Proposal: 2015 Offseason Trade Rumours and Proposals | Part III | 19 Goalies and Counting

Status
Not open for further replies.

The Jangle Meister*

Guest
You said to move him because a rookie can take his place and the team wouldn't lose a step. Now you're changing your argument saying that he should be moved to bring in a better player, or to free up space for a better player. I agree with that, if that better player is there and signed or available in a package including Michalek.

Of course that isn't what you said originally, even though now you're pretending that it is.

What im arguing against is moving him for the sake of moving him just incase a better fit is out there. To get rid of a proven, reliable player and roll the dice on a rookie.

You haven't educated anyone on anything, despite the condescending nature of your posts.

Thats exactly what I have said. A prospect can take his place, YES this is what ive said. For a THIRD, or FORTH line role. If we are moving Michalek in the first place it is to free up cap space in the addition of a top 6 player - THE OBVIOUS GOAL OF OUR TEAM THIS OFF SEASON.

what does movable mean, what does expendable mean, what does we dont need him to win mean - WE SHOULD MOVE HIM TO IMPROVE OUR TEAM. Isnt that a little ****ing suggestive hahaaha In the case we have to move him for nothing which I have never said, we do have prospects that can come in next season and play.

If we moved him, to sign a d-man for an example, a prospect can take his place and we wont lose a step. YESS Why would we move him for absolute nothing, I have never come close to saying this.

I have been completely clear if you read my posts from start to finish. Im not changing my argument at all, this is my opinion. If you have asked for more pieces of my opinion, hence responding to my posts I have and will give you them LOL Your ****ing hilarious to argue with because you have no points and no back up. We dont need him to win. I have defeated you, and since youre gonna argue for the sake of arguing after I have proven my position on Michalek - that hasnt changed, you can go to sleep now - where wonderland is waiting. :help::help::help::help::help::help::help:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Holdurbreathe

Registered User
Jun 22, 2006
8,550
2
Ontario
He's going to want a one way deal, I think he's earned it

Not sure he has earned it given he hasn't played one game in the NHL, but the circumstances might dictate he gets a one-way deal somewhere.

If Murray gives Wideman a one-way deal then he has to make some moves with one or more of his current D.
 
Last edited:

The Jangle Meister*

Guest
1. he has never looked like our best player
2. playing well with Turris and Stone seems fairly common with any roster player
3. yes, he gets injured way too often
4. getting rid of him would not make us a worse team, we have the pieces to replace him already
5. 8th player you want to get rid of, still want to get rid of him
6. Michalek should not be the perfect match of player our team wants to build
7. He is valuable, but he is not needed in our team. Best case scenario is he has value on a trade market
8. You would want to trade him in a package for a roster player
9. Everything you told me, tells me he would be a great piece for another team to pick up in a package for a better forward - and it seems we want a legit top 6, because guys like Milo arnt good enough.

this was said right before we got heavily into our discussion. This has been my argument, saying one statement of my opinion has never negated wanting a roster improvement, ie saying he is expendable/non-need and a prospect can take his place doesnt not at all rule out the concept of getting a better forward oor D piece in the process. The fact is my argument has been the same, and you have been arguing against some fantasy that you made up or wrongly assumed. Now that I have educated you, and you have 100% agreed with my correct position.... Youve been told, good day sir.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

PoutineSp00nZ

Electricity is really just organized lightning.
Jul 21, 2009
20,046
5,653
Ottawa
Thats exactly what I have said. A prospect can take his place, YES this is what ive said. For a THIRD, or FORTH line role. If we are moving Michalek in the first place it is to free up cap space in the addition of a top 6 player - THE OBVIOUS GOAL OF OUR TEAM THIS OFF SEASON.

what does movable mean, what does expendable mean, what does we dont need him to win mean - WE SHOULD MOVE HIM TO IMPROVE OUR TEAM. Isnt that a little ****ing suggestive hahaaha In the case we have to move him for nothing which I have never said, we do have prospects that can come in next season and play.

If we moved him, to sign a d-man for an example, a prospect can take his place and we wont lose a step. YESS Why would we move him for absolute nothing, I have never come close to saying this.

I have been completely clear if you read my posts from start to finish. Im not changing my argument at all, this is my opinion. If you have asked for more pieces of my opinion, hence responding to my posts I have and will give you them LOL Your ****ing hilarious to argue with because you have no points and no back up. We dont need him to win. I have defeated you, and since youre gonna argue for the sake of arguing after I have proven my position on Michalek - that hasnt changed, you can go to sleep now - where wonderland is waiting. :help::help::help::help::help::help::help:

I never said move him for nothing, you're putting words in my mouth and trying to ridicule me because of it. Interesting that you've pretty much ignored what I said earlier and seem to be doing exactly what you've accused me of. Proving absolutely nothing in the process.

So hey, if thinking that you "defeated me" makes you feel good, then go for it. Not really any point in continuing this as we'd just be going in circles and you'll continue to revise what you've previously said to fit where you are now.
 

The Jangle Meister*

Guest
this is what BigBush said

" id move Michalek if it meant putting his money towards something else (like a top 4 D)"

and you read this as

"you want to trade Michalek for the sake of trading him just to free up some money for this mythical top 4 D"

showing your complete lack of comprehension. NO he doesnt just move Michalek to magically hope a rainbow colored dragon drops a top 4 d-man on our roster

IF IT MEANT putting that money to an upgrade ie top 4 d, top 6 w
 

Holdurbreathe

Registered User
Jun 22, 2006
8,550
2
Ontario
Bottom line is if the sens really want Wideman he will be a sen.

No sure it is that simple.

Murray would have to clear room for Wideman, unless he is prepared to carry 9 D.

For Murray to maximize any return for the excess D, he really should make the moves prior to signing Wideman.

Doing this also sends a clear message to Wideman he has a role in Ottawa now, which should be incentive to sign.

Should BM not make those moves, and since there is no reason to believe Widman can't count, why would he sign with a team that has 8 D under contract?

As a puck moving RD he will get offers elsewhere, so if B wants him he will have to make the situation more appealing than it is now IMO.
 

The Jangle Meister*

Guest
I never said move him for nothing, you're putting words in my mouth and trying to ridicule me because of it. Interesting that you've pretty much ignored what I said earlier and seem to be doing exactly what you've accused me of. Proving absolutely nothing in the process.

So hey, if thinking that you "defeated me" makes you feel good, then go for it. Not really any point in continuing this as we'd just be going in circles and you'll continue to revise what you've previously said to fit where you are now.

sorry, you were claiming that I was saying move him for nothing. It does feel good to defeat you, yes.

I have proven he is injury prone
I have proven he is a secondary piece
I have proven we can have success without him in the lineup
I have proven he should be considered a movable piece in the chance of an upgrade
I have not proven a prospect can take his place next season, this is my opinion that I fully believe - but cant be proven until seen
 

Vesa Awesaka

#KeepTheSenate
Jul 4, 2013
18,236
25
No sure it is that simple.

Murray would have to clear room for Wideman, unless he is prepared to carry 9 D.

For Murray to maximize any return for the excess D, he really should make the moves prior to signing Wideman.

Doing this also sends a clear message to Wideman he has a role in Ottawa now, which should be incentive to sign.

Should BM not make those moves, and since there is no reason to believe Widman can't count, why would he sign with a team that has 8 D under contract?

As a puck moving RD he will get offers elsewhere, so if B wants him he will have to make the situation more appealing than it is now IMO.

or he could waive gryba and or boro. If he likes Wideman enough wideman will be a sens. Apparently he also could of traded cowen. He has options if he thinks wideman is better then what he has or is going to be better

If Wideman isnt on the sens its because they made an evaluation and determined he wasnt better then what they have or wasnt a fit

Ultimately what are we talking about though? Wideman being a bottom pairing dman versus other bottom pairing dmen? If Murray determines that then it would make sense if Murray doesnt give him what he want or the opportunity he wants. If murray determines he can be more then that(potential top 4) then it would make sense to make room for him or give him the money he wants
 

PoutineSp00nZ

Electricity is really just organized lightning.
Jul 21, 2009
20,046
5,653
Ottawa
sorry, you were claiming that I was saying move him for nothing. It does feel good to defeat you, yes.

I have proven he is injury prone
I have proven he is a secondary piece
I have proven we can have success without him in the lineup
I have proven he should be considered a movable piece in the chance of an upgrade
I have not proven a prospect can take his place next season, this is my opinion that I fully believe - but cant be proven until seen

:popcorn:
 

stempniaksen

Registered User
Oct 12, 2008
11,004
4,262
Honestly I think he breaks out this year. I don't know if he'll ever live up the the hype of being the 1st overall pick (mind you 2012 is looking kind of a weaker draft at this point in time). Put me down as saying he'll put up 25+ goals and around 60 points. Not sure if he's gonna play with McDavid or with a re-signed Roy, but I'm confident enough in his offensive talent. I think McLellan will give him a real shot to play with McDavid and Hall, which would make him due for an offensive jump. Question will be wether his defensive game is up to snuff enough to play with those two.
 
Oct 10, 2010
6,066
1,064
Reality is when you are on a budget bigger money needs to be spent towards better players.

I would invest large % of $$ on top 6 forwards and top 4 d-man and fill out the rest of the roster with young cheap minimum salary players.

Edit: With regards to 9MM.
 

Holdurbreathe

Registered User
Jun 22, 2006
8,550
2
Ontario
or he could waive gryba and or boro. If he likes Wideman enough wideman will be a sens. Apparently he also could of traded cowen. He has options if he thinks wideman is better then what he has or is going to be better

If Wideman isnt on the sens its because they made an evaluation and determined he wasnt better then what they have or wasnt a fit

Ultimately what are we talking about though? Wideman being a bottom pairing dman versus other bottom pairing dmen? If Murray determines that then it would make sense if Murray doesnt give him what he want or the opportunity he wants. If murray determines he can be more then that(potential top 4) then it would make sense to make room for him or give him the money he wants

BM could do many things, but waiving assets for nothing in return isn't necessarily a thing he should or will do.

You made a statement that implied it is Murray's decision to make whether Wideman is a Senator or not.

The reality is that Wideman is a UFA and can talk to the other 29 teams starting June 25th and can sign with the team that offers him the best opportunity for his future.

So I believe if Murray wants Wideman in a Sens uniform he needs to clean up the current mess with the Sens D or risk losing him.

For this reason I responded to your post, "Bottom line is if the sens really want Wideman he will be a sen", just to suggest it might not be quite that simple.

The bolded seems to have little relevance since it would appear Murray has done his evaluation and decided to negotiate a contract with Wideman prior to him being a UFA.

Bruce Garrioch ‏@SunGarrioch · Jun 11
The #Sens are trying to sign UFA D Chris Wideman before July 1.

While possible I suppose, I doubt Murray would be trying to get something done if he thought Wideman was a career 3rd pairing guy.
 
Last edited:

God Says No

Registered User
Mar 16, 2012
8,526
1,899
Not sure he has earned it given he hasn't played one game in the NHL, but the circumstances might dictate he gets a one-way deal somewhere.

If Murray gives Wideman a one-way deal then he has to make some moves with one or more of his current D.

Not sure what a one way has to do with the roster.
 

Holdurbreathe

Registered User
Jun 22, 2006
8,550
2
Ontario
Reality is when you are on a budget bigger money needs to be spent towards better players.

I would invest large % of $$ on top 6 forwards and top 4 d-man and fill out the rest of the roster with young cheap minimum salary players.

Budget team or cap team this is what a salary cap is supposed to bring, top players get the biggest slice of the budget.

The only reason this hasn't happened already in the NHL has been the year over year revenue growth, and corresponding cap increases, that has allowed GMs to overpay the bottom 8 or 9 guys.

Now that the revenue growth is slowing or even stalled, the BOLDED will become the method of operation for all 30 teams.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->