HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.

Rumor - Kvasha, Richards and Allison Possible Flame Targets

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-13-2005, 12:18 PM
  #51
Erik
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 419
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Erik Send a message via AIM to Erik Send a message via MSN to Erik Send a message via Yahoo to Erik
Quote:
Originally Posted by projexns
And cutting corners with goaltending.

This is very good news for the rest of the NHL.............
They are??? How about John Grahame 9 straight wins?

Erik is offline  
Old
12-13-2005, 12:19 PM
  #52
Erik
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 419
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Erik Send a message via AIM to Erik Send a message via MSN to Erik Send a message via Yahoo to Erik
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingBrath
I dont see why all these trade rumors are revolving around teams that are not struggling. Ott and Calgary are 2 of the top teams in the league at the moment, so why would they want to change? San Jose and Boston made that trade out of necesity. I really dont think we will see a major trade from these 2 teams until after they have struggled or until the trade deadline. IMO It would be more likely a trade occures with a Minnesota, Pheonix, Colorado, NJ,Boston, Tampa, etc.
You do realize over the last 10 games Tampa has the best record in the NHL...? How do you consider that struggling?

Erik is offline  
Old
12-13-2005, 12:20 PM
  #53
Erik
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 419
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Erik Send a message via AIM to Erik Send a message via MSN to Erik Send a message via Yahoo to Erik
Quote:
Originally Posted by guzzy
Never. TB can't afford Richards next year so he can be had on the cheap. Langkow and a prospect but I wouldn't do Regher straight across. Regher is a warrior and easily top 5 defensive defenceman in the league.
Since when can Tampa not afford him?

Erik is offline  
Old
12-13-2005, 12:22 PM
  #54
Erik
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 419
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Erik Send a message via AIM to Erik Send a message via MSN to Erik Send a message via Yahoo to Erik
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patty Ice
From the Bolts' POV.
The only reason I gave Richards the nod is Iginla's salary. I was talking overall value, not just as a hockey player.

Erik is offline  
Old
12-13-2005, 12:23 PM
  #55
Sammy*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,501
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone Cutter
Ribiero
I dunno why not. He's cut from the exact same mold as Huselius.

Sammy* is offline  
Old
12-13-2005, 12:38 PM
  #56
kingbrath
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Calgary, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,161
vCash: 984
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik
You do realize over the last 10 games Tampa has the best record in the NHL...? How do you consider that struggling?

Whatever......that was not the point of my post to begin with so I could care less.

kingbrath is offline  
Old
12-13-2005, 12:46 PM
  #57
Kritty
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,355
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jstreim
No, from a Tampa perspective. They would get absolutely hosed in that deal.

2: That's not exactly a fair trade. Richards would be a number 1 center on most NHL teams, while Langkow and Regehr IMO are dime-a-dozen players who's calibre is more easily attainable than shipping off a player of Richards' calibre.
Wow, what hockey do you watch. Obviously you don't see many games from the West to be making a comment like that. For one, Tampa gets far from hosed in that deal. Langkow may not be the player Richards is, but he is a very very good player. What really causes the problems is you calling Regehr a dime a dozen player. Thanks, that made for a great laugh. I didn't realize top pairing, shut down dmen that have some offensive abilities were dime a dozen. Not to mention he hasn't even hit his prime yet, and you get one heck of a dman. Funny stuff.

Kritty is offline  
Old
12-13-2005, 12:51 PM
  #58
flambers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,479
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by oil slick
Sure - but if the fact that he will be signed for 5 M per season next year affects his value - wouldn't the fact that Iginla is signed for over 7 million a year affect his value alot too?
Why does it matter? Iggy will not be traded, and yes any player with a high contract is difficult to be traded. As not allot of teams can take on salary.

flambers is offline  
Old
12-13-2005, 12:56 PM
  #59
barrytrotzsneck
Retired Global Mod
 
barrytrotzsneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Nashville, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 31,141
vCash: 500
Since when did the Flames become the Leafs of the west? Who AREN'T they rumored to be acquiring, these days?

And anyone saying things like "Richards can be had cheaply," "Richards should cost us Rhino and a pick" "Final offer of Rhino and Leopold" need to tell us the rest of the deal, in which Iginla is traded for Dmitry Afanasenkov.

You are vastly, VASTLY underrating the value of Brad Richards. I think the Bolts would let Marty Saint Loo or even the vaunted Vinny go LONG before Richards. Regehr overpayment for Richards? You should be so lucky.

__________________
www.thepredatorial.com

barrytrotzsneck is offline  
Old
12-13-2005, 01:01 PM
  #60
Ronald Pagan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,319
vCash: 500
Regehr and Langkow value wise is pretty fair. Regehr's contract is another thing that makes him very valuable. He has another 3 years at 2.5 million. I would venture to say that in terms of production per salary, he has the highest rating in the league.

Then again, I wouldn't trade Regehr for Richards. Our defence is the strength of this team, why would you tamper with it by trading our best defenceman?

I think Tampa would be all over this trade, they dump future salary while vastly improving their blueline. Langkow is far from a throw in too, he doesn't replace Richards but gives you a very solid #2 centre.

Ronald Pagan is offline  
Old
12-13-2005, 01:02 PM
  #61
oil slick
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by flambers
Why does it matter? Iggy will not be traded, and yes any player with a high contract is difficult to be traded. As not allot of teams can take on salary.
?? Look I'm just responding to the deluded Flames fan who was tring to argue that Richards value was low in comparison to Iginla because Richards was an RFA next year.

oil slick is offline  
Old
12-13-2005, 01:02 PM
  #62
kingbrath
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Calgary, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,161
vCash: 984
Quote:
Originally Posted by jstreim
......Langkow and Regehr IMO are dime-a-dozen players who's calibre is more easily attainable than shipping off a player of Richards' calibre.


Wow! can this be a nominee for worst post?

kingbrath is offline  
Old
12-13-2005, 01:26 PM
  #63
Erik
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 419
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Erik Send a message via AIM to Erik Send a message via MSN to Erik Send a message via Yahoo to Erik
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan
I think Tampa would be all over this trade
No. They wouldn't. AT ALL.

Erik is offline  
Old
12-13-2005, 01:30 PM
  #64
Ronald Pagan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,319
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik
No. They wouldn't. AT ALL.
Care to elaborate?

Remember the value that Thornton returned.

Ronald Pagan is offline  
Old
12-13-2005, 01:30 PM
  #65
Boltsfan2029
Registered User
 
Boltsfan2029's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In deleted threads
Country: United States
Posts: 6,286
vCash: 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomorekids
SYou are vastly, VASTLY underrating the value of Brad Richards. I think the Bolts would let Marty Saint Loo
I agree with that...

Quote:
or even the vaunted Vinny go LONG before Richards.
That's not happening.

If all three can't be kept, St. Louis would be the one to go.

Boltsfan2029 is offline  
Old
12-13-2005, 01:40 PM
  #66
Hold the Pickles
Registered User
 
Hold the Pickles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: 03-K64
Country: United States
Posts: 2,947
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomorekids
Since when did the Flames become the Leafs of the west? Who AREN'T they rumored to be acquiring, these days?

And anyone saying things like "Richards can be had cheaply," "Richards should cost us Rhino and a pick" "Final offer of Rhino and Leopold" need to tell us the rest of the deal, in which Iginla is traded for Dmitry Afanasenkov.

You are vastly, VASTLY underrating the value of Brad Richards. I think the Bolts would let Marty Saint Loo or even the vaunted Vinny go LONG before Richards. Regehr overpayment for Richards? You should be so lucky.
What he said. Plus I'd like to add that Regehr seems to either be Vastly overrated or Vastly underrated with very little middle ground... making his inclusion in proposals around here nearly useless.

Hold the Pickles is offline  
Old
12-13-2005, 01:41 PM
  #67
flambers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,479
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomorekids
Since when did the Flames become the Leafs of the west? Who AREN'T they rumored to be acquiring, these days?

And anyone saying things like "Richards can be had cheaply," "Richards should cost us Rhino and a pick" "Final offer of Rhino and Leopold" need to tell us the rest of the deal, in which Iginla is traded for Dmitry Afanasenkov.

You are vastly, VASTLY underrating the value of Brad Richards. I think the Bolts would let Marty Saint Loo or even the vaunted Vinny go LONG before Richards. Regehr overpayment for Richards? You should be so lucky.
I agree Brad Richards would take a decent trade package. I also believe the Lightning will not have the Cap Space to sign another star player. Can they afford to have three players all making big dollars. Thats the question that will need to be answered.

flambers is offline  
Old
12-13-2005, 01:42 PM
  #68
Hold the Pickles
Registered User
 
Hold the Pickles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: 03-K64
Country: United States
Posts: 2,947
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan
Care to elaborate?

Remember the value that Thornton returned.
Not the same situation at all.

Hold the Pickles is offline  
Old
12-13-2005, 01:44 PM
  #69
Ronald Pagan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,319
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharksfanatic
Not the same situation at all.
Care to elaborate?

Ronald Pagan is offline  
Old
12-13-2005, 01:49 PM
  #70
guzzy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,950
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik
Since when can Tampa not afford him?
The post said that TB can't afford him next year. He will be asking for double the money he is making right now. They are already near cap roof and are not going to dump players to keep Marty, Vinnie, and Richards for $17-18 mil per season. No team can afford that right now.

guzzy is offline  
Old
12-13-2005, 01:50 PM
  #71
TazzMetal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 128
vCash: 500
Quote:
Remember the value that Thornton returned.
But also remember that Thornton is not accomplished in the playoffs while Richards is the reigning Conn Smythe Winner and that Richards is still on an a relatively affordable contract unlike Thornton.

TazzMetal is offline  
Old
12-13-2005, 01:53 PM
  #72
guzzy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,950
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik
Richards (3.4M) > Kiprusoff > Iginla (7M)
wow you must be new to hockey.

Welcome!!!

guzzy is offline  
Old
12-13-2005, 01:54 PM
  #73
Darth Milbury
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Darth Milbury's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Searching for Kvasha
Country: Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 37,707
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boltsfan2029
I agree with that...



That's not happening.

If all three can't be kept, St. Louis would be the one to go.

Good luck trading St. Louis with his salary. It is starting to look like last year's production was a blip, and I doubt many teams would be willing to fork out that kind of $ for a guy who does not really look like a franchise player anymore.

Darth Milbury is offline  
Old
12-13-2005, 01:56 PM
  #74
Ronald Pagan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,319
vCash: 500
I have yet to see a good argument as to why Regehr and Langkow is not fair value.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't make this trade and I'm not advocating for this but the value seems pretty good. Maybe a pick from Calgary going the other way too.

Ronald Pagan is offline  
Old
12-13-2005, 01:57 PM
  #75
mackdogs*
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Van, left coast
Country: Canada
Posts: 907
vCash: 500
I bet a hockey newbie reading this thread would assume that Calgary swept TB in the finals a couple years ago. Thanks for the laughs. You Flames fans underestimating what Richards brings game in and game out sure have short memories.

mackdogs* 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 10:01 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.