If you trade Tallinder or Volch you hurt your chances of signing UFAs down the road. Players and agents pay attention to things like that. I can't say that enough times around here.
Harrold will be in the AHL but could be trade fodder. Urbom has not shown the required hockey IQ or use of his size the times I have seem him - but he is trade fodder, as is Gelinas.
We don't have the assets on defense that HF thinks we do. For the first time in probably damn near a decade we have depth, stability, and a modicum of talent back there. I do not see a viable trade option from our side at all, and have yet to see any counter opinion that makes me even begin to change my thoughts on this.
__________________
"Why I'll be a Devil forever [...] two words. Trust and respect." - Mr. Pat Burns
"I learned not to question Cowbell's willingness to ban." - Brian Boyle
Is he on a two-way contract? I see him as having earned a spot as the seventh defenceman, but I guess we could send him down if needed.
What does that matter? If there are six+ better players in front of him, he's down in the A. I'm also pretty sure he was only on an AHL contract until later I the season, no?
He had an abnormally good playoff, yes. But odds are a player returns back to their career average. Regression to the mean is more likely than him suddenly becoming a hidden talent. Arguably because of his playoff run he also has higher than expected trade value now...
If you trade Tallinder or Volch you hurt your chances of signing UFAs down the road. Players and agents pay attention to things like that. I can't say that enough times around here.
Harrold will be in the AHL but could be trade fodder. Urbom has not shown the required hockey IQ or use of his size the times I have seem him - but he is trade fodder, as is Gelinas.
We don't have the assets on defense that HF thinks we do. For the first time in probably damn near a decade we have depth, stability, and a modicum of talent back there. I do not see a viable trade option from our side at all, and have yet to see any counter opinion that makes me even begin to change my thoughts on this.
If Lou never signs a high profile UFA again (off another team) I will be thrilled, so I don't care about the first part. Also, circumstances change during the course of a 4 (and especially a 6!) year contract, so trading a guy in year 3 is not that big a deal. Under that logic, though, trading Andy Greene is OK because he was our own player?
However, I agree that no trade will be made until/unless one thing happens:
1. Fayne returns fully healed (so probably never )
2. A defenseman not currently on the roster forces a trade by making his way into the lineup.
When Fayne comes back, assuming no other injuries, we will be employing 7 NHL-caliber defensemen, and all deserve to play each night. That is when a trade will be made.
Is he on a two-way contract? I see him as having earned a spot as the seventh defenceman, but I guess we could send him down if needed.
Classic is the expert on the one way and two way contract rules, but if I remember this situation from other players, he can be sent to Albany to start the season with no threat or waiver impact. If he is called up on anything other than for emergency recall circumstances, then he would have to pass through waivers to go back down to the AHL.
The money impact is the same however as he is getting the same AHL salary as NHL.
Trading a guy immediately after you sign him is bad. Trading him after at least a year has been served on the contract is generally viewed as reasonable, if not ideal. Players understand that the situation might have changed, and UFAs in particular understand that if they want security against being traded throughout the life of the contract, they'd better get a full NTC.
If you trade Tallinder or Volch you hurt your chances of signing UFAs down the road. Players and agents pay attention to things like that. I can't say that enough times around here.
Harrold will be in the AHL but could be trade fodder. Urbom has not shown the required hockey IQ or use of his size the times I have seem him - but he is trade fodder, as is Gelinas.
We don't have the assets on defense that HF thinks we do. For the first time in probably damn near a decade we have depth, stability, and a modicum of talent back there. I do not see a viable trade option from our side at all, and have yet to see any counter opinion that makes me even begin to change my thoughts on this.
Trading Tallinder or Volchenkov would not hurt our chances of signing UFAs. Two years served is definitely a reasonable amount of time before being dealt.
If Lou never signs a high profile UFA again (off another team) I will be thrilled, so I don't care about the first part. Also, circumstances change during the course of a 4 (and especially a 6!) year contract, so trading a guy in year 3 is not that big a deal. Under that logic, though, trading Andy Greene is OK because he was our own player?
However, I agree that no trade will be made until/unless one thing happens:
1. Fayne returns fully healed (so probably never )
2. A defenseman not currently on the roster forces a trade by making his way into the lineup.
When Fayne comes back, assuming no other injuries, we will be employing 7 NHL-caliber defensemen, and all deserve to play each night. That is when a trade will be made.
I don't think that either of those conditions will really happen until very close to the trade deadline if they happen at all. It's a nature of the way the game is played today. You will not get an entire year out of your team injury free. And by most standards, it might be better to hold on to a guy like Harrold in the A and call him up near the trade deadline. It'd be very similar to trading for a depth guy, without giving up any assets...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richer's Ghost
Classic is the expert on the one way and two way contract rules, but if I remember this situation from other players, he can be sent to Albany to start the season with no threat or waiver impact. If he is called up on anything other than for emergency recall circumstances, then he would have to pass through waivers to go back down to the AHL.
The money impact is the same however as he is getting the same AHL salary as NHL.
Exactly right, IIRC. But by the right time to call him up (near or at the trade deadline/roster increase) we wouldn't want to send him - or whomever is the right guy at the time - back down anyways. We'd want to carry the extra through out the stretch and playoff run. Again, gaining an NHL asset without giving up ANY asset.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saugus
Trading a guy immediately after you sign him is bad. Trading him after at least a year has been served on the contract is generally viewed as reasonable, if not ideal. Players understand that the situation might have changed, and UFAs in particular understand that if they want security against being traded throughout the life of the contract, they'd better get a full NTC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feed Me A Stray Cat
Trading Tallinder or Volchenkov would not hurt our chances of signing UFAs. Two years served is definitely a reasonable amount of time before being dealt.
Unless you (meaning Lou) talk extensively with players that are going on the block it's still a bit of sticky situation. And if they're so worthless to us, what is their trade value? Their trade value isn't necessarily their actual value, because other teams will know why we're looking to trade. I just don't see it really being feasible...
Unless you (meaning Lou) talk extensively with players that are going on the block it's still a bit of sticky situation. And if they're so worthless to us, what is their trade value? Their trade value isn't necessarily their actual value, because other teams will know why we're looking to trade. I just don't see it really being feasible...
We're trading from a position of strength though. We're not cap constrained and don't need to deal any of our defensemen - only if the right deal comes along.
Trading Tallinder or Volchenkov would not hurt our chances of signing UFAs. Two years served is definitely a reasonable amount of time before being dealt.
Agreed, but asking Volch to waive the NTC would be a no-no. Trading Tallinder seems kind of obvious from a budgetary standpoint. Fayne and Larsson need to play, and we can't afford to pay someone $3M to sit half the time. Tallinder makes $3.5M in real money this year (Greene makes $2.75M) and doesn't have a NTC. I think Lou learned his lesson about carrying too many guys into camp when a trade seems inevitable 2 years ago.
If there's a trade for a forward to be made, I think we make it. Detroit, Dallas, Edmonton, and Colorado seem could be good trading partners.
Agreed, but asking Volch to waive the NTC would be a no-no. Trading Tallinder seems kind of obvious from a budgetary standpoint. Fayne and Larsson need to play, and we can't afford to pay someone $3M to sit half the time. Tallinder makes $3.5M in real money this year (Greene makes $2.75M) and doesn't have a NTC. I think Lou learned his lesson about carrying too many guys into camp when a trade seems inevitable 2 years ago.
If there's a trade for a forward to be made, I think we make it. Detroit, Dallas, Edmonton, and Colorado seem could be good trading partners.
Yeah. It's a shame though, because I think Volch would be the better person to move.
What about Detroit? They need some Def according to capgeek. Think we can somehow get Filppula from them with a combination of one of our Def/prospects?
That's correct - and what happens when they don't want to deal with NJ at all?
There's a reason why we can attract UFA's from other teams...
This is getting blown way out of proportion. If so, no one would ever sign in Philly ever again without a NTC.
I also don't think we have a history of not being able to attract quality UFAs (Volch was a top 10 guy at the time of his signing). We really have never backed up the brinks truck for a guy that wasn't home-grown.
So not only would we be the team that trades a previously signed UFA, but then does it to Edmonton?
I understand and partially agree with you that a few years into the deal is a different aspect than a quick trade... but Edmonton!?
That's a good point, especially if the return isn't significant. I think Detroit would be ideal in terms of being a good and Swede-friendly team, plus they could really use a player like Tallinder.
I would love if we could pry Nyquist from them, but that seems like a steep return for a just-injured 3-4 D-man. He just went a point/game as a rookie in the AHL, which isn't done all that often. Giroux, Couture, Krejci, Versteeg, Purcell, and Bobby Ryan are some guys that have done that in the past few years. Great college stats, too.
That's correct - and what happens when they don't want to deal with NJ at all?
There's a reason why we can attract UFA's from other teams...
Yeah, and it has little to do if they've traded a UFA they signed two years ago. Players will still want to go to Pittsburgh, regardless if they traded Michalek to Phoenix two years after signing him.
Passing up on a good deal because of the hypothetical scenario that a UFA down the road might spurn NJ is foolish.
If you trade Tallinder or Volch you hurt your chances of signing UFAs down the road. Players and agents pay attention to things like that. I can't say that enough times around here.
Harrold will be in the AHL but could be trade fodder. Urbom has not shown the required hockey IQ or use of his size the times I have seem him - but he is trade fodder, as is Gelinas.
We don't have the assets on defense that HF thinks we do. For the first time in probably damn near a decade we have depth, stability, and a modicum of talent back there. I do not see a viable trade option from our side at all, and have yet to see any counter opinion that makes me even begin to change my thoughts on this.
What about Johnny Oduya? Re-signed him and then traded him 6 months later
If the right deal comes along GM's won't hesitate to include a player they recently signed (be it 6 months ago or 2 years ago) - which in Oduya's case the right deal came along for the Devils
Personally I don't see any of our D guys getting moved because while we still have some good depth on D and it is arguably the best D we've had since the lockout, it still is not going to set the world on fire, can't have enough depth - guys are going to be kept around especially for injury purposes - take a look at last season, I believe Greene and Tallinder were both out at the same time last season - only thing is, if everybody is healthy for majority of the time, do we want to keep 8 guys around and have 2 guys that are capable of handling the NHL sit and will those 2 guys sitting be happy doing so? That's when we could see a trade during the season to fill a need elsewhere if we have too many guys on D that can play in the NHL
What about Johnny Oduya? Re-signed him and then traded him 6 months later
If the right deal comes along GM's won't hesitate to include a player they recently signed (be it 6 months ago or 2 years ago) - which in Oduya's case the right deal came along for the Devils
Personally I don't see any of our D guys getting moved because while we still have some good depth on D and it is arguably the best D we've had since the lockout, it still is not going to set the world on fire, can't have enough depth - guys are going to be kept around especially for injury purposes - take a look at last season, I believe Greene and Tallinder were both out at the same time last season
The Devils have depth in the minors too, though. Harrold is easily serviceable as a #6, and Urbom is probably NHL ready. Maybe Gelinas too.
Yes, I am being extreme in my examples. But look at the otherside of this argument:
Who has positive value right now?
Is the return worth it? We could stick Harrold in the A and carry 7 defensemen. Not to mention Fayne will start the season on the IR. That drops us to 6 to start. By the time he's back and ready to go, I'm willing to assume that another d-man will need some rest here and there, and carrying 7 never hurt a team.
The Devils have depth in the minors too, though. Harrold is easily serviceable as a #6, and Urbom is probably NHL ready. Maybe Gelinas too.
While that is true, I'm not sold on Urbom yet, he still has some work to do especially with decision making when he has the puck and we'll see how Gelinas adapts in camp and go from there as the same with the other guys
Harrold I doubt is going anywhere, he's the guy you want as an extra that can fill in when ever he is called upon
Yes, I am being extreme in my examples. But look at the otherside of this argument:
Who has positive value right now?
Is the return worth it? We could stick Harrold in the A and carry 7 defensemen. Not to mention Fayne will start the season on the IR. That drops us to 6 to start. By the time he's back and ready to go, I'm willing to assume that another d-man will need some rest here and there, and carrying 7 never hurt a team.
I don't see how we trade any of our D.
It would be a nice luxury to have. But I don't really see the logic in affording that luxury when we have some big holes to fill up front. If those can be partially remedied by dealing a defenseman, you kinda have to do it.
)
