View Single Post
Old
05-30-2010, 05:01 PM
  #29
saywut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,084
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GopherState View Post
There's a huge difference moving up ten spots versus four even when the four spots are higher in the draft.
Except NYI made both trades, so you take out the 3rd party(Columbus) and make it one deal(as I did).

Quote:
Originally Posted by mnwildgophers View Post
How soon was the trade made with Columbus? Was it early on in the draft? Also, maybe we thought that a guy who we wanted to take would be there at #12, and then he got taken and so we decided to move back to #16? Maybe the Isles thought that de Haan would be there at #16 and thought it was worth a 3rd and 7th? I think that the trade was worth it, but it's too hard to tell what we could have had since we weren't involved in the negotiations.
It was right at the start. De Haan would have likely been there at 16, but it goes back to what I said in a different thread about Cuma and NJD, perhaps we told them we'd draft De Haan unless they moved up because we knew who they wanted.
Its very poor value(3rd and 7th) for moving down from 12 to 16. GMCF also identified Leddy as TT's guy, so it doesn't make much sense to me. Sure, he could have gone by 26, but there would have still been equal/better options at 26 than him. And who could have we been waiting on? Kassian and Kulikov fell right into our laps and instead we moved down.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mnwildgophers View Post
We finished as the 9th worst team in the NHL, and even though we weren't playoff "contenders," isn't the goal every year to make the playoffs? I don't think that we should be trying to lose. I like the trade because he wanted Kobasew's speed, grit, experience, and a little scoring touch. He was hurt for a lot of the year. We wouldn't be trying to sign a RFA either way.
I have nothing against Chuck Kobasew, and don't feel the trade was terrible value, but it was quite clear we were not going to make the playoffs. So why make the deal? Just tank the year. The Oilers had higher expectations than us, did you see them trying to improve their team? No, they were happy tanking for #1.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mnwildgophers View Post
What realistically could we expect to get back from a Johnsson deal at the deadline? A 2nd round pick and a prospect? Those are two things that may pan out(as I realize is the same with Barker), however, I feel that Barker has already proven 40 points on the Hawks, and he could flourish with us. I'll take Barker over a 2nd and prospect anyday.
I'd rather have nothing than Cam Barker. I know its harsh, but I see another Kurtis Foster, more or less. A Pylon with a shot, who refuses to use his size.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mnwildgophers View Post
I personally think a d-man will be traded this offseason, thus allowing to not have $3.5M on the blueline and maybe a cheaper alternative. We lost about $5.33M of cap space in the deals for this year, but we need to primarily fill out our forward core now as the defensive one is set.
Who can we move? GMCF was involved in acquiring Zanon and Barker, while re-signing Zidlicky and Stoner. So that leaves Nick Schultz, well overpaid with 4 years left, or Brent Burns, the guy GMCF has identified that he'd like to build the D around. So how do we move Schultz with his contract?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mnwildgophers View Post
This was the last of TT's doings, it's nice to see him gone with a full season of scouting being ran by GMCF's crew. The trade down thing was better than nothing if you ask me.
Oh, if we were going to take Nick Leddy at 12 then yes, the trade down was better than nothing. The key is it was poor value, and at that kind of value I'd rather have seen us draft Kassian(seeing as how we couldn't afford to give Kulikov a spot). And yes, its a good thing TT is gone.

saywut is offline   Reply With Quote