HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Official 2014 NHL Draft Discussion, Suck for Sam or Play Bad For Ekblad?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-21-2013, 09:02 AM
  #101
Savant
Registered User
 
Savant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,881
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbara Underhill View Post
Nash may remain out for awhile but I don't consider him damaged goods, nor am I worried about it in the future. It's uncommon to take a shoulder directly to the face and that hit probably concusses 90% of the players in the league.
I disagree. I feel no allegiance to Nash as a Ranger player, and with the contract that Nash carries you need to trade that thing a concussion too early instead of a concussion too late.

Not to mention, if you can clear out Nash by the deadline, and amnesty Richards you can really set up a nice 2-3 year rebuild plan with the future assets they would be getting and the sizable cap space that would be freed up.

Savant is online now  
Old
10-21-2013, 09:07 AM
  #102
Barbara Underhill
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuke
 
Barbara Underhill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montana
Country: United States
Posts: 13,120
vCash: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savant View Post
I disagree. I feel no allegiance to Nash as a Ranger player, and with the contract that Nash carries you need to trade that thing a concussion too early instead of a concussion too late.

Not to mention, if you can clear out Nash by the deadline, and amnesty Richards you can really set up a nice 2-3 year rebuild plan with the future assets they would be getting and the sizable cap space that would be freed up.
Yeah not going to happen. Apparently you forgot who owns this team and who our GM is. It's playoffs or bust, 1st or 8th seed it doesn't matter. Gotta get that extra revenue.

If you really want to improve this team you have to trade from an area of strength. We have none, we do however have Lundqvist. Who would net you a solid top six player and some nice futures. If you want to do a full on rebuild that is where you start, otherwise you are just swapping our underperforming pieces for another teams. Historically that doesn't work well for the Rangers.

Barbara Underhill is offline  
Old
10-21-2013, 09:10 AM
  #103
theFiGS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Dolan will never go for a full rebuild, that's why SATHER has never been fired. New York teams DO NOT rebuild fully that's why we don't win. I would support a full on rebuild and a lot of posters on this board will too. But if they suck for 3 years a lot of the "I'm a ranger fan when they're good" people won't go to games or even watch on tv and that hurts dolans pockets. It's money over everything for Dolan NOT championships, that's why the rangers and Knicks are always in the same boat. Overpayed superstars on a team that never wins a title

theFiGS is offline  
Old
10-21-2013, 09:51 AM
  #104
EspenK
Registered User
 
EspenK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDonagh View Post
We won't be drafting this high. We just need more Blue Jackets. Package our 1st and an under performer so far, say Stepan, for Boll, Umberger, and Nikitin. Maybe add Lundqvist for Bobrovsky or if we really want that 2008-2012 Blue Jackets feel we can do Lundqvist to the Flyers for Mason.


I like this other than the Bob for Henrik - Mase would much more likely get the Rangers a shot at McDavid.

EspenK is offline  
Old
10-21-2013, 10:02 AM
  #105
Savant
Registered User
 
Savant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,881
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbara Underhill View Post
Yeah not going to happen. Apparently you forgot who owns this team and who our GM is. It's playoffs or bust, 1st or 8th seed it doesn't matter. Gotta get that extra revenue.

If you really want to improve this team you have to trade from an area of strength. We have none, we do however have Lundqvist. Who would net you a solid top six player and some nice futures. If you want to do a full on rebuild that is where you start, otherwise you are just swapping our underperforming pieces for another teams. Historically that doesn't work well for the Rangers.
Well I was talking about what I would do not what the front office will do so to be fair.....

I would trade Lundqvist. He is not going to resign if the organization is simply content with getting playoff revenues. However the problem is you just don't get value for goalies. For example I believe the top offer for Luongo at the deadline last year was Scrivens, a 2nd and another pick. I'm not sure Lundqvist gets that much more as a UFA especially if he goes somewhere he won't resign. Best case scenario may be to like Anaheim for one of their firsts and Fasth or Hiller (although god willing Rangers could get John Gibson) if they want to go all out for Selanne. Maybe a prospect if they get lucky.

If you were to move Lundqvist what would you realistically be looking for and from whom?

Savant is online now  
Old
10-21-2013, 10:31 AM
  #106
Barbara Underhill
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuke
 
Barbara Underhill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montana
Country: United States
Posts: 13,120
vCash: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savant View Post
Well I was talking about what I would do not what the front office will do so to be fair.....

I would trade Lundqvist. He is not going to resign if the organization is simply content with getting playoff revenues. However the problem is you just don't get value for goalies. For example I believe the top offer for Luongo at the deadline last year was Scrivens, a 2nd and another pick. I'm not sure Lundqvist gets that much more as a UFA especially if he goes somewhere he won't resign. Best case scenario may be to like Anaheim for one of their firsts and Fasth or Hiller (although god willing Rangers could get John Gibson) if they want to go all out for Selanne. Maybe a prospect if they get lucky.

If you were to move Lundqvist what would you realistically be looking for and from whom?
The problem with Luongo was his contract. Hank is about to go UFA so whoever gets him has the chance to structure the contract in a way that won't handicap them. That adds a little value while the UFA status actually subtracts some. I think the minimum you take in a Hank deal is a top six LW, a 1st, and a promising prospect.

I'm not convinced Hank wouldn't resign here either, yes the team is playing poorly but he shoulders a fair bit of the blame and knowing him he won't accept his performance and suggest that he played his best and the team around him sucks so he needs to go somewhere with a better team. Which is what a lot of people are assuming.

I suggested trading Lundqvist to a friend of mine four or five years ago. My reasoning then was that we didn't have enough offensive talent to compete and Lundqvist was going to keep us from being bad enough to build through the draft quickly enough to turn it around. Naturally you want to keep a player like Hank, I love him. But in the long run moving him would have made this team more complete.

Personally I see us moving a few players like a Girardi, MDZ, or Kreider in a package for an upgrade up front and a D-man who can take bottom pairing minutes. It's a typical Sather move really. Which at this juncture might actually be the right one, if we solidify our top six by adding a competent winger and shift Hagelin to the 3rd line we look a lot better. That is when Nash/Hagelin/Callahan all come back.

Barbara Underhill is offline  
Old
10-21-2013, 10:37 AM
  #107
Savant
Registered User
 
Savant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,881
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbara Underhill View Post
The problem with Luongo was his contract. Hank is about to go UFA so whoever gets him has the chance to structure the contract in a way that won't handicap them. That adds a little value while the UFA status actually subtracts some. I think the minimum you take in a Hank deal is a top six LW, a 1st, and a promising prospect.

I'm not convinced Hank wouldn't resign here either, yes the team is playing poorly but he shoulders a fair bit of the blame and knowing him he won't accept his performance and suggest that he played his best and the team around him sucks so he needs to go somewhere with a better team. Which is what a lot of people are assuming.

I suggested trading Lundqvist to a friend of mine four or five years ago. My reasoning then was that we didn't have enough offensive talent to compete and Lundqvist was going to keep us from being bad enough to build through the draft quickly enough to turn it around. Naturally you want to keep a player like Hank, I love him. But in the long run moving him would have made this team more complete.

Personally I see us moving a few players like a Girardi, MDZ, or Kreider in a package for an upgrade up front and a D-man who can take bottom pairing minutes. It's a typical Sather move really. Which at this juncture might actually be the right one, if we solidify our top six by adding a competent winger and shift Hagelin to the 3rd line we look a lot better. That is when Nash/Hagelin/Callahan all come back.
Hank being a UFA hurts his trade value as much of Luongo's contract hurt his. It drastically limits the teams that would want to acquire him. And the amount teams would pay, as in that case it's a rental.

So whoever acquired him would be willing to give a premium package AND a monster contract not to mention Lundqvist would want to sign there.

Savant is online now  
Old
10-21-2013, 10:38 AM
  #108
Trxjw
Moderator
Bored.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Land of no calls..
Country: United States
Posts: 16,440
vCash: 500
The issues with Luongo were that he hadn't been playing particularly well, had a boat anchor of a contract that takes him into his 40's, and a full NTC. Lundqvist is in his prime, and his contract can be tailored for whatever team would trade for him. You'd have to think that any team that trades for him would be looking to extend him.

You don't necessarily have to get a goalie back in the deal either. You can make another trade to acquire one. Andersen looks like he could be the real deal, and the Ducks are teeming with goalies. They need a defensive-minded D to compliment Fowler. Danny G for Etem and Andersen.

Trxjw is offline  
Old
10-21-2013, 10:44 AM
  #109
Barbara Underhill
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuke
 
Barbara Underhill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montana
Country: United States
Posts: 13,120
vCash: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savant View Post
Hank being a UFA hurts his trade value as much of Luongo's contract hurt his. It drastically limits the teams that would want to acquire him. And the amount teams would pay, as in that case it's a rental.

So whoever acquired him would be willing to give a premium package AND a monster contract not to mention Lundqvist would want to sign there.
I don't think so, goaltenders of his caliber are never available. Don't try and say Luongo is of Hanks caliber. They were trying to trade him after several years of disappointment, not a rough start to a season. It's a moot point anyway because it won't happen, but yes with the type of over reactionary deals we see every season Hank could certainly get that return. Think of it as a player and a prospect for Hank and a 1st for the extra months of negotiating with him.

A team like Edmonton would jump all over that deal, along with several other teams.

Barbara Underhill is offline  
Old
10-21-2013, 10:45 AM
  #110
NYR Viper
Moderator
 
NYR Viper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 28,213
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trxjw View Post
The issues with Luongo were that he hadn't been playing particularly well, had a boat anchor of a contract that takes him into his 40's, and a full NTC. Lundqvist is in his prime, and his contract can be tailored for whatever team would trade for him. You'd have to think that any team that trades for him would be looking to extend him.

You don't necessarily have to get a goalie back in the deal either. You can make another trade to acquire one. Andersen looks like he could be the real deal, and the Ducks are teeming with goalies. They need a defensive-minded D to compliment Fowler. Danny G for Etem and Andersen.
Yes. I would love that deal.

NYR Viper is online now  
Old
10-21-2013, 10:48 AM
  #111
Savant
Registered User
 
Savant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,881
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trxjw View Post
The issues with Luongo were that he hadn't been playing particularly well, had a boat anchor of a contract that takes him into his 40's, and a full NTC. Lundqvist is in his prime, and his contract can be tailored for whatever team would trade for him. You'd have to think that any team that trades for him would be looking to extend him.

You don't necessarily have to get a goalie back in the deal either. You can make another trade to acquire one. Andersen looks like he could be the real deal, and the Ducks are teeming with goalies. They need a defensive-minded D to compliment Fowler. Danny G for Etem and Andersen.
Not sure I agree. In any sport, rental players do not garner the same value that they should as if they were under contract. Yes Luongo's deal was an albatross and that killed his value, but I do not think Lundqvist gets what the collective fan base would be hoping for. A first and a conditional high pick as well as a prospect might be the best they can hope for. It is just very hard to find a match. The easiest way is to take a goalie back, but what contending teams can trade your criteria and afford to resign Lundqvist. It is a very short list.

Savant is online now  
Old
10-21-2013, 10:55 AM
  #112
Barbara Underhill
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuke
 
Barbara Underhill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montana
Country: United States
Posts: 13,120
vCash: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savant View Post
Not sure I agree. In any sport, rental players do not garner the same value that they should as if they were under contract. Yes Luongo's deal was an albatross and that killed his value, but I do not think Lundqvist gets what the collective fan base would be hoping for. A first and a conditional high pick as well as a prospect might be the best they can hope for. It is just very hard to find a match. The easiest way is to take a goalie back, but what contending teams can trade your criteria and afford to resign Lundqvist. It is a very short list.
I don't know what you think the "collective fan base" is or what they expect out of trading Lundqvist but I can assure you he gets more than a first a conditional pick and maybe a prospect.

Barbara Underhill is offline  
Old
10-21-2013, 11:10 AM
  #113
Savant
Registered User
 
Savant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,881
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbara Underhill View Post
I don't know what you think the "collective fan base" is or what they expect out of trading Lundqvist but I can assure you he gets more than a first a conditional pick and maybe a prospect.
Okay. I don't think teams want to pay a 1st, a top six player and a premium prospect for a UFA goalie.

When was the last time a UFA goalie got that kind of return?

For example I would love Chris Stewart, Jake Allen and a 1st for Lundqvist. However I don't think STL bites on that.

Savant is online now  
Old
10-21-2013, 11:32 AM
  #114
jniklast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: Germany
Posts: 4,711
vCash: 500
Only a contender would want to trade for Lundqvist at the deadline, and contenders don't trade away their top six player when they want to make a cup run. Considering the general value of deadline rentals and lower value of goalies, I'd say a depth roster player, a good prospect and a 1st are probably all we would get. Another conditional pick (2nd or 1st if we're really lucky) if he re-signs.

jniklast is offline  
Old
10-21-2013, 11:36 AM
  #115
Barbara Underhill
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuke
 
Barbara Underhill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montana
Country: United States
Posts: 13,120
vCash: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savant View Post
Okay. I don't think teams want to pay a 1st, a top six player and a premium prospect for a UFA goalie.

When was the last time a UFA goalie got that kind of return?

For example I would love Chris Stewart, Jake Allen and a 1st for Lundqvist. However I don't think STL bites on that.
St. Louis isn't a good match. But since you wanted to use Luongo as a comparison you can look at the return FLA got for him when he was a UFA and then compare him at that point in his career to Lundqvist now and decide who has more value. They got Bertuzzi who was already 31 but still producing well, Bryan Allen a former 4th overall pick, and Alex Auld who at the time many thought would be a starter in the NHL and thought he was a lock to start for FLA until they signed Belfour and he assaulted Auld.

Barbara Underhill is offline  
Old
10-21-2013, 11:39 AM
  #116
HatTrick Swayze
Tomato Potato
 
HatTrick Swayze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,296
vCash: 500
Not high on Etem at all. And he is too similar to Kreiderin many ways for my tastes.

Would much prefer Holland. Or even Palmieri/Rakell.

__________________
"Here we can see the agression of american people. They love fighting and guns. when they wont win they try to kill us all." -HalfOfFame
HatTrick Swayze is offline  
Old
10-21-2013, 11:45 AM
  #117
Trxjw
Moderator
Bored.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Land of no calls..
Country: United States
Posts: 16,440
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savant View Post
Not sure I agree. In any sport, rental players do not garner the same value that they should as if they were under contract. Yes Luongo's deal was an albatross and that killed his value, but I do not think Lundqvist gets what the collective fan base would be hoping for. A first and a conditional high pick as well as a prospect might be the best they can hope for. It is just very hard to find a match. The easiest way is to take a goalie back, but what contending teams can trade your criteria and afford to resign Lundqvist. It is a very short list.
You're assuming the market is limited to contenders, and that they're operating under the premise that he'll purely be a rental. I don't think that's the case. You never know who is set in goal and who isn't. Toronto might want to let Bernier and Reimer fight it out, or they might want to solidify themselves with a proven #1. When players of his caliber become available, sometimes it makes teams do crazy things.

Trxjw is offline  
Old
10-21-2013, 11:46 AM
  #118
Trxjw
Moderator
Bored.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Land of no calls..
Country: United States
Posts: 16,440
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HatTrick Swayze View Post
Not high on Etem at all. And he is too similar to Kreiderin many ways for my tastes.

Would much prefer Holland. Or even Palmieri/Rakell.
It was just a "off the top" suggestion. Not a big fan of Holland. He's too slow in his decision making for the NHL, IMO. Doubt they'd trade Palmieri, but I would take him over Etem.

Trxjw is offline  
Old
10-21-2013, 11:47 AM
  #119
Savant
Registered User
 
Savant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,881
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbara Underhill View Post
St. Louis isn't a good match. But since you wanted to use Luongo as a comparison you can look at the return FLA got for him when he was a UFA and then compare him at that point in his career to Lundqvist now and decide who has more value. They got Bertuzzi who was already 31 but still producing well, Bryan Allen a former 4th overall pick, and Alex Auld who at the time many thought would be a starter in the NHL and thought he was a lock to start for FLA until they signed Belfour and he assaulted Auld.
I agree STL isn't the best match, but asset wise that is what I would be looking for. I remember thinking Florida got hosed in that Luongo deal and that was also 7 years ago (I think) so things GM perceptions may have changed a bit since then.

Anyway the real issue is how many teams ARE good matches for Lundqvist. You probably don't have more than a half dozen legitimate options, and that number may even be too high. Did you have a destination in mind?

Savant is online now  
Old
10-21-2013, 12:05 PM
  #120
Barbara Underhill
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuke
 
Barbara Underhill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montana
Country: United States
Posts: 13,120
vCash: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savant View Post
I agree STL isn't the best match, but asset wise that is what I would be looking for. I remember thinking Florida got hosed in that Luongo deal and that was also 7 years ago (I think) so things GM perceptions may have changed a bit since then.

Anyway the real issue is how many teams ARE good matches for Lundqvist. You probably don't have more than a half dozen legitimate options, and that number may even be too high. Did you have a destination in mind?
Think it was an OK return for Luongo, he had been good but hadn't reached his peak and Bertuzzi was one of the better power forwards around at the time, Allen had quite a bit of hype and had only been in the league a few years and Auld looked capable. I'd be pissed with that return for Lundqvist because those players were a bit old. But again at the time it was a big name and solid parts.

Destination wise there are several teams who need goaltending and there are a few who would take Lundqvist and move their current starter if they had to. CGY, EDM, FLA, TB, CAR, WPG, MIN, DAL, BUF, NYI, PHI, WAS... Those are teams I think would welcome him with open arms granted three of them aren't going to trade with us. But a deal could be found, have to wait and see as it's early.

This is all hypothetical anyway as I don't see him being moved, especially not this early. As far as only contenders being willing to acquire him I think that assumption is wrong, a lot of teams would love to have him and would pay extra to get a few more months of negotiations with him.

Letting him go for nothing in free agency would be the biggest mistake ever, so unless Sather knows he can resign him I think he's dealt.

Barbara Underhill is offline  
Old
10-21-2013, 12:25 PM
  #121
Savant
Registered User
 
Savant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,881
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbara Underhill View Post
Think it was an OK return for Luongo, he had been good but hadn't reached his peak and Bertuzzi was one of the better power forwards around at the time, Allen had quite a bit of hype and had only been in the league a few years and Auld looked capable. I'd be pissed with that return for Lundqvist because those players were a bit old. But again at the time it was a big name and solid parts.

Destination wise there are several teams who need goaltending and there are a few who would take Lundqvist and move their current starter if they had to. CGY, EDM, FLA, TB, CAR, WPG, MIN, DAL, BUF, NYI, PHI, WAS... Those are teams I think would welcome him with open arms granted three of them aren't going to trade with us. But a deal could be found, have to wait and see as it's early.

This is all hypothetical anyway as I don't see him being moved, especially not this early. As far as only contenders being willing to acquire him I think that assumption is wrong, a lot of teams would love to have him and would pay extra to get a few more months of negotiations with him.

Letting him go for nothing in free agency would be the biggest mistake ever, so unless Sather knows he can resign him I think he's dealt.
CGY, FLA, TB, BUF are all places that he would not sign, so its moot.



WPG and DAL he would not sign there either, but they also have their own goalies that they recently signed to long term deals. With Dallas you would need to take Lehtonen back, and they certainly would not want to add too much to that. Same with Winnipeg and Pavelec.

A deal with CAR means taking Cam Ward back, which again limits the return tremendously, and doesn't give a whole lot of cap savings.

NYI PHI WSH would be very tough to make deals with because they are in the Metro. However, these teams probably think they have a great shot to sign Lundqvist in the offseason so would be just as happy waiting.

I actually could see a deal with Minnesota happening though but would need to get creative. They have extra goalies and good youth.

Savant is online now  
Old
10-21-2013, 12:56 PM
  #122
Barbara Underhill
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuke
 
Barbara Underhill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montana
Country: United States
Posts: 13,120
vCash: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savant View Post
CGY, FLA, TB, BUF are all places that he would not sign, so its moot.



WPG and DAL he would not sign there either, but they also have their own goalies that they recently signed to long term deals. With Dallas you would need to take Lehtonen back, and they certainly would not want to add too much to that. Same with Winnipeg and Pavelec.

A deal with CAR means taking Cam Ward back, which again limits the return tremendously, and doesn't give a whole lot of cap savings.

NYI PHI WSH would be very tough to make deals with because they are in the Metro. However, these teams probably think they have a great shot to sign Lundqvist in the offseason so would be just as happy waiting.

I actually could see a deal with Minnesota happening though but would need to get creative. They have extra goalies and good youth.
The problem here is that these are all assumptions. There is no rule stating you have to take a goaltender back if you are trading one. On top of that you have no idea where Hank would or wouldn't sign. So really all of that is what's moot.

Barbara Underhill is offline  
Old
10-21-2013, 01:01 PM
  #123
Savant
Registered User
 
Savant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,881
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbara Underhill View Post
The problem here is that these are all assumptions. There is no rule stating you have to take a goaltender back if you are trading one. On top of that you have no idea where Hank would or wouldn't sign. So really all of that is what's moot.
You are right that there is no rule about goaltenders being traded for each other, but unless an auxiliary move for another goalie, the Rangers would be looking at Talbot and Missiaen with nothing else in the pipeline. Therefore it would be the easiest way to acquire someone to fill in at the NHL level for this season, and possibly beyond. I don't think it takes Ms. Cleo to figure out the teams that Lundqvist would not consider signing for.

Savant is online now  
Old
10-21-2013, 01:02 PM
  #124
KreiMeARiver
Have Confidence
 
KreiMeARiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UES
Posts: 6,599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by x beukeboom x View Post
quick.

Someone hire jeff gillooly in a player trainer role.
"whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy?????"

KreiMeARiver is online now  
Old
10-21-2013, 01:13 PM
  #125
Barbara Underhill
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuke
 
Barbara Underhill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montana
Country: United States
Posts: 13,120
vCash: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savant View Post
You are right that there is no rule about goaltenders being traded for each other, but unless an auxiliary move for another goalie, the Rangers would be looking at Talbot and Missiaen with nothing else in the pipeline. Therefore it would be the easiest way to acquire someone to fill in at the NHL level for this season, and possibly beyond. I don't think it takes Ms. Cleo to figure out the teams that Lundqvist would not consider signing for.
Agree to disagree, it's all hypothetical and mostly nonsensical. If you're talking about a full on rebuild who cares if Talbot plays out the remainder of a season? Especially considering this isn't a deal that would happen tomorrow. We're talking months from now IF the team is a bottom feeder, which I don't think it will be and IF Sather gets the indication from Hank that he is unwilling to re-sign here.

As far as where he would sign, you don't know. You don't know his motivations, a lot of guys claim they want to win a cup and then sign a more lucrative deal with a less talented team. Funny how that works.

Barbara Underhill is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:01 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.