|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Jan 30, 2014 11:33:55 GMT -5
I’m with BC on this one. Sometimes we get so pumped about getting rid of a player (Bourque) that just about any return get us interested. For the same number of games Parenteau has only 2 goals more than Bourque (on a MUCH better offensive team) and he has 35 less hits than Bourque on a team that has 211 MORE hits than the CH… HABS need size, toughness, speed and scoring… Parenteau brings none of that. Another smallish, softish playmaking kind of guy. No thanks… that’s not to say Parenteau is useless but we have more of that kind that we can handle already… I’m not so eager to get rid of Bourque that I’d want in return a heavier contract for a guy that I don’t see a fit for…
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jan 30, 2014 12:10:46 GMT -5
I’m with BC on this one. Sometimes we get so pumped about getting rid of a player (Bourque) that just about any return get us interested. For the same number of games Parenteau has only 2 goals more than Bourque (on a MUCH better offensive team) and he has 35 less hits than Bourque on a team that has 211 MORE hits than the CH… HABS need size, toughness, speed and scoring… Parenteau brings none of that. Another smallish, softish playmaking kind of guy. No thanks… that’s not to say Parenteau is useless but we have more of that kind that we can handle already… I’m not so eager to get rid of Bourque that I’d want in return a heavier contract for a guy that I don’t see a fit for… Doc, I'll believe any trade when I see it. I just don't expect anything anymore. If Bergevin tries to move any of his undesirable assets out of town, I suspect he can expect a return in kind. As someone already pointed out, moving a guy like Bourque is very hard to do. I can't see how his faults (inconsistent effort and lackadaisical attitude) aren't known by GMs around the league. He had that those tags in Calgary and he has those tags in Montreal. As that poster said, Bergevin would have to make it a multi-player deal to make that happen. Again, no expectations. If something goes down, great ... if not, okay, status quo. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Jan 30, 2014 12:24:50 GMT -5
...the one thing I'd like to see at some point is a trade FOR a player we want/need instead of trades to ship out players for whatever we can get...
|
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jan 31, 2014 7:43:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jan 31, 2014 8:49:48 GMT -5
Here are the players they have us interested in, and my personal opinion on whether we should be. As always the main caveat is "at what price?": Matt Moulson: I'm not all that interested, and not at the asking price of a top pick and a prospect. Not surprisingly his numbers are pretty mediocre away from John Tavares and while I think he could put up decent point totals with a Desharnais or Plekanec (or Galchenyuk?) I don't think it would be enough to warrant giving up all that much. Brad Boyes: Nice depth player, won't cry if we trade for him, but I certainly wouldn't give up anything of significance to do so. A 3rd round pick would be it for me. Evander Kane:I really like Kane, and I think he would be a great fit here, a perfect winger for Plekanec... oh, but the cost to get him. I think you're looking at something like Tinordi and Gallagher in a trade. Would I do it? Don't know. P.A. Parenteau: Meh. Maybe for Briere and a B prospect like Christian Thomas or something, but that's about it. Shuffle deck chairs, in my opinion. Dmitry Kulikov: Yes please. But I can't understand why the Panthers would want to trade him?? If they do though, that would free up Markov and/or Beaulieu for another deal. Or Gorges. Marian Gaborik: Very carefully, yes. He's injury prone, an impending UFA, and expensive. But talk about swinging for the fences... Gaborik would be the best winger Plekanec has ever had. Ever. Galchenyuk/Plekanec/Gaborik? Wow. I'd kick the tires on this one, but it's a real gamble in every sense of the word. Dan Girardi: They didn't have us as being interested in him, but if I was Bergevin I would be, simply for the fact that he is a right-shooting defenseman. That would allow us to move Emelin over to the left, or ensure that neither of Beaulieu or Tinordi have to play on their wrong side. Assuming, of course, that one of Markov or Gorges is subsequently dealt. |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jan 31, 2014 9:47:12 GMT -5
Good post BC.
To me, Moulson and PAP are Ryder types. They provide good secondary scoring, not much defense, or physical play. They won't hurt you, but they don't put you over the hump necessarily either. For the record, I think Moulson's numbers would rebound if he got to play with one of our centers. Both players are 30 and over. Moulson will likely fetch two nice pieces at the deadline. He'll likely get a $6 million per offer in the summer too (if Callahan isn't willing to accept that in NYC you know someone will throw it at Moulson).
Boyes, no thanks.
Kane is the kid everyone wants, or at least the skill set. I think you're right in what it would cost at the very least. If he was signed to a deal as good as Pacioretty's, I might just pull the trigger on it. I think we've got more Gallagher's in the pipeline, and Tinordi (as much as I like him) should be replaceable. Kane's got an expensive contract though, and that would factor in to what I offered. I'd want to send money back, and to that end, Gorges would be the defender I offered.
Kulikov is enticing. Beaulieu is showing signs he's putting it together, so I'm not going to offer up the farm for Kulikov, but it's interesting that he'd be available.
Ahhh Gaborik. I wouldn't offer too much. Health concerns aside, he's a soft perimeter player. He's very dynamic though, and adds offense when he's in the lineup.
Girardi would be someone I'd target with the notion of replacing Gorges with him.
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jan 31, 2014 19:09:01 GMT -5
From Katie Strang:
@katiestrangespn: #NYR #Isles Amid escalating trade rumors, Ryan Callahan is indeed in the lineup tonight vs. Isles at MSG
@katiestrangespn: #NYR Scouts from Detroit, Montreal, San Jose and Tampa Bay expected to be here tonight at MSG for Rangers-Isles game
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jan 31, 2014 19:51:26 GMT -5
More on Callahan:
NEWS
Ryan Callahan is reportedly seeking a seven-year, $42 million contract extension.
NY Post
IMPACT
The report goes on to state that the Rangers aren't willing to go anywhere near that high and are consequently exploring the possibility of trading their team captain. Callahan is a physical forward capable of recording about 50 points in a good season. After David Clarkson got a seven-year, $36.75 million deal, we wouldn't completely dismiss the possibility of Callahan getting $42 million on the open market, but we also wouldn't think highly of the decision to give him that kind of money.
|
|
|
|
Post by blny on Jan 31, 2014 21:04:31 GMT -5
Callahan's salary and term demands are out of whack. He'll get them on the open market, but in no way is he worth it. If he is, Plekanec is worth 7. What's more, he's smaller than Plekanec and the style of game he likes to play doesn't work well for smaller guys long term. Any deal he signs, teams are going to be wishing they hadn't 2-3 years in.
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Feb 1, 2014 8:45:07 GMT -5
Callahan's salary and term demands are out of whack. He'll get them on the open market, but in no way is he worth it. If he is, Plekanec is worth 7. What's more, he's smaller than Plekanec and the style of game he likes to play doesn't work well for smaller guys long term. Any deal he signs, teams are going to be wishing they hadn't 2-3 years in. I don't know if I would give up significant assets in a trade to get Callahan, but if he hits the open market I would definitely consider giving him that kind of money. He wants $6 million a year? we're giving Gionta $5 million for pretty much the same production, less physicality and at best equal leadership (though I think most people around the league would say Callahan is the better leader). The risk, of course, is with the injuries and the length of the deal. By the time he is 35 Callahan may be a shell of a player, but then that's the risk you take with any physical player. Still, I happen to think that in seven years the cap is going to be sitting at around $85-90 million, so a $6 million contract won't be so bad then. Bournival - Eller - Callahan? I like that as my third line. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Feb 1, 2014 12:03:59 GMT -5
Callahan's salary and term demands are out of whack. He'll get them on the open market, but in no way is he worth it. If he is, Plekanec is worth 7. What's more, he's smaller than Plekanec and the style of game he likes to play doesn't work well for smaller guys long term. Any deal he signs, teams are going to be wishing they hadn't 2-3 years in. I don't know if I would give up significant assets in a trade to get Callahan, but if he hits the open market I would definitely consider giving him that kind of money. He wants $6 million a year? we're giving Gionta $5 million for pretty much the same production, less physicality and at best equal leadership (though I think most people around the league would say Callahan is the better leader). The risk, of course, is with the injuries and the length of the deal. By the time he is 35 Callahan may be a shell of a player, but then that's the risk you take with any physical player. Still, I happen to think that in seven years the cap is going to be sitting at around $85-90 million, so a $6 million contract won't be so bad then. Bournival - Eller - Callahan? I like that as my third line. If we do, by some chance, take Callahan on (taking Markov's salary?) then the club might want to remove a few undersized players from the lineup. He's a character guy (Rangers captain) who despite his size (5' 10") is a proven NHLer. Reminds me of Mike Keane in some ways. Bringing up the Clarkson contract puts things in perspective. I'd like to know whether or not the other owners have something to say to the Leafs at their BOG meetings, but on the surface it's like they really don't care what they pay their players. Paying Clarkson what they did wasn't just a bad business decision, it was bad for the league. Ditto Phaneuf's contract. Will be interesting to see how they handle Kadri. A young guy with talent who has proven more than Clarkson. It's possible they'll try to low-ball him, report him as being a problem and then eventually move him out. Then he'll excel as a No.2 centre elsewhere. Back to Callahan; I'd love to add him into the lineup, but not at any price and only if we move a few smaller players out. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Feb 1, 2014 18:47:49 GMT -5
Here's the flip side to Callahan though, aside from the wear an tear his style of play takes on a small body: he's not only looking for big cash, he's looking for big term.
Gionta for 5 years at $5 million per is one thing. Would you have signed him for 7 years? Would you be content to have him on the books for another two years? I wouldn't. Callahan is a good player, but the downward spiral is starting for him. In no way would I want to be hitched to him for 7 years at this point in his career.
|
|
|
|
Post by blny on Feb 1, 2014 19:35:29 GMT -5
Dreger is reporting that the Rags have agreed to let one team speak to Callahan's agent. This took place today. If that team is to the point where they're talking to the agent about contract, there must be a trade on the table that Sather likes.
|
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Feb 1, 2014 20:00:07 GMT -5
Callahan is a good character player and seems to show up for every game. CAn't have too many of those guys, but at what price? If it's us, anyway. Not sure the Rangers would want to trade even in the same conference. Then again, maybe they see another Gomez type deal coming their way. We owe them big time for that one. (In a nasty sort of way)
|
|
|
|
Post by GNick99 on Feb 1, 2014 20:09:27 GMT -5
Callahan is a good character player and seems to show up for every game. CAn't have too many of those guys, but at what price? If it's us, anyway. Not sure the Rangers would want to trade even in the same conference. Then again, maybe they see another Gomez type deal coming their way. We owe them big time for that one. (In a nasty sort of way) Did he play on line with Prust? |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Feb 1, 2014 20:16:39 GMT -5
Callahan is a good character player and seems to show up for every game. CAn't have too many of those guys, but at what price? If it's us, anyway. Not sure the Rangers would want to trade even in the same conference. Then again, maybe they see another Gomez type deal coming their way. We owe them big time for that one. (In a nasty sort of way) Did he play on line with Prust? Prust may have spent time with him but I think he spent the lion's share of his time with Dubinsky. |
|
|
|
Post by GNick99 on Feb 1, 2014 20:21:03 GMT -5
Did he play on line with Prust? Prust may have spent time with him but I think he spent the lion's share of his time with Dubinsky. I remember Callahan on a good line in playoffs but can't rremember linemates. Prust was with Boyle and Callahan with Dubinsky I take it |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Feb 5, 2014 13:51:47 GMT -5
Looks like Vanek turned down a significant contract extension offer from the Islanders. His intent appears to be to test the UFA market this summer. He'll be a very big fish in a small pool. Always liked his combination of size and talent, but he's a Richer type to be sure. One night he dominates, the next he's invisible.
|
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Feb 5, 2014 14:42:39 GMT -5
Unless one is a Gretzky or Lemieux, you'd also like your scorers to at least be mediocre defensively. I don't think Vanek is even that. He can certainly score, though, but won't be worth the $10MM he'll be seeking. I'm guessing at that number, but with the CAP rising, so will UFA salaries and the best RFA salaries.
|
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Feb 5, 2014 15:10:46 GMT -5
Looks like Vanek turned down a significant contract extension offer from the Islanders. His intent appears to be to test the UFA market this summer. He'll be a very big fish in a small pool. Always liked his combination of size and talent, but he's a Richer type to be sure. One night he dominates, the next he's invisible. We will likely have lots of cap space even with the Subban signing this summer, so I would make him a good offer....can't hurt. |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Feb 5, 2014 15:27:03 GMT -5
We need a big body that can score to offset Pacioretty, which makes him extremely tempting. The fact he doesn't play an overly physical style is good and bad. Bad because it would be nice to add some jam with the goals, but good because he hasn't put a huge toll on his body by being a bruiser.
It will be interesting to see who sets the UFA bar this year. It's reported now that Callahan wants between $6.5 million and $7 million per year on a 7 year deal. Ridiculous money imo for a glorified checking line center who's best attributes are intangibles. If Ryan is 'worth' that much, Thomas is worth $8 or more indeed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Feb 5, 2014 15:53:29 GMT -5
Unless one is a Gretzky or Lemieux, you'd also like your scorers to at least be mediocre defensively. I don't think Vanek is even that. He can certainly score, though, but won't be worth the $10MM he'll be seeking. I'm guessing at that number, but with the CAP rising, so will UFA salaries and the best RFA salaries. If they could, do you think the Leafs would pay him? Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Feb 5, 2014 17:26:31 GMT -5
I'm hearing that Montreal is shopping Markov now.....I guess contract negotiations didn't go well.
|
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Feb 5, 2014 17:27:58 GMT -5
Unless one is a Gretzky or Lemieux, you'd also like your scorers to at least be mediocre defensively. I don't think Vanek is even that. He can certainly score, though, but won't be worth the $10MM he'll be seeking. I'm guessing at that number, but with the CAP rising, so will UFA salaries and the best RFA salaries. If they could, do you think the Leafs would pay him? Cheers. They can have him, Dis. I don't think he's their guy though, as scoring is not their problem. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Feb 5, 2014 17:38:53 GMT -5
If they could, do you think the Leafs would pay him? Cheers. They can have him, Dis. I don't think he's their guy though, as scoring is not their problem. I was just throwing a dart at their spending habits. [/attempt at humour]  Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by blny on Feb 5, 2014 18:23:02 GMT -5
I'm hearing that Montreal is shopping Markov now.....I guess contract negotiations didn't go well. I've read it as well. Markov is representing himself apparently. I'm leery about signing him. Love the guy, but to sign him to a contract befitting a guy playing 20-25 premium minutes is getting beyond what his body is capable of. I asked myself the other day, "if I had to pick between Markov and Dan Boyle, I might just pick Boyle were he available and he's 2 years older." Boyle is presently negotiating with the Sharks, and he wants to finish out his career there, but his body is in significantly better shape. Similar players, size, age, etc. I think at this point, Boyle is the guy I'd pick. I just don't think giving Markov more than a year is the right move at this point. Beaulieu is availing himself pretty darn well in this stint. He still needs to add muscle. But, he's ready to play every night. Can we go forward with top six of: Subban-Gorges Beaulieu-Emelin Tinordi-Murray (or someone like him) Drewiske (because he's signed for one more year) Sure would be nice to have another puck mover. Markov should get significant return. If Murray got a second in 2013 (which is a first this year) and a conditional second this year, Markov should net a couple of firsts EASY. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Feb 5, 2014 18:34:46 GMT -5
They can have him, Dis. I don't think he's their guy though, as scoring is not their problem. I was just throwing a dart at their spending habits. [/attempt at humour] Cheers. Obviously, I need to spend some time with you over a beer or two or three. |
|
|
|
Post by GNick99 on Feb 5, 2014 21:18:22 GMT -5
I'm hearing that Montreal is shopping Markov now.....I guess contract negotiations didn't go well. I've read it as well. Markov is representing himself apparently. I'm leery about signing him. Love the guy, but to sign him to a contract befitting a guy playing 20-25 premium minutes is getting beyond what his body is capable of. I asked myself the other day, "if I had to pick between Markov and Dan Boyle, I might just pick Boyle were he available and he's 2 years older." Boyle is presently negotiating with the Sharks, and he wants to finish out his career there, but his body is in significantly better shape. Similar players, size, age, etc. I think at this point, Boyle is the guy I'd pick. I just don't think giving Markov more than a year is the right move at this point. Beaulieu is availing himself pretty darn well in this stint. He still needs to add muscle. But, he's ready to play every night. Can we go forward with top six of: Subban-Gorges Beaulieu-Emelin Tinordi-Murray (or someone like him) Drewiske (because he's signed for one more year) Sure would be nice to have another puck mover. Markov should get significant return. If Murray got a second in 2013 (which is a first this year) and a conditional second this year, Markov should net a couple of firsts EASY. I would pass...unless they have another trade lined up for puck moving defenseman. Its a weak draft and just traded Diaz. No blueline depth there now as Drewisky and Bouillon aren't much. Markov plays a lot of minutes. How can you cover those kind of minutes? You get a significant amount of your offense from your defense. If Habs trade Markov they need another trade lined up for offensive d-man. There's no offense coming from Gorges or Elemin. What they have in Hamilton is bottom pairings talent. Who are not ready. Beaulieu is the best of them and he looks lost defensively at times. He can't cover Markov's minutes. There's no top 4 defensemen in the system. Tinordi has taken a step back this year in Hamilton. Makes them too thin on blueline |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Feb 5, 2014 21:23:13 GMT -5
There's no top 4 defensemen in the system. Tinordi has taken a step back this year in Hamilton. Makes them too thin on blueline get Tinordi out of Hamilton and you have a top 4 d-man. |
|
|
|
Post by seventeen on Feb 6, 2014 0:56:45 GMT -5
Get him away from his current coaches and you'd see a marked improvement.
|
|
