Speculation: NYR-EDM Trade?

Discussion in 'Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk' started by bfaust30, Nov 7, 2017.

  1. TGWL

    TGWL Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    2,700
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    61
    Short answer? Yes. Long answer? Yes, "add words." I like Klefbom but right now the difference is more than age and contract
     
  2. Amazing Kreiderman

    Amazing Kreiderman @StatBoy_Steven Sponsor

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    19,764
    Likes Received:
    595
    Trophy Points:
    129
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Datacenter manager
    Location:
    Vienna
    And don't forget the 1-year extension Talbot signed before being traded. That lowered his value as well, since Edmonton couldn't negotiate a new extension until Jan. 1st.
     
  3. VainGretzky

    VainGretzky 100 million

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2015
    Messages:
    5,851
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    46
    It was also reported Sather turned down a 1st round pick for Talbot but I suppose you're going to try and convince me you know more about this then insiders who deal with their agents lol .
     
  4. Savant

    Savant Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2013
    Messages:
    10,077
    Likes Received:
    111
    Trophy Points:
    86
    McDonagh has proven again and again he can carry a first pairing with an underwhelming defensive partner. Klefbom has not. Putting Klefbom with Staal, Smith Holden, Kampfer, Girardi would have been suicide. The Rangers have been successful with McDonagh doing exactly that.
     
  5. Savant

    Savant Registered User

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2013
    Messages:
    10,077
    Likes Received:
    111
    Trophy Points:
    86
    “Reported” by Eklund.

    I don’t believe a first was ever on the table and the goalie market was ruined when the Sabres went off the board to trade for Lehrer because the Murrays wanted to deal with each other.
     
    haveandare likes this.
  6. VainGretzky

    VainGretzky 100 million

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2015
    Messages:
    5,851
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    46
    Ty for quoting Eklund and proving my post is correct omg
     
  7. Roof Daddy

    Roof Daddy Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    10,955
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    86
    I would definitely pull the trigger on that, if only to force TMac's hand and break up Connor and Drai.

    I'd like to see (once Drake and Slepy are healthy):

    Maroon-McDavid-Grabner
    Looch-Nuge-Pulju
    Caggulia-Drai-Slepy

    Both Drai and McDavid need to play with more meat and potatoes type players. They start to convince themselves that they're the Harlem Globetrotters and all you get is 20 seconds of flashy passing/cycling only to result in an eventual turnover. I'm tired of watching it.
     
  8. haveandare

    haveandare Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2009
    Messages:
    11,988
    Likes Received:
    195
    Trophy Points:
    101
    Location:
    New York
    Not sure Strome does much for NYR. Yeah, he’s a center, but not a good one as of now. Not sure it’s worth moving a 20-25 goal scorer for him.
     
  9. Shootertooter

    Shootertooter Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2016
    Messages:
    1,221
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    41
    My thinking is that McD was paired with a traffic cone last season and still was solid. Is Klef that solid to be the #1 guy? I like him.

    Regarding the proposal, I'm not high on Pulj at all. He certainly is not the center piece but an intriguing potentially rewarding addition. I question his value. Maybe my ask of another pick is unrealistic but I was basing it partly on that. You know exactly what you are getting in the deal. The Rangers might not and if they are moving their #1 defender and a 25+ goal speedster they should absolutely should have a clear idea of value.
     
    Ori likes this.
  10. bernmeister

    bernmeister Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Messages:
    13,777
    Likes Received:
    94
    Trophy Points:
    91
    Occupation:
    multiple hats
    Location:
    Da Big Apple
    A fair question, haveandare.
    Is Strome the best currency we get in this return?
    Also, don't fall into the win now trap.
    If no upside on Strome, that's one thing.
    If we can buy low and then improve his game, then we have good asset for use or resell at higher price than value of what was paid.

    Also, multiple variations being discussed, but I am adamant about a 2nd being included, even if NY adds. That is significant.
     
  11. bucks_oil

    bucks_oil Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2005
    Messages:
    3,608
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    86
    I agree with that... and I said exactly that... that McDonagh is the better player now. But the fact is the age and contract strongly favor Klefbom and thus it is arguable that the gap closes enough to entertain a 1for1-plus-small-add hockey trade.

    After all, looking at last season alone, Klef's breakout after an injured 2015/16. The guys were 4 apart in points (so equal) and Klef played 22 vs McDonagh 23 minutes in all situations. Klef a #2 on the top pair (though some argued #1) and McD definitely a #1. The gap is not huge... that's the point.

    The gap is definitely not Pulju large.

    And Grabner is definitely not worth a 1st.

    So add that up and you'll understand my point.

    Trade Value Wise in Response to the Proposal:

    Klef < or = McDonagh
    Pulju >>>>> nothing
    1st >>> Grabner
     
  12. bucks_oil

    bucks_oil Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2005
    Messages:
    3,608
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    86
    yeah, I understand that rationale, but the value is way off. Oilers just drafted Pulju 4th overall 15 months ago. He's not a throw in and they would still value him much higher than their 1st this year.

    Earlier in this thread the agreed price for Grabner was ~roughly a 2nd.

    You are asking for roughly 4X the price for Grabner... to compensate for a small delta in value between 1.5 years of McD vs 5.5 years (FIVE!) more of Klefbom at 4.167M. Some would argue Klef was our #1 last year... and we were a good team. I say he's much more suited as a high-end #2 at this stage in his career... but NYR would be getting him locked up at a pittance through his prime years. That alone would make them think about it if cap is at all in their consideration.

    It makes zero sense for Edmonton. NYR takes a calculated short term risk on Klef for a near certain long term gain (caps and contracts considered) and get a 1st and a top prospect on top.
     
  13. Shootertooter

    Shootertooter Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2016
    Messages:
    1,221
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    41

    Maybe the value on Grabs is off. You have a guy on pace for another 25+ goal season. That has to be worth a first.

    So you have :
    McD- Klef+ add make that Pulj
    The Rangers add a second to even that out.
    Grabs-1st


    McD, Grabs, 2nd to the Oilers

    For

    Klef, Pulj and a 1st
     
  14. bucks_oil

    bucks_oil Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2005
    Messages:
    3,608
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Oilers pass hard and negotiate around Grabner for a pick and a prospect or some combo thereof

    McD for Klef is a win for the Oilers for 1.5 years. After that they need to resign him when our cap will be constrained. Versus keeping a solid young #2, possibly future #1 who is signed until the end of 2023 for 4.167M. It's possibly the best contract in the league during that timeframe. On that basis, McD for Klef makes zero sense for the Oilers.
     
  15. TGWL

    TGWL Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    2,700
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    61
    No, the add is probably not Puljujarvi. I'd imagine the first is valued a lot less than Puljujarvi for the Oilers. Well, unless they find themselves with a real chance of a top 5 pick, but I think Oilers will start pulling away from the bottom eventually, especially if they added McDonagh and Grabner. If we're trading both, I'd want Klef, 1st and middle prospect. Grabner is easily worth a 2nd plus middle prospect and McDonagh is worth more than Klef, so upgrading the 2nd to a first is something I'd be looking at. Does this work for Oilers? Maybe not, especially if you view the season as a disappointment and don't expect anything to get better, in which case losing the first would be awful.
     
  16. ManofSteel55

    ManofSteel55 Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2013
    Messages:
    16,778
    Likes Received:
    114
    Trophy Points:
    86
    If a first was on the table then Slats would have made the move. That was his asking price. Who "reported" that he turned a first down? Was it someone reputable? I don't think it was any of the guys I trust, I would have remembered that. Perhaps you are remembering speculation as a report?
     
  17. ManofSteel55

    ManofSteel55 Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2013
    Messages:
    16,778
    Likes Received:
    114
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Quoting Eklund proves you are correct? It means you referenced a guy who gets less than 1% of his reports correct.
     
  18. bucks_oil

    bucks_oil Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2005
    Messages:
    3,608
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    86
    That's a very fair proposal.

    But for the contracts alone I don't think we could do it. Others may have a different view on it though.

    I think (after Drai & McD) the biggest value we have in our franchise is Larsson, Klef (and soon to be Nurse) all locked up at reasonable value. As they mature it opens up a longer window for us.

    If we went McD for Klef, we put ourselves in a 1 and done sort of situation.

    For the record I think McD is definitely a top 15 #1D. I'd just want him for more than 1.5 years and I don't think we'd have the $7.5M+ that it will take, at least not at the expense of significant depth.
     

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"