Proposal: Anaheim and NYI

[Rhino1985]

Absolutely.

But somethings gotta give on our defense during the expansion draft :/

 

[LeapOnOver]

Maybe "haul" isn't the best word, but they can certainly reap assets and picks if they so chose. I dunno. I just think you're rationalizing scenarios and to fit the trade you want to make.

Again I don't "really" want to do this trade, however it really is best case scenario going into the expansion draft. I really don't see the logic in an expansion team taking Fowler.

Islander fans shoot down trades all the time because they only have two years left and they fear the player will walk....but Las Vegas is going to select a guy with one year left? Could it be you are rationalizing the other way around? Anyway, this isn't a trade i'm making out of desire to move Strome, just more the fact that it turns losses into a bare minimum come expansion time.

 

[LeapOnOver]

Problem is Strome is being relied on to fill the middle 6 with Nelson now that Nielsen is gone. We could slot Grabo or Quine at center and Barzal is a natural center, but thats not a deal I make till after camp when its obvious Barzal is the real deal.

Plus on the leftside we have Leddy, CDH, and Hickey. Only CDH is maybe a guy they wanna get some competition for but they have Pelech who looked good last year before he almost had to retire just when he was starting to become a regular NHL'r due to a cardiovascular issue. Even on the rightside you have Boych, Hamonic, and Pulock with Mayfield as depth.

Yeah, my trade ideas definitely hinge on camp results. I wouldn't pull the trigger until we see how camp resolves itself.

 

[Sheva7]

If we didn't already have 6 good dmen, I'd probably be down. The way things are now though, I'll take my chances with Strome.

 

[Richie Daggers Crime]

Islander fans shoot down trades all the time because they only have two years left and they fear the player will walk....but Las Vegas is going to select a guy with one year left? Could it be you are rationalizing the other way around?

I'm not turning it the other way around, I'm just saying that I think "slim to none" is overstating it. The Isles are in a different position than Vegas will be. They're probably not looking to make a team for this year, or even 3 years from now. I think Vegas will need to stagger contract lengths when choosing players. I also think the possibility that they choose players based on the idea of getting picks/assets back is very likely. I think that Fowler's contract could be a deterrent, but in the overall scheme of picking 30 players, it may not be. The trade is a plan to move things the Isles need (a productive forward) for something they need less, based on a maybe.

 

[Space Herpe]

I can understand that idea that perhaps Fowler needs a different coach, a different system.

Then, you remember, we have Cappy.

 

[IODCPiper]

I can understand that idea that perhaps Fowler needs a different coach, a different system.

Then, you remember, we have Cappy.

Like i said if isles get fowler then trade him for eberle or add to the deal to get tampa's young star. They have to do something to address their lack of a top right winger

 

[LeapOnOver]

I'm not turning it the other way around, I'm just saying that I think "slim to none" is overstating it. The Isles are in a different position than Vegas will be. They're probably not looking to make a team for this year, or even 3 years from now. I think Vegas will need to stagger contract lengths when choosing players. I also think the possibility that they choose players based on the idea of getting picks/assets back is very likely. I think that Fowler's contract could be a deterrent, but in the overall scheme of picking 30 players, it may not be. The trade is a plan to move things the Isles need (a productive forward) for something they need less, based on a maybe.

Fair enough. I'd put it at less than 50% though. Without a finalized draft list it's too hard to say for sure . Worth the risk imo. Defenseman seem to carry elevated value. Even if we traded Strome and a second for Fowler and lost him to expansion we could have time to convince him to resign and acquire him back at the deadline for a couple draft picks.

The key is we'd be walking away from expansion without losing Lee, Nelson, and a player at least equal to Strome's caliber. I hope snow investigates these nuances fully.

 

[Seph]

Again I don't "really" want to do this trade, however it really is best case scenario going into the expansion draft. I really don't see the logic in an expansion team taking Fowler.

Islander fans shoot down trades all the time because they only have two years left and they fear the player will walk....but Las Vegas is going to select a guy with one year left? Could it be you are rationalizing the other way around? Anyway, this isn't a trade i'm making out of desire to move Strome, just more the fact that it turns losses into a bare minimum come expansion time.

If LV is smart, they'll draft the guy with the most value from each team, and then start making trades. If that happens to be Fowler, then they ought to take him.

Back in 1998, the Predators took multiple guys that were going to be UFA immediately after the draft that they knew they wouldn't be able to re-sign, such as Mike Richter, just because they'd get a compensatory draft pick for them when they were signed. While it was a different expansion draft with different rules, the core concept of taking guys you can turn into other assets as a valid strategy. And it's possible they are able to sign him to an extension before the deadline anyway.

 

[rikker]

Fair enough. I'd put it at less than 50% though. Without a finalized draft list it's too hard to say for sure . Worth the risk imo. Defenseman seem to carry elevated value. Even if we traded Strome and a second for Fowler and lost him to expansion we could have time to convince him to resign and acquire him back at the deadline for a couple draft picks.

The key is we'd be walking away from expansion without losing Lee, Nelson, and a player at least equal to Strome's caliber. I hope snow investigates these nuances fully.

this is key, IMO.

i wouldn't doubt if the Vegas GM waits until he sees the list, before deciding his strategy.

i wouldn't do the trade for Fowler, whom i think is overrated. not a fan of trading Strome at low value. i would do something for Perry...

 

[SLAPSHOT723]

this is key, IMO.

i wouldn't doubt if the Vegas GM waits until he sees the list, before deciding his strategy.

i wouldn't do the trade for Fowler, whom i think is overrated. not a fan of trading Strome at low value. i would do something for Perry...

I like Corey Perry but hate that contract.

 

[rikker]

I like Corey Perry but hate that contract.

true, true. but we would probably be a real contender for the next 3 years, though.

 

[LeapOnOver]

LOL, Strome is not getting us Corey Perry without other major roster deductions. Besides, Anaheim has to move a defenseman. It's a foregone conclusion. This wasn't a wish list, the trade was based on logical plausible scenarios...

 

[doublechili]

This will seem like wishful thinking, but I suspect in a year or two we will be glad we didn't trade Strome for Fowler.

 

[LeapOnOver]

If LV is smart, they'll draft the guy with the most value from each team, and then start making trades. If that happens to be Fowler, then they ought to take him.

Back in 1998, the Predators took multiple guys that were going to be UFA immediately after the draft that they knew they wouldn't be able to re-sign, such as Mike Richter, just because they'd get a compensatory draft pick for them when they were signed. While it was a different expansion draft with different rules, the core concept of taking guys you can turn into other assets as a valid strategy. And it's possible they are able to sign him to an extension before the deadline anyway.

Didn't the Preds come in with another team? That drastically changes strategy.

Of course they could resign Fowler, but i'm still standing by that being unlikely and a reason McPhee wouldn't draft him. No real proof though, just my gut. McPhee has a lot more risk involved than we do with a Strome trade...because in the end we do nothing and one of Nelson, Lee, or Strome is gone anyway.

 

[LeapOnOver]

And just another tidbit. It's perfectly acceptable that if Fowler comes and enjoys playing here Snow can fill Fowler in on the strategy (since players want to ultimately win the cup) and subsequently alert McPhee to the fact that Fowler's intentions are to stay a NYI come UFA time. Give permission to McPhee to discuss that with his agent. Tell McPhee he can draft him and be forced to trade him or lose him for nothing or get a young guy like de Haan that can grow with the team. I know what choice I would make....

 

[rikker]

LOL, Strome is not getting us Corey Perry without other major roster deductions. Besides, Anaheim has to move a defenseman. It's a foregone conclusion. This wasn't a wish list, the trade was based on logical plausible scenarios...

LOL LOL no where did i say that Strome straight up gets us Perry. and how is Fowler logical? he is overrated and overpaid. do you really think Snow is going to give away Strome, for a LH defenceman who is making $4 mil, when we have Leddy, DeHaan, Hickey, and Pelech already. and sorry, but after giving up Strome, you want to expose Fowler in the draft?

yup, Anaheim is shopping Fowler. i wonder why...

 

[Seph]

Didn't the Preds come in with another team? That drastically changes strategy.

Of course they could resign Fowler, but i'm still standing by that being unlikely and a reason McPhee wouldn't draft him. No real proof though, just my gut. McPhee has a lot more risk involved than we do with a Strome trade...because in the end we do nothing and one of Nelson, Lee, or Strome is gone anyway.

No, they didn't. They were the only team in that expansion draft.

I just don't see the risk that you do. Sure, you may have to trade him if he doesn't re-sign, but the assets you can trade him for are still likely to be a lot more valuable than the 3rd liner/bottom pairing Dman/back up goalie that you'd end up with instead. That's not really a risk, it's just good asset management.

 

[LeapOnOver]

No, they didn't. They were the only team in that expansion draft.

I just don't see the risk that you do. Sure, you may have to trade him if he doesn't re-sign, but the assets you can trade him for are still likely to be a lot more valuable than the 3rd liner/bottom pairing Dman/back up goalie that you'd end up with instead. That's not really a risk, it's just good asset management.

30 teams...we are looking a way more than 3rd pairing Dman/back up goalies that are going to be available for McPhee. I'm not really sure what you mean by that last line. Is de Haan a third pairing guy?

So if you are GM of a team and know that you could choose Fowler or de Haan but one of them you will have to trade as a UFA at the deadline do you really choose Fowler?

Forget all the mumbo jumbo about team need, answer the question straight up.

 

[LeapOnOver]

LOL LOL no where did i say that Strome straight up gets us Perry. and how is Fowler logical? he is overrated and overpaid. do you really think Snow is going to give away Strome, for a LH defenceman who is making $4 mil, when we have Leddy, DeHaan, Hickey, and Pelech already. and sorry, but after giving up Strome, you want to expose Fowler in the draft?

yup, Anaheim is shopping Fowler. i wonder why...

LOL LOL where did you mention any other players? I'm supposed to guess about your post, it's your responsibility to be clear...duh.

Wait, so Fowler is overrated and overpaid, yet exposing him in the draft is stupid because he'll be snatched up? Interesting to say the least....

And, the logic entails the big picture with Nelson and Lee. Read carefully please.

 

[rikker]

LOL LOL where did you mention any other players? I'm supposed to guess about your post, it's your responsibility to be clear...duh.

Wait, so Fowler is overrated and overpaid, yet exposing him in the draft is stupid because he'll be snatched up? Interesting to say the least....

And, the logic entails the big picture with Nelson and Lee. Read carefully please.

i said i would prefer trying to get Perry. why is that hard to understand? it is clear, but since you have an issue with just about everything i post, and most often resort to ridicule, i guess this type of response is what i expected.

 

[Seph]

30 teams...we are looking a way more than 3rd pairing Dman/back up goalies that are going to be available for McPhee. I'm not really sure what you mean by that last line. Is de Haan a third pairing guy?

So if you are GM of a team and know that you could choose Fowler or de Haan but one of them you will have to trade as a UFA at the deadline do you really choose Fowler?

Forget all the mumbo jumbo about team need, answer the question straight up.

Well, de Haan isn't really an established top 4 Dman, as he's only a year removed from playing like a bottom pairing guy. But yes, I'd choose Fowler if I were McPhee, as Fowler's value is higher than de Haan's. And if the situation occurs where de Haan's season this year is strong enough that I wouldn't take Fowler over him, I also wouldn't leave de Haan unprotected (assuming de Haan is willing to re-sign at a fair value), so it'd be a moot point in that situation.

If Fowler doesn't re-sign, you can get more by trading Fowler than de Haan is currently worth, and to a team just getting started, that is more important. And if Fowler does re-sign, then he's worth significantly more than de Haan.

 

[LeapOnOver]

Well, de Haan isn't really an established top 4 Dman, as he's only a year removed from playing like a bottom pairing guy. But yes, I'd choose Fowler if I were McPhee, as Fowler's value is higher than de Haan's. And if the situation occurs where de Haan's season this year is strong enough that I wouldn't take Fowler over him, I also wouldn't leave de Haan unprotected (assuming de Haan is willing to re-sign at a fair value), so it'd be a moot point in that situation.

If Fowler doesn't re-sign, you can get more by trading Fowler than de Haan is currently worth, and to a team just getting started, that is more important. And if Fowler does re-sign, then he's worth significantly more than de Haan.

So you think trading Fowler as a rental would bring more value than de Haan? de Haan is a first round pick playing now...I doubt Fowler will return anything but a high first at the deadline which could possibly end up being more value than de Haan, but a gamble. Guess will have to agree to disagree, but historically rentals don't get that much value back. People still tend to think they do for some reason.

 

[LeapOnOver]

i said i would prefer trying to get Perry. why is that hard to understand? it is clear, but since you have an issue with just about everything i post, and most often resort to ridicule, i guess this type of response is what i expected.

It's not hard to understand why you would prefer getting Perry. It's hard to understand why you would inject Perry into a conversation about Strome and Fowler when it's widely reported that the Ducks are going to have to move a defenseman. It's fine if you would prefer Perry. As far as meeting with ridicule, you countered with two lols...and i've resorted to ridicule in your mind?

 

[rikker]

It's not hard to understand why you would prefer getting Perry. It's hard to understand why you would inject Perry into a conversation about Strome and Fowler when it's widely reported that the Ducks are going to have to move a defenseman. It's fine if you would prefer Perry. As far as meeting with ridicule, you countered with two lols...and i've resorted to ridicule in your mind?

look, i understand your thought process. i guess i just value Strome much more than Fowler. to each his own. as much as i understand that Fowler is available, i am just deferring to our need, which is a top RW.

i respect your passion, and i think i match it (or at least very close), but when your response contains an lol, a shakehead and a 'duh', i think it is disrespectful.

i really don't mind disagreeing, and actually find it favourable, as opposed to agreeing with everything.

so, i hope from here on in, we respectfully disagree, when we disagree.