HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Columbus Blue Jackets
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Columbus and Vancouver talking trade

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-02-2010, 02:02 AM
  #101
Gulvorn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Ohio St/Cincy/Dayton
Country: United States
Posts: 4,578
vCash: 500
If we get Bieska it better not include giving up Nash, Voracek, Vermette, Brassard, Filatov, Umberger, Hejda, Mason, Moore, Calvert, or Savard. I don't like Bieska's contract, it basically just looks like Commodore's except possibly worse. Ernhoff is the better deal, so if Howson can't get Ernhoff without giving up the above listed players then he should just sit tight with our current defense or look elsewhere.

Gulvorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2010, 02:05 AM
  #102
Lord of Light
Sacrifice Benning
 
Lord of Light's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,542
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBJBrassard16 View Post
IF we do this trade I lose all respect for Howson and I would want him fired.
This is exactly how I feel with trading Ehrhoff... In our eyes he is our core and with Salo off the books next season it's a guarantee that we will resign him without any problem next season.

How reliable is this source? I can see a trade develop between you and us but on our boards everyone is discussing Bieksa for Filatov (hey anything can happen, (Ehrhoff for Rahimi and 2nd/White), while you guys would love to add Ehrhoff which will be a very bad move on our part. so.... one side will be very unhappy assuming the source is correct

Lord of Light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2010, 02:55 AM
  #103
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 22,979
vCash: 50
You guys won't want to pay what it will take (1sts and/or elite prospects) to pry Ehrhoff out of Van and to be honest we don't want to trade him.

OTOH Bieksa won't cost you a prime prospect. I imagine Gillis is looking for something like a cheap, quality bottom 6 player and a decent pick (2nd-4th) range depending on the player coming. Maybe some weak picks and prospect from either side to round it out.

me2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2010, 03:00 AM
  #104
CBJWennberg41
Me when I watch CBJ
 
CBJWennberg41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 16,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2 View Post
You guys won't want to pay what it will take (1sts and/or elite prospects) to pry Ehrhoff out of Van and to be honest we don't want to trade him.

OTOH Bieksa won't cost you a prime prospect. I imagine Gillis is looking for something like a cheap, quality bottom 6 player and a decent pick (2nd-4th) range depending on the player coming. Maybe some weak picks and prospect from either side to round it out.
Would Chris Clark interest the Canucks?

CBJWennberg41 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2010, 03:00 AM
  #105
Gulvorn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Ohio St/Cincy/Dayton
Country: United States
Posts: 4,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2 View Post
You guys won't want to pay what it will take (1sts and/or elite prospects) to pry Ehrhoff out of Van and to be honest we don't want to trade him.

OTOH Bieksa won't cost you a prime prospect. I imagine Gillis is looking for something like a cheap, quality bottom 6 player and a decent pick (2nd-4th) rage depending on the player coming. Maybe some weak picks and prospect from either side to round it out.
I'm still not really sure where the crap Bieksa would play...

We have to play Strahlman because he is the only guy who can run the power play. We have to play Russell because he finally seems to be breaking out. Hejda is our best defensive defender. And you can't not play your highest paid defenders in Tyutin, Klesla, and Commodore.

It just doesn't make sense for the Jackets to trade to get ANOTHER #3-#4, maybe even bottom pairing defensemen in Bieska. We have basically 4-5 of them already. We need a #1 defensemen, which I think is the same situation the Canucks are in, although Ernhoff is probably better then all our defenders overall, but that's also the reason Vancouver doesn't want to get rid of him, although that's the reason we are interested...

It's kind of like when we say we want to trade to get a #1 center, and then everyone tries to give offer us a #2 center and we're supposed to pretend that a 60 point center on a good team is supposed to become a #1 center scoring 80+ points on a team that finished 27th in the league?

Well I don't really believe that Bieska would really do much of anything for the team defensively...He has a huge contract that would probably prevent us from resigning both Boll and Strahlman, not to mention we don't really have anywhere to put him that I can see. A trade for Ernhoff would make a lot more sense from our perspective, though I realize we would have to give up more to get him. But like I said, we have a lot of wingers and some decent prospects so it just depends on what the Canucks want to do.

Gulvorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2010, 04:00 AM
  #106
MFRONE
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Sheffield Lake, OH
Country: United States
Posts: 7,558
vCash: 500
How is Bieska's contract worse then Commodore's? Bieska has only 1 year left on his deal that pays him $300,000 less/season

MFRONE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2010, 04:16 AM
  #107
Bieksallent
Registered User
 
Bieksallent's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,755
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBJBrassard16 View Post
Would Chris Clark interest the Canucks?
No, but if you wanna throw Filatov our way, we'll take him (Clark) off your hands gladly.

Bieksallent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2010, 04:35 AM
  #108
Respect Your Edler
Thank You 52
 
Respect Your Edler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: China
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,221
vCash: 500
Canucks would probably want useful 3rd liners. I also don't get the salary/role BS that I'm reading. Nobody on your defence has ever hit 40 points. Bieksa has done it twice and he has one year left at 3.75m. That's not a huge commitment and it could help you make the playoffs next year. The asking price isn't going to be Filatov either, it's a 3rd liner who's not an albatross and picks to even it out. Gillis won't have a problem finding a taker, but this is a pretty good opportunity for CBJ. Also gives you a chance to re-sign him if it's a good fit, without having to pay through the nose for a guy who's already signed longterm. It's pretty much a win-win, provided you have the 3rd liner we are looking for.

Respect Your Edler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2010, 06:14 AM
  #109
Brassard Calder
Registered User
 
Brassard Calder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 3,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gulvorn View Post
I don't like Bieska's contract, it basically just looks like Commodore's except possibly worse.
Huh? Uhhhhh What!? Commodore is signed for the next 3 seasons at 300K more than Bieksa. Bieksa will be a free agent after next season. And when's the last time Commodore had a 40 point season? That's right never. He's never even had a 30 point season. Comparing their contracts is laughable.

Brassard Calder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2010, 06:18 AM
  #110
Brassard Calder
Registered User
 
Brassard Calder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 3,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Respect Your Edler View Post
Canucks would probably want useful 3rd liners. I also don't get the salary/role BS that I'm reading. Nobody on your defence has ever hit 40 points. Bieksa has done it twice and he has one year left at 3.75m. That's not a huge commitment and it could help you make the playoffs next year. The asking price isn't going to be Filatov either, it's a 3rd liner who's not an albatross and picks to even it out. Gillis won't have a problem finding a taker, but this is a pretty good opportunity for CBJ. Also gives you a chance to re-sign him if it's a good fit, without having to pay through the nose for a guy who's already signed longterm. It's pretty much a win-win, provided you have the 3rd liner we are looking for.
Couldn't agree more. This is our chance to add a solid dman with an all around game to our blueline, and we should be able to acquire him without giving up much. And he doesn't have an albatross contract so there's nothing to worry about in terms of money. Seems like a no-brainer to trade for him, which is why I'm beginning to feel almost positive it wont happen.

Brassard Calder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2010, 06:26 AM
  #111
Skraut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Enter city here
Posts: 10,364
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBJBrassard16 View Post
IF we do this trade I lose all respect for Howson and I would want him fired.
As the biggest Howson cheerleader around, I totally agree with you.

Skraut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2010, 06:32 AM
  #112
Skraut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Enter city here
Posts: 10,364
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hodgson View Post
How reliable is this source? I can see a trade develop between you and us but on our boards everyone is discussing Bieksa for Filatov (hey anything can happen, (Ehrhoff for Rahimi and 2nd/White), while you guys would love to add Ehrhoff which will be a very bad move on our part. so.... one side will be very unhappy assuming the source is correct
As unreliable as they come for a beat reporter.
  • Spent 2 months writing in every article that Kevin Dineen was the frontrunner for our new head coaching job. Then the Jackets hire Scott Arniel.
  • Announced that we had drafted Gormley, when we had drafted Johanssen.
  • Listed 2 possible candidates for an assistant coaching position, and we hire a third.

and that's just in the past few weeks.

He's almost become Eklund-ish. Whenever he mentions something will happen, we all just assume the opposite will happen.

The problem is legitimate media in other cities assume the Columbus beat reporters maintain the same journalistic integrity that their own staff has, and just re-print his rumors citing him as the source, and assume it is good.


Last edited by Skraut: 07-02-2010 at 06:37 AM.
Skraut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2010, 06:38 AM
  #113
FiveHole23
Registered User
 
FiveHole23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 1,501
vCash: 500
Dispatch said Filatov for Bieska is that a joke?

FiveHole23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2010, 06:44 AM
  #114
Matt Foley
Meh
 
Matt Foley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Meh Meh
Posts: 2,151
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBJrumble View Post
Dispatch said Filatov for Bieska is that a joke?
If that was the deal then it the joke would definitely be on us fans. Moving Filatov for a middling defenseman who could skip town after next season would be foolish, to put it kindly.

That said, I think Portzline's just reading the Alpha-Bits in his cereal bowl here.

Matt Foley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2010, 06:46 AM
  #115
pete goegan
HFBoards Sponsor
 
pete goegan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 12,380
vCash: 500
I don't mind adding Bieksa, but I see no reason why it should cost Filatov. If the 'Nucks are looking for low-cost, third line wingers, we've got several possibilities - though most of them are currently fourth liners for us because we're paying too much for our "experienced" third line! Guys like Blunden, Murray, McKenzie, and Boll (in some combination) might be enough.

pete goegan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2010, 06:48 AM
  #116
NFITO
hockeyinsanity*****
 
NFITO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,933
vCash: 500
some feedback from a Canuck POV:

- Ehrhoff won't be on the trade block. He was a huge part of the Canucks success last year, and an excellent trade done by Gillis who addressed our team needs perfectly. Gillis is trying to build a contender, and you don't do that by trading away a guy who was a perfect fit on this team. I would be shocked if Gillis hasn't already contacted his agent looking to get him extended.... he is a huge part of the team and isn't going anywhere.

- Bieksa is obviously on the block. I'm actually surprised by the amount of love he's getting here. He is coming off a horrible season and hasn't really been that good since he signed his current contract. Even when he's put up points, he's been a liability more often then not - such as these past playoffs, when he did put up points, but was the worst dman on the Canucks. Not surprised to see him in trade rumours now - he is not a fit on the Canucks team anymore.

- the good in Bieksa though is that he still has some potential. When he's playing his reckless style and has a good defensive dman to cover for him (Columbus would have to play Hejda next to him), he could be good... but I don't think he rebounds in Vancouver. A contract year in a less pressure environment where he can again be a team's top or top-2 offensive dman, and maybe he rebounds.

- I don't buy the Filatov talk at all... Bieksa simply isn't worth that much... my guess is that he's gone to the team that offers the best pkg of picks/prospects without salary coming back. Face value, I'd say that's a 2nd round pick and we're all happy! But reality could be that with teams losing out on FA dmen, and people looking at the stats page and seeing a 40+ point dman, who's got a mean streak and right handed shot, his value gets inflated. I can't see it getting to Filatov level, but wouldn't surprise me if his return is a 2nd+ decent prospect or another pick.

- From a Canuck POV, I don't think that Filatov addresses a need anyways... though the value seems so off you make the deal and then figure out how to make it fit. But I don't see Gillis looking for a top-6 type player in return since the Canucks top-6 is set already and he said he moved Grabner because there wasn't a fit for him there... can't see that fit for Filatov now... though again, value is so off you make the deal if Howson is crazy enough to offer it. Having said that, while the deal looks ridiculous in value, it should be noted that Nashville asked for Hodgson+1st at the trade deadline for Hamhuis, who was a rental player... so maybe Filatov is worth Bieksa on the market... as Canuck fans, we can only dream!

- The Canucks would have no interest at all in Commodore, nor any in Umberger either. Umberger is a nice player but does not fit at all salary wise... again the Canucks top-6 is set and they've just added a $2.5mill 3rd line center. Besides, I can't see Gillis bringing in Umberger to Vancouver after locking up Kesler long-term... their rivalry is obvious and the history is too long now to mess with that. Can't see them working together well on the same team.

With that said, if there's no other interest for Bieksa around the league, offer a 2nd rounder for him and we'll call it a day. Just don't come running back to us when he frustrates you to no end and you can't wait to upgrade to a more reliable dman next offseason. Bieksa has turned into the king of frustrating plays at the worst times... but hey, he can put points up, play on your PP and growl once in a while to make it look like he's got a mean streak.... oh and he can definitely fight... no one does the superman punch better than Bieksa.

NFITO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2010, 06:56 AM
  #117
Skraut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Enter city here
Posts: 10,364
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
If that was the deal then it the joke would definitely be on us fans. Moving Filatov for a middling defenseman who could skip town after next season would be foolish, to put it kindly.

That said, I think Portzline's just reading the Alpha-Bits in his cereal bowl here.
yeah, if we were going to throw Filatov away like that, I'd much rather have Kaberle.

Skraut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2010, 07:01 AM
  #118
Skraut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Enter city here
Posts: 10,364
vCash: 500
Nuckfan:

Thanks for your insite. I'll admit to being stunned by opening up Puck Daddy's page this morning and seeing the Filatov for Bieksa rumor, and being pissed off. First at the preposterous thought of it, secondly at the Dispatch beat reporters for turning into Eklund that other media markets trust.

If there's one thing Columbus has an abundance of, it is 3rd and 4th line wingers. Take your pick. Special today only, buy one, get your very own collectors edition Jared Boll for free.

Skraut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2010, 07:08 AM
  #119
Nanabijou
Booooooooooone
 
Nanabijou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,788
vCash: 500
Thanks for the insight Nuckfan.

My guess is that Howson really wants Ehrhoff and I could see him offering up Filatov for him. I would hope not for Bieska.

At the end of the day, we are likely up against our internal salary cap. So if we were going to offer a prospect/pick for Bieska, we'd have to have a deal in place to dump salary somewhere else, one would think.

Nanabijou is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2010, 07:19 AM
  #120
NFITO
hockeyinsanity*****
 
NFITO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,933
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nanabijou View Post
Thanks for the insight Nuckfan.

My guess is that Howson really wants Ehrhoff and I could see him offering up Filatov for him. I would hope not for Bieska.

At the end of the day, we are likely up against our internal salary cap. So if we were going to offer a prospect/pick for Bieska, we'd have to have a deal in place to dump salary somewhere else, one would think.
can't see Gillis making that trade. Again, the Canucks are a contender right now and aren't loading up their roster to move a key player like Ehrhoff, especially for a return that doesn't address a team need.

And besides, I also can't see him being too high on Filatov... he made a comment when he first got here that he was not high on drafting Russians because of the KHL factor... he's also said recently that he was able to deal Grabner because there was no room for him in the top-6, while he was not the type he wants in the bottom-6.

If Filatov really is moved for someone like Bieksa, my guess is that Columbus knows he'll be too difficult to deal with and there's too high a chance he ends up in the KHL... and such an asset doesn't do much for the Canucks, especially for their most valuable defender.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skraut View Post

If there's one thing Columbus has an abundance of, it is 3rd and 4th line wingers. Take your pick. Special today only, buy one, get your very own collectors edition Jared Boll for free.
I don't see anything of interest there though... the Canucks don't have the cap flexibility to add overpaid bottom-6ers like Clark... they have no need now for Pahlsson after giving Malhotra that contract... and the rest of the guys are just fringe 4th line types, which the Canucks can just as easily get in FA.

I think a draft pick/prospect will turn out better... Columbus could then drop their salary elsewhere.

with their recent signings, the Canucks bottom-6 looks like this as of now:

Hansen-Malhotra-Hodgson
Tambellini-Rypien-Oreskovich
Hordichuk; Perreault

And Glass is a possibility to re-sign as well... Hordichuk likely being waived. Perreault will probably end up in Manitoba.

NFITO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2010, 07:20 AM
  #121
BluejacketNut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,670
vCash: 500
Thats what sucks most about this team....we only 'have' to dump salary because ownership wont pay it...we wont be at the cap so we really dont have to at all, so adding Bieska for a pick and low prospect to improve the teams defense (Bieska>Methot) should be a no brainer...specially with the contract up this year

BluejacketNut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2010, 07:29 AM
  #122
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Blue Jacket's Curse
 
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 12,394
vCash: 500
I beat the Ehrhoff drum all last summer -- and CBJ could've gotten him too if ownership were willing to eat the Brad Lukowich contract with it. Canucks got him for peanuts.

I'd love to get him now, but Vancouver would be dumb to move him.

Bieksa would be welcome if for no other reason than its a change and he still has some promise. Hope the cost isn't too high. As skeptical as I remain about Filatov, if he's going to be traded I think they can fetch something better for him ... that said, the last time Howson seemingly overpaid for a multi-tooled but underwhelming on-the-outs-with-his-fans dman by giving up a flashy but unreliable young Russian ... well CBJ got the better end of that deal.

Just sayin.

Depth forward and pick of some sort?
Then turn around and try to move a dman.

KallioWeHardlyKnewYe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2010, 07:32 AM
  #123
LickTheEnvelope
6th Overall Blows
 
LickTheEnvelope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 28,381
vCash: 500
As a Canuck fan I think Boll + some pick coming back for Bieksa would be about right.

Bieksa when not freakishly getting his legs cut open is actually quite good offensively, and tough as nails. Sadly he is not the quickest skater and can get beat... but he is a 5-10 goal 3rd or 4th dman with a mean streak.

EDIT:

Also CBJ would either be stupid to move Filatov, or have to have been assured he wont come back over to play for them I would suspect.

LickTheEnvelope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2010, 07:37 AM
  #124
General Saad
Registered User
 
General Saad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,546
vCash: 500
I really like what Howson has done with the Jackets,he has built alot of depth that will start to make its impact with the Jackets , this year. That being said, if we are honestly offering Filatov for Bieska, and this trade occurs, I hope Howson is fired on the spot. I could see Filatov and another asset for Erhoff. Although I would really like to keep Filatov. I'm praying this is Portie as his normal clueless self. What pisses me off is that other sites use Portie as a source, and rumors like this take off.

General Saad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-02-2010, 07:39 AM
  #125
Nanabijou
Booooooooooone
 
Nanabijou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,788
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuckfan in TO View Post
can't see Gillis making that trade. Again, the Canucks are a contender right now and aren't loading up their roster to move a key player like Ehrhoff, especially for a return that doesn't address a team need.
Fair enough and I wouldn't trade Ehrhoff if I was Gillis either. I'm only speculating, because we heard Howson made a play for Ehrhoff last year. Howson is the type of guy that picks out certain people and waits patiently until there is a chance he can get them (see Vermette, Antoine). After Ehrhoff's year last year, I'm sure that man-crush even increased.

This is all speculation, but I could see Howson saying something like:

'You're close to the cap and you have too many D. We'll gladly take Ehrhoff off your hands and we'll give you a top prospect (Filatov) and draft pick to get it done'.

Gillis' reply: 'Nice offer Scott, but let's chat about Bieska instead...'

Nanabijou 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 01:05 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.