No need to move him at the deadline, but if there's a good return, why not?
And then package some picks/prospects for a defensive upgrade this summer.
Yes. As I had mentioned originally, if the offer's right, do it. However, I can't see any teams out there who can both make a fair offer, and would actually be inclined to do so. Chicago's one of the only teams that I can see being interested, and I can't see them coming close to making a "fair" offer.
the only way we should move shultz is if we are getting a defensive prospect who's nearly ready for the NHL or just a package we can't refuse.
i am fine with him on the roster he is what he is and he is a decent vet presence on the back end. there is no sense in moving him just for the sake of moving him.
I think Shultz is a guy you trade in the off-season. There's no benefit to moving him now, and with Lundin and Stoner still hurt... you run the risk of running out of bodies at the blueline.
Value is far far far higher in the offseason. Why? Because at the deadline, you're lucky if there are two teams that can take his contract. Deadline day is for deadline deals. You don't move a guy with two more years on his contract at the deadline unless you have absolutely no other option.
The idea that Schultz could even remotely come close to having more value today than at the draft is so ludicrous, it's difficult to even reply to that claim.
Brian Burke disagrees. So, agree to disagree.
__________________
After Meaningless Win - 3/29/12 - Game 77 | SoH-"Who knows, that could have cost us a Cup tonight." | Dooohkay
I feel like we should have taken a swing at Clitsome off waivers, especially if we are planning on moving one or both of Zanon and Schultz.
Can't see spending our last (we didn't know Staubitz was claimed until after) contract spot on him. If we had a deal lined up for Zanon and just needed to pull the trigger? Fine, but I'd like to at least have the option to make a stab at college UFAs or a value pickup if the right player at the right price came along before 2PM.
I wonder if Fletch is trying to keep contracts low to go after other names and/or college players?
That sounds like a possibility. But Clitsome stuck me as an extremely capable plug for whatever holes we might be creating on defense today, and quite possibly an upgrade over whoever we may end up shipping out. Sometimes I just dont understand GMCF's approach to waivers. We passed on Yip earlier this year, now we pass on Clitsome when we need depth at defense and are quite possibly about to trade 1-2 D-Men away.
I guess if he has someone he is absolutely in love with as far as college free agents go, well, more power to him. But I would have liked to have seen Clitsome picked up.
We're not putting a rookie on the top pairing off the bat, but is Schultz over Falk really going to be that much of an upgrade on the third pairing?
They can easily be shuffled. Put Spurgeon there and pair Brodin differently. The point is, we can upgrade the top 4 without moving Schultz, and moving him definitely jeopardizes any semblence of depth we might have otherwise. Quite literally, if we move Schultz, we desperately have to fill a hole and have Brodin make the team.
Same reason you don't spend to the cap. You need some flexibility.
This morning Wild had 54 contracts with 5 sliding, so they had 49 players under contract. Staubitz is gone, meaning they have 48. If he was still here and they claimed Clitsome, they'd be at 50 and unable to make any move if a better prospect came along via trade.
To me it says he is actively looking for deals and not just stand pat. Which is a good thing.
Yeah, trade away the best defender on the team. The one that rarely misses a game, is reportedly a popular teammate, and brings the most experience back there of anyone.
Yay having no idea what quote you're commenting on!
Yay continuing to make things up and act like it means something!
Seriously, if you can't comprehend the fact that UFA RENTALS DO NOT HAVE THE SAME ECONOMIC BEHAVIOR AS NON-UFA NON-RENTALS, I don't know why you'd even bother to continue posting about the topic.
Yay continuing to make things up and act like it means something!
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz
Seriously, if you can't comprehend the fact that UFA RENTALS DO NOT HAVE THE SAME ECONOMIC BEHAVIOR AS NON-UFA NON-RENTALS, I don't know why you'd even bother to continue posting about the topic.
Truthfully I'm not even sure why you're still responding.
clendening and 2nd+ cap dump for schlutz do we take it?
Can't imagine the Hawks would do that. I'd be hesitant, but would settle if we changed the 2nd to a conditional 1st. If Chicago makes the conference finals, it's a 1st, if they don't it's a 2nd. I'd do the deal then. Does Chicago even have a cap dump though? Frolik maybe?
