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.

Stafford to the nucks

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-27-2011, 04:36 PM
  #26
jeffviberg92
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 58
vCash: 500
i dont thin nucks have capspace to sing both Bieksa and erhoff. I can really se erhoff to sabres and nuck keep Bieksa. Sabres are willing to pay 5.5 for him and if nuck have around 10 mil in cap space so no thanks bye bye Erhoff. erhoff can get 6 mil in free agentcy it total 11.5 mil for 2 players. Minimum 10 mil for theme together.

Bieksa MYers lovley pairing , thats the way to beat Bruins and Flyers. Tough guys. Then Kaleta and Kassian in a line. With 2 Fogilnos on the team would be locley to, trade for ottawas nick.

Then we only need a true centerman like statsny . then we are a stanley cup contender. New players next season could be Erhoff or bieksa or wisniwskie. Center paul statsny or richards. and nick fogilno .

jeffviberg92 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2011, 04:38 PM
  #27
thegutter
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 340
vCash: 271
the difference is ballard is still a top 4 d man, rivet is no where close. and canucks wouldnt trade burrows for stafford straight across, 2 diff type of players

thegutter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2011, 04:38 PM
  #28
jeffviberg92
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 58
vCash: 500
MOrrisson sucks, thats why he is burried in the AHL or buyout next season . Ballard is better then him much better but not a shutdown D. and is not worth when you can take much better option in free agentcy wisnevsky would be a steal if he play with myers.

jeffviberg92 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2011, 04:43 PM
  #29
thegutter
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 340
vCash: 271
i think the canucks will do what they have to to get bieksa and erhoff signed

thegutter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2011, 04:49 PM
  #30
jeffviberg92
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 58
vCash: 500
Yeah if you want do have 0 cap space years to come. BAd for hodgson then when hi is RFA and your second keeper. You can take Brad boyes, Jochen Hecht , shaone morrisson for . Then we can Aaron ROme, lack and parent

jeffviberg92 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2011, 05:00 PM
  #31
thegutter
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 340
vCash: 271
are you drinking or is your keyboard ****ed?

thegutter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2011, 05:26 PM
  #32
Luck 6
\\_______
 
Luck 6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 7,288
vCash: 500
No no and no. We're not giving up this sort of package for a guy who has had one good season and is likely looking to cash in as a result. Plus, do you think our prospect cupboard is so full we can afford to give away our last 1st round pick, this years 1st rounder, and a top 4 defenseman for this guy? Terribly thought out proposal. We need to keep draft picks now if we are to maintain a competitive team for years to come, this proposal is nothing short of ridiculous.


Why would we trade Ballard low? You realize as soon as Ballard is gone, Ehrhoff and Bieksa all of a sudden have a lot more leverage, as our defense stock depletes further. Plus, don't you want to see what Ballard can do over a season where he doesn't start it injured, and continue getting injured throughout? This guy is a single season removed from being a great dman, and is entering the typical prime of a dman, it would be STUPID to trade him right now when we have no better optioons.

Luck 6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2011, 05:26 PM
  #33
Evgeni Giroux
Registered User
 
Evgeni Giroux's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,762
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thegutter View Post
are you drinking or is your keyboard ****ed?
I was thinking the same thing, lol

I think he's from sweden


why are the canucks fans talking offseason when the are in the *****ing stanley cup finals?

all the canucks need to do is keep there team intact and they will be a elite team for the next 5-10 years

Evgeni Giroux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2011, 05:30 PM
  #34
Luck 6
\\_______
 
Luck 6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 7,288
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffviberg92 View Post
i dont thin nucks have capspace to sing both Bieksa and erhoff. I can really se erhoff to sabres and nuck keep Bieksa. Sabres are willing to pay 5.5 for him and if nuck have around 10 mil in cap space so no thanks bye bye Erhoff. erhoff can get 6 mil in free agentcy it total 11.5 mil for 2 players. Minimum 10 mil for theme together.

Bieksa MYers lovley pairing , thats the way to beat Bruins and Flyers. Tough guys. Then Kaleta and Kassian in a line. With 2 Fogilnos on the team would be locley to, trade for ottawas nick.

Then we only need a true centerman like statsny . then we are a stanley cup contender. New players next season could be Erhoff or bieksa or wisniwskie. Center paul statsny or richards. and nick fogilno .
What the hell is wrong with your typing?

You do realize that the cap is expected to go up by close to 4mil, right? We can re-sign both Ehrhoff and Bieksa with that money, and we still have a bit more to re-sign Higgins and fill out the rest of the roster.

I'm not posting another Capgeek line-up, as Ive posted too many already for people who don't do the homework themselves before making these stupid claims.

Luck 6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2011, 05:43 PM
  #35
SoFFacet
Registered User
 
SoFFacet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,444
vCash: 500
Thread is full of misinformed bandwagon hype mania. Nothing but fantasy acquisitions of players recently performing well or with big names, and with no regard for the concept of buying low for legit stud players having a down year on a team that needs to clear cap space to keep its stacked D corps intact.

Ballard has been a lockdown #1 pair defender everywhere he has been except this one year where he's been bogged down with injuries. He is exactly who I want the Sabres to trade for, given that Bieksa and Erhoff will be the targets of massive bidding wars and he can be had relatively cheaply since the 'nucks will want to clear space to win said bidding wars.

Also there is zero chance Hamhuis gets moved, he is their best D and the main reason why Bieksa has looked so good (another reason I don't really want Bieksa at the price he will undoubtedly command).

Also there for some reason there is a hypothetical roster in this thread that involved acquiring Stastny for nothing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Luck 6 View Post
What the hell is wrong with your typing?

You do realize that the cap is expected to go up by close to 4mil, right? We can re-sign both Ehrhoff and Bieksa with that money, and we still have a bit more to re-sign Higgins and fill out the rest of the roster.

I'm not posting another Capgeek line-up, as Ive posted too many already for people who don't do the homework themselves before making these stupid claims.
I see this reasoning posted frequently from optimistic Nucks fans... keep in mind, the cap will go up equally for all teams, which means just about anyone with more cap room than you (which describes nearly the entire league) could offer your UFAs more than you can.

SoFFacet is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2011, 05:55 PM
  #36
SoFFacet
Registered User
 
SoFFacet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,444
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luck 6 View Post
No no and no. We're not giving up this sort of package for a guy who has had one good season and is likely looking to cash in as a result. Plus, do you think our prospect cupboard is so full we can afford to give away our last 1st round pick, this years 1st rounder, and a top 4 defenseman for this guy? Terribly thought out proposal. We need to keep draft picks now if we are to maintain a competitive team for years to come, this proposal is nothing short of ridiculous.
Eh, its somewhat of a risky trade both ways. Stafford could be a flash in the pan, Ballard's best days could be behind him. I personally don't want to trade Stafford because in my opinion (just opinion) he will maintain and improve on his level of play from this year. I was thinking something along Butler + futures for Ballard. Vancouver takes a relative downgrade in the player swap in order to gain space (to ensure Bieksa/Erhoff) and picks/prospects (which you were just saying you can't afford to give away, implying you want them?). As long as you guys don't want anything crazy (Kassian, McNabb) we should have the makings of a pretty good deal.

SoFFacet is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2011, 06:05 PM
  #37
keslerburrows
Registered User
 
keslerburrows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Vernon, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,743
vCash: 500
Hodgson for Stafford? I'd take that deal and run. It gets rid of our wealth of center depth and adds/gives Kesler an almost 'elite' winger.

keslerburrows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2011, 06:11 PM
  #38
jeffviberg92
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 58
vCash: 500
Keith Ballard is a good D but i think we can get better via free agentcy. And the think was that nucks fans wanted a trade for Drew Stafford for Keith Ballard straight up. and why should buffalo sabres take on his contract when they can get a better D in free agentcy and not give up stafford.

I think Leopold , Myers , Sekera is better then him. Then we have d like Shaone Morrison, Weber and Butler who isnt it. JAMES WISNIEWSKI would be a better option for sabres. Great points this season just like Leopold. And if we want a number one center we need to keep stafford to have something to trade away. Stafford,Enroth, Gerbe, picks, prospects for a great center. I Know the cap will raise to like 62.200.000 mil per ses or maybe 63 something or minimun 61. But why the **** would Bieksa sign i vancouver for 4 mil when he can get like 6 mil som other place. and i dont think nucks have money to resign two 6 mil D. 12 mil, or maybe 5 mil for each. and if you do you do not have much cap space left anyway.

Sabres not going to give up Stafford who is going for 40 goals next season for a d-men who scores like 8 goals when he is good. then i **** go after another D in free. So the proposal was Stafford, nabby or sekera , 1st round pick for Hodgson and Hamhuis. Sabres do not want Ballard just waist on the cap

jeffviberg92 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2011, 06:16 PM
  #39
AntonRodin*
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,170
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffviberg92 View Post
Keith Ballard is a good D but i think we can get better via free agentcy. And the think was that nucks fans wanted a trade for Drew Stafford for Keith Ballard straight up. and why should buffalo sabres take on his contract when they can get a better D in free agentcy and not give up stafford.

I think Leopold , Myers , Sekera is better then him. Then we have d like Shaone Morrison, Weber and Butler who isnt it. JAMES WISNIEWSKI would be a better option for sabres. Great points this season just like Leopold. And if we want a number one center we need to keep stafford to have something to trade away. Stafford,Enroth, Gerbe, picks, prospects for a great center. I Know the cap will raise to like 62.200.000 mil per ses or maybe 63 something or minimun 61. But why the **** would Bieksa sign i vancouver for 4 mil when he can get like 6 mil som other place. and i dont think nucks have money to resign two 6 mil D. 12 mil, or maybe 5 mil for each. and if you do you do not have much cap space left anyway.

Sabres not going to give up Stafford who is going for 40 goals next season for a d-men who scores like 8 goals when he is good. then i **** go after another D in free. So the proposal was Stafford, nabby or sekera , 1st round pick for Hodgson and Hamhuis. Sabres do not want Ballard just waist on the cap
Bolded 1) Because he wants to win
Bolded 2) Dmen aren't suppose to score goals. According to you, Sabres would not give up Stafford for Lidstrom because Lidstrom scores less than Stafford.

AntonRodin* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2011, 06:18 PM
  #40
ct2111
Registered User
 
ct2111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,901
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffviberg92 View Post
Keith Ballard is a good D but i think we can get better via free agentcy. And the think was that nucks fans wanted a trade for Drew Stafford for Keith Ballard straight up. and why should buffalo sabres take on his contract when they can get a better D in free agentcy and not give up stafford.

I think Leopold , Myers , Sekera is better then him. Then we have d like Shaone Morrison, Weber and Butler who isnt it. JAMES WISNIEWSKI would be a better option for sabres. Great points this season just like Leopold. And if we want a number one center we need to keep stafford to have something to trade away. Stafford,Enroth, Gerbe, picks, prospects for a great center. I Know the cap will raise to like 62.200.000 mil per ses or maybe 63 something or minimun 61. But why the **** would Bieksa sign i vancouver for 4 mil when he can get like 6 mil som other place. and i dont think nucks have money to resign two 6 mil D. 12 mil, or maybe 5 mil for each. and if you do you do not have much cap space left anyway.

Sabres not going to give up Stafford who is going for 40 goals next season for a d-men who scores like 8 goals when he is good. then i **** go after another D in free. So the proposal was Stafford, nabby or sekera , 1st round pick for Hodgson and Hamhuis. Sabres do not want Ballard just waist on the cap
Seriously, just stop.

Wisniewski is not a better option defensively, he's not a shutdown defender whereas Ballard has been that guy in the past. Whether he's able regain his form is another question, but you're selling Wiz's defensive play too high. Plus, I guarantee you he wouldn't be playing with Myers. He's a rightie and he'd be the only rightie after Myers and his play is better suited for the second line in any case. Ballard, on paper, is way better suited to play the shutdown role than Wisniewski is.

ct2111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2011, 06:19 PM
  #41
jeffviberg92
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 58
vCash: 500
And that was i ****ing nice proposal and you just talking about Ballard we do not want him in Sabres. Understand? :S Nabby would be a good d next season. You think you can land top six forwards for a D who have very little trade value ? and who is hurt and gone for many games. Then we miss playoffs because we made this ****ing trade and then we must buy him out and then we lost Stafford and sekera. NO thanks. Only d we want from nucks is Erhoff and Bieksa and we going to land one of theme on July 1st . lets se , im going to laugh when we take one of them. you do not have cap space

jeffviberg92 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2011, 06:20 PM
  #42
mgeise
Registered User
 
mgeise's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Buffalo
Country: United States
Posts: 3,430
vCash: 500
What would the price be for Ballard and Hodgson in a deal based around Stafford?

mgeise is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2011, 06:21 PM
  #43
jeffviberg92
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 58
vCash: 500
No! i dont like Ballard and i dont se him so good you like him to be. Keep him if you think he is your super star. Lidstrom is much better than stafford. but after ballards poor season and no goals i playoff :S wts stop this ! it not goals but sabres need more offensive a good puck movers and james is the better option.

jeffviberg92 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2011, 06:25 PM
  #44
jeffviberg92
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 58
vCash: 500
I like hodgson and if you resign both Erhoff and Bieksa you can send us hamhuis instead of Ballard. Because Ballard isnt a D Regier want. So if you think Stafford , Butler , pick is to little for Hamhuis and Hodgson so tell me what you want. But sabres not going to take ballard and if he are the best player sabres going for is so and im going to be so angry. No one more of brad boyes players who only take salary .

jeffviberg92 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2011, 06:26 PM
  #45
thegutter
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 340
vCash: 271
lol even if canucks didnt resign both erhoff and bieksa what makes you think the other teams in the league wouldnt be vying for them?

ballard and hodgson for stafford,gerbe and Dennis Persson,

thegutter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2011, 06:28 PM
  #46
jeffviberg92
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 58
vCash: 500
itss going to be a fair trade for sabres and nucks. and i dont know nucks players value but tell me what it would take hodgson and hamhuis to sabres. so i can tell you if it worth it .

jeffviberg92 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2011, 06:29 PM
  #47
Havok89
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,905
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamskull View Post
I would have trouble giving up our top prospect but I think I would for Stafford. Only problem is that we're right against the cap so other pieces would need to be in play also.

What would you be willing to offer for Hodgson and Ballard?

Hodgson
Ballard

Stafford
McNabb
2nd 2011

??
No thanks. Hodgson has more value to the Canucks. An unproven top-6 center and defenseman coming off a bad year, for Stafford who may have just figured out what it takes. I believe Stafford will be a consistent 30-40 goal winger. Wouldn't add a 2nd and one of our best defensive prospects who's dominating the CHL.

Havok89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2011, 06:30 PM
  #48
jeffviberg92
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 58
vCash: 500
its a risky trade but sabres doing hamhuis , hodgson for stafford gerbe chris butler ! just hamhuis and not ballard

jeffviberg92 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2011, 06:35 PM
  #49
thegutter
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 340
vCash: 271
no. there is no one worth it to trade hamhuis for.

thegutter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2011, 06:36 PM
  #50
thegutter
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 340
vCash: 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffviberg92 View Post
its a risky trade but sabres doing hamhuis
i think hamhuis is married

thegutter 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 11:29 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.