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.
What would your plans be with Strome/Nelson if they both pan out? Just curious.
I want the physical Nelson playing center. Move Strome to wing.
I am fine with the inconsistent KO and Grabner at $1m-$3m per, but by 2014-2015, both will be making big bucks and if both are still inconsistent, I think those younger, cheaper forwards are going to be very appealing to Snow.
There's also Moulson's quickly approaching ufa status. He's signed two cheap deals with the NYI. With a new wife and baby, I think he's gonna want the security of a 5-6 yr deal like Tavares/KO/Grabner got. Who knows if those extension talks go smoothly.
No need to rush to trade Strome/B. Nelson. Let 'em keep developing, see what they can do playing on LI.
What would your plans be with Strome/Nelson if they both pan out? Just curious.
Do a happy dance, first off. Both have extremely attractive upsides, so if they both hit that, or at least close to it, I plan to be very pleased.
After that, it would give the team a lot of flexibility, and if we assume they both pan out, both have aspects to their game that make them intriguing options at both center and wing.
Strome has the playmaking and vision you want from an offensive center, and brings the work ethic and desire to not be a liability in terms of the defensive responsibilities. On the flip side, his playmaking skills along with a righty shot could also make him the rich man's version of PAP, that could complement JT beautifully on the top line's RW, with a more pure goal scorer on the left (Nino, perhaps? or stick with Moulson).
Nelson on the the other hand has the size and all around game you want to see from a more 2 way line, with enough offensive talent to warrant a spot in a scoring role. On one hand he'd look great lining up against other teams' top scores on an outscoring 2nd line. On the other hand, he'd also look great on the wing using his size and skating on the forecheck and to create space, with a center who could set up that sick wrister of his.
It really depends on the coach and the build of the team at that point. On a team that wants to maximize scoring from the top 6, I would keep Strome at C and move Nelson to wing. On a team that wants a high octane 1st line, with more defensive or outscoring oriented 2nd and 3rd lines, I'd move Strome to JT's RW, and play Nelson on the 2nd line C. On a team that wants to roll the top 3 lines more evenly and get scoring from all 3, I'd put Strome at 2nd line C and Nelson at 3rd line C. If we are also assuming Cizikas pans out, I would play him as 3rd line C in the first two scenarios, and on Nelson's wing in the 3rd.
So you can value the opinion of PHX fans when it comes to their prospects, but not when it comes to trade proposals involving their team?
What would your plans be with Strome/Nelson if they both pan out? Just curious.
If both pan out, then we are going to have a very deep top six. One of them is going to have to move to wing and I'm sure the team will exercise every option before shipping them off for a defenseman (i.e. Bailey/Nielsen).
I want the physical Nelson playing center. Move Strome to wing.
I am fine with the inconsistent KO and Grabner at $1m-$3m per, but by 2014-2015, both will be making big bucks and if both are still inconsistent, I think those younger, cheaper forwards are going to be very appealing to Snow.
There's also Moulson's quickly approaching ufa status. He's signed two cheap deals with the NYI. With a new wife and baby, I think he's gonna want the security of a 5-6 yr deal like Tavares/KO/Grabner got. Who knows if those extension talks go smoothly.
No need to rush to trade Strome/B. Nelson. Let 'em keep developing, see what they can do playing on LI.
I used to be in favor of moving Strome to JT's wing, but the more I think about it the more I A) think Strome would be much more effective as a center, and B) think it really doesn't matter who we stick with JT, he'll probably put up points regardless.
I don't necessarily see re-signing Moulson becoming a problem either. Tavares loves him, and I'm sure Moulson loves playing here with him as well. He'll get his raise, but I don't think he'll be looking to completely break the bank.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seph
Do a happy dance, first off. Both have extremely attractive upsides, so if they both hit that, or at least close to it, I plan to be very pleased.
After that, it would give the team a lot of flexibility, and if we assume they both pan out, both have aspects to their game that make them intriguing options at both center and wing.
Strome has the playmaking and vision you want from an offensive center, and brings the work ethic and desire to not be a liability in terms of the defensive responsibilities. On the flip side, his playmaking skills along with a righty shot could also make him the rich man's version of PAP, that could complement JT beautifully on the top line's RW, with a more pure goal scorer on the left (Nino, perhaps? or stick with Moulson).
Nelson on the the other hand has the size and all around game you want to see from a more 2 way line, with enough offensive talent to warrant a spot in a scoring role. On one hand he'd look great lining up against other teams' top scores on an outscoring 2nd line. On the other hand, he'd also look great on the wing using his size and skating on the forecheck and to create space, with a center who could set up that sick wrister of his.
It really depends on the coach and the build of the team at that point. On a team that wants to maximize scoring from the top 6, I would keep Strome at C and move Nelson to wing. On a team that wants a high octane 1st line, with more defensive or outscoring oriented 2nd and 3rd lines, I'd move Strome to JT's RW, and play Nelson on the 2nd line C. On a team that wants to roll the top 3 lines more evenly and get scoring from all 3, I'd put Strome at 2nd line C and Nelson at 3rd line C. If we are also assuming Cizikas pans out, I would play him as 3rd line C in the first two scenarios, and on Nelson's wing in the 3rd.
I'd probably lean towards this scenario, even though that means getting rid of Nielsen who I'm a big fan of. I love the blue-print of a team with 3 scoring lines, and if these guys both pan out there is a good chance we will have one of those blue-prints. I'd figure the forward lineup would look something like this:
Moulson - Tavares - ______
Bailey - Strome - Okposo
Nino - Nelson - Grabner
Martin - Cizikas - Ullstrom/UFA
IMO, that's a pretty solid layout. The only hole would be at 1st line RW, which could either be filled by Kabanov, a UFA, a trade, or potentially next offseason's draft pick(hopefully a guy like Lindholm). We could then potentially trade Nielsen for a defenseman, or an NHL-ready defense prospect with upside(Rundblad was mentioned before and makes sense, IMO).
Either way, if we keep them both here I'd prefer them both to stick at center. It will allow us to have a much more balanced offense as a whole. That said, if from now til then we have an opportunity to acquire a young #3 or 4 in a deal for Nelson+, I'd probably still jump on it.
Either way, if we keep them both here I'd prefer them both to stick at center. It will allow us to have a much more balanced offense as a whole. That said, if from now til then we have an opportunity to acquire a young #3 or 4 in a deal for Nelson+, I'd probably still jump on it.
The Islanders traded up to draft him, brought him to pros early, and he's been excelling in Bridgeport. In other words, he's exceeding expectations and the Islanders have invested a lot in him. If they do end up trading him, I would hope it's for at least a #3 defenseman with #2 upside.
1. Rundblad's upside is higher (while chance Donovan reaches his is greater)
2. You also don't need a 2nd pair puck mover (what Donovan is expected to become).
3. Trading Rundblad for Donovan looks really really bad, because a top-5 pick (Turris) turns into Matt Donovan.
1. Rundblad's upside is higher (while chance Donovan reaches his is greater)
2. You also don't need a 2nd pair puck mover (what Donovan is expected to become).
3. Trading Rundblad for Donovan looks really really bad, because a top-5 pick (Turris) turns into Matt Donovan.
Cheers,
Dan-o
Pretty much. Rundblad has homerun type potential, and with our defensive depth it allows us to hang on to the guy with the higher upside. I'm actually not completely sold on Rundblad and don't think he's going to get the NHL ice time he needs to develop on a Dave Tippett coached team. I hope i'm wrong though. I'd actually prefer to move him for a forward while he still has value.
The Islanders traded up to draft him, brought him to pros early, and he's been excelling in Bridgeport. In other words, he's exceeding expectations and the Islanders have invested a lot in him. If they do end up trading him, I would hope it's for at least a #3 defenseman with #2 upside.
This is a great point that often gets overlooked. Many of us didnt expect this from Nelson this early but the Isles clearly wanted him and I think it speaks to how well they have drafted the past few drafts.
