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.

O'Brien, Samuelsson, Rypien + prospect package

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-29-2010, 01:33 AM
  #26
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 28,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hi-wayman View Post
No not a rhetorical question. Your post leads me to believe you wouldn't trust any of those players. Well when do you think you will trust them if ever? A very pesimistic view of the team because if you don't believe in their capabilities then why have them at all? If you say they are there should Samuelsson be injured, then again you either believe they can take over that responsiblity or if they can't then why have them on the team?
At this point, no, I wouldn't trust any of them as a top six forward, April-June 2011, assuming I want to win the Cup in 2010-11. To be sure, the 82 game exhibition, er regular season is a fertile proving ground. But you have a known commodity in that position already! That's why Gillis signed him last offseason.

I happen to think that the Canucks are poised to make a serious run this season, and more specifically, next spring. They are deep, playoff "experienced" so to speak, and their core players up front have obviously arrived. I simply see no need at this point in time to give any of those players "a chance" at the expense of a known, productive Cup pedigree commodity, who was quite possibly the best UFA signing of last season. For players like Hodgson, Schroeder, Shirokov, their time to earn key (read: top six forward) roles will come soon enough. And, if/when injuries occur this season, certainly Hansen will see more icetime. (Used properly, Torres, IMO, is a superb role player, but is not a fulltime 2nd line caliber winger on a serious Cup contender.)

Really has nothing to do with an opinion about the players; surely, one or more of the young ones especially will prove to be able NHLers and contributors in short order. (In fact, one or more could produce this season.) Has everything to do with icing the best 20 man squad come next April. Come playoff time, one with the experienced, productive Samuelson as your second line winger is superior to one with any of those players in that role.

Asking a rook to give you top six forward minutes through the playoffs is a tall order...and I'm trying to remember the last time one did for a Cup winner. You never know what turns the regular season will take, and I understand the rationale behind your suggestion, for the Canucks are deep up front. I just happen to think the idea of replacing Samuleson is at least one summer premature.


Last edited by Trottier: 08-29-2010 at 01:40 AM.
Trottier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2010, 05:06 AM
  #27
JuniorNelson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: E.Vancouver
Country: Australia-Aboriginal
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
If the Canucks were to assemble such a huge package it would need to be for a huge return. Suppose the Chara talks stall? Suppose Lucic doesn't score before Christmas? At the deadline you might assemble what it takes to pry those guys loose.

It is a lot more likely the package would consist of non-crucial guys. Samuelsson might slump and O'Brien might miss a practice but they are big parts of what's going on. Schnieder (the Boston kid) isn't. A prospect that didn't make the team this year, also isn't.

Another guy might be Salo. If he makes it back, he'll be hard pressed to break into the line-up at 36, coming off a leg injury. I know a lot of the kids don't want to hear it, but he is the weakest link. If he waives his NTC, there might be interest.

If Thomas is screwing up the Boston cap structure as a highly (!) paid back-up they might want him included. Then it would become something like Chara, Thomas or Lucic, Thomas for Schnieder and Hodgson/Schroeder. That is a hell of a lot of salary going one way. It would also need to include picks.

If the Canucks lose Luongo early in the season they will need to do something. Schnieder hasn't shown enough to bet the season on him. Not this season!

If the other team demands Samuelsson and/or Salo, instead of picks, you'd have to accomodate them, if only for cap relief.

So, hypotheticly, Samuelsson, Salo, Schnieder and a prospect might fetch a disgruntled defenceman and goalie. It would be an all or nothing play, though, something Gillis has demonstrated he has no stomach for.

JuniorNelson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2010, 05:47 AM
  #28
mstad101
Registered User
 
mstad101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,206
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniorNelson View Post
If the Canucks were to assemble such a huge package it would need to be for a huge return. Suppose the Chara talks stall? Suppose Lucic doesn't score before Christmas? At the deadline you might assemble what it takes to pry those guys loose.

It is a lot more likely the package would consist of non-crucial guys. Samuelsson might slump and O'Brien might miss a practice but they are big parts of what's going on. Schnieder (the Boston kid) isn't. A prospect that didn't make the team this year, also isn't.

Another guy might be Salo. If he makes it back, he'll be hard pressed to break into the line-up at 36, coming off a leg injury. I know a lot of the kids don't want to hear it, but he is the weakest link. If he waives his NTC, there might be interest.

If Thomas is screwing up the Boston cap structure as a highly (!) paid back-up they might want him included. Then it would become something like Chara, Thomas or Lucic, Thomas for Schnieder and Hodgson/Schroeder. That is a hell of a lot of salary going one way. It would also need to include picks.

If the Canucks lose Luongo early in the season they will need to do something. Schnieder hasn't shown enough to bet the season on him. Not this season!

If the other team demands Samuelsson and/or Salo, instead of picks, you'd have to accomodate them, if only for cap relief.

So, hypotheticly, Samuelsson, Salo, Schnieder and a prospect might fetch a disgruntled defenceman and goalie. It would be an all or nothing play, though, something Gillis has demonstrated he has no stomach for.
Possibly the most confusing rant I've read on HF boards.

Too much salary would have to be sent out to acquire Chara, n I'm sure the talks would start at our #1 defenseman who also is a UFA this coming summer. Not SOB Rypien n Samuelsson

mstad101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2010, 06:33 AM
  #29
denkiteki
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,483
vCash: 500
1) The 'nucks would not trade Sammy due to how well he played last year... was probably our best offensive player in the playoffs and best of all, he's fairly cheap @ 2.5mil. He's a clutch scorer and you just don't get rid of those players if you want to win.

2) Rypien is a fan favorite, probably the best pound for pound fighter in the league and cheap next year. On top of being a fighter, he actually has a bit of hockey skill so a perfect fit for our 4th line. Right now our bottom 6 seems to be the weakness so dealing away a bottom 6 player (who's likely a lock) makes no sense.

3) Some of the top prospects you mentioned (actually all of them) are MG picks and Hod/Sch won't be traded due to how well they have developed so far. Both are likely going to stay with the organization for quite a while and we actually need them to be cheap replacement in case of injuries next year (bound to happen).

4) No cap space and its hard to find better bang for your buck player than the ones you proposed (except SOB i guess) so if we are tight in terms of cap space, why would we trade away players. Don't forget if we trade away 3 roster players, we need 3 back either via the trade, other deals, or UFA. Or at least 2 (assuming we don't need to replace SOB).

5) If you want a top player, it will be a rental. MG doesn't do rentals... or at least haven't being doing rentals since he became the GM. So this makes us worst in the future and likely worst next year.

This proposal seems more like a proposal via a rival fan than a nuck fan.

denkiteki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2010, 11:35 AM
  #30
MacTruck
In Gordie We Trust
 
MacTruck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,925
vCash: 500
Rangers will give you your veteran leadership-Chris Drury and Wade Redden for Hodgson, O'Brien, Rypien, and Samuelsson

MacTruck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2010, 12:04 PM
  #31
Roof Daddy
Registered User
 
Roof Daddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 8,149
vCash: 500
What about a deal for Ryan?

Bieksa, Sameulsson, Hodgson

for

Ryan

fair???

Roof Daddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2010, 12:37 PM
  #32
NFITO
hockeyinsanity*****
 
NFITO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,861
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier View Post
At this point, no, I wouldn't trust any of them as a top six forward, April-June 2011, assuming I want to win the Cup in 2010-11. To be sure, the 82 game exhibition, er regular season is a fertile proving ground. But you have a known commodity in that position already! That's why Gillis signed him last offseason.

I happen to think that the Canucks are poised to make a serious run this season, and more specifically, next spring. They are deep, playoff "experienced" so to speak, and their core players up front have obviously arrived. I simply see no need at this point in time to give any of those players "a chance" at the expense of a known, productive Cup pedigree commodity, who was quite possibly the best UFA signing of last season. For players like Hodgson, Schroeder, Shirokov, their time to earn key (read: top six forward) roles will come soon enough. And, if/when injuries occur this season, certainly Hansen will see more icetime. (Used properly, Torres, IMO, is a superb role player, but is not a fulltime 2nd line caliber winger on a serious Cup contender.)

Really has nothing to do with an opinion about the players; surely, one or more of the young ones especially will prove to be able NHLers and contributors in short order. (In fact, one or more could produce this season.) Has everything to do with icing the best 20 man squad come next April. Come playoff time, one with the experienced, productive Samuelson as your second line winger is superior to one with any of those players in that role.

Asking a rook to give you top six forward minutes through the playoffs is a tall order...and I'm trying to remember the last time one did for a Cup winner. You never know what turns the regular season will take, and I understand the rationale behind your suggestion, for the Canucks are deep up front. I just happen to think the idea of replacing Samuleson is at least one summer premature.
This is a good post, and I agree with it.

One of the key advantages that the Hawks had last year was their depth, and the Canucks will need the same thing to seriously challenge for the Cup this year. There's already hope that those talented young players can step up this season to provide that depth, but without veterans like Samuelsson in place, not only do you have to hope for so much more from your young players, you lose the quality depth they can provide now for weaker options in those roles.

And Gillis isn't the type either to a) deplete his depth hoping that every other piece he has available steps up, and b) hand out important roles to rookies that have yet to earn them. His track record gives us no reason to think he's changed that philosophy.

Last year, for example, he signed Samuelsson for 3 years, while we had Grabner in place and ready to take over a full-time spot (and with other youngsters already in the pipeline). He even proved in his call-ups and injury replacement time that he was NHL ready. And at the start of last season, Grabner had considerably more experience at the pro-level (AHL) than any of our current young prospects - yet he didn't have a spot going into the season, but was the first call-up when injury happened. Following the Ballard trade, Gillis even suggested that one of the reasons why Grabner was moved was because there were no top-6 spots available for him right now, while he was not the right fit for the bottom-6. He held on to Samuelsson while dealing a quality prospect. And considering their short-term goals, it was the logical move.

The year before, the same situation was there with Raymond, who had played a full season already in the NHL. However, instead of handing him a top-6 spot, he went out and signed Demitra to a 2-yr deal.

And these decisions have paid off for Gillis. Raymond has developed very well starting that year on the 4th line and earning his way up... and Samuelsson has been an excellent fit and has developed solid chemistry with the rest of the lineup where he can play effectively on any of the top 3 lines.

Given Gillis' track record so far, my guess is that you won't see Samuelsson dealt at all at any point, and will simply leave/retire after his contract is done after the 11/12 season, much like we saw with several other veterans recently (Demitra, Mitchell, Ohlund). Next year, we'll see the same with Salo, while expect to see Ehrhoff locked up long-term. There's a pipeline in place now where we have youth coming in to replace those outgoing players after earning those spots, while the rest of the younger core is being locked-up long-term. And there's a buffer in place to allow that pipeline to develop in the system and earn those key roles... seems pretty obvious to me that this has been Gillis' plan all along, considering the contracts and terms given out so far.

NFITO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2010, 02:19 PM
  #33
LostMyGlasses*
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Simon Fraser
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,431
vCash: 500
What a train wreck.

I agree with NFiTO and Trottier. This kind of trade makes little sense for the Canucks.

LostMyGlasses* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2010, 02:27 PM
  #34
FanHabtic
Registered User
 
FanHabtic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,677
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luck 6 View Post
I'll go a bit deeper.. I can't think of many #1 d-men that would be available, but Markov may be one guy who is for the right package.

If we offered Samuelsson, Bieksa, and a 1st for Markov for example the salaries would essentially be a wash. Now, we can ASSUME that Schroeder or Hodgson can fill the 2nd line RW spot (although I doubt it, that line is way too young now) but what do we do when Salo comes back? We'd still need to dump a defender. I have to believe that Hamhuis and Ballard will not be dumped as they are new acquisitions, this leads me to believe we'd need to dump one of Ehrhoff or Edler. It won't be Edler, so we basically lose Ehrhoff when Salo comes back.

No matter how you swing it, a true #1 defenseman does NOT fit into our salary structure this season. Next season maybe as Ehrhoff, Salo, and Bieksa all come off the books. The ONLY way such a deal would be possible is if it happened at the deadline and we had a significant injury on defense. Let's say Hamhuis and Salo are both out for the year, and we offer up a package for Markov. Even still, the package would NOT include Samuelsson most likely.

Heck, I could go on all day here haha.
Markov would not be available for that package at all. He has more value to the Habs than what you are proposing in return.

FanHabtic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2010, 02:30 PM
  #35
AndyPipkin
PSN: Lord_Of_War
 
AndyPipkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,769
vCash: 500
...I just...I mean...

^What LMG said...

AndyPipkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2010, 04:00 PM
  #36
Intoewsables
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,194
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by serge2k View Post
30 goal scorer with the sedins, and he's on the wrong side of 30.
Best pound for pound fighter in the league... who's a middleweight and can't really play more than 10-12 minutes a night. Oh and he gets hurt a lot.

SOB is decent, but thats it.

Nothing special there. A couple of solid players, a 4th liner, and a prospect.
Most of his goals came without playing on the Sedin line, but your point still holds. This package has a lot more value to us than anyone else in the league, and it would make a lot more sense to just hold on to them. The only player who may be moved out of the group is SOB for a draft pick.

Intoewsables is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2010, 04:34 PM
  #37
Lucbourdon
Kefka cheers for Van
 
Lucbourdon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 40,580
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roof Daddy View Post
What about a deal for Ryan?

Bieksa, Sameulsson, Hodgson

for

Ryan

fair???
It's fair, but I dont see the canucks or the ducks doing that.

It's a very odd package

Lucbourdon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2010, 04:36 PM
  #38
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
HFBoards: Night's Watch
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,715
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luck 6 View Post
I'll go a bit deeper.. I can't think of many #1 d-men that would be available, but Markov may be one guy who is for the right package.

If we offered Samuelsson, Bieksa, and a 1st for Markov for example the salaries would essentially be a wash. Now, we can ASSUME that Schroeder or Hodgson can fill the 2nd line RW spot (although I doubt it, that line is way too young now) but what do we do when Salo comes back? We'd still need to dump a defender. I have to believe that Hamhuis and Ballard will not be dumped as they are new acquisitions, this leads me to believe we'd need to dump one of Ehrhoff or Edler. It won't be Edler, so we basically lose Ehrhoff when Salo comes back.

No matter how you swing it, a true #1 defenseman does NOT fit into our salary structure this season. Next season maybe as Ehrhoff, Salo, and Bieksa all come off the books. The ONLY way such a deal would be possible is if it happened at the deadline and we had a significant injury on defense. Let's say Hamhuis and Salo are both out for the year, and we offer up a package for Markov. Even still, the package would NOT include Samuelsson most likely.

Heck, I could go on all day here haha.
Sorry, mate. Montreal would have no interest whatsoever in that proposal. Highlight price would be Samuelsson, as Bieksa is debatably a #4 defenseman and the Canucks are easily a deep playoff contending team, therefore minimizing the value of the first round pick. If the Habs were to deal Markov they would be demanding a king's ransom in return. I doubt Hodgson though due to our depth at center with the addition of Eller. That being said, it would be almost certain Edler/Ehrhoff and Raymond come our way, at least. Probably a first round swap as well or something similar.

As I Canuck fan, I would not consider the trade unless Markov signed an extension and even than it would be heavily determined on his salary. You cannot acquire a top ten, arguably a top five defenseman, and the best player on a team's roster for essentially throw aways. I love Sammy, however he has limited value due to age and UFA status. He cannot be the prize in any offer.

Bourne Endeavor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2010, 07:16 PM
  #39
denkiteki
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,483
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne View Post
Sorry, mate. Montreal would have no interest whatsoever in that proposal. Highlight price would be Samuelsson, as Bieksa is debatably a #4 defenseman and the Canucks are easily a deep playoff contending team, therefore minimizing the value of the first round pick. If the Habs were to deal Markov they would be demanding a king's ransom in return. I doubt Hodgson though due to our depth at center with the addition of Eller. That being said, it would be almost certain Edler/Ehrhoff and Raymond come our way, at least. Probably a first round swap as well or something similar.

As I Canuck fan, I would not consider the trade unless Markov signed an extension and even than it would be heavily determined on his salary. You cannot acquire a top ten, arguably a top five defenseman, and the best player on a team's roster for essentially throw aways. I love Sammy, however he has limited value due to age and UFA status. He cannot be the prize in any offer.
There's no doubt the Markov is a good dman but top 5 seems a bit overboard... even top 10 is arguable and he is a health concern right now. Also with our defensive situation, it makes no sense to add Markov due to his cap hit. On top of that, you can forget Edler or Ehrhoff for Markov forget either + Raymond. Elder's value in the eyes of 'nucks fan is probably higher than Markov. Not saying he's a better player but he's cheap for the next few years and has a ton of upside plus he's quite a bit younger. Ehrhoff's value might be lower depending on the extension he gets but he fits into our line-up perfectly and was really one of the main reasons our offense was 2nd in the league last year. With the structure of our defense, there's just no way (and no point) in adding Markov.

Not saying the original proposal that you quoted is fair since i think it rips MTL off as well. Just saying your counter proposal is equally bad.

denkiteki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2010, 08:03 PM
  #40
FanHabtic
Registered User
 
FanHabtic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,677
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by denkiteki View Post
There's no doubt the Markov is a good dman but top 5 seems a bit overboard... even top 10 is arguable and he is a health concern right now. Also with our defensive situation, it makes no sense to add Markov due to his cap hit. On top of that, you can forget Edler or Ehrhoff for Markov forget either + Raymond. Elder's value in the eyes of 'nucks fan is probably higher than Markov. Not saying he's a better player but he's cheap for the next few years and has a ton of upside plus he's quite a bit younger. Ehrhoff's value might be lower depending on the extension he gets but he fits into our line-up perfectly and was really one of the main reasons our offense was 2nd in the league last year. With the structure of our defense, there's just no way (and no point) in adding Markov.

Not saying the original proposal that you quoted is fair since i think it rips MTL off as well. Just saying your counter proposal is equally bad.
The Habs counter-proposal is simply, no deal, no way, no counter-proposal and no Markov for you!

Habs need Markov more than any team out there.

FanHabtic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2010, 10:37 PM
  #41
thadd
Oil4Life
 
thadd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: China
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,534
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to thadd
You'd be crazy to trade Samuelson. There's so much value in his contract.

thadd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2010, 02:27 AM
  #42
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
HFBoards: Night's Watch
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,715
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by denkiteki View Post
There's no doubt the Markov is a good dman but top 5 seems a bit overboard... even top 10 is arguable and he is a health concern right now. Also with our defensive situation, it makes no sense to add Markov due to his cap hit. On top of that, you can forget Edler or Ehrhoff for Markov forget either + Raymond. Elder's value in the eyes of 'nucks fan is probably higher than Markov. Not saying he's a better player but he's cheap for the next few years and has a ton of upside plus he's quite a bit younger. Ehrhoff's value might be lower depending on the extension he gets but he fits into our line-up perfectly and was really one of the main reasons our offense was 2nd in the league last year. With the structure of our defense, there's just no way (and no point) in adding Markov.

Not saying the original proposal that you quoted is fair since i think it rips MTL off as well. Just saying your counter proposal is equally bad.
Precisely my point. I am more of a Canuck fan than a Hab fan nowadays and would not do the deal simply because what I proposed is what it would require, if not more, to have Montreal consider any deals involving Markov. Furthermore, if you doubt Markov is a top ten defenseman, you really do need to catch more Hab games because while top five is debatable, especially with the emergence of Doughty and Keith, top ten is all but a certainty.

I will note if Markov had two or three years on his contract, I would swap Elder for him in a heartbeat if it were possible. Dump Bieska for cap reasons and voila, Nuck have arguably the best defense in the league or damn close to it. Montreal would, of course never do it.

Bourne Endeavor 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 09:53 AM.

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.