Speculation: Armchair GM and Rumors Thread XX

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sparky93

Registered User
Dec 30, 2010
7,002
1,040
I think Treliving said that there was a big decrease in quality after 6 so I doubt they'd trade back

I'd say there's probably a 50/50 chance we could still pick Nylander at 8th behind Arizona and Buffalo. Both clubs need a high end left shot defenseman. Seems like an easy way to pick up an extra, potential middle 6 player.
 

slappipappi

Registered User
Jul 22, 2010
4,467
191
Just having some fun here -

Frolik, Colborne, Bouma, Hickey, 35th pick (to Wild) for Vanek, Scandella, 15th pick

Scandella (to Coyotes) for 20th pick

6th - Nylander, 15th - Jones, 20th - Gauthier

Future Top 6:

Gaudreau-Monohan-Gauthier
Jones-Bennett-Nylander

So, we get the 15th and 20th pick without giving up anything that really matters? Basically a bag of stuff?

And save cap space to boot?
 

Otzelor

Registered User
Nov 29, 2015
519
2
I’m very curious about Calgary. For a long time, we assumed if anyone was going to move down, it would the Oilers. The Flames might be a good bet, too. Arizona, picking right behind them, is on-record saying it wants to add defencemen. So is Buffalo — particularly on the left side. Would the Sabres want to leapfrog the Coyotes? Or is there someone further wanting to climb? Sounds like Calgary is willing to consider it.

(from Friedmans 30 thoughts #4 http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/30-thoughts-remembering-greatness/)

uh-oh :cry:
 

MonyontheMoney

Registered User
Apr 5, 2015
4,429
520
Calgary wants Keller.

Not sure this points to Calgary wanting Keller. Phoenix and Buffalo are likely to take a defenceman, so if we move back the logic is likely that we will still be able to get a forward we want, like Nylander, Brown, or Keller, but this information doesn't pint to us wanting anyone in particular.
 

Tkachuk Norris

Registered User
Jun 22, 2012
15,600
6,639
Not sure this points to Calgary wanting Keller. Phoenix and Buffalo are likely to take a defenceman, so if we move back the logic is likely that we will still be able to get a forward we want, like Nylander, Brown, or Keller, but this information doesn't pint to us wanting anyone in particular.

I agree. I think it likely means we are happy with any one of Keller, Brown and Nylander and will pick up another pick we could use for a goalie.
 

Volica

Papa Shango
May 15, 2012
21,391
11,074
Honestly after that top 5 is gone, there's not much separation between 6 and probably 13 or so.
 

LethalCookie

Registered User
Mar 23, 2015
535
2
Guelph

If Matthews, Laine, Puljujarvi, Tkachuk, and Dubois go top 5, I would love to trade down with Buffalo. They would make this trade to get their top ranked D (which I would bet is Juolevi). This would mean that Arizona (who is loaded with forward prospects) would pick one of Sergachev/ Chychryn. At 8th overall, if the top 5 go as planned, we would still have our pick between Nylander/ Brown/ Keller, which would probably be the 3 that the flames would consider at 6th overall anyways. I would say a fair trade would be 6th for 8th + 38th, or 8th + Hudson Fasching (6'3 RW prospect). What do you guys think?
 

Volica

Papa Shango
May 15, 2012
21,391
11,074
If the 5 guys I have pegged 1-5 are gone; the. I'd be perfectly fine with moving 6 for 8 + 38.

To me it's a wash after; plus the idea of BT having 4x2nd rounders gives me a Tim Erixon.

That's called getting our starting goalie plus some more junk :laugh:
 

InfinityIggy

Zagidulin's Dad
Jan 30, 2011
36,068
12,852
59.6097709,16.5425901
If we do want Nylander (or Keller for that matter) moving for 6 to 7 or 8 could make a lot of sense. If both Arizona and Buffalo take D, then we get to add a free pick/prospect and still take our guy.
 

MonyontheMoney

Registered User
Apr 5, 2015
4,429
520
Could be real interesting to see what happens at the draft, as a fairly strong case could be made for moving up, staying at 6, or moving down.

-Moving up to 3/4 gives us a really good player, that also brings something to the table that we lack. Puljujarvi/Dubois are big bodies with skill and speed, and two way ability. In a not so deep draft it could be worth giving up some 2nds to add a piece like that.

-Staying at 6 would be a good option should one of Puljujarvi, Dubois or Tkachuk somehow slip to 6. Would also make sense if we have a defenceman as BPA at this point once the above mentioned players are likely gone.

-Moving back likely still gives us the player we want, should that be a forward, while gaining another 2nd which we could then use to move into the 1st again or to fill a hole in the current roster, or perhaps both.

I'd really support any of the 3 options in different scenarios.
 

Rangediddy

The puck was in
Oct 28, 2011
3,710
809
If we do want Nylander (or Keller for that matter) moving for 6 to 7 or 8 could make a lot of sense. If both Arizona and Buffalo take D, then we get to add a free pick/prospect and still take our guy.

Don't think it makes much sense for us to trade to 7 unless it's Phoenix that proposes it. Logically it would tell Phoenix that we're not wanting a dman, otherwise we'd take the best D available (whoever that is) at 6. I don't think Phoenix gives up anything when it's obvious they'll have 1st crack at the first dman anyways.

It would only make sense to trade with Buffalo who may want to get ahead of Phoenix for that dman. Even then, I'm not sure they's see enough of a difference in value between any of the dmen to give up anything of value to get the best one.
 

InfinityIggy

Zagidulin's Dad
Jan 30, 2011
36,068
12,852
59.6097709,16.5425901
Don't think it makes much sense for us to trade to 7 unless it's Phoenix that proposes it. Logically it would tell Phoenix that we're not wanting a dman, otherwise we'd take the best D available (whoever that is) at 6. I don't think Phoenix gives up anything when it's obvious they'll have 1st crack at the first dman anyways.

It would only make sense to trade with Buffalo who may want to get ahead of Phoenix for that dman. Even then, I'm not sure they's see enough of a difference in value between any of the dmen to give up anything of value to get the best one.

The thinking being that Arizona would trade with us to stop Buffalo from leap frogging them.

But generally yeah I agree with you.
 

slappipappi

Registered User
Jul 22, 2010
4,467
191
I don't think there is a chance in hell Buffalo takes that.

Secondly, I don't want Evander Kane on this team, period, full stop.

Kane, for all of his problems, is still an elite talent, and young enough to still hit his potential in the right circumstance.

Buffalo isn't moving him to move up 2 spots in the draft.

Colborne would have little value to Buffalo. He's an OK player while cheap, but he will start to get expensive. And if he's not playing top 6 minutes, the points will disappear, and he's not a top 6 player on a good team. So, he becomes an expensive and not particularly productive bottom 6 player.
 

InfinityIggy

Zagidulin's Dad
Jan 30, 2011
36,068
12,852
59.6097709,16.5425901
Kane, for all of his problems, is still an elite talent, and young enough to still hit his potential in the right circumstance.

Buffalo isn't moving him to move up 2 spots in the draft.

Colborne would have little value to Buffalo. He's an OK player while cheap, but he will start to get expensive. And if he's not playing top 6 minutes, the points will disappear, and he's not a top 6 player on a good team. So, he becomes an expensive and not particularly productive bottom 6 player.

What part of Kane's skills set is Elite?
 

slappipappi

Registered User
Jul 22, 2010
4,467
191
Didn't Colborne outscore Kane last year lol?

He did, but Kane missed some time.

Kane is a big power forward, who actually plays like one.

Colborne is actually 2 years older than Kane, if you can believe that.

If anyone actually thinks Colborne is better, LOL to that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->