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.

A few Brian Campbell ideas

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-02-2011, 11:16 AM
  #51
coldsteelonice84
Registered User
 
coldsteelonice84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 25,635
vCash: 10592
Quote:
Originally Posted by sabres_phan View Post
I get why you'd say that, but it seems to me like Chicago will need to overpay to get rid of that contract. Roy is actually signed to a cap-friendly deal and Buffalo is trying to add good centers, not get swap them out for other good centers. Sharp is UFA July 1, 2012 which is why I thought Chicago might be willing to bite.

At the end of the day, Soupy's contract is almost untradeable.
Sharp also has probably the best contract in the NHL. Granted, it only has a year left on it, but Sharp is more than sweetener.

coldsteelonice84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2011, 11:21 AM
  #52
TSA0402
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanlinden View Post

Campbell's defence has improved because of the team he plays on. Whether that carries over to another team is a complete unknown. Expecting a decline at 33 is perfectly reasonable, that's what happens after a player's prime which usually occurs in their mid-late 20s.
Let me get this straight.
32 years old : Tail end of prime but still playing some of best hockey
33 years old : Play drops reasonably from prime years.

I find that hard to believe. I agree around maybe 35 or 36 Campbell will reasonably not be quite as agile however will become more seasoned and more of a veteran presence and still pass just as well.

TSA0402 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2011, 11:49 AM
  #53
coldsteelonice84
Registered User
 
coldsteelonice84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 25,635
vCash: 10592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gudbransson4Prez View Post
Brian Campbell for Rostislav Olesz
Most logical solution. Give me a scouting report on him from a Panther fan POV.

coldsteelonice84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2011, 02:30 PM
  #54
Jamin
Registered User
 
Jamin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,922
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by fightingbooya View Post
I am sure the GM of Edmonton would, yes the contract isn't the best, but he was the best defenseman Chicago had for a large majority of the year and would go a long ways towards solidifying the back-end. He is a dynamic player that can change the way Chicago plays because of the offense he brings with. I would think Chicago would laugh if this was proposed to them as they don't have to get rid of Campbell.
You should watch more oiler games then

Jamin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2011, 02:32 PM
  #55
Jamin
Registered User
 
Jamin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,922
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dazed and Confused View Post
Personally I wouldn't be so quick to jump to that. Yes Campbell's contract is hideous and worse than Horcoff's, but Campbell is the better player and would bring an added element to Edmonton's attack. Also with Edmonton's paranoia of cap space, bringing on a contract like Campbell's, especially if the cap goes up another few mil before summer 2013, wouldn't be a massive issue.


Hall-RNH-Eberle
Paajarvi-Gagner-Hemsky(Omark)
Jones-Fiddler-Dvorak

Whitney-Campbell
Smid-Gilbert

Plus with there really being no one in the Edmonton system who plays a similar game to Campbell's, he's not likely to be usurped and thus the team can retain some value from him.

Chicago on the other hand gets a player with less term and smaller cap hit, and gives them the depth to move Sharp to wing permanently. Also a group of centres of Toews, Horcoff, Bolland is going to be a tough one for teams to match up against, as all three can step up into the shutdown role.



So would there be any interest in Chicago for a trade with the base of Horcoff for Campbell?
I didnt think it was possible to make the oilers weaker down the middle

Jamin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2011, 02:33 PM
  #56
Puckface NYR*
R.I.P. Boogyman
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Long Island
Posts: 8,167
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldsteelonice84 View Post
Replace Boyes with Roy and it's still not good enough, but it's a start.
Roy > Sharp and i love sharp

Puckface NYR* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2011, 03:32 PM
  #57
vipernsx
Flatus Expeller
 
vipernsx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 6,518
vCash: 566
Hows about...

Campbell & Kane

for

Vanek, Buffalo's 1st, & Tyler Ennnis

vipernsx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2011, 03:37 PM
  #58
ct2111
Registered User
 
ct2111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,901
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vipernsx View Post
Hows about...

Campbell & Kane

for

Vanek, Buffalo's 1st, & Tyler Ennnis
How about no.

ct2111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2011, 03:49 PM
  #59
Isles_Guy*
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: long Island
Posts: 6,237
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to Isles_Guy*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarava View Post
He had the 10th best +/- in the NHL and the best on the Hawks with a +28 this year. He's not bad by any stretch. He is a top 2 defensemen on most teams and the #3 on the Hawks. His game has adapated to a more defensive role over the last couple years with the Hawks, due to Duncan Keith taking over as the team's go to PMD. So his point totals have been way down, while his overall play has remained about the same.

As for Gomez...wow that one is interesting. He has two less years remaining than Campbell does, but his game has deteriorated to a point of being nearly useless, unlike Campbell. Montreal would probably have to add some nice prospects or picks to get the Hawks to consider it. I could see the Hawks possibly doing it for the right package. Does Gomez have a NMC or NTC? If not I could see them potentially burying him after next season when Huet's contract is over.
ridiculous

No GM in the league wants Campbell. NONE. last year Bowman was motivated because of cap issues and was forced to tear apart a Stanley Cup winner because nobody would touch that contract.

Those are the facts, he tried to move Campbell then but nobody wanted him at that cost... Maybe in a year, most likely 2 years, but not now unless they add quite a bit

Campbell IS the definition of negative value

Isles_Guy* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2011, 03:55 PM
  #60
Snowhawk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 303
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wraith985 View Post
If Buffalo wasn't willing to pay $7 million/year to keep Brian Campbell when he was at the peak of his game, why on earth would they do it now?
Not sure they would however, they do have new owner with deep pockets.

Snowhawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2011, 04:30 PM
  #61
Jimmy Carter
Avs/Leafs fan
 
Jimmy Carter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Western NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,244
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bacon View Post
To Chicago: Brad Boyes
To Buffalo: Brian Campbell

To Chicago: Milan Michalek
To Ottawa: Brian Campbell

To Chicago: Paul Stastny
To Colorado: Brian Campbell, 2011 1st


To Chicago: Michal Rozsival, Lee Stempniak, Paul Bissonette
To Phoenix: Brian Campbell, 2011 3rd


All trades can be tweaked with picks or proespects as needed.
In addition to the value being off here, why on earth would Colorado want to trade a center for a PMD? They already have Liles, plus a few more challenging for spots for next year. PMD is the last thing Colorado needs more of.

Jimmy Carter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2011, 04:37 PM
  #62
seanlinden
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 18,103
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TSA0402 View Post
Let me get this straight.
32 years old : Tail end of prime but still playing some of best hockey
33 years old : Play drops reasonably from prime years.

I find that hard to believe. I agree around maybe 35 or 36 Campbell will reasonably not be quite as agile however will become more seasoned and more of a veteran presence and still pass just as well.
This really shouldn't be so difficult to understand. Players generally peak in their mid-late 20s and decline from there. The specific age at which point players decline, and the rate at which they decline tends to vary on a player-by-player basis, but those who are beyond 30 can be reasonably assumed to decline somewhat going forward.

seanlinden is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2011, 05:36 PM
  #63
Luck 6
\\_______
 
Luck 6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 7,292
vCash: 500
How about this?

TO NYR:
Campbell
2nd 2011

TO CHI:
Drury
Boogard


Campbell is still a very good defenseman who would greatly improve New Yorks PP. New York can use him for a few years, and then just bury him if he loses effectiveness. In 3 years Redden's contract will be out the window, and I imagine Campbell will be an effective player for the next 3-4 years or so, so this could work. New York needs a good puck mover in the offseason anyways.

Chicago has to take on Drury for a year, and that awful Boogard contract for 4 years, but it's still better in the long run than Campbell for 5 years.

Luck 6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2011, 07:03 PM
  #64
Central PA Hawk Fan
Registered User
 
Central PA Hawk Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: York, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,948
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luck 6 View Post
How about this?

TO NYR:
Campbell
2nd 2011

TO CHI:
Drury
Boogard


Campbell is still a very good defenseman who would greatly improve New Yorks PP. New York can use him for a few years, and then just bury him if he loses effectiveness. In 3 years Redden's contract will be out the window, and I imagine Campbell will be an effective player for the next 3-4 years or so, so this could work. New York needs a good puck mover in the offseason anyways.

Chicago has to take on Drury for a year, and that awful Boogard contract for 4 years, but it's still better in the long run than Campbell for 5 years.
No way, that is a terrible deal for Chicago. I'm not sure why Hawks fans are so concerened moving forward, our cap hell year was this past season, it only gets better from here on out in terms of the Cap, last offseason was the season to move Campbell, now there is almost no point, you're giving up a great player whom you'll still have to replace with someone so there goes some of the cap space savings. I've been saying on the Hawks board, the actual cap space you're going to save to use on players in that price range aren't going to have the impact Campbell will.

Central PA Hawk Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2011, 08:01 PM
  #65
vipernsx
Flatus Expeller
 
vipernsx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 6,518
vCash: 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luck 6 View Post
How about this?

TO NYR:
Campbell
2nd 2011

TO CHI:
Drury
Boogard


Campbell is still a very good defenseman who would greatly improve New Yorks PP. New York can use him for a few years, and then just bury him if he loses effectiveness. In 3 years Redden's contract will be out the window, and I imagine Campbell will be an effective player for the next 3-4 years or so, so this could work. New York needs a good puck mover in the offseason anyways.

Chicago has to take on Drury for a year, and that awful Boogard contract for 4 years, but it's still better in the long run than Campbell for 5 years.
No, NYR has a solid defense and a logjam of defensive youth. We get rid of Drury's contract after one more year we don't want Campbell's for several more.

Boogard took a punch and has been concussed ever since, for a toughguy, that's a bad thing, if he can't take a punch without being concussed again, he needs to consider retirement because he's not getting paid to score, if not he'll be joining Redden in the minors. His contract is a null factor. NY has ZERO interest in Campbell.

vipernsx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2011, 08:09 PM
  #66
Sterling31
Takin' Over
 
Sterling31's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oshawa, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,432
vCash: 500
NJ-BRIAN RAFALSKI + 1st (CHI)
DET-BRIAN CAMPBELL
CHI-DAVID CLARKSON + ALEX URBOM

Sterling31 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2011, 08:14 PM
  #67
Isles_Guy*
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: long Island
Posts: 6,237
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to Isles_Guy*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Central PA Hawk Fan View Post
No way, that is a terrible deal for Chicago. I'm not sure why Hawks fans are so concerened moving forward, our cap hell year was this past season, it only gets better from here on out in terms of the Cap, last offseason was the season to move Campbell, now there is almost no point, you're giving up a great player whom you'll still have to replace with someone so there goes some of the cap space savings. I've been saying on the Hawks board, the actual cap space you're going to save to use on players in that price range aren't going to have the impact Campbell will.
it may be a terrible deal for Chicago but its worse for the rangers.
36M for a steadily declining defenseman,

Chicago would be nuts not to take that

Campbell has the worst contact by far in hockey and Lacavalier is 2nd, neither is going anywhere this offseason Without adding something very enticing

Isles_Guy* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2011, 08:51 PM
  #68
RicoMartin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 33
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldsteelonice84 View Post
Replace Boyes with Roy and it's still not good enough, but it's a start.
There are 2 scenarios that make a trade between Buffalo and Chicago work:

1) Campbell is placed on recallable waivers and when he is recalled, Buffalo puts in a claim to pay him half the contract and Chicago eats the rest;

2) Campbell, Kane and Crawford are traded to Buffalo for Miller, Boyes, Morrison and Buffalo's 1st pick this year....or something along those lines;

Option 1 is much more likely, especially if after Buffalo take on Campbell, Chicago agrees to take on Morrison's contract for a 7th pick.

RicoMartin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2011, 08:53 PM
  #69
Whatthehellwasthat
I am defense
 
Whatthehellwasthat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Columbus
Country: United States
Posts: 107
vCash: 500
How about something like Commodore for Campbell am not sure if values right since I don't do this much so let me know how close I am

Whatthehellwasthat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2011, 08:56 PM
  #70
coldsteelonice84
Registered User
 
coldsteelonice84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 25,635
vCash: 10592
Quote:
Originally Posted by RicoMartin View Post
There are 2 scenarios that make a trade between Buffalo and Chicago work:

1) Campbell is placed on recallable waivers and when he is recalled, Buffalo puts in a claim to pay him half the contract and Chicago eats the rest;

2) Campbell, Kane and Crawford are traded to Buffalo for Miller, Boyes, Morrison and Buffalo's 1st pick this year....or something along those lines;

Option 1 is much more likely, especially if after Buffalo take on Campbell, Chicago agrees to take on Morrison's contract for a 7th pick.
Yeah right. Kane isn't going anywhere. If we ever did trade Kane, it would be only to Buffalo and for about double his actual value, which is way higher than you seem to understand. Everybody knows what Kane would mean to Buffalo. If it were to happen this offseason, discussions would start at Myers and Roy, with the Sabres adding another piece and you guys just getting Kane.

coldsteelonice84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2011, 08:58 PM
  #71
coldsteelonice84
Registered User
 
coldsteelonice84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 25,635
vCash: 10592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whatthehellwasthat View Post
How about something like Commodore for Campbell am not sure if values right since I don't do this much so let me know how close I am
Yes, actualy value wise that is a good deal in terms of the NHL market. Basically Campbell for nothing, and given that Columbus has a hard time attracting top players and their current core wants them to make a splash this offseason, it makes sense. It would come down to whether or not Campbell would waive his NTC. Honestly, I see no problem with the Hawks and Jackets doing a trade like this, even though they are in the same division. Good proposal.

coldsteelonice84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2011, 09:17 PM
  #72
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,000
vCash: 500
edmonton would be smart to consider something like campbell/chicago first for horcorff/gilbert/cogliano

it never hurts to get a first round pick for a rebuilding team... and despite campbells horrific contract, he would be one of edmonton's 2 best dmen for the next 3-4 years. the team is gearing up to be an offensive jugernaught with all that explosive talent up front and having a slick puckmover like campbell to complicment whitney would be sweet.

as for chicago... they get a really amazingly good 3rd line center to shore up their middle. hes as badly overpaid as campbell. gilbert probably is way better then he has played in edmonton the last couple years. a guy that needs a change of scenery and a chance to blend into a team where hes just expected to be a 3/4 guy. cogliano needs a change of scenery himself and gives chicago an affordable scoring depth guy for their next couple attempts at a cup win.

when you subtract out a couple useless guys currently employed by chicago and campbell and then add the three useful bodies incoming... the cap hit is about negative for chicago.

make it happen

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2011, 10:22 PM
  #73
Kagee*
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,094
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by phlocky View Post
Only on HF does a quality player with a somewhat questionable contract like Campbell have negative trade value.

I think it's safe to say that MANY teams would love to have him and his "bloated contract" on their playoff team and be willing to give up something significant to aquire him.
Ok Phlocky who on the flyers would you trade to get him while working with the cap.

most likely retort:

"oh not my team!, but other teams would"
I don't want to be stuck with a $7.14M dollar dman for the 3 more years! While he's falling to injury more as his age slowly creeps up on him.


Last edited by Kagee*: 05-02-2011 at 10:32 PM.
Kagee* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2011, 10:29 PM
  #74
TSA0402
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,214
vCash: 500
Agree with phlocky.

Seriously, do people actually think that Chicago is going to trade an overpaid dman that is close to elite AND a 1st round draft pick for some #4 defenseman being paid like a number 2? It might seem fair because of the length of his contract, but it aint gonna happen. See : Gomez, Scott

TSA0402 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2011, 10:29 PM
  #75
Sarava
Moderator
 
Sarava's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Naperville, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 8,708
vCash: 500
These counter proposals have gotten ridiculous. If the cost of trading campbell is that bad, then the Hawks will just keep him. Kane isnt going anywhere. Certainly not Buffalo, who couldnt possibly come up with a package to match his worth.

Sarava 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 01:32 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.