HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Nashville Predators (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=33)
-   -   Speculation: Trade with Minnesota (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=806519)

lightning_legwand* 08-05-2010 01:44 AM

Trade with Minnesota
 
Just was thinkin to myself. The wild have a couple solid young defenders that I would love to see the Preds acquire! A good canadian replacement for Hamhuis would be nice!

What do you think it would take us to get either Brent Burns or Cam Barker away from the wild?? We could even toss in Mikko Koivu or Martin Havlat and make it a blackbuster!! Any thoughts on if we would be good trading partners with the wild??

Joe T Choker 08-05-2010 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lightning_legwand (Post 27247792)
Just was thinkin to myself. The wild have a couple solid young defenders that I would love to see the Preds acquire! A good canadian replacement for Hamhuis would be nice!

What do you think it would take us to get either Brent Burns or Cam Barker away from the wild?? We could even toss in Mikko Koivu or Martin Havlat and make it a blackbuster!! Any thoughts on if we would be good trading partners with the wild??

I don't think the Preds & Wild make good trading partners

Seth Lake 08-05-2010 01:52 AM

Umm...we're set up for Weber and Suter to make up the majority of our budget for defensemen for the next 10 years or so (hopefully) with the remainder of the defense likely being prospects still in their RFA years and veterans on the back half of their career making up the remainder of the D corps unless someone reaches or surpasses the level of Weber and Suter.

Acquiring Burns or Barker is not in our plans and I don't really see what we could offer Minnesota that would entice them to trade either one away.

In addition, Minnesota is not trading their captain (Koivu) and has little reason to trade us Havlat. Furthermore, as with the defensemen...neither of those players fits into our budget and would likely mean the loss of some of our homegrown talent including Colin Wilson.

Just not a good proposal...

worstfaceoffmanever 08-05-2010 02:06 AM

A lot. It would take a lot.

TMI 08-05-2010 05:57 AM

If we trade for a defenseman right now it'll be prospects for prospects or a cheap vet. What's more likely to happen is Poile extends a training camp try out to a player or two. Of course, he could also just stick with what we have. It's hard to tell with DP sometimes.

worstfaceoffmanever 08-05-2010 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThirdManIn (Post 27248715)
If we trade for a defenseman right now it'll be prospects for prospects or a cheap vet. What's more likely to happen is Poile extends a training camp try out to a player or two. Of course, he could also just stick with what we have. It's hard to tell with DP sometimes.

You never know what you're going to get with... DP...


:biglaugh: :biglaugh: :biglaugh:

cjerina 08-05-2010 09:07 AM

Cam Barker really? We already have Cody Franson, why would we want 2x Cody Franson?

Legionnaire11 08-05-2010 09:49 AM

obviously we'd have to give up Joel Ward in any Blackbuster trade

lightning_legwand* 08-05-2010 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SLake (Post 27247835)
Umm...we're set up for Weber and Suter to make up the majority of our budget for defensemen for the next 10 years or so (hopefully) with the remainder of the defense likely being prospects still in their RFA years and veterans on the back half of their career making up the remainder of the D corps unless someone reaches or surpasses the level of Weber and Suter.

Acquiring Burns or Barker is not in our plans and I don't really see what we could offer Minnesota that would entice them to trade either one away.

In addition, Minnesota is not trading their captain (Koivu) and has little reason to trade us Havlat. Furthermore, as with the defensemen...neither of those players fits into our budget and would likely mean the loss of some of our homegrown talent including Colin Wilson.

Just not a good proposal...



This is why I do not think Weber and Suter both stay here in Nashville. Waaaay to much tied up in two players, we do not have money to spend like big market teams and tying up like 50% of our budget on two players is ridiculous!!

Suter gets dealt in a few years. Is Weber goes, alot of fans go with him. He is the man here.

Plain and simple, the Predators CANNOT afford both Suts and Webs and still be competitive. There is no I in the word TEAM!

lstcyr 08-05-2010 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lightning_legwand (Post 27259404)
This is why I do not think Weber and Suter both stay here in Nashville. Waaaay to much tied up in two players, we do not have money to spend like big market teams and tying up like 50% of our budget on two players is ridiculous!!

Suter gets dealt in a few years. Is Weber goes, alot of fans go with him. He is the man here.

Plain and simple, the Predators CANNOT afford both Suts and Webs and still be competitive. There is no I in the word TEAM!

50% of the budget for defensemen. Not the total budget. Not unreasonable at all.

PredsV82 08-05-2010 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lightning_legwand (Post 27259404)
Plain and simple, the Predators CANNOT afford both Suts and Webs and still be competitive.

Messrs Poile and Cigarran beg to differ with you.

GopherState 08-05-2010 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lightning_legwand (Post 27247792)
Just was thinkin to myself. The wild have a couple solid young defenders that I would love to see the Preds acquire! A good canadian replacement for Hamhuis would be nice!

What do you think it would take us to get either Brent Burns or Cam Barker away from the wild?? We could even toss in Mikko Koivu or Martin Havlat and make it a blackbuster!! Any thoughts on if we would be good trading partners with the wild??

You aren't unless Colin Wilson is up on the block.

lightning_legwand* 08-05-2010 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lstcyr (Post 27259440)
50% of the budget for defensemen. Not the total budget. Not unreasonable at all.


Oh yeah?

What is our teams total pay roll right now? $44,541,667

So Shea Weber will easily get 8 million, as will Suter.

SO between them, that is $16 million.


So my mistake, 1/3 of the payroll on two players!

So if Horny and Wilson develop as we hope, and they both command big contracts, well all I am saying is that we will not have p!ss all for a team, except 4 amazing players. Will Pickard/Rinne play for like a million??



My solution,
Give Weber his 8 mill long term, and let Suter gone when the time comes.

If we have Suter and Weber both for their whole careers we will never have ANY other NHL caliber/quality players on the blueline outside of them, and you need balance/depth to win titles...

Just doesn't make sense to keep them both, now if we were a big market team this would not even be a subject of discussion!

Seth Lake 08-05-2010 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lightning_legwand (Post 27260448)
Oh yeah?

What is our teams total pay roll right now? $44,541,667

So Shea Weber will easily get 8 million, as will Suter.

SO between them, that is $16 million.


So my mistake, 1/3 of the payroll on two players!

So if Horny and Wilson develop as we hope, and they both command big contracts, well all I am saying is that we will not have p!ss all for a team, except 4 amazing players. Will Pickard/Rinne play for like a million??



My solution,
Give Weber his 8 mill long term, and let Suter gone when the time comes.

If we have Suter and Weber both for their whole careers we will never have ANY other NHL caliber/quality players on the blueline outside of them, and you need balance/depth to win titles...

Just doesn't make sense to keep them both, now if we were a big market team this would not even be a subject of discussion!

Look at Duncan Keith's contract and tell me if we signed both Weber and Suter to similar deals how much their cap hits would be per year...

Poile has previously shown that he will stagger the annual salary of two players long-term deals to essentially pay them the same amount of actual cash each year, but will have one making more than the other to start and the other finishing with a higher salary (look at Legwand and Erat's deals to see what I mean).

Let's wait a couple months and see what type of deal Poile works out with Weber...then we can discuss whether or not Ryan Suter has as bright a future here in Nashville. Till then, they are the cornerstones of our franchise and aren't going anywhere...

Que Sera Sera 08-05-2010 11:56 PM

As others have said, we're simply not good trading partners.

lightning_legwand* 08-06-2010 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SLake (Post 27260593)
Look at Duncan Keith's contract and tell me if we signed both Weber and Suter to similar deals how much their cap hits would be per year...

Poile has previously shown that he will stagger the annual salary of two players long-term deals to essentially pay them the same amount of actual cash each year, but will have one making more than the other to start and the other finishing with a higher salary (look at Legwand and Erat's deals to see what I mean).

Let's wait a couple months and see what type of deal Poile works out with Weber...then we can discuss whether or not Ryan Suter has as bright a future here in Nashville. Till then, they are the cornerstones of our franchise and aren't going anywhere...


Fair enough, I guess thats the best solution.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Midnight Oil (Post 27260669)
As others have said, we're simply not good trading partners.


How so? Any two teams in the NHL can trade! hahah, its hilarious that you would say that, i mean why not? Maybe not for a blockbuster, but we could definitely do a deal. I even think we could do a blockbuster with the Wild.


As Slake said above, we will wait and see what kind of deal Weber gets and then discuss what happens with Suts, but if Suter does somehow become available, are we still not "good trading partners" with the Wild? lol


To Wild: Ryan Suter, JP Dumont

To Preds: Cam Barker, Martin Havlat, Brent Burns, and 1st round pick


Wild get a superstar defenseman and a player who is "almost" capable of putting up same kind of numbers as Havlat.

Preds "finally" get depth on blueline after Hamhuis/Grebeshkov left and now has more defensive depth, plus a solid forward in Havlat.

Suter would be dealt only for overpayment, he would be an extremely hot commodity.

Brodeur 08-06-2010 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lightning_legwand (Post 27260820)

To Wild: Ryan Suter, JP Dumont

To Preds: Cam Barker, Martin Havlat, Brent Burns, and 1st round pick

Yeah....don't really see how that makes much sense for Minnesota. Add in the fact that they're hosting the draft next year makes it unlikely that they'll give up a first rounder.

It's a question mark with his injuries, but a healthy Brent Burns and Cam Barker is nothing to sneeze at. Then you're asking them to give up a dynamic scorer in Havlat to get a decent forward in Dumont, plus throw in a 1st?

predfan24 08-06-2010 12:23 AM

A little off topic but I think Brent Burns is horribly overrated. He has skill for sure but is horribly inconsistent and isn't a top pairing D at this point.

GopherState 08-06-2010 01:01 AM

Time to drop some knowledge...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by lightning_legwand (Post 27260820)
How so? Any two teams in the NHL can trade! hahah, its hilarious that you would say that, i mean why not? Maybe not for a blockbuster, but we could definitely do a deal. I even think we could do a blockbuster with the Wild.


As Slake said above, we will wait and see what kind of deal Weber gets and then discuss what happens with Suts, but if Suter does somehow become available, are we still not "good trading partners" with the Wild? lol


To Wild: Ryan Suter, JP Dumont

To Preds: Cam Barker, Martin Havlat, Brent Burns, and 1st round pick


Wild get a superstar defenseman and a player who is "almost" capable of putting up same kind of numbers as Havlat.

Preds "finally" get depth on blueline after Hamhuis/Grebeshkov left and now has more defensive depth, plus a solid forward in Havlat.

Suter would be dealt only for overpayment, he would be an extremely hot commodity.

So a "superstar" defenseman and a forward (albeit one who is underated) who "almost" can put up Havlat's numbers are worth that player, half of the top-four and a 1st round pick? There's no way that ends up being beneficial to Minnesota and there's not a chance in hell they would do it. That leaves another hole in defense, a bad prospect pool which is without a first and second pick next year and less scoring on an already shaky top-six. It does save $5 million for now (a reason why I wouldn't think Nashville would do it), but the Wild really aren't in cost-cutting mode.

Burns isn't being shopped. Havlat isn't being shopped. Barker was just traded for so I have to believe he's not being shopped. While there's a lot of "Burns to X" proposals out there, our GM has stated that the only way he will be traded is overpayment for an elite young top-six forward. Notice the word young. Outside of maybe Colin Wilson, Nashville doesn't have that player. So I don't really see Minnesota and Nashville trading for anything with one another. Defense is a position of strength for our team too and really there's no reason to have to overpay to get Ryan Suter.

Circulartheory 08-06-2010 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by predfan24 (Post 27260964)
A little off topic but I think Brent Burns is horribly overrated. He has skill for sure but is horribly inconsistent and isn't a top pairing D at this point.

I wouldn't say "Horribly" inconsistent. He has be inconsistent and he isn't a sure-fire top pairing Dman, you're right. BUT, he's 25 years old, has a decent contract, and is starting to show more and more top pairing ability.

And he isn't overrated by Wild fans. We just don't want other team's garbage for Burns. We also aren't TRYING to trade Burns so we don't want low valued assets in return. We also do not want purely just picks and prospects because the Wild aren't rebuilding. Now, Wild fans are saying no to every proposal made because they keep offering the opposite what the team wants and needs.

goalscorer 08-06-2010 07:58 AM

Lightning

When someone says we don't make good trading partners, it does not mean that there will never be a trade between the two or that one simply can't be done. I detect a small amount of sarcasm (at least I hope) in your response to someone saying we dont make good trading partners, so I won't go any further and just let it go there.

DP is not going to trade Suter unless he knows he will not be able to sign him. Both Weber and Suter will give hometown discounts, so the 8 mil a piece theory won't be an issue. Weber is the future captain of Team Canada and Suter for USA. Why would they break up possibly the best d pairing for years to come. Could they get crazy money, yes. Is that ultimately what they're after, I doubt it. I suspect they want to stay together and win a cup. They will take discounts to not handcuff our team.


That trade is ridiculous.

roseyc 08-06-2010 01:50 PM

We can afford both( Suter and Weber) the owners have said so. Please when your trying to trade everyone leave Dumont and Ward alone. They are good players. You can't have a superstar on every line. You have the most ridiculous trade rumors possible. You need to slow down and let's do one thing at a time. First we need to get Hornqvist signed and then deal with Franson. Then we get a backup goalie signed or we go to camp and find one within the organization. Then we go to training camp and then we sort out what we have. You know that you can trade up til next year's trading deadline if they choose to do so. We'll find out what we have in camp.

Vashanesh 08-06-2010 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lightning_legwand (Post 27260820)
To Wild: Ryan Suter, JP Dumont

To Preds: Cam Barker, Martin Havlat, Brent Burns, and 1st round pick


Wild get a superstar defenseman and a player who is "almost" capable of putting up same kind of numbers as Havlat.

Preds "finally" get depth on blueline after Hamhuis/Grebeshkov left and now has more defensive depth, plus a solid forward in Havlat.

Suter would be dealt only for overpayment, he would be an extremely hot commodity.

Given my original post was (justifiably) deleted due to me being a tard.... Let's break this down...

So, the wild get: a top pairing D-man (who's actually two months older than Burns), and a forward we don't want or need, who's almost 3 years older than Havlat.

We have to give up: a kid who we already know has all the physical tools to be a top pairing D-man, and one that we won't be dealing for overpayment - sounds familiar, huh? (Burns). A kid who could be another top pairing D-man or a PP specialist, and anything in between (Barker). A forward who - prior to the Koivu deal - just signed the most lucrative contract in Wild history... Who is also the only player that we know for a fact has chemistry with our also recently signed soon-to-be top-6 power forward in Gui Latendresse. AND we give up our first round pick, which could reasonably be anywhere from 15th overall to top 5 overall in the draft that WE'RE HOSTING.

I can't tell if you're kidding, but I don't think you are. If you're not kidding... This proposal is not only one of the most one-sided deals I've ever seen, it's plainly insulting to the Wild.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:23 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.