HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Minnesota Wild
Notices

Possible Trade Ideas Take IV...

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-25-2012, 07:31 PM
  #126
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WILDhockeyfan View Post
You guys are arguing about whether to get rid of Zids or Schultz. If I was in charge I'd get rid of both of em' (also Zanon).
That's not what's happening at all.

Ultimately, Schultz played extremely poorly to start the season, but his play the past two weeks has been of average #2-#3 guy caliber. There's nothing to complain about there (except on the PP, and seriously, I'd rather see Kassian on the PP than our defensemen not named Spurgeon or Prosser).

Zidlicky has performed poorly as well. As Jarick's stats showed, his low point totals are a result of the poor performance of our power play. Why has the PP been bad? As much as we rag on them, the blue line isn't the cause (except Schultz, seriously, get him off the PP, I don't care if you play 4 on 4 instead). We just don't have the right skill forwards to have a successful powerplay at this point. Maybe if Butch, Koivu, and Lats can come back from injury, but we have Rau and Brodziak playing on the PP at this point.

Zid's not worth too much, but he's not negative value in the right circumstance. Let's be honest, there's always a team that thinks "they could do better if they move [player x] into [role y]." Move Zid if you can and can get an acceptable return. Schultz is fine where he is. Neither should be considered a major trade chip.

squidz* is offline  
Old
01-25-2012, 07:35 PM
  #127
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rynryn View Post
at the end of the day, they aren't going to wait forever for him to develop the confidence he needs at this level. He has more potential than Gillies and is a better hockey player, certainly, but it's the same problem that kept Gillies from being even a fourth liner here. I don't expect Fletcher to let him stay here until his trade value drops to zero--so how long do we give him to get his **** together? Yeo constantly preaches the importance of "responding" the right way, and Scandella seems to have been singled out among this crapfest as having dealt particularly poorly with bad games. How long do they give Scandella? All of next year?
I can't see how any of this reflects the reality of the situation.

Scandella is a quality defenseman, and will fit into a top 4 role sooner rather than later, and for a long time. The question right now isn't "can he play in the NHL?" The question is "can he develop enough to be a top pairing defenseman in the NHL?" He wasn't sent down because he was singled out. He wasn't "dealing with things poorly." He and Spurgeon are the only waiver exempt players on the blue line, and Spurgeon hasn't been doing poorly. We basically have 9 defensemen. One of them had to go down, and it wasn't going to be the only guy who has put up points this season.

Scandella wasn't supposed to make the team at all this season. He just forced Fletcher to keep him up with his play in camp. When he cooled off, he just got sent back where he needs to be to best develop.

Scandella shouldn't even be mentioned in the trade thread. With the state of our blue line, it's nearly impossible to imagine a situation where he might be traded.

squidz* is offline  
Old
01-25-2012, 08:32 PM
  #128
rynryn
Progress to the Mean
 
rynryn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 21,208
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
I can't see how any of this reflects the reality of the situation.

Scandella is a quality defenseman, and will fit into a top 4 role sooner rather than later, and for a long time. The question right now isn't "can he play in the NHL?" The question is "can he develop enough to be a top pairing defenseman in the NHL?" He wasn't sent down because he was singled out. He wasn't "dealing with things poorly." He and Spurgeon are the only waiver exempt players on the blue line, and Spurgeon hasn't been doing poorly. We basically have 9 defensemen. One of them had to go down, and it wasn't going to be the only guy who has put up points this season.

Scandella wasn't supposed to make the team at all this season. He just forced Fletcher to keep him up with his play in camp. When he cooled off, he just got sent back where he needs to be to best develop.

Scandella shouldn't even be mentioned in the trade thread. With the state of our blue line, it's nearly impossible to imagine a situation where he might be traded.
We're looking for D. We have been, even when we were winning. Depending on what we can find, it's very easy to see a situation where Scandella is moved. Any number of situations. Salary dump trade from someone with a currently decent defenseman. Trade involving one of our good forward prospects + Scandella (+ ?) for a better defensive prospect/young player. I don't think they'll have given up on him this year but they are shopping.

I get the feeling that too many people believe Scandella is supposed to be a top pairing defenseman, and that it'll be slightly disappointing but okay if he's merely a #3 kind of guy. That doesn't...what's your phrase? Reflect reality? This year IMO he wasn't playing at a 2nd pairing NHL level. If he were, there is no chance Fletcher wouldn't have kept him up at the risk of losing say Stoner or Falk. (edit: i mean merely for potential development gain) I would trade Scandella and Zucker in a heartbeat for Gardiner, who is the reality of what a lot of people here seem to think Scandella is as a 1990 player.

rynryn is offline  
Old
01-25-2012, 09:49 PM
  #129
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rynryn View Post
We're looking for D. We have been, even when we were winning. Depending on what we can find, it's very easy to see a situation where Scandella is moved. Any number of situations. Salary dump trade from someone with a currently decent defenseman. Trade involving one of our good forward prospects + Scandella (+ ?) for a better defensive prospect/young player. I don't think they'll have given up on him this year but they are shopping.

I get the feeling that too many people believe Scandella is supposed to be a top pairing defenseman, and that it'll be slightly disappointing but okay if he's merely a #3 kind of guy. That doesn't...what's your phrase? Reflect reality? This year IMO he wasn't playing at a 2nd pairing NHL level. If he were, there is no chance Fletcher wouldn't have kept him up at the risk of losing say Stoner or Falk. (edit: i mean merely for potential development gain) I would trade Scandella and Zucker in a heartbeat for Gardiner, who is the reality of what a lot of people here seem to think Scandella is as a 1990 player.
"Better d-prospects than Scandella" don't get traded, except for high end roster players. It doesn't happen, and so the whole "Scandella plus our forward prospect" doesn't net you anything.

The reality of it is, the holes in our blue line are simply too large to "upgrade" a player to fix it. Putting a "better" prospect than Scandella on the blue line doesn't do anything to fix our issues. We simply need a greater number of qualified bodies on defense. Moving one of our only three potentially qualified defensemen doesn't help us, even if a defenseman is coming back. The type of deal that Scandella would realistically be included in will not happen.



Even with the ridiculously low (and bizarrely developed) value you place on Scandella (see your previous comments on the matter ) there still isn't a reasonable scenario where moving Scandella improves this team.

squidz* is offline  
Old
01-25-2012, 11:41 PM
  #130
rynryn
Progress to the Mean
 
rynryn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 21,208
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
"Better d-prospects than Scandella" don't get traded, except for high end roster players. It doesn't happen, and so the whole "Scandella plus our forward prospect" doesn't net you anything.

The reality of it is, the holes in our blue line are simply too large to "upgrade" a player to fix it. Putting a "better" prospect than Scandella on the blue line doesn't do anything to fix our issues. We simply need a greater number of qualified bodies on defense. Moving one of our only three potentially qualified defensemen doesn't help us, even if a defenseman is coming back. The type of deal that Scandella would realistically be included in will not happen.
Even with the ridiculously low (and bizarrely developed) value you place on Scandella (see your previous comments on the matter ) there still isn't a reasonable scenario where moving Scandella improves this team.
are you saying Scandella is untouchable?
I think the value you place on Scandella is ridiculously, unrealistically high. Pretty much the crux of this disagreement. But seriously: yes, swapping one of our only three "potentially qualified defensemen" with one of greater skill (either demonstrated or assessed by Ops) certainly helps the team. How does it not? Even if we still need to work on the D, it's progress in a critical area at the expense of a redundant asset (forward prospects) and if necessary a pick.

rynryn is offline  
Old
01-26-2012, 12:03 AM
  #131
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,601
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rynryn View Post
are you saying Scandella is untouchable?
I think the value you place on Scandella is ridiculously, unrealistically high. Pretty much the crux of this disagreement. But seriously: yes, swapping one of our only three "potentially qualified defensemen" with one of greater skill (either demonstrated or assessed by Ops) certainly helps the team. How does it not? Even if we still need to work on the D, it's progress in a critical area at the expense of a redundant asset (forward prospects) and if necessary a pick.
i don't think he means untouchable at all. but what dman are we talking about that has the upside and won't cost a an arm and a leg to get that will turn this defense around.

best case scenario is next year a more mature scandella and Brodin and a decent free agent signing, then adding another dman will help.

but say you trade scandy+ what ever who will you get that will make this blue line NHL worthy? to get an amazing dman that plays 25ish min a nigh will cost much more he isn't valuing scandella at some sky high value just saying dman who can help arn't going to be cheap to get and trading scandella+ for another young dman with more upside isn't going to turn our blue line around in a significant way

say we get Gardiner for example, great pick up but he isn't going to turn our blue line around, we would have to get a webber or a lidstrom or boyle or another elite dman for that to happen in a short amount of time and that price is too high for us to pay.

forthewild is offline  
Old
01-26-2012, 12:21 AM
  #132
rynryn
Progress to the Mean
 
rynryn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 21,208
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by forthewild View Post
i don't think he means untouchable at all. but what dman are we talking about that has the upside and won't cost a an arm and a leg to get that will turn this defense around.

best case scenario is next year a more mature scandella and Brodin and a decent free agent signing, then adding another dman will help.

but say you trade scandy+ what ever who will you get that will make this blue line NHL worthy? to get an amazing dman that plays 25ish min a nigh will cost much more he isn't valuing scandella at some sky high value just saying dman who can help arn't going to be cheap to get and trading scandella+ for another young dman with more upside isn't going to turn our blue line around in a significant way

say we get Gardiner for example, great pick up but he isn't going to turn our blue line around, we would have to get a webber or a lidstrom or boyle or another elite dman for that to happen in a short amount of time and that price is too high for us to pay.
you are assuming they even feel Scandella is "mature" enough to play with the Wild next year. If Yeo/Fletcher lose confidence that he's a "fit" for the team identity it drops his importance to the team considerably. Doesn't mean he won't succeed eventually.

rynryn is offline  
Old
01-26-2012, 07:46 AM
  #133
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,601
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rynryn View Post
you are assuming they even feel Scandella is "mature" enough to play with the Wild next year. If Yeo/Fletcher lose confidence that he's a "fit" for the team identity it drops his importance to the team considerably. Doesn't mean he won't succeed eventually.
there is zero doubt in my mind he is ready to play, for most of the year he was our top dman playing big minutes as a rookie. the team fell apart and he felt the need to do more, him being sent down was to get him to calm down and regain his stride he won't be there long. I firmly believe and until i see otherwise that GMCF and Yeo have very high hopes for scandella and in no way have given up on him.

he is very young but with that he felt the need to do too much when the team was falling apart all around him, spurgie has the consistency and scandella will too.

in no way is him being sent down the team giving up on him, they are trying to get him to calm down and go back to his game

forthewild is offline  
Old
01-26-2012, 07:59 AM
  #134
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rynryn View Post
are you saying Scandella is untouchable?
I think the value you place on Scandella is ridiculously, unrealistically high. Pretty much the crux of this disagreement. But seriously: yes, swapping one of our only three "potentially qualified defensemen" with one of greater skill (either demonstrated or assessed by Ops) certainly helps the team. How does it not? Even if we still need to work on the D, it's progress in a critical area at the expense of a redundant asset (forward prospects) and if necessary a pick.
Despite your unbelievably low opinion of him, the issue isn't his value at all.

The simple fact of the matter is that a team requires 7 defensemen. The problem with this team is that we have about 4 guys who qualify as an NHL defensemen, and one of those is a pure 6-7 guy. Spurgeon's a 4-5 guy, Schultz is (due to his current inconsistency) a 3-5 guy, Scandella is a 3-5 guy with the potential to become a #2. This is what our team looks like optimally aligned:

Guy in way way way over his head, Scandella (a bit over his head)
Schultz (okay when on, frequently off), Spurgeon (okay when Schultz is on)
Scrub who probably shouldn't be in NHL, Falk/Stoner (proper role)
Falk/Stoner (proper role)


Now if you "trade Scandella for an upgrade" you either end up with a real #2 guy (a trade that is realistic from an opposing team perspective) which moves you from having a #3 guy who could develop into a #2 to having a real #2. The biggest problem is still that marginal NHL defender playing as a #1 guy. Making a big move and losing assets to "upgrade" Scandella didn't do a thing for the real issue along the blue line. It might make that pairing marginally better. It might even help the power play, but you didn't fix any real problems.

Now if your upgrade is a real #1 guy (the type of guy who doesn't get moved with anything resembling frequency, and when they do go to teams in a much different situation than the Wild are) you've fixed that big problem...by opening another slightly smaller hole somewhere else. It's like trying to plug a leak in a boat by taking a stopper out of another hole. Maybe you've reduced the issue, but you're still taking on a lot of water. Even if you can find a deal for that sort of player (and it's extremely rare for anyone to find one, and the Wild aren't the right sort of buyer for that) you're still not fixing the blue line, you're just moving the problem somewhere else.

squidz* is offline  
Old
01-26-2012, 08:35 AM
  #135
nickschultzfan
Registered User
 
nickschultzfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,794
vCash: 500
I agree that getting a #1 guy like Suter would make a world of difference with this blueline. I think 90% of the problems of our defense would be solved if something of that magnituded happened. Everybody slots down. Zanon and Lundin are gone. Worthless vets like Zidlicky get pushed into trade or buy-out territory.

nickschultzfan is offline  
Old
01-26-2012, 08:36 AM
  #136
this providence
Chips in Bed Theorem
 
this providence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: St. Paul
Posts: 9,459
vCash: 500
I can see where rynryn is coming from, a bit.

If the team is moving for a quality defenseman, one who would undoubtedly be the best on the team, and the other team wants a defensive prospect back; Scandella just hasn't shown enough to the point where including him is a deal breaker. He's got an intriguing skill set but at a certain point you've got to start looking more at what his reasonable aim as a prospect is.

Although, we shall have words about trying to move my man crush...

__________________

After Meaningless Win - 3/29/12 - Game 77 | SoH-"Who knows, that could have cost us a Cup tonight." | Dooohkay
this providence is offline  
Old
01-26-2012, 08:40 AM
  #137
nickschultzfan
Registered User
 
nickschultzfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,794
vCash: 500
Dreger says Carter is available. I still say we make Coyle available for that trade. That would give Columbus a big center going the other way (I realize he's playing wing in juniors right now).

Coyle, a goalie, a forward for salary purposes (not sure who though since the most logical, Bouchard and Latendresse, are injury indefinitely), and maybe a defense prospect throw-in like Cuma.

nickschultzfan is offline  
Old
01-26-2012, 08:43 AM
  #138
nickschultzfan
Registered User
 
nickschultzfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,794
vCash: 500
People don't like the idea of trading Coyle, but even if we offered Setoguchi + Coyle + Harding, which would a very, very good offer for Carter, that would be like pretty much offering Burns + 2nd + Harding for Carter + Phillips, which would have been a solid deal.

nickschultzfan is offline  
Old
01-26-2012, 08:46 AM
  #139
this providence
Chips in Bed Theorem
 
this providence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: St. Paul
Posts: 9,459
vCash: 500
I'm just not a fan of Carter's game. And being shipped off of two teams in two years (regardless of what has actually happened behind the scenes) is a bit worrisome. I'm even less of a fan of him when you start to take into account what the team would have to move in order to acquire him.

So again, pass.

this providence is offline  
Old
01-26-2012, 09:08 AM
  #140
Engebretson
Another GopherClone
 
Engebretson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Minnesota
Country: United States
Posts: 5,897
vCash: 50
The idea of Jeff Carter on the Wild is a nice one, but the reality is probably way different. We've seen what kind of production he has on a Columbus team when he's not motivated, so what happens when he comes to Minnesota and we hit a rough patch (putting it lightly) like we did the last month?

Even though Columbus would be selling lower on Carter than they got him for, we'd still be giving up more than I'd be willing to shell out for what amounts to a big "maybe". Carter sounds good in theory, but I don't want him here if he doesn't want to be here.

Pass.

Engebretson is offline  
Old
01-26-2012, 09:21 AM
  #141
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,601
vCash: 500
i get that carter felt betrayed when we signed long term and was traded to a team that has blown since they got to the nhl. but at the end of the day do we want to risk that kind of an attitude on this team. it wasn't fair what happened to him and i don't feel comfortable brining a guy in who may or may not like being here.

our team has shown they can win and with guys like Coyle who seem determined to be a hockey player i think the Wild might be better off just holding onto their young assets rather then going for a maybe.

forthewild is offline  
Old
01-26-2012, 09:39 AM
  #142
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 23,424
vCash: 500
We should trade for Carter so Seto has someone to go out and drink with and complain about being traded off a contender.

Heatley-Carter-Setoguchi

The Disgruntled Line!

Jarick is offline  
Old
01-26-2012, 09:47 AM
  #143
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 23,424
vCash: 500
Scandella is a prospect who got sent down because Fletch felt it was best for his development. I wouldn't read into it any more than that.

Is it frustrating that he couldn't keep a full time NHL job? Sure. But he's not the first guy who has been up and down early in his career and sure won't be the last.

He could certainly be on the table for trade talks, but how high is his value right now? Probably not the best time to move a guy who could still be a top pairing defenseman. And I honestly believe he can be based on what I saw early last and early this year.

At the start of both years, he was skating very well, moving the puck up the ice, playing a smart positional game. Both years he got concussions as well as his overall game slowing down, and then problems start building.

He's young and will likely come back nicely. Could flame out too. But I'm not worried.

Jarick is offline  
Old
01-26-2012, 09:49 AM
  #144
rynryn
Progress to the Mean
 
rynryn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 21,208
vCash: 50
my worry about the kind of trade that would land him here (i think Coyle, Harding, Seto is on the heavy side considering his contract) would be that he wouldn't perform any better than, say, Setoguchi. or at least not nearly enough to make up for the loss of the good prospect it would take as an add-on. that's aside from making our player budget more inflexible over a longish period of time. Attitude can be a problem with any traded player because they're all human, and trades are generally not their ideas so even with a brave face there has to be a little bitterness or resentment. I know they're all professionals and expect it might happen to them at some point, but it doesn't mean they're unaffected mentally when it happens. Seto wasn't thrilled. burns wasn't thrilled either. eventually they adjust so I don't think he'd be sulking through the entire contract.

rynryn is offline  
Old
01-26-2012, 09:51 AM
  #145
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickschultzfan View Post
People don't like the idea of trading Coyle, but even if we offered Setoguchi + Coyle + Harding, which would a very, very good offer for Carter, that would be like pretty much offering Burns + 2nd + Harding for Carter + Phillips, which would have been a solid deal.
I don't know that it's people not liking the idea of moving Coyle. At least with me, I just don't feel that Fletcher would move him in a reasonable deal considering how much he likes him. With the amount of effort Fletcher went to to get him, I can't see him being moved out so quickly unless it's a deal you absolutely can't pass on. I don't know that Carter would be that kind of deal (unless it were something ridiculous like Coyle for Carter straight up, but that would be ridiculous).

At this moment, I don't see Seto being moved until there's some clarity about either Bouchard or Latendresse's future. For all we know, Bouchard could simply be done as a hockey player. Can we really just assume that Lats will eventually come back and be the player he was pre-injury? I think that, until we know for sure one of those guys will return, I don't think we move Seto + top 6 forward prospect unless we're getting two potential top 6 forwards back.

While Columbus obviously has goaltending woes, I don't think an impending UFA like Harding would interest them. This season's lost at this point. Adding Harding might give them the inside track for extending him, but his play for this season isn't worth that much to them. Besides, they're almost certainly going to claim Niittymaki about an hour after I click "submit reply" on this. I think a fair offer for Nash would be slightly less than what they paid, so if Seto's close to equal to Vorachek, we'd need value equal to a mid- to late-first. They probably want a center so either Coyle or Phillips would probably be "fair" value. I think the Seto + Coyle portion of your suggestion would be fair, but Columbus might need a little something-something to push them over the top. I don't think that's Harding though.

squidz* is offline  
Old
01-26-2012, 09:54 AM
  #146
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Has Carter's NTC kicked in yet, or is that 7/1 of this year? If it has, I think the danger of Carter's attitude is mitigated a bit by the fact that he has to be thinking to himself "this place is better than Columbus" in order to waive the NTC. That alone almost guarantees a better disposition than we've seen so far.

squidz* is offline  
Old
01-26-2012, 09:57 AM
  #147
Foxlockbox
:laugh: is my period
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Finland
Posts: 1,854
vCash: 850
So Jarick do you have any proof other than gut feeling that Seto is not happy here?

Foxlockbox is offline  
Old
01-26-2012, 10:00 AM
  #148
Surly Furious
Registered User
 
Surly Furious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: frozen north
Posts: 6,939
vCash: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickschultzfan View Post
People don't like the idea of trading Coyle, but even if we offered Setoguchi + Coyle + Harding, which would a very, very good offer for Carter, that would be like pretty much offering Burns + 2nd + Harding for Carter + Phillips, which would have been a solid deal.
Trading away depth for a single guy is not a good option at this point. Not to mention that Carter is a center, which is the least of the Wild's problems right now, and would leave the Wild with only Heatley as a scoring winger.

Plus, Carter has shown he is a complimentary piece. He wouldn't make the Wild much better considering the guys going the other way.

But I suppose he and Koivu could heal their damaged shoulders together in the press box the next few weeks.

Surly Furious is offline  
Old
01-26-2012, 10:11 AM
  #149
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 23,424
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foxlockbox View Post
So Jarick do you have any proof other than gut feeling that Seto is not happy here?
It's the impression I get. A couple downer statements after the trade, downer body language, and the lack of any kind of positivity or jovial attitude like Heatley has.

I'm not sure what changed since his injury, as he's certainly playing harder. But the fact he was traded should have been a wake up call, and he didn't get it until several months later.

Jarick is offline  
Old
01-26-2012, 10:34 AM
  #150
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,601
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarick View Post
It's the impression I get. A couple downer statements after the trade, downer body language, and the lack of any kind of positivity or jovial attitude like Heatley has.

I'm not sure what changed since his injury, as he's certainly playing harder. But the fact he was traded should have been a wake up call, and he didn't get it until several months later.
he was traded for an upgrade before the ink on his deal dried, it wasnt a trade where he could have seen it coming it was a blind side to say the least

forthewild 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 02:20 AM.

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.