They have 25 players (CapGeek says 26, but Pardy was loaned yesterday), with 22 currently active (Leopold, Leino, Sulzer on IR).
If Leopold and Leino come off of IR tomorrow, they'd need to demote two players.
The only waiver exempt players that are demotion options are Foligno, Flynn, and Grigorenko (Hodgson is also exempt).
Hmm...makes me think a trade is coming...which might explain why they held off Leino playing on Sun...and wont commit to him playing tomorrow.
No you got a brilliant idea let's keep bringing in underachievers. One mans garbage yadda yadda yadda...
There are plenty of useful current RW/C we could go after rather than just going for picks and prospects all the time. If we go after Ryan, Iginla, Chimera, Stasnty, Marleau, Thornton, Penner. I'd be happy making offers for most of those. I'm pretty sure we could get Penner for a 2nd/3rd rounder and seeing as his a former multiple 20/30 goal scorer with size I think he'd be worth a pick. Although without a permanent coach it's all noise, thats the biggest priority.
I actually don't mind the idea of Hemsky. Add some speed to our top 6 (even if you have to assume he'll miss ~10-15 games a year minimum). What I'd worry about is adding the extra 1M in cap for next year, even if Hemsky is UFA after that. Might work if Leino is bought out.
That said, it wouldn't be my first preference in a Stafford deal. But you could do a lot worse than Hemsky.
Stafford's value is so low right now that it wouldn't make sense to trade him unless it's a package to get a better player. I doubt a better player that Buffalo needs will be on the market until the summer. Anyway, a 2nd RW is a non-primary piece to a Cup winning team. His success depends a lot on being strong down the middle. If Buffalo gets stronger at C Stafford may very well be worth keeping.
FUTURE. Stafford for picks/prospects and nothing else. Don't be a ****tard, and dream sixteen.
Hemsky is a much better player than Stafford. With the right line-mates he could do pretty well. I would do that straight up. Hemsky for Stafford isn't going to bring this team up from the bottom of the standings, but it does make them better.
Last edited by HockeyH3aven: 03-12-2013 at 08:52 AM.
I wouldn't at all be opposed to trading Hemsky for Stafford. Very low risk, high reward. We only take on 1 mil in salary, which we can easily make up by shipping out Regehr/Leopold/both.
I understand the desire for futures, but Stafford's value isn't that high. I'd rather have Hemsky than a 2nd round pick. There's no guarantee that whoever we draft with that pick will be anywhere near as skilled or productive as Hemsky has been. Getting Hemsky would add scoring (something we're not great at). If he sucks then...well hey, he's only got 1 year left on his current contract.
Last edited by Girgenburger: 03-12-2013 at 10:40 AM.
So do I, if Stafford can be traded for Hemsky without giving up a pick in the first 3 rounds, I would be glad.
I still hate it that Stafford hasn't been traded after his 30G season ... His value will never be that high again.
I'd rather have Hemsky than a 2nd round pick. There's no guarantee that whoever we draft with that pick will be anywhere near as skilled or productive as Hemsky has been. Getting Hemsky would add scoring (something we're not great at). If he sucks then...well hey, he's only got 1 year left on his current contract.
Picks are never bad. They could always use them for a trade at the draft.
Personally I'd rather have a 2nd than Hemsky, but for the sake of argument, having Hemsky next season would soften the blow if they were to, say, amensty waive Leino this offseason, etc. That said, I'd rather they focus on only bringing in young players or picks up until the deadline. Let them use the offseason to tool up for next year.