Rumor: Trade Rumors/Proposals/Free Agents 2017-2018 ‎part deux the sequel

[OmniSens]

Sign Jagr to a 1 year deal, Hoffman changes to 86 out of respect for a season then changes back

 

[aragorn]

Sign Jagr to a 1 year deal, Hoffman changes to 86 out of respect for a season then changes back

Ottawa could use a goal scoring RWer for their 3rd line which would allow Stone to play on the top line & Jagr wouldn't have been a bad choice since he can still score, he's big & strong & he is also a decent playmaker. The other guy that would have been good was Vrbata but he has been taken & also has a diminishing skill set.

Pretty hard to find a good young right shot forward who might be available that can score & be a playmaker but they might consider White at some point. I'm not sure Burrows, Pyatt or Dzingel are good enough at this point. Landeskog can play either wing & could be a decent fit but what does Ottawa have that Colorado might consider?

To Colorado: 2018 1st rd pick, Dzingel LW, Chlapik C & Wideman RD
To Ottawa: Gabriel Landeskog LW/RW

1. Hoffman LW - Turris C - Landeskog RW
2. MacArthur LW - Brassard C - Ryan RW
3. Smith LW - Pageau C - Stone RW
4. Burrows LW - Thompson C - Pyatt RW
5. Paul LW - White C - McCormick RW

1. Phaneuf LD - Karlsson RD
2. Harpur LD - Ceci RD
3. Claesson LD - Boroweicki RD
4. Englund LD - Jaros RD

1. Anderson G - 2. Condon G / 3. Dreidger G

 

[Liver King]

Yeah id love Jagr

Macarthur-Pageau-Stone
Hoffman-Turris-Jagr
Dzingel-Brassard-Ryan
Smith-Thompson-Burrows

 

[ReginKarlssonLehner]

Thompson shouldnt effect Stalberg at all.. Thompson is Kellys replacement not Stalbergs.

The decision here is Dzingel v Stalberg.. The coach clearly preffered Stalberg for the last half of last year (and playoffs). And I would argue he is a better player for our bottom 6.

100% and im huge on Dzingel. Stalberg gives us great bottom 6 depth. Without him, we are much weaker there. IMO we'd eventually trade for a stalberg type player if we are playoff bound come playoff time so save the pick and re-sign him now.

 

[Wallet Inspector]

I'd like Jagr as well, or maybe even Vanek.

If we want to be a "4 line team" then adding more scoring is never a bad thing.

 

[swissexpert]

Stalberg signed for Zug, Switzerland today.
He signed for 2 years, EV Zug Sport Chief already confirmed it.

 

[Sens Mile]

With Stalberg gone, im all on the sign Jagr movement.

Though knowing cheap Melnyk.......

 

[bert]

Agreed.

Not doing this by expected lines, but:

Hoffman-Turris-Ryan
MacArthur-Brassard-Stone
Smith-Pageau-Burrows
Dzingel-Thompson-Pyatt

I don't see us signing Stalberg to be our 13th forward, or push one above to be our 13th forward. Then we have Paul, White, Didomenico and M5cCormick. No need to re-sign him even though I wanted to, Thompson replaced him.

There is going to be injuries he is cheap and he fits in. THey should just sign him to a 1 year deal. Nevermind he signed In Switzerland. More fantastic asset management.

 

[Vesa Awesaka]

I'd like Jagr as well, or maybe even Vanek.

If we want to be a "4 line team" then adding more scoring is never a bad thing.

I'd like Vanek too. He'd be cheap and he's someone you can move up in case someone under performs or is injured. He's a guy who knows how to put up points.

 

[edguy]

I'd like Vanek too. He'd be cheap and he's someone you can move up in case someone under performs or is injured. He's a guy who knows how to put up points.

Good in the regular season, but absolutely disappears come playoff time..

Also can't see him wanting to play in Bouchers tight system

 

[Shanny]

Also can't see him wanting to play in Bouchers tight system

This is exactly the reason why Jagr would be a terrible fit here as well. In no way shape or form would he be able to play Bouchers system given his skating.

No question Jagr's leadership would be great, and he would sell a bunch of jerseys, but it's just a bad idea, and something that will never happen.

 

[Tuna99]

I'd like Vanek too. He'd be cheap and he's someone you can move up in case someone under performs or is injured. He's a guy who knows how to put up points.

Vanek is a dog, the effort he gave in Montreal was so putrid I lost all respect for him. Absolutely not a player you can rely on to win.

 

[BatherSeason]

There is going to be injuries he is cheap and he fits in. THey should just sign him to a 1 year deal. Nevermind he signed In Switzerland. More fantastic asset management.

Dont worry. Dorion will throw away another 2nd round pick at the deadline for a very similar player to Stalberg. He may even sign that player to am extension only if he is from North America. Thus continuing the great asset management displayed by management here.

 

[The Lewler]

Jagr jagr jagr

jagrbombs

 

[SixthSens]

Hell no to Vanek.

 

[YouGotAStuGoing]

Hell no to Vanek.

Echoed. Hard pass. He's not the player he was in Buffalo. The fact that three teams have tried him and let him go since should tell you all you need to know.

 

[Micklebot]

There is going to be injuries he is cheap and he fits in. THey should just sign him to a 1 year deal. Nevermind he signed In Switzerland. More fantastic asset management.

There was apparently an offer on the table for him or at least the foundations of one, he just chose not to take it. Likely, the sticking point was that we only wanted a 1 year deal, so you can't argue poor asset management because the player likely just wasn't willing to accept the offer that would have fit your definition of 'proper asset management'

Between Dzingel, White, and Paul I think we have the depth to survive without Stalberg, and that's as someone who really wanted Stalberg re-signed at the end of the year, but acquiring Burrows at the deadline, MacArthur becoming healthy, and the addition of Thompson really quickly made Stalberg a nice to have piece. To me, it was him or Pyatt. The other guy would have had to take a one year ~1 mil deal or move on.

I don't see us signing anyone else and I'm fine with that. At this point, explore trades, but I'm comfortable with what we have, so unless it's a deal we clearly win on, don't bother.

 

[Bileur]

There was apparently an offer on the table for him or at least the foundations of one, he just chose not to take it. Likely, the sticking point was that we only wanted a 1 year deal, so you can't argue poor asset management because the player likely just wasn't willing to accept the offer that would have fit your definition of 'proper asset management'

Between Dzingel, White, and Paul I think we have the depth to survive without Stalberg, and that's as someone who really wanted Stalberg re-signed at the end of the year, but acquiring Burrows at the deadline, MacArthur becoming healthy, and the addition of Thompson really quickly made Stalberg a nice to have piece. To me, it was him or Pyatt. The other guy would have had to take a one year ~1 mil deal or move on.

I don't see us signing anyone else and I'm fine with that. At this point, explore trades, but I'm comfortable with what we have, so unless it's a deal we clearly win on, don't bother.

That sticking point was likely based on analysis which takes into consideration other contracts handed out like the Burrows, McCormick, Pyatt and Thompson contracts. Given that a quite valuable asset was used to acquire Burrows in particular, and that there were serious questions and doubts raised about the contract extension at the time, I think there is certainly an "asset management" question to be asked here. Not to mention handing out a 1 way deal to a guy like McCormick who hasn't shown himself to be more than an AHL/NHL tweener who may not have the size to be successful at the NHL level.

A manager can't paint himself into the corner and then use being painted into a corner as an excuse for having his hands tied into making decisions.

 

[bert]

Dont worry. Dorion will throw away another 2nd round pick at the deadline for a very similar player to Stalberg. He may even sign that player to am extension only if he is from North America. Thus continuing the great asset management displayed by management here.

Or if the team is out they could have flipped him for I dunno a 3rd round pick or something like that... Naaaa lets just give up more assets for the same player next year again. I just cant get behind the direction of this organization with this guy running the show. The worst asset management in hockey. Ill give you a third and you a third and you a 2nd and you a 2nd. Oh Boucher likes you here is whatever contract you want.

 

[bert]

There was apparently an offer on the table for him or at least the foundations of one, he just chose not to take it. Likely, the sticking point was that we only wanted a 1 year deal, so you can't argue poor asset management because the player likely just wasn't willing to accept the offer that would have fit your definition of 'proper asset management'

Between Dzingel, White, and Paul I think we have the depth to survive without Stalberg, and that's as someone who really wanted Stalberg re-signed at the end of the year, but acquiring Burrows at the deadline, MacArthur becoming healthy, and the addition of Thompson really quickly made Stalberg a nice to have piece. To me, it was him or Pyatt. The other guy would have had to take a one year ~1 mil deal or move on.

I don't see us signing anyone else and I'm fine with that. At this point, explore trades, but I'm comfortable with what we have, so unless it's a deal we clearly win on, don't bother.

You actually believe that he signed in Switzerland due to term? Yikes. This is the NHL man, even if he signed for one year in the NHL do you think he would have had an issue getting a deal in Switzerland next year.... He has played in the NHL for almost a decade.

 

[BondraTime]

That sticking point was likely based on analysis which takes into consideration other contracts handed out like the Burrows, McCormick, Pyatt and Thompson contracts. Given that a quite valuable asset was used to acquire Burrows in particular, and that there were serious questions and doubts raised about the contract extension at the time, I think there is certainly an "asset management" question to be asked here. Not to mention handing out a 1 way deal to a guy like McCormick who hasn't shown himself to be more than an AHL/NHL tweener who may not have the size to be successful at the NHL level.

A manager can't paint himself into the corner and then use being painted into a corner as an excuse for having his hands tied into making decisions.

As has been a worry for some, but it's swept under the rug and any questioning gets you lambasted.

 

[Benjamin]

That sticking point was likely based on analysis which takes into consideration other contracts handed out like the Burrows, McCormick, Pyatt and Thompson contracts. Given that a quite valuable asset was used to acquire Burrows in particular, and that there were serious questions and doubts raised about the contract extension at the time, I think there is certainly an "asset management" question to be asked here. Not to mention handing out a 1 way deal to a guy like McCormick who hasn't shown himself to be more than an AHL/NHL tweener who may not have the size to be successful at the NHL level.

A manager can't paint himself into the corner and then use being painted into a corner as an excuse for having his hands tied into making decisions.

Agreed. Burrows trade has only gotten worse. I'd take Stalberg over Burrows 10/10 times for just on ice play. Stalberg was also a cheaper contract and only cost a 3rd.

 

[Deku]

Echoed. Hard pass. He's not the player he was in Buffalo. The fact that three teams have tried him and let him go since should tell you all you need to know.

The fact that Florida didn't even keep him with their horrific winger situation is especially alarming.

 

[Micklebot]

You actually believe that he signed in Switzerland due to term? Yikes. This is the NHL man, even if he signed for one year in the NHL do you think he would have had an issue getting a deal in Switzerland next year.... He has played in the NHL for almost a decade.

There are a lot of reasons players want term, knowing that you still have a deal next year is only one.

You want term because it means you don't have to uproot your family in a year, for example

Other attractive aspects of Switzerland are that there are no taxes on his earnings, so if the contract offers are even close, it might be financially better over there.

Olympics are coming up too, and with the NHL not participating, this move offers him a unique opportunity to play for his country that wouldn't exist if you signed in the NHL (or for that matter, if the NHL were participating and he signed here).

Point is, we apparently had an offer on the table or at least the framework of one, he chose something else. Why he did that only he knows.

Edit: I really think people need to take a moment and realize that no other team in the league was willing to beat the Swiss league offer he received. Take a moment and think about that; He chose that offer over whatever we had on the table, and whatever any other team in the league had out there. Maybe, just maybe, he's not as valued a commodity as some are suggesting, or, he really liked the opportunity offered by going overseas, in fact, it appears he valued that offer more than the NHL market dictated was fair value for him.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

Hell no to Vanek.

ditto