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.

Chicago-San Jose

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-08-2011, 10:13 AM
  #1
coldsteelonice84
Registered User
 
coldsteelonice84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 25,336
vCash: 10592
Chicago-San Jose

Chicago
Pavelski
Demers
rights to Thomas Greiss

San Jose
Seabrook

coldsteelonice84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2011, 10:41 AM
  #2
IamJebus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: 5 Min from the Tank!
Country: United States
Posts: 781
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to IamJebus Send a message via Yahoo to IamJebus
Value isn't even close.

Demers + Greiss maybe.

IamJebus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2011, 10:51 AM
  #3
Sharks4Life
Registered User
 
Sharks4Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: East Bay, Ca
Country: United States
Posts: 471
vCash: 500
no...

Sharks4Life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2011, 10:57 AM
  #4
Kaen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 997
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IamJebus View Post
Value isn't even close.

Demers + Greiss maybe.
I'm not really a fan of either team, but Seabrook is a top pairing dman. Do you really think this comes anywhere close?

Kaen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2011, 11:04 AM
  #5
McDonald19
Hampus
 
McDonald19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 17,140
vCash: 500
I think the Hawks would rather keep their top pairing d-man.

McDonald19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2011, 11:06 AM
  #6
RBR
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,529
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by IamJebus View Post
Value isn't even close.

Demers + Greiss maybe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharks4Life View Post
no...
Are you kidding me? I would say this is more than fair. I would do it. Logan can play center on the second line.

I doubt the Hawks are wiling to trade Seabrook, though.

RBR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2011, 11:07 AM
  #7
Crazy Joe Divola
Registered User
 
Crazy Joe Divola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,221
vCash: 500
Not enough? lol.

Pavs + Vlasic may get them listening.

Crazy Joe Divola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2011, 11:08 AM
  #8
Legion
Lord of Winterfell
 
Legion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: 510 East Bay
Country: Ireland
Posts: 650
vCash: 500
Switch out Demers with something else, and I'll listen.

Legion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2011, 11:08 AM
  #9
Jesus Toews*
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Davis, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,886
vCash: 500
This is brutal. The value is irrelevant--it creates two holes on the Sharks while filling one. The entire point of adding Seabrook is so that the defense can have at least one puck-mover on every pairing (Seabrook, Boyle, Demers). They're better off standing pat and calling up Braun than making that trade.

Also, if DW is interested in Seabrook he's better off just offer sheeting him in the off-season.

Jesus Toews* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2011, 11:54 AM
  #10
RBR
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,529
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turnstyles View Post
This is brutal. The value is irrelevant--it creates two holes on the Sharks while filling one. The entire point of adding Seabrook is so that the defense can have at least one puck-mover on every pairing (Seabrook, Boyle, Demers). They're better off standing pat and calling up Braun than making that trade.

Also, if DW is interested in Seabrook he's better off just offer sheeting him in the off-season.
I didn't notice Demers was in the deal. Woops. In that case, it makes the deal a whole lot less appealing...

RBR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2011, 11:57 AM
  #11
Arkansas Shark
Rebuild lol
 
Arkansas Shark's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Underground Bunker
Country: United States
Posts: 3,379
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldsteelonice84 View Post
Chicago
Pavelski
Demers
rights to Thomas Greiss

San Jose
Seabrook
Sure, and let's throw in Clowe and Marleau as well.

Arkansas Shark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2011, 02:13 PM
  #12
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 32,025
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldsteelonice84 View Post
Chicago
Pavelski
Demers
rights to Thomas Greiss

San Jose
Seabrook
That is severe overpayment for the Sharks. You could potentially have one of Demers or Pavelski but not both. In reality, the Sharks need to keep Jason Demers more than they need to keep Joe Pavelski.

I'd happily do Pavs, Greiss, and a 1st for Seabrook or Demers, Greiss, a 1st, and a 2nd for Seabrook but throwing both of them there will leave the same problem there on the Sharks' blue line...and that's mobility and puck-movement skills throughout the lineup. Demers is very close to breaking into the top four role and the kind of player he is, is the kind of player the Sharks need to add...not swap out.

Pinkfloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2011, 02:15 PM
  #13
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 17,597
vCash: 500
Moving Vlasic instead of Demers makes a LOT more sense for us, Seabrook would directly replace him.

hockeyball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2011, 02:18 PM
  #14
Jesus Toews*
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Davis, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,886
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
Moving Vlasic instead of Demers makes a LOT more sense for us, Seabrook would directly replace him.
Honestly, if the Sharks were able to acquire Seabrook I'd keep Vlasic to pair with him. I see Seabrook a lot as a young Rob Blake and MEV had his best seasons paired with Blake. Seabrook would compensate for Vlasic's lack of puck movement as well as physicality.

Jesus Toews* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2011, 02:39 PM
  #15
CommanderShepard15
Eberle=Clutch
 
CommanderShepard15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 4,254
vCash: 500
replace Demers with Vlasic and send us another d prospect in return?

CommanderShepard15 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2011, 02:44 PM
  #16
HockeySensible
Smug Teuvo
 
HockeySensible's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,810
vCash: 500
I'd much rather have Vlasic over Demers, from a Chicago POV. SJ fans seem to be all over Demers, but I've never really liked him when I've seen him.

To Chicago

Pavelski
Coyle
Vlasic

To SJ

Seabrook
Vishnevskiy
2nd 2011

Thoughts?

HockeySensible is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2011, 02:53 PM
  #17
Jesus Toews*
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Davis, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,886
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HossTheBoss View Post
I'd much rather have Vlasic over Demers, from a Chicago POV. SJ fans seem to be all over Demers, but I've never really liked him when I've seen him.

To Chicago

Pavelski
Coyle
Vlasic

To SJ

Seabrook
Vishnevskiy
2nd 2011

Thoughts?
Just brutal. Again, the Sharks have no incentive to create two holes (AND give up their top prospect in Coyle) to fill one. That's ludicrous. They'll screw Chicago over again by offersheeting Seabrook if they want him.

Jesus Toews* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2011, 02:56 PM
  #18
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 32,025
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
Moving Vlasic instead of Demers makes a LOT more sense for us, Seabrook would directly replace him.
No, it doesn't. You need four top four d-men. Right now, Boyle and Vlasic are legit top fours. Murray is on the fringe and getting worse. Demers is on the cusp but needs more time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PuckInTheNet View Post
replace Demers with Vlasic and send us another d prospect in return?
So you basically want to trade Pavelski and Vlasic for Seabrook and another d-man prospect. After this trade, you have to re-sign Seabrook to somewhere in the range of 5 mil. The team saves roughly 2 mil and then still needs to go out and find another top four while getting thinner up front. Not too thin up front but thinner nonetheless. That trade doesn't make sense for the Sharks' lineup next season.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HossTheBoss View Post
I'd much rather have Vlasic over Demers, from a Chicago POV. SJ fans seem to be all over Demers, but I've never really liked him when I've seen him.

To Chicago

Pavelski
Coyle
Vlasic

To SJ

Seabrook
Vishnevskiy
2nd 2011

Thoughts?
I'd say no to this deal. Pavelski and Vlasic for Seabrook is overpayment. Vishnevskiy is not going to be anything special and Coyle has more value as a 1st rounder that has done nothing but impress when he's on the ice than Vish and a 2nd.

If the Sharks need to move a d-man but keep Demers, it has to be Murray. Bringing in Seabrook effectively makes Murray obsolete anyway as his minutes and physicality get replaced by a better overall player.

Pavs, Murray, and a 1st for Seabrook and a 3rd would be acceptable to me but this idea that it makes sense to throw Vlasic in is silly.

Pinkfloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2011, 02:58 PM
  #19
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 32,025
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turnstyles View Post
Just brutal. Again, the Sharks have no incentive to create two holes (AND give up their top prospect in Coyle) to fill one. That's ludicrous. They'll screw Chicago over again by offersheeting Seabrook if they want him.
There's no screwing Chicago over with an offer sheet this off-season. They have plenty of space to match and it won't impact any of their plans much either.

Pinkfloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2011, 03:01 PM
  #20
coldsteelonice84
Registered User
 
coldsteelonice84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 25,336
vCash: 10592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
There's no screwing Chicago over with an offer sheet this off-season. They have plenty of space to match and it won't impact any of their plans much either.
If it's 5.5M or more, he'd be wearing a Sharks jersey IMO.

coldsteelonice84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2011, 03:01 PM
  #21
HockeySensible
Smug Teuvo
 
HockeySensible's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turnstyles View Post
Just brutal. Again, the Sharks have no incentive to create two holes (AND give up their top prospect in Coyle) to fill one. That's ludicrous. They'll screw Chicago over again by offersheeting Seabrook if they want him.
How would they screw us? You sign him to anything more then 5.5 and we'll glady take the picks.

HockeySensible is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2011, 03:03 PM
  #22
Jesus Toews*
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Davis, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,886
vCash: 500
I meant "screwed over" in that it would be a tough decision to make if it was a competitive offer sheet. Losing Seabrook could potentially cripple the Hawks' defense as there's really no one on the UFA market who could replace him despite the freed up cap space.

Jesus Toews* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2011, 03:05 PM
  #23
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 32,025
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldsteelonice84 View Post
If it's 5.5M or more, he'd be wearing a Sharks jersey IMO.
That wouldn't be screwing you over though, now would it? lol potentially four late 1st round picks can get you plenty.

Pinkfloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2011, 03:09 PM
  #24
HockeySensible
Smug Teuvo
 
HockeySensible's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turnstyles View Post
I meant "screwed over" in that it would be a tough decision to make if it was a competitive offer sheet. Losing Seabrook could potentially cripple the Hawks' defense as there's really no one on the UFA market who could replace him despite the freed up cap space.
No it wouldn't be tough. If it's more then 5.5 you can have him.. we'll take your picks. If not, we sign him and still have lots of space. I don't get where the "screwed" part comes into play.

HockeySensible is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2011, 03:48 PM
  #25
Thorntonfan97
Josť Bautista-20 HR
 
Thorntonfan97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,515
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Thorntonfan97 Send a message via Yahoo to Thorntonfan97
If Demers wasnt in it I would consider it but Demers is in it so no.

Thorntonfan97 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 08:09 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.