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.
Gaborik would magical with the Sedins. Gaborik's game is all positioning and getting in lanes. Richards and Gaborik aren't great together bc neither thrive by puck possession. Playing with the Sedins would allow them to set up the play and Gaborik to finish it.
I would be all over Gaborik, but regardless of how much value we give up we'd need to send at least some salary the other way to accomodate him.
Does Booth + Gaunce + 1st sound like a good offer?
Has any team ever traded away and then traded back for their first round pick?
Yep. The Predators traded Ryan Parent, Scotty Upshall, their 1st and 3rd to Philly for Forsberg, then in the offseason they traded Hartnell and Timonen's rights to Philly for their 1st round pick back.
Vancouver can't really afford him. We're already looking at cutting some depth in the summer to get under the new cap. This would turn us into what Tampa Bay was coming out of the last lockout.
If we can unload Booth, I think we would be all over it.
We'd have to unload Booth, Ballard and Luongo's contract to have any chance at staying under the cap. Goes against everything Gillis has done with Vancouver. Just doesn't seem very logical to me. Gaborik and Kesler on the same line would be among the most injury prone in the league.
We'd have to unload Booth, Ballard and Luongo's contract to have any chance at staying under the cap. Goes against everything Gillis has done with Vancouver. Just doesn't seem very logical to me. Gaborik and Kesler on the same line would be among the most injury prone in the league.
We should acquire Hemsky, DiPietro, Salo and Colaiacovo to have the most injury prone team in the league.
The main key for anyone acquiring Gaborik is fit. Do not acquire him if you're expecting him to hold onto the puck and make plays. For him to be optimal, that is the player he must play with. Gaborik will finish off the plays no problem, but he needs a guy who can skate, stickhandle, and hold onto the puck. Richards/Stepan aren't optimal because they both have below average speed and neither player thrive off holding onto the puck. I even think a guy like Grabovski would be a better fit with Gaborik. Gaborik said explicitly when he signed in NY that he wasn't the type to hold onto the puck, but rather the type of player who is great at finding lanes.
Put him with Datsyuk or the Sedins and I bet you he'd score 50.
Well what do you think is fair value? I'd have thought that a decent roster player and the equivalent of 2 1sts would be fair.
Again, the Rangers are trying to win a Stanley Cup. Your offer significantly destroys those chances for the Rangers. Nothing short of one of the Sedin's makes sense for the Rangers. Don't like it? I don't expect you to. But Gaborik is not for trade unless it improves our chances of a cup immediately; no matter how much irrational Rangers fans and a vague, hypothetical Elliotte Friedman anecdote might make you think otherwise.
We'd have to unload Booth, Ballard and Luongo's contract to have any chance at staying under the cap. Goes against everything Gillis has done with Vancouver. Just doesn't seem very logical to me. Gaborik and Kesler on the same line would be among the most injury prone in the league.
2 things:
1. That wouldn't be the primary concern with that line. They would have no chemistry. Putting him with a player like Kesler would set him up to fail.
2. Gaborik is hardly "injury prone" anymore. He has injuries since 2010, but he has as much of a propensity to get injured as any other player. His proneness to injury came from his groin and hip problems which is why he missed so many games from 2006-2010. That got corrected in 2009 and since then those injuries have never come up again. If you take his tenure with the Rangers, he does not qualify as injury prone, he has actually been quite healthy.
In fact, his hip and groin injuries were closely related. His hip problems caused him to have groin problems. Once his hip problems were dealt with, his groin problems disappeared.
Again, the Rangers are trying to win a Stanley Cup. Your offer significantly destroys those chances for the Rangers. Nothing short of one of the Sedin's makes sense for the Rangers. Don't like it? I don't expect you to. But Gaborik is not for trade unless it improves our chances of a cup immediately; no matter how much irrational Rangers fans and a vague, hypothetical Elliotte Friedman anecdote might make you think otherwise.
Well obviously my offer was going with the OP as a guideline. If I were a Rangers fan there's no way I'd advocate trading Gaborik. But who knows what might happen? Sometimes a shake-up trade is made, and Gborik might very well be the goat for this one.
2 things:
1. That wouldn't be the primary concern with that line. They would have no chemistry. Putting him with a player like Kesler would set him up to fail.
2. Gaborik is hardly "injury prone" anymore. He has injuries since 2010, but he has as much of a propensity to get injured as any other player. His proneness to injury came from his groin and hip problems which is why he missed so many games from 2006-2010. That got corrected in 2009 and since then those injuries have never come up again. If you take his tenure with the Rangers, he does not qualify as injury prone, he has actually been quite healthy.
In fact, his hip and groin injuries were closely related. His hip problems caused him to have groin problems. Once his hip problems were dealt with, his groin problems disappeared.
Great. Too bad Gaborik doesn't fit in Vancouver's cap structure.
We cannot afford the contract he has. The Blues are a budget team with key free agents to sign. 7.5 million on a winger is a dumb move for the Blues.
I also get the impression he would fit poorly on the team offensively,
Out of curiousity how would describe both the offensive style of play by each of the Blues top two lines and the top two centres?
That's idiotic. First they trade away their depth for Nash (what the quote in the OP said), and not half a season later they think they need to trade another scorer (basically a better version of Nash imo) for depth? I doubt it.
If by better version of Nash you mean nothing like Nash and half as good, then you're absolutely right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by funky
Williams, Stoll an Drewiske for Gabby and Boyle
__________________ "I don't get why Richards looks like he's dying at the end of every shift, he doesn't do anything." -Crease
That's idiotic. First they trade away their depth for Nash (what the quote in the OP said), and not half a season later they think they need to trade another scorer (basically a better version of Nash imo) for depth? I doubt it.
Very different players.
Gaborik is useless with the puck but amazing offensively away from the puck.
Nash is ok offensively away from the puck, but when he has it on his stick he is the most dangerous man on the ice.
I prefer Nash's style to be honest. Besides being more aesthetically pleasing, it also is much more draining on the opposing defensive unit.
