You can't tell me Vincour doesn't have potential. Look at what he's doing in the AHL, and explain to me why that can't happen in the NHL. I'm not saying it will, but there's no reason to think that he's peaked as an NHL player.
Wandell, although he's probably done developing, still has a bit of top 6 potential IMO. He's got the speed and the hands, and there are times you can see him put it all together. I think most of that is just mental for him, which he could just randomly get over at any time. But still, I wouldn't count on it. And he's at worst a 4th line winger, we just don't have room for him anymore.
Would rather stick with our own players than get a minimal upgrade on Larsen at best.
Alexandre Giroux is only 22 years old, with decent size, and a fully developed physical and two-way game? I didn't realize that.
Vincour is the perfect player to replace Nystrom next year if they choose to move on ... and I hope they do. He's younger, more physical, and he has more offensive upside.
... and before you throw that 16 goal season from Nystrom in our face .... If Nystrom can do it at 28 or 29 years old before having a decent offensive season, how can you with a straight face say it's not within reason Vincour could. Furthermore, Nystrom was 26 years old before he ever scored 10 goals.
Vincour is far from untouchable, but he's a valuable player with upside.
Vincour is a great bottom six option and I've never argued against that. Just because a player does super well in the AHL though, doesn't mean it translates to the NHL. (Giroux)
Vincour is one of the last players they will think about trading. His value right now isn't super high but his potential is still at worst bottom six winger and at best 2nd line winger who's physical. They're not going to give up on a 22 year old who's been jerked around in and out of the lineup all season but when finally put on a scoring line in the AHL, does just that. He hasn't topped out yet so why would you move him for not much of a return?
Wandell is done here. I don't think you'd get a 5th but maybe a 7th or an AHL guy from someone. The return for him is all about doing right by him and removing him from payroll and taking a spot down in Austin from a younger guy.
I don't think they want to give up on Larsen cause again his value can't be that significant at this point. They also know he has upside and probably want him to realize that for them. If the right deal comes along great but Larsen+Wandell isn't worth a 1st.
I'm not saying they will or are even thinking about. I'm simply wondering what people think his value is.
I think you're right that they could be open to moving him, but like HF said, I don't think they'd get the value they'd require.
Basically, if they could flip him for a larger, mobile D, I think they would, but why in the hell would the other team do it?
So like you're saying ... what other asset could get you to place that a trade could work? I don't know, but Vincour wouldn't be the guy IMO. You wouldn't trade two guys with their potential return being pretty low right now. In fact, I would trade any of the forward prospects at this point. You have no idea what you have in the guys, and one ore more of them could be exactly what this team really needs.
I'd be disappointed, but I could see them moving Larsen for an older D with a high salary. I'm not talking mid-30's, but some guy in his mid to late 20's with a team that's needing to cut salary next year. Before Bouwmeester turned his entire game around ... that was the type of a guy I was thinking. It's a situation that I think most fans would be disappointed, but I could see GM Joe doing.
You can't tell me Vincour doesn't have potential. Look at what he's doing in the AHL, and explain to me why that can't happen in the NHL. I'm not saying it will, but there's no reason to think that he's peaked as an NHL player.
Wandell, although he's probably done developing, still has a bit of top 6 potential IMO. He's got the speed and the hands, and there are times you can see him put it all together. I think most of that is just mental for him, which he could just randomly get over at any time. But still, I wouldn't count on it. And he's at worst a 4th line winger, we just don't have room for him anymore.
Would rather stick with our own players than get a minimal upgrade on Larsen at best.
When does Wandell use the hands he supposedly has?
This isn't the best example, but it's the only one I could think of right now.
It would honestly tick me off because why would you have just freaking kept Nicklas Grossmann, but Nicklas Hjalmarsson in Chicago. Chicago would save money which they likely need to do. They only have a little over $4 million in cap space, and they need to re-sign Kruger and Leddy. That should be enough, but they always tinker in free agency.
That's not an ideal scenario at all, but that was the best I could think of. I could definitely see them trying to get bigger on the back, but not getting much older. Nicklas is only 2.5 years older than Larsen.
Hmm ... maybe Tomas Kundratek. Wouldn't be the scenario I was talking about, but it might make sense for both teams. I don't want to see Dallas do this type of switch, but they preach getting bigger so it wouldn't surprise me. Added bonus for Dallas is he doesn't require waivers and he could spend some time in Texas.
Anyway ... I don't want to go through the rest of the teams, but there are several bad options that seem like potential moves Dallas would be willing to do. Franson or Gunnarsson were two other guys I was looking at, but Toronto thankfully woudln't want D back in return.
I hope they just keep Larsen, but no Cin, I don't think you're wrong they'd shop him for a fit they were more comfortable with.
What kind of return do you think Larsen+Wandell+Vincour would bring?
Very little. That's not an attractive package, and I think all three together would actually fetch far less than the still minimal return you would get trading each guy individually. Balling them together forces a team to figure out what to do with three guys playing pretty bad to terrible hockey right now. In this day of limited roster spots and contract numbers, I can't see a team even wanting to entertain the idea no matter how little they were being asked to give up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LatvianTwist
Ah, my bad.
An upgrade on Larsen. Not a significant enough one to warrant trading two bottom six forwards who still have top six potential (I do think Wandell has at least a bit left, but I'm not expecting anything from him). Unless a team really liked one of those guys, we're probably better off keeping them.
Wandell barely has NHL scratch potential. He will never, ever be a top 6 NHL forward. He isn't really good at anything, and he has no hands. Vincour also doesn't have the hands for the job.
The Dallas Stars have activated D Trevor Daley off injured reserve and assigned D Carl Sneep to the Texas Stars of the AHL.
If there are any injuries tonight on D .... Dallas has no healthy replacements on the roster. Sneep would probably get called back up, and he'd get an opportunity to play against CLB.
Makes more sense to playing Bachman anyways. Need to see what we have at the end of the year when it comes to re-signing him, only way that happens is more games.
Makes more sense to playing Bachman anyways. Need to see what we have at the end of the year when it comes to re-signing him, only way that happens is more games.
The exact same could be said of Nilstorp ... and if you're going to see either of those guys play it'll be in the AHL. Without another injury to Kari, you know Gully is riding him.
So in reality ... I think it's more reasonable to say if you want to see Bachman play who should have been the one sent down.
However, like Lobo pointed out, neither guy is going down to be the starter. Campbell has forced the situation down there into a 1A/1B scenario which is what I wanted all along. Campbell and Nilstorp will have to fight for starts, and it's ideal. They'll both be better for it. I just hope when they do lock down a starter for the playoffs ... it's Campbell.
