Karl may be a darkhouse though. It's no secret that Doug MacLean is looking to move some vets out of Columbus, and Richardson and Lachance are near the top of the list. Both are making more than Dykuis though.
The reason I bring up Traverse is because of the Flyers acquisition of Timander for only a 7th rounder. Traverse has little respect around the league but if other options run dry for the Rangers, he'd at least fill a uniform (wait a sec this is Traverse we're talking about so scratch that - he'd fill a peewee uniform).
|
|
|
|
Post by Rimmer on Jan 23, 2004 4:19:54 GMT -5
I think Dykhuis is signed for the next season while Traverse is a RFA at seasons end.
R.
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jan 23, 2004 8:37:30 GMT -5
Personally, it appears to me that Dykhuis is performing a very valuable role in Hamilton, mentoring the kids and being that veteran leader he could never be in the big leagues.
At this stage of his career, and more importantly, at this stage of the Habs rebuild, I think having him in Hamilton is much more important than some 7th or 8th rounder we hope to squeeze out of the Rangers...
Now Traverse on the other hand...
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jan 23, 2004 10:06:16 GMT -5
Personally, it appears to me that Dykhuis is performing a very valuable role in Hamilton, mentoring the kids and being that veteran leader he could never be in the big leagues. At this stage of his career, and more importantly, at this stage of the Habs rebuild, I think having him in Hamilton is much more important than some 7th or 8th rounder we hope to squeeze out of the Rangers... Now Traverse on the other hand... Well, I agree that Dykhuis serves a very useful role, however, he is still costing us a bundle. Is a veteran leader in the AHL worth 1.7 million or so ? If we're going to pay someone an NHL salary for NHL depth yet have him play in the AHL, let's get a guy like Lindsay, who we had down there last season, for 500K. Right now Dykhuis is earning Zednik-type cash and that hurts the bottom line quite a bit. However, at this point, to me it depends if Dykhuis has another year on his deal. If he does, then IMO we should move his salary if possible. If he doesn't, then perhaps we *are* better off letting him complete this season as a mentor, and then letting him go. Another factor is perception - if you give Karl a chance elsewhere, it shows your team that a good, hard-working guy will be given a chance, if not here then elsewhere. Kinda like if we move Perreault - it might be, asset-wise or even salary-wise, a needed move, but if it shows the guys that they'll be well-treated, well, then it's good. Even the guys' friends will appreciate that he's better getting real ice time, even if it's elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by cousin nark on Jan 23, 2004 18:18:25 GMT -5
Another factor is perception - if you give Karl a chance elsewhere, it shows your team that a good, hard-working guy will be given a chance, if not here then elsewhere. Kinda like if we move Perreault - it might be, asset-wise or even salary-wise, a needed move, but if it shows the guys that they'll be well-treated, well, then it's good. Even the guys' friends will appreciate that he's better getting real ice time, even if it's elsewhere. That the kind of thinking that I agree with. Treating players with respect and value even though they may not fit into your plans can only be beneficial to the long term perception of Montreal as a great place to play. |
|
