View Single Post
04-05-2010, 02:14 PM
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: X Marks The Spot
Originally Posted by
Dr Jan Itor
1. Think that they can get TWO better goalie prospects in this draft with their 2nd and 6th round picks
2. Would rather sign a college FA then trade a 2nd & 6th rounder for a 25 year old with NHL experience
3. Have A LOT of faith (maybe some of it blind) in their GM
That sounds about right given this is Hockey's Future after all. But in fairness to the Devils' fanbase, Brodeur is still doing well and they aren't at a point where the future goalie will be necessary
. So having an unproven 28 year-old goalie (just throwing out a number when Harding would hypothetically take over) doesn't sound like the greatest idea in the world.
Originally Posted by
Classic Wild fans wants to rush Almond and Wellman. Put them in the AHL next year.
Backstrom for Sharp + Huet. Chicago dumps Huet's bad contract and gets a #1 goalie. Wild get a RW for Koivu.
Bouchard + Miettinen for Briere. If Bouchard isn't playing, this deal doesn't happen. Wild just use that cap space to sign Plekanec, maybe Jokinen. Philly dumps a terrible contract, gets scoring depth on the RW side. Cap hits the same.
Not a bad line-up. In a few years, maybe Wellman, Gillies, and Almond can replace the more expensive older players. Without the Wild's terrible first 20 games when they were learning the new system, they would be in the playoff race.
Where to begin...
1. I'm not saying that this should be a youth project because frankly there's not enough quality youth to make it anything other than a four-five year ordeal, but the same holds true with having solely veterans. If you have one of Wellman or Almond up on the big club it isn't hurting the team or their development (you have to remember that Wellman is older than Sheppard and this isn't exactly throwing a baby in to the fire like keeping Gillies or Shep up to learn and not play) and saves the team precious cap dollars. These are two different situations and if it ends up where Wellman or Almond would be better suited off getting playing time in Houston, then so be it.
2. Besides Backstrom's NTC, why would the Blackhawks do the first deal, especially if they confidence in Niemi? It's essentially a lateral deal where they throw in a top-six winger. Plus it doesn't really save them money in the long-term unless the cap goes up greatly over the next three years.
3. Putting Huet in the minors. I know this is from another post, but it is related. Besides the fact that I'm sure Leipold would happy to spend $5.625 million on a player sitting in Houston (because all billionaire owners love to toss money around), it would essentially be the end of Huet as a Wild player. One, Minnesota would have to bring Huet back up and use re-entry waivers; odds are some team would take a stab at him for half the contract (with the Wild paying the other half). Two, there would be no way to trade him given teams would have to bring him up through re-entry waivers and could have him for that anyways. Three, why would trade for a player with the knowledge that it is highly possible his deal is toxic enough where putting him in the minors to eat out the contract would be the best option?
4. I'd rather take a stab at Plekanec or Jokinen in free agency than have Briere. Yes, you can trade Briere down the line for a team which needs salary cap space but there's no way you will get the same asset management out of Briere than saying no to the deal (which is the problem Philly fans have with Briere - he should be a top-five player with that contract and is barely one on his team). Miettenen's $2.5 million comes off the books next season anyways and can be used as part of something else much more than Briere being alongside Marty Havlat as the top two wingers for the next five years. Both Plekanec and Jokinen sound like better options and would be cheaper even with the free agency surcharge.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by GopherState