HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.

Bieksa to Tampa Bay

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-04-2010, 03:22 AM
  #26
doglover8891
rajinikanthfan1
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 484
vCash: 500
a draft pick would be enough or we can do this


to canucks


2nd pick
3rd pick


to lightning

bieksa
alberts

doglover8891 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 05:31 AM
  #27
JuniorNelson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: E.Vancouver
Country: Australia-Aboriginal
Posts: 4,650
vCash: 50
Tokarski or Mihalik. I'd be willing to address any discrepency, as well.

JuniorNelson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 06:25 AM
  #28
Going Back to Cally
Sons of Pirates
 
Going Back to Cally's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: St.Pete, Florida
Country: United States
Posts: 28,693
vCash: 286
Not interested in anything above Mihalik and maybe s 5th.

__________________
Error 503 Service Unavailable
Going Back to Cally is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 06:25 AM
  #29
Vasilevskiy
I've many surnames
 
Vasilevskiy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Barcelona
Country: Spain
Posts: 8,729
vCash: 500
Mihalik/Lashoff + a pick (3rd maximum).

you know with who you're dealing right?

Vasilevskiy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 09:44 AM
  #30
NFITO
hockeyinsanity*****
 
NFITO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,857
vCash: 500
are Mihalik or Lashoff waiver eligible?

if they are, then the Canucks wouldn't have interest in them. They would just end up losing them (or Rome) to waivers eventually.

if they aren't waiver eligible (and won't be by playing 10-15 or so games this season), then that return makes more sense.... otherwise, it's not a fit for the Canucks.

NFITO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 10:04 AM
  #31
gobolt7
Registered User
 
gobolt7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Florida.
Country: Ireland
Posts: 11,243
vCash: 500
I am sure some of you would like James Wright. That is where the discussions end on Tampa's part.

However, if Nate Thompson suddenly can be the piece that lands Bieksa, then I am all aboard that bandwagon.

gobolt7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 10:10 AM
  #32
Going Back to Cally
Sons of Pirates
 
Going Back to Cally's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: St.Pete, Florida
Country: United States
Posts: 28,693
vCash: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuckfan in TO View Post
are Mihalik or Lashoff waiver eligible?

if they are, then the Canucks wouldn't have interest in them. They would just end up losing them (or Rome) to waivers eventually.

if they aren't waiver eligible (and won't be by playing 10-15 or so games this season), then that return makes more sense.... otherwise, it's not a fit for the Canucks.
Nobody is claiming Mihalik off waivers and Lashoff cleared twice last year.

Going Back to Cally is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 10:24 AM
  #33
Mervillian
Registered User
 
Mervillian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Chilliwack
Country: Canada
Posts: 392
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Yzerman effect View Post
Nobody is claiming Mihalik off waivers and Lashoff cleared twice last year.
That doesn't sound like very good value for Bieksa then does it.

Mervillian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 10:30 AM
  #34
CSampson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,212
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mervillian View Post
That doesn't sound like very good value for Bieksa then does it.
Implying Bieska has value

You people should really look at some of the recent trades. Your minds are pretty messed if you think someone like Bieska can get a Wright. Or a 2nd.

CSampson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 10:31 AM
  #35
NFITO
hockeyinsanity*****
 
NFITO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,857
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Yzerman effect View Post
Nobody is claiming Mihalik off waivers and Lashoff cleared twice last year.
so then the best offer from TBay is a player that isn't waiver eligible but is bad enough that even at a young age, no one is going to be pick them off waivers?

yea, that's the type of return we want for Bieksa

seriously, I'd rather take a draft pick.

The same is true for Thompson. Don't know why this guy keeps getting mentioned in this thread. He has zero value. And again the Canucks are already loaded with fringe 4th liners that are likely to be on waivers anyways.

all the TBay fans here have offered nothing that the Canucks would be interested in. Why trade for fringe players that don't address any organizational needs, when we're better off just taking a draft pick in return?

given the type of return that TBay is offering here, this looks like a bad fit overall. From all the Bieksa threads I've read, the fan base that has offered the most for Bieksa has been Washington (Steckel, Gustafsson, 3rd). These proposals here aren't close.

NFITO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 10:33 AM
  #36
Doctor Drej
Unregistered User
 
Doctor Drej's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: The Quiet Room
Country: United States
Posts: 10,920
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd22 View Post
Simek for Bieksa, straight up.
Deal. Where do I sign?

Doctor Drej is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 10:34 AM
  #37
Going Back to Cally
Sons of Pirates
 
Going Back to Cally's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: St.Pete, Florida
Country: United States
Posts: 28,693
vCash: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mervillian View Post
That doesn't sound like very good value for Bieksa then does it.
I'm not interested in Bieksa for anything of value so it doesn't bother me.

Going Back to Cally is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 10:45 AM
  #38
The Fear Boners
Plz stop pucks
 
The Fear Boners's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Scrip Club
Country: United States
Posts: 20,028
vCash: 500
I'm not even sure where he fits on this roster, who do we push to a 5 slow assuming he goes into the top 4?

Also, his speed and injuries concern me.

The Fear Boners is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 10:48 AM
  #39
alpine4life
Registered User
 
alpine4life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moncton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,474
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone Phillips View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by alpine4life View Post
Would the Lightning new GM be interested in Kevin Bieksa?

TB have plenty of cap left to spend, I'm pretty sure that he wouldnt be expensive either and a D-Man would be req'd in TB.

What would Yzerman be ready to offer for him?
Not needed. We have 8 NHL defenseman already.
quotes are as a previous post that I've started(TB fans werent really interested in acquiring Bieksa):

DEFENSEMEN
Pavel Kubina ($3.850m) / Mike Lundin ($0.750m)
Mattias Ohlund ($3.607m) / Victor Hedman ($3.500m)
Brett Clark ($1.500m) / Matt Lashoff ($0.550m)
Matt Smaby ($0.525m)

alpine4life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 10:54 AM
  #40
wholesickcrew
Registered User
 
wholesickcrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,954
vCash: 500
How about Teddy Purcell?

wholesickcrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 11:02 AM
  #41
NFITO
hockeyinsanity*****
 
NFITO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,857
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobsled Gainey View Post
I'm not even sure where he fits on this roster, who do we push to a 5 slow assuming he goes into the top 4?

Also, his speed and injuries concern me.
Bieksa doesn't have any speed issues... he's not fast, but his skating is fine overall, and he's an above average puck-mover... he's a better skater than Ohlund is now at this stage in his career. When they were both on the Canucks just a year ago, Bieksa was easily the better skater and puck-mover (though Ohlund was the better defensive dman).

And as far as injuries go - the only injuries he's had have been 2 freak accidents where he had a skate cut - and is now wearing kevlar socks. It's not like they're injuries that happen all the time - and for most players, never happens in their careers.

His only other injury in the NHL was an abdominal injury sustained during the 06/07 playoffs - which he played through and then had surgery after the playoffs.

Other than that, he's been healthy... no concussions, recurring injuries like groin, shoulder, etc.

Bieksa's injury concerns have been overblown because people don't pay attention to what actually happened, and just look at games lost and assume he's injury prone - which is far from reality.

NFITO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 11:03 AM
  #42
Bolt32
Registered User
 
Bolt32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
Country: United States
Posts: 2,765
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wholesickcrew View Post
How about Teddy Purcell?
eh to be honest I dont think we make good trading partners. Teddy has shown he can fill in on the top 6 and not really miss a beat. I know Gagne has had injury problems in the past so it kinda eases the mind knowing Teddy can fill in till a top 6 player returns and not be out of place. With that said I'm confident with the Defense we have now, were just missing a Number 1 but other than that its not to shabby.

Bolt32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 11:27 AM
  #43
The Overseer*
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,967
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSampson View Post
Implying Bieska has value

You people should really look at some of the recent trades. Your minds are pretty messed if you think someone like Bieska can get a Wright. Or a 2nd.

Which trades do you think are comparable? Let me guess, Wisniewski?

The Overseer* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 11:57 AM
  #44
The Fear Boners
Plz stop pucks
 
The Fear Boners's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Scrip Club
Country: United States
Posts: 20,028
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuckfan in TO View Post
Bieksa doesn't have any speed issues... he's not fast, but his skating is fine overall, and he's an above average puck-mover... he's a better skater than Ohlund is now at this stage in his career. When they were both on the Canucks just a year ago, Bieksa was easily the better skater and puck-mover (though Ohlund was the better defensive dman).

And as far as injuries go - the only injuries he's had have been 2 freak accidents where he had a skate cut - and is now wearing kevlar socks. It's not like they're injuries that happen all the time - and for most players, never happens in their careers.

His only other injury in the NHL was an abdominal injury sustained during the 06/07 playoffs - which he played through and then had surgery after the playoffs.

Other than that, he's been healthy... no concussions, recurring injuries like groin, shoulder, etc.

Bieksa's injury concerns have been overblown because people don't pay attention to what actually happened, and just look at games lost and assume he's injury prone - which is far from reality.
They're not overblown, its that he had injuries in two critical areas - ankle/foot, and around the waist. Waist doesn't concern me as much, but anytime you're getting an achillies cut, its a risk and a red flag. Only other place i'd really consider critical is head/neck.

As you said though, he hasn't had reoccuring issues with either so its not too bad. Not sure about taking on the salary, too.

The Fear Boners is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 11:58 AM
  #45
Reign Nateo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,434
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandlak View Post
Which trades do you think are comparable? Let me guess, Wisniewski?
Fairly comparable actually. Wisneiwski went for a 3rd to a non-contending team. Could be more like a low-2nd. He's younger than Bieksa, but that's about it. Bieksa is more proven (2 40+ point seasons) and is bigger, meaner, and probably holds more value league-wide. Combine that with the fact that Wisneiwski was traded in a rush for a 3rd and you get a pretty good idea of Bieksa's value.

He's got a bad rap around here, but he's still pretty serviceable and 3.75 for what he brings seems cheaper by the day.

Obviously I don't expect Bolts fans to know much about him but guess what, he'd probably lead that defence in scoring, and be the meanest guy on the back-end. Truthfully I would expect Kubina and maybe Hedman to out-score him, but he's no slouch. Any team counting on Clark and Lashoff to play every night should be falling over themselves to add a guy like Bieksa. Lundin was solid last year, but how often to defencemen regress in their 2nd year? Pretty often. Putting him in as your top pairing guy is pretty bold I would think.

The only issue I see is both teams needing bottom six players and Tampa being reluctant to trade forward prospects. Oh that and the whole Yzerman/Gillis thing. Can't really see these two making a deal.

Yzerman would put his offer out and just stare, Gillis would act dissinterested and bored... This could go on for weeks.

Reign Nateo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 12:02 PM
  #46
The Fear Boners
Plz stop pucks
 
The Fear Boners's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Scrip Club
Country: United States
Posts: 20,028
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reign Nateo View Post
Fairly comparable actually. Wisneiwski went for a 3rd to a non-contending team. Could be more like a low-2nd. He's younger than Bieksa, but that's about it. Bieksa is more proven (2 40+ point seasons) and is bigger, meaner, and probably holds more value league-wide. Combine that with the fact that Wisneiwski was traded in a rush for a 3rd and you get a pretty good idea of Bieksa's value.

He's got a bad rap around here, but he's still pretty serviceable and 3.75 for what he brings seems cheaper by the day.

Obviously I don't expect Bolts fans to know much about him but guess what, he'd probably lead that defence in scoring, and be the meanest guy on the back-end. Truthfully I would expect Kubina and maybe Hedman to out-score him, but he's no slouch. Any team counting on Clark and Lashoff to play every night should be falling over themselves to add a guy like Bieksa. Lundin was solid last year, but how often to defencemen regress in their 2nd year? Pretty often. Putting him in as your top pairing guy is pretty bold I would think.

The only issue I see is both teams needing bottom six players and Tampa being reluctant to trade forward prospects. Oh that and the whole Yzerman/Gillis thing. Can't really see these two making a deal.

Yzerman would put his offer out and just stare, Gillis would act dissinterested and bored... This could go on for weeks.
Its not Lundins second year... but yeah, not good partners.

The Fear Boners is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 12:31 PM
  #47
IdealisticSniper
Registered User
 
IdealisticSniper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 8,758
vCash: 500
For the record I dont think TB "needs" Bieksa. I was just curious on what his perceived value was. It wouldnt be a bad option if TB didnt give up anything they deem important.

IdealisticSniper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 12:46 PM
  #48
LostMyGlasses*
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Simon Fraser
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,431
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reign Nateo View Post
Oh that and the whole Yzerman/Gillis thing.
I'm sorry if this has been discussed, or if I'm out of the loop, but what whole Yzerman/Gillis thing?

LostMyGlasses* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 01:18 PM
  #49
The Overseer*
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,967
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IdealisticSniper View Post
For the record I dont think TB "needs" Bieksa. I was just curious on what his perceived value was. It wouldnt be a bad option if TB didnt give up anything they deem important.
Seems like after Gagne and Kubina, TB fans might be a little obsessed with getting something for nothing.

Don't think that's going to happen with Bieksa.

The Overseer* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 01:33 PM
  #50
CSampson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,212
vCash: 500
Don't get me wrong, I think Bieska is a good D. As with most fanbases though, the majority of you are overrating your player. I actually think Bieska would make a nice fit on Tampa, but to think you're going to get much in return is somewhat misleading given the recent trades we've seen. Even think back as far as Phaneuf. Anyone posting that trade on the message board before it happened would of been laughed at. Look at Gagne. When dealing with cap space, which Vancouver doesn't have much of (and honestly they would, in my opinion, only move Bieska to free up some space), you can never expect fair value back.

With that said, I would trade up to the value of a 2nd for Bieska.

CSampson is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:19 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.