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.

Mtl/edm

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-13-2008, 01:32 PM
  #1
Price4Prez
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 410
vCash: 500
Mtl/edm

To Montreal:

Cogliano
R.Nash
Roloson


To Edmonton:

Chipchura
Latendresse
Halak


My thought process: Edmonton wants to dump Roloson salary and gains a future #1 goalie in Halak, Chipchura and Nash are equals, only diffrence is Chipchura is NHL ready, and to make it better he is an Alberta boy. Latendresse can possibly thrive playing on Edmontons second line RW, as there is no space for him here. Cogliano is there, because there is no place for him in Edmonton, with all the centers, and also balances the trade.(Montreal needs a C, Edmonton needs a RW)

Chipchura = Nash
Halak > Roloson
Cogliano > Latendresse

Thoughts??

Price4Prez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2008, 01:33 PM
  #2
hototogisu
Global Moderator
Poked the bear!!!!!
 
hototogisu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 35,085
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Price4Prez View Post
Chipchura = Nash
No.

Why couldn't we just stick with Halak/3rd for Nash/Roloson where everybody was happy?

hototogisu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2008, 01:37 PM
  #3
cfrancis
Registered User
 
cfrancis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,317
vCash: 855
Send a message via AIM to cfrancis
I'd rather have Nash and Cogs compared to Latendresse and Chipchura. I like dumping Rolie's salary for Halak, but we loose too much in the other part of the trade.

From an Edmonton point of view, it's a good start but I'd personally say no. I think Nash and Cogs have more offensive upside than Latendresse and Chipchura. Edmonton's problem is offensive production right now. We have too many 3rd/4th liners. We can't trade potential 1st/2nd liners for two bottom liners.

cfrancis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2008, 02:17 PM
  #4
vipernsx
Flatus Expeller
 
vipernsx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 6,529
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hototogisu View Post
No.

Why couldn't we just stick with Halak/3rd for Nash/Roloson where everybody was happy?
Has last year's Halak & 2nd gone down to Halak & 3rd for 2008/09? Will there be a sticky for "Halak & 3rd will get you..."?

vipernsx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2008, 02:22 PM
  #5
hototogisu
Global Moderator
Poked the bear!!!!!
 
hototogisu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 35,085
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by vipernsx View Post
Has last year's Halak & 2nd gone down to Halak & 3rd for 2008/09? Will there be a sticky for "Halak & 3rd will get you..."?
Only if other teams' fans feel the need to make as many lame jokes about it as they did last year.

And for the record, it was an Oiler fan who came up with Halak and a third as a return from Montreal.

hototogisu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2008, 02:59 PM
  #6
s7ark
Moderator
TheWorstEver
 
s7ark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,021
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hototogisu View Post
No.

Why couldn't we just stick with Halak/3rd for Nash/Roloson where everybody was happy?
Yeah, I don't know about everyone being happy with that one. I know I wouldn't be. Garon is going to get most of the starts here next year for sure, and I don't see Halak's improvement in the backup role being worth giving up a recent 1st rounder who has done nothing but impress, like Nash. And losing Roli's contract is only an issue if we are planning to add a big $$ player, which doesn't appear likely at this point in the summer.

I'd turn down this deal

Edit: Oh and the original proposal is simply ludicrous.


Last edited by s7ark: 08-13-2008 at 03:15 PM.
s7ark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2008, 03:10 PM
  #7
Jack Bourdain
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
Jack Bourdain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montréal, QC.
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,220
vCash: 500
Yuck.

Clear case of Montreal dumping their **** on Edmonton.

Jack Bourdain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2008, 03:31 PM
  #8
BattleGuy
Registered User
 
BattleGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In your bushes
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,767
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sujoy View Post
Yuck.

Clear case of Montreal dumping their **** on Edmonton.
What's the next proposal gonna be? Maybe Dandenault for Hemsky and 1st

BattleGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2008, 03:35 PM
  #9
prevail
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,852
vCash: 500
Im not gonna say anything about the proposal but I am gonna say that a lot of you will be surprised with Chipchura and what he can do.

prevail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2008, 03:53 PM
  #10
Jack Bourdain
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
Jack Bourdain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montréal, QC.
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,220
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by prevail View Post
Im not gonna say anything about the proposal but I am gonna say that a lot of you will be surprised with Chipchura and what he can do.
Now that's saying something. I liked the kid in the beginning of last season. I don't see him topping a top 6 forward group in the NHL though. Well wait, Ryan Malone...

Jack Bourdain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2008, 04:03 PM
  #11
prevail
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,852
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sujoy View Post
Now that's saying something. I liked the kid in the beginning of last season. I don't see him topping a top 6 forward group in the NHL though. Well wait, Ryan Malone...
Oh I didn't really mean offensively, I just meant overall, calling him **** really isn't accurate, the kid's a solid player and person, just like I heard about Nash (Riley) but I've followed Kyle for awhile and he's far from ****.

prevail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2008, 04:12 PM
  #12
Jack Bourdain
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
Jack Bourdain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montréal, QC.
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,220
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by prevail View Post
Oh I didn't really mean offensively, I just meant overall, calling him **** really isn't accurate, the kid's a solid player and person, just like I heard about Nash (Riley) but I've followed Kyle for awhile and he's far from ****.
Compared to Cogliano and Nash, I think Chipchura and Latendresse are "****".

Latendresse is do or die now.

Jack Bourdain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2008, 04:33 PM
  #13
Watsatheo
Error 503 Service
 
Watsatheo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 30,685
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sujoy View Post
Compared to Cogliano and Nash, I think Chipchura and Latendresse are "****".

Latendresse is do or die now.
Do or die in his 3rd pro season at the age of 21? I disagree.

Watsatheo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2008, 04:38 PM
  #14
Jack Bourdain
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
Jack Bourdain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montréal, QC.
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,220
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Watsatheo View Post
Do or die in his 3rd pro season at the age of 21? I disagree.
I agree, 500k re-sign, why not.

Jack Bourdain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2008, 08:35 PM
  #15
WeThreeKings
DJ Nikita
 
WeThreeKings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 38,883
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to WeThreeKings
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sujoy View Post
Yuck.

Clear case of Montreal dumping their **** on Edmonton.
I'm not gonna say much about the proposal as far as value goes.

But, how is this ****? Three guys that will all be contributing and on our roster this season?

WeThreeKings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-13-2008, 08:39 PM
  #16
RoyBoyCoy
Habs and Rugby
 
RoyBoyCoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Lennoxville, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,090
vCash: 500
I really dont know about this. Although Cogliano is very attractive. This trade would be three young NHLers for a wash-up goalie, prospect and a young NHLer

RoyBoyCoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2008, 08:37 AM
  #17
Brian28
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,619
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Price4Prez View Post
To Montreal:

Cogliano
R.Nash
Roloson


To Edmonton:

Chipchura
Latendresse
Halak


My thought process: Edmonton wants to dump Roloson salary and gains a future #1 goalie in Halak, Chipchura and Nash are equals, only diffrence is Chipchura is NHL ready, and to make it better he is an Alberta boy. Latendresse can possibly thrive playing on Edmontons second line RW, as there is no space for him here. Cogliano is there, because there is no place for him in Edmonton, with all the centers, and also balances the trade.(Montreal needs a C, Edmonton needs a RW)

Chipchura = Nash
Halak > Roloson
Cogliano > Latendresse

Thoughts??
If Chipchura and Nash are equals and Montreal fans are as high on him as Edmonton is on Nash then why not remove them from the trade. Edmonton is quite happy keeping Nash around.

So basically it come down to Latandresse and Halak for Cogliano and Roloson. Latandresse has far less upside than Cogliano and while Halak is a better goalie than Roli; Roli's cap hit comes off the boooks this year. All said and done I'd say no. While I'd like to dump Roli's salary not at the expense of giving Cogliano for Latandresse. Just too much drop in talent on that end. Given the market for Goalies lately Edmonton should be able to trade one high end propect or pick for a promising goal prospect.

Just too expensive from Edmontonts POV.

Brian28 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2008, 08:54 AM
  #18
Price4Prez
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 410
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian28 View Post
If Chipchura and Nash are equals and Montreal fans are as high on him as Edmonton is on Nash then why not remove them from the trade. Edmonton is quite happy keeping Nash around.

So basically it come down to Latandresse and Halak for Cogliano and Roloson. Latandresse has far less upside than Cogliano and while Halak is a better goalie than Roli; Roli's cap hit comes off the boooks this year. All said and done I'd say no. While I'd like to dump Roli's salary not at the expense of giving Cogliano for Latandresse. Just too much drop in talent on that end. Given the market for Goalies lately Edmonton should be able to trade one high end propect or pick for a promising goal prospect.

Just too expensive from Edmontonts POV.
My reason for swapping Chipchura and Nash, is simply because Chipchura is NHL- ready now, and probably a year overdue, where as Nash is still 2-3 years away. I see why Edm wants to keep Cogliano, but to dump Roloson contract and get a future #1 goalie, there must be an extra incentive to do so, which in this case I figure it to be the diffrence between Latendresse and Cogliano.

While alot of Montreal fans are quick to dismiss Latendresse, I for one am neutral to the situation. While he appears to be slow now, he does not have many other flaws. It gives me this deja vu feeling, John Leclair all over again.....

Saying this, I am not trying to justify the value of the trade, but simply explaining my reasoning!

Price4Prez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2008, 10:58 AM
  #19
Brian28
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,619
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Price4Prez View Post
My reason for swapping Chipchura and Nash, is simply because Chipchura is NHL- ready now, and probably a year overdue, where as Nash is still 2-3 years away. I see why Edm wants to keep Cogliano, but to dump Roloson contract and get a future #1 goalie, there must be an extra incentive to do so, which in this case I figure it to be the diffrence between Latendresse and Cogliano.

While alot of Montreal fans are quick to dismiss Latendresse, I for one am neutral to the situation. While he appears to be slow now, he does not have many other flaws. It gives me this deja vu feeling, John Leclair all over again.....

Saying this, I am not trying to justify the value of the trade, but simply explaining my reasoning!
There's no reason to trade away a valuable player like Cogliano for one year of salary relief when we aren't over the cap though. That's a pretty substantial downgrade in potential to drop one year of salary. It's just too expensive.

Halak is still a rookie and hasn't proven he can be a starter yet. He's talented, but so was Ty Conklin and we're all seeing how that's playing out. Halak has potential to be a starter, but has to date proven less than Garon. I don't think most of Edmonton would be happy going into next season with 3 goalies only 1 of which has any veteran experience. Even then Garon isn't that much of a vet presence whereas we know Roli can be a clutch backup even if expensive.

I know you were explaining your reasoning, but this is the reasoning from Edmonton's pov. The difference between Cogliano, Nash, and one year of Rolis salary >> Latandresse, Chipchura, and Halak for the 2008/2009 season. Edmonton doesn't have space for anyone up front next year so Chipchura would still be in the AHL here, Latandresse is a major downgrade on Cogliano and Roli's contract expires in one year.

I'd rather stay with Roli leaving this year, Cogliano staying around, and Nash developing properly than have 2 rookie backups and 2 more guys we can't fit into our lineup.

Brian28 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2008, 11:27 AM
  #20
Blind Gardien
Global Moderator
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 20,504
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian28 View Post
If Chipchura and Nash are equals and Montreal fans are as high on him as Edmonton is on Nash then why not remove them from the trade. Edmonton is quite happy keeping Nash around.
I would agree to that proposal. Keep them out of it. We like (or should like!) Chipchura at least as much as you like Nash. Montreal is quite happy keeping Chipchura around too (even if some fans are a bit clueless).

Roloson ought to have negative value to us (at least, until and unless one of our young goalies actually stumbles... which will hopefully be never, but there will be options in mid-season to recover from that should it happen, without raising Roloson's value to us above a negative).

Cogliano is fine. I don't think he's a direct need for us. Hypothetically speaking, Latendresse would be a better fit for our needs if he was able to elevate his game (which may not be possible). Obviously Cogliano is the better player. Probably always will be too. But it's not an especially great fit to consider the deal purely on the basis of his upgrade value there either.

I vote to abandon all attempts to make any of these proposals work.


Last edited by Blind Gardien: 08-14-2008 at 11:33 AM.
Blind Gardien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2008, 11:39 AM
  #21
AM
Registered User
 
AM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,936
vCash: 500
The Oilers are not looking at moving Roloson.

This kinda deflates the whole rational for the trade.

If the Oilers were adding Sundin, then perhaps this trade gets done. Even then I wouldnt do it.

Cogliano has too many tools, Lowe would look foolish if he traded him now unless the cup comes back this year.

AM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2008, 12:47 PM
  #22
MeestaDeteta
Registered User
 
MeestaDeteta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Saskazoo
Posts: 7,900
vCash: 50
Makes no sense from Edmonton's POV.

MeestaDeteta is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2008, 12:52 PM
  #23
Brian28
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,619
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blind Gardien View Post
I would agree to that proposal. Keep them out of it. We like (or should like!) Chipchura at least as much as you like Nash. Montreal is quite happy keeping Chipchura around too (even if some fans are a bit clueless).

Roloson ought to have negative value to us (at least, until and unless one of our young goalies actually stumbles... which will hopefully be never, but there will be options in mid-season to recover from that should it happen, without raising Roloson's value to us above a negative).

Cogliano is fine. I don't think he's a direct need for us. Hypothetically speaking, Latendresse would be a better fit for our needs if he was able to elevate his game (which may not be possible). Obviously Cogliano is the better player. Probably always will be too. But it's not an especially great fit to consider the deal purely on the basis of his upgrade value there either.

I vote to abandon all attempts to make any of these proposals work.

I'll second that motion. The only players Edmonton wants from montreal are players that Montreal doesn't want to give up, and the players Montreal wants to give up are ones Edmonton can't use to replace the players Montreal wants us to give up. Unless a blockbuster trade comes along I don't see these two teams being good trading partenrs as small trades to fill holes in one team don't equal the needs of the other. Both teams are exiting any form of rebuild mode and are entering cup window mode...albeit Montreal is farther ahead it wouldn't make sense for either team to take a step back at this point.

Brian28 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2008, 12:56 PM
  #24
Bad Natey
#feelthelove
 
Bad Natey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Habville
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,522
vCash: 500
Cogliano and Halak are the best pieces in the trade, no doubt. But Edmonton already has a decent starting goalie, who looked great last year in Mathieu Garon. Where-as Cogliano is a huge piece to their top-6.

Makes little sense for the Oilers.

Value isn't horrible though.

Bad Natey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2008, 02:47 PM
  #25
Brian28
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,619
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by natey2k4 View Post
Cogliano and Halak are the best pieces in the trade, no doubt. But Edmonton already has a decent starting goalie, who looked great last year in Mathieu Garon. Where-as Cogliano is a huge piece to their top-6.

Makes little sense for the Oilers.

Value isn't horrible though.
If there is little sense for the Oilers how is the value fair? If the value was fair a reasonable argument could be made for the trade as it would solve needs for the team. The fact that it makes almost no sense for one team suggests that while on paper value might be okay in terms of actual value it's completely unbalanced. For the value to be there for the Oilers there'd have to be something bigger coming back to entice them to even consider the deal.

Brian28 is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 08:58 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.