HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
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.

Extra 1st round pick to Sharks (10-20) or swap for top 10 pick

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-01-2010, 04:11 PM
  #51
tarlinian
Registered User
 
tarlinian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Pasadena, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,162
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilligans Island View Post
Marleau and/or Nabby should/will? go before Pavs. That (plus, letting Blake go (or re-signed at a much lower hi)) will give us the cap space needed to re-sign Pavs, Seto, Malhotra, Nichol and keep Clowe.
I agree that Nabby should be gone before anyone else because of the organization's massive goaltending depth, but not Marleau. I originally figured that might be enough. But Pavelski's playoff performance has raised his cap hit into the $~4M or so range, which makes it hard to upgrade on defense, which I feel is a necessity as well.

tarlinian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2010, 04:22 PM
  #52
Esoteric Ubiquity*
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Silicon Valley
Country: Greece
Posts: 3,308
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarlinian View Post
I agree that Nabby should be gone before anyone else because of the organization's massive goaltending depth, but not Marleau. I originally figured that might be enough. But Pavelski's playoff performance has raised his cap hit into the $~4M or so range, which makes it hard to upgrade on defense, which I feel is a necessity as well.
The organisations massive goaltending depth isn't ready for the NHL. Nabby @ 3 or under, let Marleau go and you've created 8+m in space. Move Huskins or do not retain Blake and that's another 2-3.5m in space. There is no reason to move performing roster players for prospects, regardless of the name of this website.

Esoteric Ubiquity* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2010, 04:35 PM
  #53
Gene Parmesan
Ball-So-Hard-U
 
Gene Parmesan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 29,229
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Bridge View Post
The organisations massive goaltending depth isn't ready for the NHL. Nabby @ 3 or under, let Marleau go and you've created 8+m in space. Move Huskins or do not retain Blake and that's another 2-3.5m in space. There is no reason to move performing roster players for prospects, regardless of the name of this website.
yup.

Gene Parmesan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2010, 04:37 PM
  #54
tarlinian
Registered User
 
tarlinian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Pasadena, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,162
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Bridge View Post
The organisations massive goaltending depth isn't ready for the NHL. Nabby @ 3 or under, let Marleau go and you've created 8+m in space. Move Huskins or do not retain Blake and that's another 2-3.5m in space. There is no reason to move performing roster players for prospects, regardless of the name of this website.
Nabby at 3 or under is pretty ridiculous. As for moving "performing roster players", I'd count Marleau as one of those too, despite every Shark fans' sudden willingness to throw him under the bus. You can't move Huskins without giving something else up, in what would likely be a huge steal for the other team (see Ehrhoff and Lukowich). Blake will probably drop another $1-1.5 M off his contract if he returns. In the end, I'd rather drop Clowe for future assets than let Marleau walk for free. I'm aware that this massive goaltending depth is not NHL ready outside of Greiss. Hence why I'd go with a Greiss/Ellis tandem for a year or two.

tarlinian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2010, 04:43 PM
  #55
North Metro Peewees
Registered User
 
North Metro Peewees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Philly Stupid
Country: United States
Posts: 1,126
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarlinian View Post
Well, Pavelski, Clowe, prospects like Petrecki, Ferriero, Zalewski, Braun, Groulx, etc., a goalie prospect (preferably one not named Stalock).

(Notes: for Pavelski, I'd want a pick closer to 10 than 20).

For example, I think that Petrecki+Clowe+Zalewski/Ferriero for the 15th pick (I'm not sure who that currently is), would be reasonable.

It's practically a guarantee that someone will need to go to make cap space next year, and there are an awful lot of guys in the system looking for NHL time, hence (Zalewski, Ferriero, McGinn, there's also Zackrisson in Sweden to think of.) We also have replacements for these guys in the system with Viedensky, Wingels, (possibly Varone), etc. We're also bursting at the seams with goalies.
DONE! If Dougie Wilson was willing to trade Joe Pavelski to the Wild for the 9th pick I'm pretty sure Chuck Fletcher would drive to San Jose to pick him up personally. And if CF isn't then I will myself.

North Metro Peewees is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2010, 04:50 PM
  #56
North Metro Peewees
Registered User
 
North Metro Peewees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Philly Stupid
Country: United States
Posts: 1,126
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheFence View Post


Clowe alone could net a top 15th pick (Minnesota's?).
No way; and I really enjoy watching Clowe play. Clowe + Sharks 1st rounder could get you the Wild pick.

North Metro Peewees is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2010, 05:22 PM
  #57
tarlinian
Registered User
 
tarlinian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Pasadena, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,162
vCash: 500
My idea was closer to a top 5 pick + excellent prospects (which the Wild don't really have) for Pavelski. Obviously, no one would actually give that up. I just sort of wanted to see offers. As for Clowe would you do something like Clowe+Petrecki+Ferriero/Zalewski for your 1st? (The Wild 1st is a bit higher than what I was targeting, but if I'm losing Clowe it shouldn't be for a trade-up.)

tarlinian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2010, 05:52 PM
  #58
Gilligans Island
Registered User
 
Gilligans Island's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: SF/Bay Area
Posts: 7,848
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarlinian View Post
Nabby at 3 or under is pretty ridiculous. As for moving "performing roster players", I'd count Marleau as one of those too, despite every Shark fans' sudden willingness to throw him under the bus. You can't move Huskins without giving something else up, in what would likely be a huge steal for the other team (see Ehrhoff and Lukowich). Blake will probably drop another $1-1.5 M off his contract if he returns. In the end, I'd rather drop Clowe for future assets than let Marleau walk for free. I'm aware that this massive goaltending depth is not NHL ready outside of Greiss. Hence why I'd go with a Greiss/Ellis tandem for a year or two.
If Patty doesn't step up for the rest of the playoffs, offer him $4.5m per max - otherwise, let him go. We don't need a strictly regular season player for one of the highest paid on the team.

We can beg to disagree on Clowe vs. Marleau.

Huskins can be dealt for a 7th rounder, a low prospect, or a bag of pucks. Heck, stash him in Worcester if that's what it takes.

Gilligans Island is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2010, 05:54 PM
  #59
Gilligans Island
Registered User
 
Gilligans Island's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: SF/Bay Area
Posts: 7,848
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarlinian View Post
My idea was closer to a top 5 pick + excellent prospects (which the Wild don't really have) for Pavelski. Obviously, no one would actually give that up. I just sort of wanted to see offers. As for Clowe would you do something like Clowe+Petrecki+Ferriero/Zalewski for your 1st? (The Wild 1st is a bit higher than what I was targeting, but if I'm losing Clowe it shouldn't be for a trade-up.)
Petrecki may have had a crappy year but holy overpayment. If we're dealing Clowe to the Wild, it better be for Burns.

Gilligans Island is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2010, 06:07 PM
  #60
tarlinian
Registered User
 
tarlinian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Pasadena, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,162
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilligans Island View Post
Petrecki may have had a crappy year but holy overpayment. If we're dealing Clowe to the Wild, it better be for Burns.
Petrecki's year was bad enough that IMO, he's pretty close to not actually being a prospect anymore. According to the guys in Worcester, he's something like 10th on their defensive depth chart. That's not just bad it's terrible. Minnesota might still find some value in him just because they're defensive prospect pool is highlighted by Tyler Cuma, who has not been doing so well in the OHL. Clowe alone will not garner a top-10 pick, but he should get something in the 10-20 range.

tarlinian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2010, 06:14 PM
  #61
Mark Stuart*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,380
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarlinian View Post
Petrecki's year was bad enough that IMO, he's pretty close to not actually being a prospect anymore. According to the guys in Worcester, he's something like 10th on their defensive depth chart. That's not just bad it's terrible. Minnesota might still find some value in him just because they're defensive prospect pool is highlighted by Tyler Cuma, who has not been doing so well in the OHL. Clowe alone will not garner a top-10 pick, but he should get something in the 10-20 range.
Petrecki, in my opinion, has been on of the worst players to come through Worcester in quite a while... Going back to the Ice Cats days even. Maybe it's because I expected too much, but the guy got very little ice-time if it wasn't a blowout, and almost NEVER played the 3rd period of a game.

Even being an Eagles fan, he wasn't even THAT good in at BC. He took stupid penalty after stupid penalty. I really don't see Petrecki as a guy with much trade value and if he doesn't work on his game, I'm not so sure he's even bottom-pairing worth on an NHL team.

Mark Stuart* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2010, 06:29 PM
  #62
Le Rosbeef
Registered User
 
Le Rosbeef's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,451
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarlinian View Post
Oh come on, don't tell me you wouldn't even consider the NYI 1st+Hamonic+Rakhshani for Pavelski.
I swear to you, I wouldn't have much interest in that deal at all.

Rakhshani has had a great year but underwhelmed previously IMO. Hamonic is a good prospect but he's still that - a prospect. He's not a white knight flying onto our blueline any time soon. Ask Nick Petrecki how that's supposed to work out...

And the first? 5th overall is nice but assuming it's one of Connolly, Fowler or Gudbransson/Gormley, I still don't see the point in dealing Pavs. We're built for now and this guy has the skills and intangibles to be a key Shark for many years. They're all good assets, don't get me wrong but you don't trade your best players in deals like this unless you're trying to start over...

Pavelski is a known commodity - there's just no incentive to move him.

Le Rosbeef is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2010, 06:37 PM
  #63
stempniaksen
Alright, I'm mad
 
stempniaksen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,448
vCash: 500
As a Sens fan I'd be willing to do something based around these pieces.

To San Jose: Foligno + 17th overall

To Ottawa: Devin Setoguchi + something small

Not that the Sharks have any reason to get rid of Seto, but this would help their cap space issues for sure.

stempniaksen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2010, 07:21 PM
  #64
Esoteric Ubiquity*
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Silicon Valley
Country: Greece
Posts: 3,308
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarlinian View Post
Nabby at 3 or under is pretty ridiculous. As for moving "performing roster players", I'd count Marleau as one of those too, despite every Shark fans' sudden willingness to throw him under the bus. You can't move Huskins without giving something else up, in what would likely be a huge steal for the other team (see Ehrhoff and Lukowich). Blake will probably drop another $1-1.5 M off his contract if he returns. In the end, I'd rather drop Clowe for future assets than let Marleau walk for free. I'm aware that this massive goaltending depth is not NHL ready outside of Greiss. Hence why I'd go with a Greiss/Ellis tandem for a year or two.
Those are the breaks. The organisation made a choice to acquire high level talent and use a lot of salary space on top forwards. Whether you think it's ridiculous or not is irrelevant, the price for Nabby's services will have to come down, the org will need to look in a different direction if this is not possible. I don't see how you can rationalize the Ehrhoff trade with the possibility of trading Huskins, Ehrhoff and Luko made 3 million more than Huskins. Blake will probably retire before signing with the Sharks again for 2-2.5 million, your assumption is more than a pipe dream. Unfortunately, Ryan Clowe is one of the movable assets that has the qualities and does the work of no one else on the roster.He should not be moved.

Esoteric Ubiquity* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2010, 07:45 PM
  #65
tarlinian
Registered User
 
tarlinian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Pasadena, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,162
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Bridge View Post
Those are the breaks. The organisation made a choice to acquire high level talent and use a lot of salary space on top forwards. Whether you think it's ridiculous or not is irrelevant, the price for Nabby's services will have to come down, the org will need to look in a different direction if this is not possible. I don't see how you can rationalize the Ehrhoff trade with the possibility of trading Huskins, Ehrhoff and Luko made 3 million more than Huskins. Blake will probably retire before signing with the Sharks again for 2-2.5 million, your assumption is more than a pipe dream. Unfortunately, Ryan Clowe is one of the movable assets that has the qualities and does the work of no one else on the roster.He should not be moved.
Nabokov will easily get more than $3M from some other team. I also think McGinn would be a reasonable downgrade from Clowe on the 2nd line.

My line on Huskins was meant to imply that dropping his salary is essentially impossible without giving up other more valuable assets. Pure salary dumps are huge negatives in trades. That's why Ehrhoff got so little back from Vancouver. It's because we packaged over a $1M on dead weight salary with him. No one is just going to take Huskins off our hands. He has negative trade value.

tarlinian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2010, 07:57 PM
  #66
Esoteric Ubiquity*
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Silicon Valley
Country: Greece
Posts: 3,308
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarlinian View Post
Nabokov will easily get more than $3M from some other team. I also think McGinn would be a reasonable downgrade from Clowe on the 2nd line.

My line on Huskins was meant to imply that dropping his salary is essentially impossible without giving up other more valuable assets. Pure salary dumps are huge negatives in trades. That's why Ehrhoff got so little back from Vancouver. It's because we packaged over a $1M on dead weight salary with him. No one is just going to take Huskins off our hands. He has negative trade value.
Jamie McGinn does not currently possess the size or strength to step in for Ryan Clowe as Clowe performs. At some point, perhaps.

If Evgeni Nabokov wishes to sign elsewhere for more money, that is certainly his prerogative. I wouldn't want the Sharks to make any attempt for another goalie in the trade market, they should just resign Nabokov. Constantly referencing the Ehrhoff trade as though it would even remotely compare to Kent Huskins is silly. Huskins has value, and if the Sharks were to move him with something else, these vaunted picks and prospects you put so much stock in (to the point where you discuss moving players who have just started to blossom into their primes) can be had, and not guys like Rahimi and White.

You're ignoring so many variables and coming to a complete definitive, final conclusion, not allowing for any sort of other possibilities. It's ridiculous. These armchair GM threads are getting tedious when so many posters don't know the value of the picks and prospects. There are no scouting reports, there are no fiscal directives, there is only what you and other posters perceive. You do not take into account a lot of outside variables.

Esoteric Ubiquity* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2010, 08:19 PM
  #67
North Metro Peewees
Registered User
 
North Metro Peewees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Philly Stupid
Country: United States
Posts: 1,126
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilligans Island View Post
Petrecki may have had a crappy year but holy overpayment. If we're dealing Clowe to the Wild, it better be for Burns.
The Sharks would need to add considerably to Clowe if the Wild was trading Burns.

North Metro Peewees is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2010, 09:04 PM
  #68
tarlinian
Registered User
 
tarlinian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Pasadena, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,162
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Bridge View Post
Jamie McGinn does not currently possess the size or strength to step in for Ryan Clowe as Clowe performs. At some point, perhaps.

If Evgeni Nabokov wishes to sign elsewhere for more money, that is certainly his prerogative. I wouldn't want the Sharks to make any attempt for another goalie in the trade market, they should just resign Nabokov. Constantly referencing the Ehrhoff trade as though it would even remotely compare to Kent Huskins is silly. Huskins has value, and if the Sharks were to move him with something else, these vaunted picks and prospects you put so much stock in (to the point where you discuss moving players who have just started to blossom into their primes) can be had, and not guys like Rahimi and White.

You're ignoring so many variables and coming to a complete definitive, final conclusion, not allowing for any sort of other possibilities. It's ridiculous. These armchair GM threads are getting tedious when so many posters don't know the value of the picks and prospects. There are no scouting reports, there are no fiscal directives, there is only what you and other posters perceive. You do not take into account a lot of outside variables.
Look, the point here is that someone is leaving the Sharks, whether we like it or not. At the very least, one of Nabby, Clowe, or Marleau is gone next year. If it were up to me, I'd rather lose someone and get something back in return, instead of letting UFAs go for nothing.

I keep mentioning the Ehrhoff trade because it is a pure salary dump. You don't get value back for salary dumps when other teams recognize the position you are in. Trying to trade Huskins would basically be the same thing. Why is that so controversial?

tarlinian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2010, 09:09 PM
  #69
thestonedkoala
Everyone! PANIC!
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 18,255
vCash: 500
oh God no. I like Clowe but rather have the 9th spot than anything.

thestonedkoala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2010, 09:50 PM
  #70
Gilligans Island
Registered User
 
Gilligans Island's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: SF/Bay Area
Posts: 7,848
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BP Mites View Post
The Sharks would need to add considerably to Clowe if the Wild was trading Burns.
I wouldn't agree with "considerably" - probably adding a 2nd or a mid-level prospect (D - Joslin or Moore or Fwd - Zalewski or Ferreiro) should do it.

Gilligans Island is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2010, 09:55 PM
  #71
Thepainter
Registered User
 
Thepainter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Bay Area, California
Country: United States
Posts: 5,149
vCash: 500
Pavelski stays, no questions ask. He will get a contract from DW. Clowe stays too. Thornton will get dealt before Clowe.

The OP is out of his mind. Can't believe this came from a Sharks fan.

Thepainter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2010, 10:00 PM
  #72
OnTheFence
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 449
vCash: 500
Err... someone want to explain why we would want to trade one of our biggest playoff performers (Clowe) for prospects that may or may not even be as good as Ryane?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jray42 View Post
no he couldnt
A big top 6 foward that can get 50+ points a year as well as fight and be a monster along the boards can't get at least a top 15 pick? But still, unless it's a top 4 defensemen I wouldn't be interested if I was DW.

All these underpayments has Ryane saying, "You want me? You want me? You're ****ing dead!"

OnTheFence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2010, 10:51 PM
  #73
Kitten Mittons
Registered User
 
Kitten Mittons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Francisco
Country: Armenia
Posts: 47,357
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarlinian View Post
For example, I think that Petrecki+Clowe+Zalewski/Ferriero for the 15th pick (I'm not sure who that currently is), would be reasonable.
I am speechless. This deal would never happen but I am still furious!


Kitten Mittons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2010, 11:35 PM
  #74
tarlinian
Registered User
 
tarlinian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Pasadena, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,162
vCash: 500
For all the Sharks fans upset at my various proposals, what exactly do you think the Sharks will do about their cap issues next year?

As far as I can tell, it's at least two of the following things:

Trade Pavs/Clowe/Seto/Murray/Vlasic
Let Marleau walk
Let Nabokov walk
Replace Blake with a rookie on a cheap (<$1M) ELC.

(Note that these are just the technical possibilities, not necessarily my suggestions.)

If it were up to me, the Sharks would trade roster players, rather than simply letting them walk away for nothing when there isn't a somewhat half-decent replacement in the wings.

I believe that Greiss can be a half-decent replacement for Nabby, and McGinn can be a half-decent replacement for Clowe. Marleau on the other hand doesn't have anything close to a replacement in the wings, despite everyone's sudden willingness to toss him under the bus as a "choker". (He's actually produced in the playoffs before, and is just as "proven" a playoff performer as anyone else on the roster.)

If your issues are with value on proposed trades, that's a different matter, but the idea that trading away any roster player in the off-season is stupid just doesn't make sense to me.

tarlinian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2010, 11:47 PM
  #75
Doug19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Columbus, OH
Country: Aland Islands
Posts: 6,123
vCash: 50
If Howson had the balls he'd be making a phone call for a deal centered around Thornton and the #4 pick

Doug19 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 04:42 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.