Rumor: 2014/2015 Season Trade Rumours and Proposals VIII - The Road to Tradelemania

[h2]

Actually Alfredsson and Murray had zero communication, still confusing how that happened.

And are there any advantages to not having open communication? What I'm taking about is not really profound by any means. Players like to know what's going on.

I'd prefer open communication, but I don't think the players perspective should hold final sway. If Chris Neil wants to stay, and we get offered a good package, you make the trade. I think our franchise has lost too many assets in the past by holding on to players out of loyalty or going for a run in the playoffs (I don't mind doing this when you're good) instead of bringing in extra assets that are needed based on our current state.

 

[PeterSidorkiewicz]

I'll obviously agree the open communication is a good thing.

But there's a difference between open communication and letting the player sway you or have any part in decisions.

Open communication is murray saying "we got an offer for you from a team that is on your allowed list. We're strongly considering it. Just giving you a heads up so you can prepare your family for any upcoming news. I will keep you posted" and ends there.

it isn't "oh you dont want to be traded? ok, we won't trade you then." That's something entirely different then open communication.

I completely agree. I think that's exactly what flapjack was saying as well. There's been a lot of people in the convo so I'm not sure who's agreeing that if Neil wants to stay we shouldn't deal him.

Personally I think it's all about the return for me if it's not that good it'd just be nicer to keep him. Or hell maybe we get a better deal next year for him if we still stink.

 

[otown]

You do whatever you can to make your team better. That doesn't mean you can't be respectful in the process.

 

[Ice-Tray]

In the previous thread people were going on about respect and not treating players like meat when people said "finally, we need to trade them" or "we can get a 2nd for neil? doo it noww" and people took offense to those comments. The 2 leading arguments against trading them were the 2 i gave you. Feel free to go check it out. There's like 3 pages of it.

I hope you're not referring to me, given that I made neither claim, nor are either of those things even close to the point I was making.

Just checking

 

[Micklebot]

I'll obviously agree the open communication is a good thing.

But there's a difference between open communication and letting the player sway you or have any part in decisions.

Open communication is murray saying "we got an offer for you from a team that is on your allowed list. We're strongly considering it. Just giving you a heads up so you can prepare your family for any upcoming news. I will keep you posted" and ends there.

it isn't "oh you dont want to be traded? ok, we won't trade you then." That's something entirely different then open communication.

I think the disconnect here is probably in how some us value the continuing services of Neil and Phillips and how the org values it. I imagine they probably feel that the return they could get is of about equal value to what those two would bring to our rebuilding team and because of that aren't married to either option. While posters here are would jump on a 2nd round pick, management probably realizes that the odds of a 2nd round pick playing the 100 or so games that either Chris will likely play before retiring is pretty small. Sure there is the odd 5th round pick that turns into Stone, but there are countless 2nd round picks that never play a single game. So knowing this, perhaps Murray allowing the players some input in their fate and buying a little good PR in the process more than makes up for the lottery ticket we miss out on by keeping them.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

Mckenzie said offers have been flooding in for Neil.

 

[Senscore]

I'd prefer open communication, but I don't think the players perspective should hold final sway. If Chris Neil wants to stay, and we get offered a good package, you make the trade. I think our franchise has lost too many assets in the past by holding on to players out of loyalty or going for a run in the playoffs (I don't mind doing this when you're good) instead of bringing in extra assets that are needed based on our current state.

As a budget team building through the draft is our only road to success.

And you can't do that without draft picks.

 

[h2]

I think the disconnect here is probably in how some us value the continuing services of Neil and Phillips and how the org values it. I imagine they probably feel that the return they could get is of about equal value to what those two would bring to our rebuilding team and because of that aren't married to either option. While posters here are would jump on a 2nd round pick, management probably realizes that the odds of a 2nd round pick playing the 100 or so games that either Chris will likely play before retiring is pretty small. Sure there is the odd 5th round pick that turns into Stone, but there are countless 2nd round picks that never play a single game. So knowing this, perhaps Murray allowing the players some input in their fate and buying a little good PR in the process more than makes up for the lottery ticket we miss out on by keeping them.

I get that argument, I just think we've done it too often in the past. I'd still take a 2nd over the services of Phillips or Neil. We're talking about a 12/13th forward and a 6/7 defensemen bringing in a return. You get several options with obtaining the 2nd rd pick. You can use the pick (I can't think of a 2nd rd selection by us that I haven't liked recently), trade the pick in a package for a Boychuk type trade, or package with other picks and move up which is what we did to get Erik Karlsson instead of Jake Gardiner back in 2008.

I understand legacies and all, but the only player for me that should have retired here no questions asked was Alfredsson. Whether Neil or Phillips finish their careers here doesn't matter to me. I want the team to be in a better situation and if trading those two brings in assets that do that, perfect.

As a budget team building through the draft is our only road to success.

And you can't do that without draft picks.

Agreed.

 

[PeterSidorkiewicz]

Mckenzie said offers have been flooding in for Neil.

Seems weird for such a crappy player.

 

[PoutineSp00nZ]

Seems weird for such a crappy player.

Maybe its because he's not as crappy as some make him out to be

 

[UnHappyDude]

Seems weird for such a crappy player.

Yeah. he's alright.

 

[h2]

Maybe its because he's not as crappy as some make him out to be

He's a decent 4th liner at this point, with exceptional toughness. That's the appeal. He usually steps up in the playoffs too. NYR fans hate him.

 

[BonkTastic]

Maybe its because he's not as crappy as some make him out to be

A 8-12 goal per year agitating winger who fights and still can skate is a great thing to have on a contender, but on a bad team he's just dead weight?

... is that the argument some are proposing? I dont see how Neil is being used any differently this year as opposed to other years (outside of getting less icetime with Cameron recently since coming back from injury).

A losing team breeds dissatisfaction. That's basically how I've seen a lot of the criticism at a lot of guys over the past few years. The exact same player who is loved on a wining team becomes a goat on a bad one.

 

[BonkTastic]

He's a decent 4th liner at this point, with exceptional toughness. That's the appeal. He usually steps up in the playoffs too.

That's been Neil for the past 10 years, and was a fan favorite because of it. In his absolute prime he played some 3rd line minutes, but outside of that weird 16 goal season, he's been "enforcer who won't hurt you on the ice when he's not policing".

 

[Burrowsaurus]

That's been Neil for the past 10 years, and was a fan favorite because of it.

Well we can't exactly take advantage of his "steps up in the playoffs" now can we.

I for one don't hate him. But we are a team building for the future. Different perspective on an agin playoff performer such as Neil.

 

[BonkTastic]

Well we can't exactly take advantage of his "steps up in the playoffs" now can we.

I for one don't hate him. But we are a team building for the future. Different perspective on an agin playoff performer such as Neil.

Oh yeah, totally agree. I said as much in December, I think.

Just saying it's odd to see reactions to essentially the exact same player change because of the team's place in the standings.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

Oh yeah, totally agree. I said as much in December, I think.

Just saying it's odd to see reactions to essentially the exact same player change because of the team's place in the standings.

I remember Neil being a lot more capable. I remember he was extremely difficult to deal with in the offensive zone, especially on the cycle.
The Schaefer-fisher-Neil line
The ruutu-kelly-Neil line
Those were good lines with Neil doing his fair share of work on them.

 

[StefanW]

Well we can't exactly take advantage of his "steps up in the playoffs" now can we.

I for one don't hate him. But we are a team building for the future. Different perspective on an agin playoff performer such as Neil.

I mostly agree. The thing that often gets left out though is that when you have that team of the future you are often missing some parts that you have to go out and get. If you move out a part that you end up missing it is easy to spin your tires. Sort of like moving a scoring #1 C and then all of a sudden realizing that you can't really win much without a scoring #1 C.

 

[h2]

I remember Neil being a lot more capable. I remember he was extremely difficult to deal with in the offensive zone, especially on the cycle.
The Schaefer-fisher-Neil line
The ruutu-kelly-Neil line
Those were good lines with Neil doing his fair share of work on them.

I agree. He was a bottom six player on those lines. Now he's strictly a 4th liner. I still think Neil will have a noticeable impact in the playoffs for any team that picks him up even at this stage of his career. Players like Neil are a rare breed, that's why he is in demand.

 

[Micklebot]

I get that argument, I just think we've done it too often in the past. I'd still take a 2nd over the services of Phillips or Neil. We're talking about a 12/13th forward and a 6/7 defensemen bringing in a return. You get several options with obtaining the 2nd rd pick. You can use the pick (I can't think of a 2nd rd selection by us that I haven't liked recently), trade the pick in a package for a Boychuk type trade, or package with other picks and move up which is what we did to get Erik Karlsson instead of Jake Gardiner back in 2008.

I understand legacies and all, but the only player for me that should have retired here no questions asked was Alfredsson. Whether Neil or Phillips finish their careers here doesn't matter to me. I want the team to be in a better situation and if trading those two brings in assets that do that, perfect.



Agreed.

Well, it's not as though if we don't trade them we won't have draft picks. The late 2nd round (at best imo) we'd get for either of them would be nice to have, my point is more that it's not some kind of franchise changing thing. Our 2nd round picks since Murray has been GM have been Bashkirov (most likely a Muckler after effect, as Murray was only around a couple weeks at that point), Wiercioch (a 7th Dman as well) Lehner, Silfverberg, Prince and Englund. So far, none has really had any impact in the NHL, so is a 2nd round pick worth whatever benefits Neil or Phillips brings? On ice, our best picks have provided a marginal upgrade, but nothing to write home about yet (though long term I'm sure some of them will have decent careers) but I imagine the GM sees a lot more of the behind the scenes and off ice stuff that makes guys like Phillips and Neil valuable.

I guess what I'm saying is I don't mind either way. If Neil or Phillips are traded, best of luck to them, but I'm not going to cry if either want's to stay here and help transition some of the young players into good pros.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

I mostly agree. The thing that often gets left out though is that when you have that team of the future you are often missing some parts that you have to go out and get. If you move out a part that you end up missing it is easy to spin your tires. Sort of like moving a scoring #1 C and then all of a sudden realizing that you can't really win much without a scoring #1 C.

But in three years time (when I think we will start being ready) will Neil still be around anyway?

 

[jbeck5]

I hope you're not referring to me, given that I made neither claim, nor are either of those things even close to the point I was making.

Just checking

Then I guess it wasn't about you? I didn't notice a single poster. It was a few. I never look at the username,just the posts themselves.

 

[Micklebot]

But in three years time (when I think we will start being ready) will Neil still be around anyway?

probably not, but the odds of a 2nd round pick being an NHL player are about 1 in 4, and in many cases, they take more than 3 years to get there anyways.

Don't get me wrong, I love me my prospects, but realistically speaking, I understand why a GM values an actual NHL player more than a pick, even if that NHL player is long in the tooth and the team isn't ready to contend.

 

[chipsens]

IMO the Sedins would benefit from having Neil on their team. No more sister jokes. So, what would they give us in return...?

 

[Micklebot]

IMO the Sedins would benefit from having Neil on their team. No more sister jokes. So, what would they give us in return...?

I think they may have some of Johan Franzen's purses from the last time Van met Det in the playoffs.