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.
Something to keep in mind: Don't offer pieces that are not actually on the team yet, it is likely to annoy fans of the other team.
Hansen + Raymond has been a decent basis in past discussions, but I don't think it's worth the risk imo. He's on an expiring contract and will likely want more than he's worth. And there's no guarantee that he's able to maintain his reckless style of play for much longer. Not that he shouldn't command that much from prospective teams, I just don't think we should be the highest bidder if the Sharks looked to shop Clowe.
Something to keep in mind: Don't offer pieces that are not actually on the team yet, it is likely to annoy fans of the other team.
Hansen + Raymond has been a decent basis in past discussions, but I don't think it's worth the risk imo. He's on an expiring contract and will likely want more than he's worth. And there's no guarantee that he's able to maintain his reckless style of play for much longer. Not that he shouldn't command that much from prospective teams, I just don't think we should be the highest bidder if the Sharks looked to shop Clowe.
While I get that it's risky to trade 2 40-50 point players for 1 50 point player (on an expiring deal), we can mitigate that risk by either acquiring that 2nd tweeter player in a Luongo trade or replacing a guy like Hansen/Higgins in a potential Luongo trade.
Also in regards to him maintaining his play, the same could be said about a guy like Kesler or Burrows but it doesn't necessarily detract from their value.
While I get that it's risky to trade 2 40-50 point players for 1 50 point player (on an expiring deal), we can mitigate that risk by either acquiring that 2nd tweeter player in a Luongo trade or replacing a guy like Hansen/Higgins in a potential Luongo trade.
I think we're better off with 3 40-50 point players than 1 40-50 point and 1 50-60(maybe) point player.
Quote:
Also in regards to him maintaining his play, the same could be said about a guy like Kesler or Burrows but it doesn't necessarily detract from their value.
I don't know, do you think SJ would be willing to give, say, Pavelski + Clowe for Kesler? Only a rough approximation of value, but it's a legitimate question if a player is coming off a low season and there are questions about his ability to return to his peak.
I don't know, do you think SJ would be willing to give, say, Pavelski + Clowe for Kesler? Only a rough approximation of value, but it's a legitimate question if a player is coming off a low season and there are questions about his ability to return to his peak.
I think we're better off with 3 40-50 point players than 1 40-50 point and 1 50-60(maybe) point player.
I don't know, do you think SJ would be willing to give, say, Pavelski + Clowe for Kesler? Only a rough approximation of value, but it's a legitimate question if a player is coming off a low season and there are questions about his ability to return to his peak.
I can tell you exactly what they would say....HELL NO!!!! /thread
I rest my case. If the Sharks asked for Kesler, we'd be justified in asking for that, but it doesn't mean they'd be willing to give up that much depth for him, when it's questionable that he returns to 40-goal selke calibre form.
I rest my case. If the Sharks asked for Kesler, we'd be justified in asking for that, but it doesn't mean they'd be willing to give up that much depth for him, when it's questionable that he returns to 40-goal selke calibre form.
I rest my case. If the Sharks asked for Kesler, we'd be justified in asking for that, but it doesn't mean they'd be willing to give up that much depth for him, when it's questionable that he returns to 40-goal selke calibre form.
I doubt Shark fans would have done that even when Kesler did win the Selke...
Well, that's the point. If we assume Kesler will return to 2011-Kesler, we certainly would. If he ends up being simply marginally better than Pavelski, then we wouldn't.
Similarly, if Clowe bounces back, he would command more than Hansen + Raymond. But if he simply ends up being a slower, older, but slightly more physical/talented version of Hansen, then we would be right to not go through with this trade, especially given Clowe's contract status.
What kind of return would Shark fans be looking for for Clowe?
Off topic like a vancouver fan turning what was already a joke of a proposal into an even bigger joke of a proposal on a thread about a potential trade between vancouver and sj where clowe was involved....to answer your question i don't know about other sharks fans but i'm not thrilled about the idea of trading clowe unless its more a 1 for 1 deal with even value.
Well, that's the point. If we assume Kesler will return to 2011-Kesler, we certainly would. If he ends up being simply marginally better than Pavelski, then we wouldn't.
Similarly, if Clowe bounces back, he would command more than Hansen + Raymond. But if he simply ends up being a slower, older, but slightly more physical version of Hansen, then we would be right to not go through with this trade, especially given Clowe's contract status.
No, you wouldn't. 2011-Kesler was an anomaly. He's a marginally better player than Pavelski, I'd say only because of size and speed, who benefitted from Malhotra and some good percentages.
Something to keep in mind: Don't offer pieces that are not actually on the team yet, it is likely to annoy fans of the other team.
Hansen + Raymond has been a decent basis in past discussions, but I don't think it's worth the risk imo. He's on an expiring contract and will likely want more than he's worth. And there's no guarantee that he's able to maintain his reckless style of play for much longer. Not that he shouldn't command that much from prospective teams, I just don't think we should be the highest bidder if the Sharks looked to shop Clowe.
Problem is what we get from other teams is likely what we would end up giving up. Kadri comes to mind for instance. Otherwise, I feel the cost wouldn't be worth the gain.
Off topic like a vancouver fan turning what was already a joke of a proposal into an even bigger joke of a proposal on a thread about a potential trade between vancouver and sj where clowe was involved....to answer your question i don't know about other sharks fans but i'm not thrilled about the idea of trading clowe unless its more a 1 for 1 deal with even value.
It looks like a lack of hockey has made you mad/irritable.
I rest my case. If the Sharks asked for Kesler, we'd be justified in asking for that, but it doesn't mean they'd be willing to give up that much depth for him, when it's questionable that he returns to 40-goal selke calibre form.
No you wouldn't be justified in saying that at any point cause that is a crazy overpayment so your point really has no grounds as you haven't given a comparable situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale
Well, that's the point. If we assume Kesler will return to 2011-Kesler, we certainly would. If he ends up being simply marginally better than Pavelski, then we wouldn't.
Similarly, if Clowe bounces back, he would command more than Hansen + Raymond. But if he simply ends up being a slower, older, but slightly more physical/talented version of Hansen, then we would be right to not go through with this trade, especially given Clowe's contract status.
So you seem to think that trades should only be made based off of knowing the future which is so backwards.
No, you wouldn't. 2011-Kesler was an anomaly. He's a marginally better player than Pavelski, I'd say only because of size and speed, who benefitted from Malhotra and some good percentages.
My point is that imo the odds Kesler returns to peak for is similar to the odds that Clowe returns to peak form, which is why I'm loathe to give up that much value, just like you would be to try to get Kesler.
I'm not saying Kesler right now would garner that return; he wouldn't. But the reason is because it's highly unlikely he reaches his peak again, and I feel similarly about Clowe.
Factor in contracts and it's a solid no to the OP, imo.
My point is that imo the odds Kesler returns to peak for is similar to the odds that Clowe returns to peak form, which is why I'm loathe to give up that much value, just like you would be to try to get Kesler.
I'm not saying Kesler right now would garner that return; he wouldn't. But the reason is because it's highly unlikely he reaches his peak again, and I feel similarly about Clowe.
Factor in contracts and it's a solid no to the OP, imo.
I know his last season wasn't amazing by any stretch, but really its not like the season was terrible.
If he plays like he did last season, he still is te best option for the final top-6 winger spot.
I think we're better off with 3 40-50 point players than 1 40-50 point and 1 50-60(maybe) point player.
I don't know, do you think SJ would be willing to give, say, Pavelski + Clowe for Kesler? Only a rough approximation of value, but it's a legitimate question if a player is coming off a low season and there are questions about his ability to return to his peak.
No way. Kesler is a little better than Pavelski but he's getting paid more. Their difference in value certainly isn't Clowe. Also we need wingers, not centers, and Pavelski has been a good 1st line winger despite playing out of his natural position. Not sure if Kesler can play wing, so why take the chance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpchabby
Personnally i'd like a big guy like Clowe on the habs.
What are SJ's needs?
See below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer
This thread has been rehashed over an over again, but here it is:
1. A different top-6 forward with different attributes. Ie someone who is faster and better defensively, but not physical or mean like Clowe.
2. A 2nd/3rd line tweener and a solid third line player. No, Mason Raymond doesn't count as either of those.
Sums it up quite nicely, although I prefer someone with more goal-scoring ability than defense, just in case Havlat gets hurt and the top-line goes cold in the scoring dept.
I don't think there is a Clowe-to-Habs deal that is feasible for both sides.
