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.

Toronto - Chicago

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-09-2009, 12:12 AM
  #51
mikeo1
Registered User
 
mikeo1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,497
vCash: 500
I would not do this deal because I think Kaberle is a better d-man than Campbell, at a way better price. The Leafs don't have "tons of cap space" either, as some people seem to think.


Quote:
Originally Posted by brevard View Post
The contracts (TKK) are not an issue intil next offseason. (right or wrong) Chicago is playing for a cup this year. I understand that as a Leafs fan (unless you are over 40) you can't relate but they are not going to weaken this team (Campbell for Kaberle) this offseason.
Maybe its my homerism speaking, but I don't think Campbell is one of the top d-men in the league.

As for your smack talk about 40 year old Leaf fans, theres an old saying about people living in glass houses...
You don't have to be 40 years old to remember the last time the Leafs got as far as the Hawks did this year.

mikeo1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2009, 12:14 AM
  #52
JohnHodgson
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,221
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by brevard View Post
People who keep writing stupid **** like this need to take note. ... It is not Hawk fans creating moronic trade proposals to "save" the Hawks from cap hell. It is fans of other teams wanting to play make believe. Hoping that somehow their GM will be the knight in shining armour who will fly in and grab Sharp and Barker for a 2nd.

We don't want Kaberle. Campbell is no stalwart on defense but Kaberle is worse. The objective is to win a cup this year and the odds of that decrease if Kaberle replaces Campbell.


Get over yourselves. Please stop trying to make up ways to save the Hawks. The Hawks are built perfectly to challenge now and to keep on winning into the future.
1) Several assets that can be moved for picks and prospects.
2) Several prospects ready now to step into those holes.
3) Those gained in line #1 will become line #2 in a few years.
4) Those moved up in line #2 become line #1 in a few years.

JohnHodgson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2009, 12:22 AM
  #53
Chris Hansen
Versteeg's Concubine
 
Chris Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,341
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeo1 View Post
You don't have to be 40 years old to remember the last time the Leafs got as far as the Hawks did this year.
Huh?

The Hawks made it to the Finals in '92 and the WCF in '95.

Chris Hansen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2009, 12:40 AM
  #54
Poignant Discussion
I tell it like it is
 
Poignant Discussion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Gatineau, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,757
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Poignant Discussion Send a message via Yahoo to Poignant Discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawkFan84 View Post
Huh?

The Hawks made it to the Finals in '92 and the WCF in '95.
it was a shot against the leafs, not the Hawks.

Burke would have no interest in Campbell or his contract

Poignant Discussion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2009, 01:00 AM
  #55
Porn*
Registered User
 
Porn*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In your nightmares
Country: Israel
Posts: 34,210
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Porn*
how about...

campbell + beach + bertram

for

Kaberle + a late round pick

Porn* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2009, 01:08 AM
  #56
thepublichairs
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 469
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeo1 View Post
I would not do this deal because I think Kaberle is a better d-man than Campbell, at a way better price. The Leafs don't have "tons of cap space" either, as some people seem to think.




Maybe its my homerism speaking, but I don't think Campbell is one of the top d-men in the league.

As for your smack talk about 40 year old Leaf fans, theres an old saying about people living in glass houses...
You don't have to be 40 years old to remember the last time the Leafs got as far as the Hawks did this year.
its true im only 14 and i feel real bad for fellow leaf fans who have waited 40 years for a cup. My 5 years of being a fan without seeing the cup/playoffs feels long enough.

thepublichairs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2009, 02:07 AM
  #57
Patrick96
 
Patrick96's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 988
vCash: 500
Jason Blake + Tomas Kaberle
for
Patrick Sharp + Brian Campbell

Chicago saves almost 3 mill.


Last edited by Patrick96: 08-09-2009 at 02:14 AM.
Patrick96 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2009, 02:20 AM
  #58
EucaLEAFtys
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: In the Underdark
Posts: 2,332
vCash: 500
Sorry guys/girls, but the proposals in this thread are just BAD.

If the OP's deal was to come to fruition, this would financially screw over the Leafs not just for the '09/'10 season but for the '10/'11 season as well.

I just don't understand how some people here think that the Leafs have "lots and lots" of cap-space right now. They don't. Half of the cap-space listed on NHLnumbers.com for the Leafs is Bonus-Cushion money which, IMO, should not be used for anything other than for the paying out of bonuses to those players who are eligiblie for them via their signed contracts. The other half of the cap-space, which really isn't very much (in hockey terms), needs to be saved for injury call-up situations during the season and not blown on a player that the Leafs don't really need nor currently have any room for.

Furthermore, the '10/'11 season is reportedly the one when the doom of Cap-aggedon is slated to hit the NHL hard. It's been said that the cap-drop could lower to the $50 million level (or possibly even lower). If you were to consider the implications of taking on a long-term contract like Brian Campbell's (slightly over $7m/year for approx. 6-7 more years) prior to the looming drop, you had better be absolutely certain that your team is financially capable of doing so without this type of acquisition becoming a detriment for the remainder of the contract.

The Leafs currently have approx. $30-$32 million committed to 9 players for the '10/'11 season according to NHLnumbers.com. If the cap-ceiling drops to around $50 million, this will only leave about $18-$20 million available for the Leafs to sign a minimum of 11 more players, which wiill be hard enough without trading for Brian Campbell, especially if Brian Burke wants to sign a 1st-line player (such as Marc Savard, for example), and have some "wiggle-room" available for emergencies.

Suffice it to say that any deal involving B. Campbell becoming a Maple Leaf would be very unwise for Brian Burke to contemplate at this point in time, even if a highly-touted prospect and/or a 1st rnd pick is added. Perhaps in the summer of 2011 or 2012 this proposal, or a variant thereof, could be re-visited. So, until then, I shall have to respectfully decline.

EucaLEAFtys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2009, 06:29 AM
  #59
Zim
Registered User
 
Zim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,230
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfried View Post
The problem with this deal is that Campbell is negative value. If the Leafs trade Kaberle, they problably don't want a defenceman back, unless its someone like Cam Barker as part of the deal, or any younger, cheaper, and similarly skilled defenceman.

The Leafs have Ian White who is an impending RFA and Van Ryn who is an impending UFA. Together, they can problably be locked up for about $5million. While neither are as good as Campbell offensively, White could be one day and Van Ryn is much more complete. Having 2 defencman is also greater than one because it'll cost about $750k to sign a quality NHLer. So, the difference you're looking at is about $3million in cap space. I don't think you'll find anyone that would suggest the Leafs would be a better team with Campbell + 750k d-man than they would with White + Van Ryn + $3million in cap space towards forwards. In fact, I'd argue that the leafs could easily be a better team with White + Van Ryn even ignoring the cap space savigns by having those two.

Therefore, Campbell would be sent to the minors if acquired by the leafs. $7million for 7 years is a BOATLOAD of money to pay in the AHL. Coming to Toronto better be more than Kyle Beach (who I'm a fan of, but he's just not enough). And that BEFORE the price to acquire Kaberle.

To get a deal like this, Chicago would be looking at Sharp + Versteeg for Kaberle, followed by Campbell, Beach, and 1st round 2010 for nothing.
So you seriously believe that it's a fair trade if Chicago trade Sharp, Versteeg, Campbell, Beach and a 1st round pick for Kaberle? You just can't beat HFBoards for comedy value.

Zim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2009, 07:49 AM
  #60
EucaLEAFtys
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: In the Underdark
Posts: 2,332
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zim View Post
So you seriously believe that it's a fair trade if Chicago trade Sharp, Versteeg, Campbell, Beach and a 1st round pick for Kaberle? You just can't beat HFBoards for comedy value.
LOL. Well, I see that jfried has finally lived up to his/her username.

While it's not so bad to think that T. Kaberle could possibly garner a return of Sharp and Versteeg, the fact that jfried even suggested that Campbell, Beach, and CHI's 1st rndr in 2010 could be had for nothing just goes to show how mind-blowingly idiotic his/her comments can be and have been.

I guess that jfried hasn't yet realized that you can't just give away assets for nothing in the NHL (or any other professional sports league that I know of). There is always a price that has to be paid (depending on the nature of the transaction) by either the giver (in this case, CHI), the receiver (assuming it's TOR), or both.

In any event, the Leafs wouldn't be able to handle such a huge cap-hit even if such a transaction ever occurred. Heck, they can't even handle a "Kaberle for Sharp & Versteeg" deal without any potentially serious repercussions.

So... I guess it's nothing that any of us have to worry about.

EucaLEAFtys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2009, 09:35 AM
  #61
seanlinden
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 18,687
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zim View Post
So you seriously believe that it's a fair trade if Chicago trade Sharp, Versteeg, Campbell, Beach and a 1st round pick for Kaberle? You just can't beat HFBoards for comedy value.
Absolutely not. I think that Campbell is a terrible fit for Toronto but he might have positive value elsewhere. However, Chicago is likely prepared to play this season with Campbell then get screwed over next year when nobody is looking to take on any salary (nevermind $7million), but there are tons of teams looking to dump $4-6 million each.

seanlinden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2009, 09:45 AM
  #62
seanlinden
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 18,687
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EucaLEAFtys View Post
LOL. Well, I see that jfried has finally lived up to his/her username.

While it's not so bad to think that T. Kaberle could possibly garner a return of Sharp and Versteeg, the fact that jfried even suggested that Campbell, Beach, and CHI's 1st rndr in 2010 could be had for nothing just goes to show how mind-blowingly idiotic his/her comments can be and have been.

I guess that jfried hasn't yet realized that you can't just give away assets for nothing in the NHL (or any other professional sports league that I know of). There is always a price that has to be paid (depending on the nature of the transaction) by either the giver (in this case, CHI), the receiver (assuming it's TOR), or both.

In any event, the Leafs wouldn't be able to handle such a huge cap-hit even if such a transaction ever occurred. Heck, they can't even handle a "Kaberle for Sharp & Versteeg" deal without any potentially serious repercussions.

So... I guess it's nothing that any of us have to worry about.
I never said they could be had, I said thats what it would take. Start the deal with Versteeg + Sharp for Kaberle (which as we seem to agree is within the realm of possibility if the Hawks don't have Campbell).

If Campbell were traded to Toronto, he would be promtly waived and placed in the AHL for the rest of his contract. Thats because the Leafs COULD be a better team with White & Van Ryn in the lineup, and DEFINITELY WOULD be a better team with those 2 plus $3million in cap savings.

While there is some inherit value to having a big name former NHLer on your Marlies' roster to sell tickets, it certainly doesn't make sense to do it for 7 years at $7million. Now it becomes a case of what Chicago has to give up in order for us to take on that salary. Considering that $500k in salary yielded us a 4th round pick, $50million in salary should at least yield us Beach + a first.

If Chicago could find a taker for Campbell elsewhere, then its a different story. Perhaps they find a team like Columbus who might be willing to take on $7milllion in salary if the Hawks take a guy like Modin back. Modin is an impending UFA so that'll help them retain Toews + Kane with the cap fallign, and make their top 6 forwards more available while increasing the need for another blueliner. It then may make sense to move Sharp + Versteeg for Kaberle. It hurts their offensive depth long term, but this is problably a neccessary move to keep the core of the team together.

seanlinden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2009, 11:43 AM
  #63
brevard*
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Cocoa Beach, Florida
Country: United States
Posts: 1,891
vCash: 500
I have never proposed the Hawks move Campbell so don't treat this like many trade thread posts (where someone proposes a trade and then justifies it by saying how great there guy is and how much the guy they are tading for sucks).

Campbell is a top pair elite D-man in the NHL. Some may not agree but based on what San Jose, Chicago, Atlanta and others were offerering last year if you don't agree than you disagree with many NHL GM's.

Now ask yourself not only what the cap will do next year but where you expect it to be in 3, 5 and 7 years (HINT: it will be higher than it is now)
A team truly on the rebuild looking for a top level D-man they can tie up for 7 years is the perfect home for Campbell. He is a major cap hit now (when they should have space if they suck) and will be much less of a cap hit (as a %) when the team is actually competing for something.

Again I am not proposing trading Campbell because he will be a big part of Chicago's success but the sillyness that says he doesn't have value is misguided.

Ask yourself

brevard* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2009, 01:29 PM
  #64
dredeye
BJ Elitist/Hipster
 
dredeye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,164
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnHodgson View Post
great post thanks for the contribution

dredeye is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2009, 01:33 PM
  #65
Schenn
In Rod We Trust
 
Schenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Huron County
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,841
vCash: 816
Quote:
Originally Posted by danishh View Post
make it skille, see if burke bites.
Id rather take Beach because Skille is developing very slowly and he is not quite the prospect he used to be,

Schenn is offline   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 08:11 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.