Trade Rumors and Free Agent TalkTrade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.
Why would you think Perry would be less than 7+ with the previous cap? There are plenty of other players who signed in the area of 7M when the cap was even lower who don't have a rocket or a Hart. He has a Cup, there's no real reason for him to take a discount to get another.
Fair enough. I'd probably go to 7 if pushed, but the whole internal cap structure with the Sedins at 6.1 mil would make me want to push hard to get Perry on board with it. But if he wants something like 7-7.5, I wouldn't let him walk either.
Maybe I'll get flamed for this but I'd do Hagelin+J. T. Miller+1st for Perry.
Nash-Richards-Gaborik
Perry-Stepan-Callahan
Dunno if the cap number would be too high though, guess that depends on the new CBA
No flame, but Rangers have to be careful to have $$ to sign guys + likely to make it prospects.
Ergo, instead of moving multiple bodies for 1, which may be ok for another day, would prefer
ASSUMING THE NMC WE ALL KNOW ABOUT IS WAIVED
to do something around Richards + not much else for Getzlaf and not much else
Why the ducks? 'cause they get ballpark Getz talent locked up for 4-5 years +, and if he gets old after that quickly can probably get either a buyout or in a future CBA an amnesty for the balance.
Why the rangers? 'cause they upgrade on a top guy with a short term commitment, so they have lots of room again for all the developing guys and the mostly younger guys they are keeping. (Keeping them all for as long as possible enhances best options for best trade scenarios when it does come time to move 2 for 1, 3 for 1.)
Again, don't expect any of this, but the thread topic is value of Getzlaf + Perry
AS RENTALs.
No flame, but Rangers have to be careful to have $$ to sign guys + likely to make it prospects.
Ergo, instead of moving multiple bodies for 1, which may be ok for another day, would prefer
ASSUMING THE NMC WE ALL KNOW ABOUT IS WAIVED
to do something around Richards + not much else for Getzlaf and not much else
Why the ducks? 'cause they get ballpark Getz talent locked up for 4-5 years +, and if he gets old after that quickly can probably get either a buyout or in a future CBA an amnesty for the balance.
Why the rangers? 'cause they upgrade on a top guy with a short term commitment, so they have lots of room again for all the developing guys and the mostly younger guys they are keeping. (Keeping them all for as long as possible enhances best options for best trade scenarios when it does come time to move 2 for 1, 3 for 1.)
Again, don't expect any of this, but the thread topic is value of Getzlaf + Perry
AS RENTALs.
So I consider this in line with that.
Why in the hell would the Ducks veer do this?
If we lose Perry and Getzlaf why would we want to get older? Retarded
No flame, but Rangers have to be careful to have $$ to sign guys + likely to make it prospects.
Ergo, instead of moving multiple bodies for 1, which may be ok for another day, would prefer
ASSUMING THE NMC WE ALL KNOW ABOUT IS WAIVED
to do something around Richards + not much else for Getzlaf and not much else
Why the ducks? 'cause they get ballpark Getz talent locked up for 4-5 years +, and if he gets old after that quickly can probably get either a buyout or in a future CBA an amnesty for the balance.
Why the rangers? 'cause they upgrade on a top guy with a short term commitment, so they have lots of room again for all the developing guys and the mostly younger guys they are keeping. (Keeping them all for as long as possible enhances best options for best trade scenarios when it does come time to move 2 for 1, 3 for 1.)
Again, don't expect any of this, but the thread topic is value of Getzlaf + Perry
AS RENTALs.
So I consider this in line with that.
Assuming that the new contract rules in the CBA go through the Ducks could throw the same amount of money that Richards is getting over the next 5 years at Getzlaf and get a player who's 5 years younger and not locked into a ridiculous cap hit through the age of 40. Here's guessing that not many other teams have the cap space to beat 45M over 5 years.
to Ana
Hemsky
Gagner/Klefbom
mid level prospect or 2nd rd pick
To Edm
Getzlaf
Cap dump
3rd liner or B+ prospect
2nd
You are nowhere close to what it needs to be value wise.
That's like the Canucks offering
Raymond
Weise/Sauve
2nd
Would you trade one of your marquee players for that? If yes let me get you Mike Gillis on the line for you (We'll take Eberle). Everyone else is talking 3 first rounders or a large package of prospects/picks/young roster players.
Ideal return for the Ducks would be a middle-six RW, a forward prospect, a 1st (likely very late) and another pick. Considering Murray's trade ineptitude, the return likely wouldn't be that.
Yakupov + 1st as a basis of a deal for Getzlaf work?
You are nowhere close to what it needs to be value wise.
That's like the Canucks offering
Raymond
Weise/Sauve
2nd
Would you trade one of your marquee players for that? If yes let me get you Mike Gillis on the line for you (We'll take Eberle). Everyone else is talking 3 first rounders or a large package of prospects/picks/young roster players.
So lets get this straight...your comparing Hemsky to Raymond, and a 4th liner/B prospect to Gagner/Klefbom?
Armstrong was a top 9 foward at the time, and Esposito was a very good prospect at the time, not the same but close
What's wrong with Schroeder?
Raymond (top 9 forward), Jensen+2nd or Schroeder+1st or Gaunce+2nd, Connauton (higher risk, but much higher reward) or Sauve (our top defensive D prospect with Tanev playing a full role with our team) or Tanev.
That's a top 9 player to eat minutes liberated by Perry being moved, one of our top prospects and a corresponding pick, and either our youngest full time NHLer this season, or one of the two top prospects at that position. Better then 3 firsts, or worse?
I'd want Gillis to be able to talk to Perry prior to the trade to see what his interest would be in resigning.
You are nowhere close to what it needs to be value wise.
That's like the Canucks offering
Raymond
Weise/Sauve
2nd
Would you trade one of your marquee players for that? If yes let me get you Mike Gillis on the line for you (We'll take Eberle). Everyone else is talking 3 first rounders or a large package of prospects/picks/young roster players.
ok, i can respect that you dont hold great value in Hemsky and you think Klefbom is a B+ prospect (not far off imo) but what about Gagner? Would something around Gagner, Klefbom(or similar prospect) and a first be enough to continue to talk? Remeber this is only if Getzlaf wants to leave, i dont think any right minded GM would trade a 1C like him if he wanted to stay. Outside of Hall, Ebs, Nuge, Yak, and Schultz who on the roster would fit in a trade with Anahiem?
So lets get this straight...your comparing Hemsky to Raymond, and a 4th liner/B prospect to Gagner/Klefbom?
Value wise it's not far off. Dollar/caphit wise EDM is dumping a lot. Raymond and Weise are cheaper. Neither are good deals. That's the point I was making, that is a crap offer.
The one problem I see with trying to gauge guys in their last season is that if those new cap/salary trade rules end up in the new CBA, sign and trades will not only become common, but likely changes the sorts of value that we see in those sorts of deals. The same seems true for genuine rental players.
To be honest I don't see the Oilers being involved in the Perry/Getzlaf sweepstakes. If Perry or Getzlaf leave, they'd likely want to go to contenders. It doesn't make sense for the Oilers to fork over futures for players who likely won't re-sign at a position they already have lots of talent at.
You are nowhere close to what it needs to be value wise.
That's like the Canucks offering
Raymond
Weise/Sauve
2nd
Would you trade one of your marquee players for that? If yes let me get you Mike Gillis on the line for you (We'll take Eberle). Everyone else is talking 3 first rounders or a large package of prospects/picks/young roster players.
So now Weise/Sauve are equal to Gagner/Klefbom and Raymond is equal to Hemsky?
Hemsky is a decent 2nd line winger but is overpaid.
Gagner is a decent 2nd liner/Klefbom is a B or A- prospect.
Edmonton 2nd rounder is 31-45th overall.
Raymond is a good 3rd liner.
Weise is a 4th liner/Sauve can be a bottom pairing guy one day.
Vancouver 2nd rounder is 50-60th overall.
If the trade was Hemsky, Gagner and a 2nd, then an equivalent would be Booth, Higgins and a 2nd. Even though Edmonton's proposal is still better. If its Hemsky, Klefbom and a 2nd, then Booth, Jensen/Schroeder and a 2nd.
So now Weise/Sauve are equal to Gagner/Klefbom and Raymond is equal to Hemsky?
Hemsky is a decent 2nd line winger but is overpaid.
Gagner is a decent 2nd liner/Klefbom is a B or A- prospect.
Edmonton 2nd rounder is 31-45th overall.
Raymond is a good 3rd liner.
Weise is a 4th liner/Sauve can be a bottom pairing guy one day.
Vancouver 2nd rounder is 50-60th overall.
If the trade was Hemsky, Gagner and a 2nd, then an equivalent would be Booth, Higgins and a 2nd. Even though Edmonton's proposal is still better. If its Hemsky, Klefbom and a 2nd, then Booth, Jensen/Schroeder and a 2nd.
I assure you, the post to which you responded is not the opinion of the majority of Canucks fans.
