HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   Proposal: Dal-phi (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1443771)

AJTSS 06-08-2013 01:06 PM

Dal-phi
 
Are we even close?

Daley, 10th overall 2013, 2nd rounder (40#) 2013 -> Flyers
Couturier -> Stars

King Forsberg 06-08-2013 01:08 PM

I would prefer Oleksiak over Daley if The Flyers are giving up Couturier

Jray42 06-08-2013 01:11 PM

Change Daley + the 2nd to something better.

Mr Misty 06-08-2013 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Forsberg (Post 67206015)
I would prefer Oleksiak over Daley if The Flyers are giving up Couturier

Oleksiak is a non-starter. We need to move an NHL defenseman, probably Daley or Robidas.

96 06-08-2013 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJTSS (Post 67205947)
Are we even close?

Daley, 10th overall 2013, 2nd rounder (40#) 2013 -> Flyers
Couturier -> Stars

Honestly, speaking as a Flyers fan, I don't think that is all that close. Daley isn't really worth a whole lot to us. We have a ton of left-handed 2nd-pairing defensemen. Moreover, why would we trade Couturier, who we drafted only two years ago at 8th overall and stepped into a full-time NHL role immediately, for a later 1st rounder and a 2nd?

I think we would ask for Goligoski + 2nd or Oleksiak + 3rd. Even then, I think we'd more likely move Couturier for a more established player like Yandle.

NitHeel 06-08-2013 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Misty (Post 67206377)
Oleksiak is a non-starter. We need to move an NHL defenseman, probably Daley or Robidas.

And the Flyers aren't moving Couturier for a mid pair d-man.

LatvianTwist 06-08-2013 01:41 PM

Goligoski + 2nd works just fine now that we have Gonchar.

Stizzle 06-08-2013 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LatvianTwist (Post 67207377)
Goligoski + 2nd works just fine now that we have Gonchar.

for Couturier? That's not even close.

oconnor9sean 06-08-2013 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stizzle (Post 67207839)
for Couturier? That's not even close.

Lololol. It might not be good enough, but it's close. Goligoski isn't just a throw in. He's proven himself as a very effective offensive defenseman. Couturier hasn't proven anything. Don't act like he has insane value.

txomisc 06-08-2013 02:08 PM

It seems like Couturiers perceived value around here is ridiculously high for a guy who hasnt proven much.

NitHeel 06-08-2013 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oconnor9sean (Post 67207999)
Lololol. It might not be good enough, but it's close. Goligoski isn't just a throw in. He's proven himself as a very effective offensive defenseman. Couturier hasn't proven anything. Don't act like he has insane value.

One of those statements is true and one of them is false.


Semantics aside, I can't see the Flyers moving Couturier for Goligoski and an OK pick.

Tripod 06-08-2013 02:09 PM

our 2 fanbases have already agreed that a fair deal for both teams would be:
Couts and 2nd(#41) for Goligoski and 1st(#10)

It hurts to do for both teams, yet serves the purpose of need.

SolidusAKA 06-08-2013 02:11 PM

Wasnt there a really awesome Gologoski package a month or so ago that worked well for Couts? Wasnt it like one of the rare cases where an HF proposal satisfied everyone?

Edit: ^^^^ This

Stizzle 06-08-2013 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by txomisc (Post 67208337)
It seems like Couturiers perceived value around here is ridiculously high for a guy who hasnt proven much.

His value is "ridiculously high" for a reason. Don't just look at his G/A/P totals from his 19 and 20 year old seasons and think you have the full picture. If you put the original proposal in front of Ed Snyder, he would be insulted.

AJTSS 06-08-2013 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tripod (Post 67208375)
our 2 fanbases have already agreed that a fair deal for both teams would be:
Couts and 2nd(#41) for Goligoski and 1st(#10)

It hurts to do for both teams, yet serves the purpose of need.

Would hurt to lose Goligoski, but still... Deal done ;)

Really not sure, should we get rid of Goligoski. I like him alot. Beside the turnovers...

txomisc 06-08-2013 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stizzle (Post 67208571)
His value is "ridiculously high" for a reason. Don't just look at his G/A/P totals from his 19 and 20 year old seasons and think you have the full picture. If you put the original proposal in front of Ed Snyder, he would be insulted.

Thats fine you dont like the opening proposal, but your goligoski and a 2nd not even being close is absurd. You may not like those exact parts, but the value has to be close.

txomisc 06-08-2013 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJTSS (Post 67208607)
Would hurt to lose Goligoski, but still... Deal done ;)

Really not sure, should we get rid of Goligoski. I like him alot. Beside the turnovers...

Honestly I dont even really like that deal. The Stars would be better off just trying to add to the 10th overall to trade up and get Lindholm or Monahan, two players who could be just as good as he might.

Morry83 06-08-2013 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by txomisc (Post 67208807)
Honestly I dont even really like that deal. The Stars would be better off just trying to add to the 10th overall to trade up and get Lindholm or Monahan, two players who could be just as good as he might.

I agree with this, however I'd rather not lose the 10th. Draft Lindholm and Ristolainen, and we're golden.

Stizzle 06-08-2013 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by txomisc (Post 67208727)
Thats fine you dont like the opening proposal, but your goligoski and a 2nd not even being close is absurd. You may not like those exact parts, but the value has to be close.

The consensus seems to be add the 10th overall and then we are about fair. So yeah, your original proposal with a 2nd rounder in place of a high 1st isn't close. Just like I said all along.

oconnor9sean 06-08-2013 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stizzle (Post 67209853)
The consensus seems to be add the 10th overall and then we are about fair. So yeah, your original proposal with a 2nd rounder in place of a high 1st isn't close. Just like I said all along.

Not a chance I'd give up #10 + Goligoski for Couturier. He was the 8th pick and hasn't exactly blown anyone away, now he's worth the 10th pick in a better draft + a guy who'd be your best point getting defenseman? No way.

phlocky 06-08-2013 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by txomisc (Post 67208727)
Thats fine you dont like the opening proposal, but your goligoski and a 2nd not even being close is absurd. You may not like those exact parts, but the value has to be close.

Goli + 2nd IS close but probably not incentive enough to get the Flyers to pull the trigger. As others have said, Goli + 10th OA for Coots + 41st OA is pretty close to the same value and THAT may be enough to get the Flyers to pull the trigger.

oconnor9sean 06-08-2013 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phlocky (Post 67210495)
Goli + 2nd IS close but probably not incentive enough to get the Flyers to pull the trigger. As others have said, Goli + 10th OA for Coots + 41st OA is pretty close to the same value and THAT may be enough to get the Flyers to pull the trigger.

I'd pass on that as a Stars fan. We can get a hell of a player at pick #10, so including that and Goligoski for Couts and #41 isn't a good deal for Dallas.

phlocky 06-08-2013 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oconnor9sean (Post 67210827)
I'd pass on that as a Stars fan. We can get a hell of a player at pick #10, so including that and Goligoski for Couts and #41 isn't a good deal for Dallas.

I completely understand that and if I were the Stars I probably wouldn't do it either. Again, as a Flyers fan I wouldn't do Goli + 2nd for Coots even if value-wise it's pretty close.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:19 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.