Rumor: Trade Rumors/Proposals/Free Agents 2017-2018

Status
Not open for further replies.

danielpalfredsson

youtube dot com /watch?v=CdqMZ_s7Y6k
Aug 14, 2013
16,575
9,269
I wouldn't be surprised if Hammond was our 23 man on the roster. Or we loaned him to another AHL/ECHL team while running a 22 man roster.

At times last season, we ran with a 22 man roster because Dorion "didn't want guys to sit for too long"....which makes no sense, but we still did it, maybe for budget reasons. With Hammond making 1.5M on a 1 way deal, I could see him effectively being our 23rd NHLer whether or not he travels with us in the NHL or is loaned else where.

Since we've been taken to arbitration by (at least) 1 player, we'll have a second buyout window triggered later on in the off season. It would make no sense not to buyout Hammond as we'd save 500k in real money on his contract while spreading out the remaining 1M over two seasons at 500k a shot.
 

IranCondraAffair

Registered User
Mar 10, 2006
9,258
3,956
I wouldn't be surprised if Hammond was our 23 man on the roster. Or we loaned him to another AHL/ECHL team while running a 22 man roster.

At times last season, we ran with a 22 man roster because Dorion "didn't want guys to sit for too long"....which makes no sense, but we still did it, maybe for budget reasons. With Hammond making 1.5M on a 1 way deal, I could see him effectively being our 23rd NHLer whether or not he travels with us in the NHL or is loaned else where.

Since we've been taken to arbitration by (at least) 1 player, we'll have a second buyout window triggered later on in the off season. It would make no sense not to buyout Hammond as we'd save 500k in real money on his contract while spreading out the remaining 1M over two seasons at 500k a shot.

I don't know if buying him out is the smart move. Look what happened last season Anderson's wife got cancer and Hammond was injured/ineffective, we got lucky, but we were scrambling and it could have resulted in another bottom-10 finish.

Having that extra 500K would be alright, but keeping him gives Ottawa options in case we lose a goalie or two. Anderson does get injured a lot.

I mean, he's probably not going to be able to save the season again, but he was a decent backup after the Hamburgler run in 2015-16.

Plus, it isn't like anyone is going to grab him off waivers if we send him down. LOL. If they do, we save a bundle.
 

Deku

I'm off the planet
Nov 5, 2011
19,828
4,474
Ottawa
I could definitely see the team carrying Hammond around as a 3rd goalie just so they dont need to call anyone up due to injuries.
I wonder what happens with our AHL goalies though - basically have 3 right now (not counting Hammond) and I don't think any of them would be happy in the ECHL
 

WadeRedden

Registered User
Feb 24, 2016
846
257
I could definitely see the team carrying Hammond around as a 3rd goalie just so they dont need to call anyone up due to injuries.
I wonder what happens with our AHL goalies though - basically have 3 right now (not counting Hammond) and I don't think any of them would be happy in the ECHL

After watching Hogberg at development camp, it wouldn't surprise me if he ends up in the ECHL next year. He's big and athletic but still pretty raw imo. I think Dreiger will beat him out and Danny Taylor is there to stay apparently.

I have no idea what they're going to do with Hammond. They should have just bought him out and saved themselves a million dollars this year but they'll probably end up loaning him out instead. Bizarre.
 

Canadian Time

Registered User
Mar 2, 2002
2,193
327
Visit site
I have no idea what they're going to do with Hammond. They should have just bought him out and saved themselves a million dollars this year but they'll probably end up loaning him out instead. Bizarre.

I'm not sure why you think it's "bizarre". I'm not up on all the buyout rules but I thought I read that Hammond doesn't even make enough to get bought out. Regardless, who cares, with the signing of Taylor it's obvious they don't want him in the organization blocking any of the younger guys.

He won't be carried with the Sens as the 23rd player, that would be bizarre. He will likely be loaned out to another team which would be best for both him and the team. He will get to play and the Sens will get to share some of his salary with another team. C'est la vie, but I doubt this one is keeping anyone up at night.
 

BondraTime

Registered User
Nov 20, 2005
28,595
23,262
East Coast
I'm not sure why you think it's "bizarre". I'm not up on all the buyout rules but I thought I read that Hammond doesn't even make enough to get bought out. Regardless, who cares, with the signing of Taylor it's obvious they don't want him in the organization blocking any of the younger guys.

He won't be carried with the Sens as the 23rd player, that would be bizarre. He will likely be loaned out to another team which would be best for both him and the team. He will get to play and the Sens will get to share some of his salary with another team. C'est la vie, but I doubt this one is keeping anyone up at night.

We did that last season

Actually, very possible I'm mis-remembering
 

Langdon Alger

Registered User
Apr 19, 2006
24,777
12,914
I'm not sure why you think it's "bizarre". I'm not up on all the buyout rules but I thought I read that Hammond doesn't even make enough to get bought out. Regardless, who cares, with the signing of Taylor it's obvious they don't want him in the organization blocking any of the younger guys.

He won't be carried with the Sens as the 23rd player, that would be bizarre. He will likely be loaned out to another team which would be best for both him and the team. He will get to play and the Sens will get to share some of his salary with another team. C'est la vie, but I doubt this one is keeping anyone up at night.

I believe you're thinking of the second buyout window in regards to Hammond. Pretty sure we could have bought him out during the first round of buyouts.
 

danielpalfredsson

youtube dot com /watch?v=CdqMZ_s7Y6k
Aug 14, 2013
16,575
9,269
It slipped my mind in the first post, but there is a restriction where a player has to make above a certain amount to qualify to be bought out. This restriction only applies to the second buyout window which is opened by arbitration. Meaning, the Senators no longer have an opportunity to buyout Andrew Hammond.

Condon was extended before the first buyout window closed, so now that I remembered about the restrictions of the second buyout period, I would assume that means that the team had no intention of buying Hammond out at all, even with Condon signed to be the 2G.

It still doesn't make sense to me. People have mentioned the idea of us keeping him for safety, but how often does a team get down to their 3rd goalie in a situation where that goalie actually is at risk to play? If Anderson or Condon get hurt for a period of time, we could easily sit Danny Taylor on the bench.

It doesn't make a lot of sense that we wouldn't want to save 500k while spreading out the remaining money owed over two seasons. There must be something more to this, whether it is that the Senators simply don't do buyouts, or whether Dorion is close to a trade where Hammond could be thrown in to equalize some salary come back. Dorion mentioned talking a trade with another GM in the car with his son while driving him to soccer that made his son wide eyes (and possibly ready to give high fives) but then he back tracked and claimed he talks trades all the time so it isn't an indication that anything will happen. (paraphrasing)
 

Boud

Registered User
Dec 27, 2011
13,569
6,995
Give Jagr a $3 mil deal. Do itttt

I'd be surprised if he made that much given that he's not signed yet and guys like Hartnell, Sharp, Hemsky have all signed in the 1M range.

I'd take Jagr at around 1M, could be a good mentor for younger guys. He's an absolute warrior for preparation and training and he could teach our guys to be better along the boards.
 

IranCondraAffair

Registered User
Mar 10, 2006
9,258
3,956
It slipped my mind in the first post, but there is a restriction where a player has to make above a certain amount to qualify to be bought out. This restriction only applies to the second buyout window which is opened by arbitration. Meaning, the Senators no longer have an opportunity to buyout Andrew Hammond.

Condon was extended before the first buyout window closed, so now that I remembered about the restrictions of the second buyout period, I would assume that means that the team had no intention of buying Hammond out at all, even with Condon signed to be the 2G.

It still doesn't make sense to me. People have mentioned the idea of us keeping him for safety, but how often does a team get down to their 3rd goalie in a situation where that goalie actually is at risk to play? If Anderson or Condon get hurt for a period of time, we could easily sit Danny Taylor on the bench.

It doesn't make a lot of sense that we wouldn't want to save 500k while spreading out the remaining money owed over two seasons. There must be something more to this, whether it is that the Senators simply don't do buyouts, or whether Dorion is close to a trade where Hammond could be thrown in to equalize some salary come back. Dorion mentioned talking a trade with another GM in the car with his son while driving him to soccer that made his son wide eyes (and possibly ready to give high fives) but then he back tracked and claimed he talks trades all the time so it isn't an indication that anything will happen. (paraphrasing)

I can't think of many guys that are:

1. Available or rumored to be available.
2. The Sens would actually want/get
3. Make a child's eyes go wide.

Demers - Wouldn't make a kid take notice. Plays RD, so I don't see a great fit.

RNH - Would make a kid take notice, but I don't see Dorion trading Turris/Pageau for him (which is what the Oilers would want).

Duchene - Sakic apparently wants Dorion's firstborn son, so that would explain the kid's shock. Not an option.

JVR - Toronto is in our divison, and he's a LW. Not a good fit. Plus, I don't imagine he'd interest Dorion/Boucher and I certainly don't think they give up anything good for him

Tatar/Nyquist - Doesn't carry the name recognition to make a kid take notice, IMO. Again, within division.

Giroux - Could be on the block. If he came cheap enough I would imagine Dorion would listen. Local guy. I just don't think Ottawa has the assets and his contract is so large I don't know how they would fit it.

Corey Perry - I know Anaheim has a budget, but I don't see how Ottawa could make a deal happen given the size/length of his contract Not unless Melnyk gets some WD-40 for his wallet.

OV - Normally I would say he would be a pipe dream, but given Washington playoff exits and their cap troubles, it is more reasonable than some possibilities.

Carter - Name recognition. Front loaded contract. LA might be looking at a rebuild. Could happen. All would depend on the price.

Pacioretty - Montreal fans might want to get rid of him, but I doubt he gets moved. Too vital. Plus Ottawa is in the division.

Ladd - NYI could be looking to cut salary. Ladd has a HEAVILY back-diving contract. It would be like the Phaneuf trade all over again. Ottawa dumps all it's garbage to equalize salary in the first years, picks up a solid winger cheap, and carries the big cap hit during the years when the salary is reasonable to fit the budget. Almost all his salary is a signing bonus that has been paid as well.

Eriksson - See above. Same situation. Could happen. Vancouver could decide to rebuild. Ottawa just needs to open the purse strings. Almost all his salary is a signing bonus that has been paid as well.

Maybe Melnyk has some steroid cream from his Pharma company that can cure Hossa, LOL.

There's actually some good options out there is Ottawa has the budget room and a reasonable GM out there looking to make a deal.

Edit: Forgot one gut allegedly on the block. Evander Kane. I consider this one EXTREMELY doubtful .
 
Last edited:

danielpalfredsson

youtube dot com /watch?v=CdqMZ_s7Y6k
Aug 14, 2013
16,575
9,269
I can't think of many guys that are:

1. Available or rumored to be available.
2. The Sens would actually want/get
3. Make a child's eyes go wide.


"Hasn't been one day in the last month where I haven't had a call...yesterday I was driving my son to a soccer game and he's 12 years old so he knows all the players in the NHL, and we're (Pierre+other GM) discussing a deal...not that there is anything imminent...and he is looking at me with big eyes...you're gonna make a deal dad? No this is just how the process goes....you're always talking with your counterparts."

Maybe more so Dorion trying to illustrate how he is always talking trades but it means nothing because he is ALWAYS talking trades...but who knows. Later on he talks about how he isn't afraid to trades to improve the trade.
 

Deku

I'm off the planet
Nov 5, 2011
19,828
4,474
Ottawa
Dorion mentioned talking a trade with another GM in the car with his son while driving him to soccer that made his son wide eyes (and possibly ready to give high fives) but then he back tracked and claimed he talks trades all the time so it isn't an indication that anything will happen. (paraphrasing)

How recent was that?
 

Shruggs Peterson

Registered User
Mar 1, 2017
1,904
1,101
I can't think of many guys that are:

1. Available or rumored to be available.
2. The Sens would actually want/get
3. Make a child's eyes go wide.

Demers - Wouldn't make a kid take notice. Plays RD, so I don't see a great fit.

RNH - Would make a kid take notice, but I don't see Dorion trading Turris/Pageau for him (which is what the Oilers would want).

Duchene - Sakic apparently wants Dorion's firstborn son, so that would explain the kid's shock. Not an option.

JVR - Toronto is in our divison, and he's a LW. Not a good fit. Plus, I don't imagine he'd interest Dorion/Boucher and I certainly don't think they give up anything good for him

Tatar/Nyquist - Doesn't carry the name recognition to make a kid take notice, IMO. Again, within division.

Giroux - Could be on the block. If he came cheap enough I would imagine Dorion would listen. Local guy. I just don't think Ottawa has the assets and his contract is so large I don't know how they would fit it.

Corey Perry - I know Anaheim has a budget, but I don't see how Ottawa could make a deal happen given the size/length of his contract Not unless Melnyk gets some WD-40 for his wallet.

OV - Normally I would say he would be a pipe dream, but given Washington playoff exits and their cap troubles, it is more reasonable than some possibilities.

Carter - Name recognition. Front loaded contract. LA might be looking at a rebuild. Could happen. All would depend on the price.

Pacioretty - Montreal fans might want to get rid of him, but I doubt he gets moved. Too vital. Plus Ottawa is in the division.

Ladd - NYI could be looking to cut salary. Ladd has a HEAVILY back-diving contract. It would be like the Phaneuf trade all over again. Ottawa dumps all it's garbage to equalize salary in the first years, picks up a solid winger cheap, and carries the big cap hit during the years when the salary is reasonable to fit the budget. Almost all his salary is a signing bonus that has been paid as well.

Eriksson - See above. Same situation. Could happen. Vancouver could decide to rebuild. Ottawa just needs to open the purse strings. Almost all his salary is a signing bonus that has been paid as well.

Maybe Melnyk has some steroid cream from his Pharma company that can cure Hossa, LOL.

There's actually some good options out there is Ottawa has the budget room and a reasonable GM out there looking to make a deal.

Edit: Forgot one gut allegedly on the block. Evander Kane. I consider this one EXTREMELY doubtful .

I don't think any of the names you've put (excluding OV, Patches and Giroux because the Sens don't have the assets to make the other teams immediately better than what they have now) out there fit into what the Sens have currently, so I agree there. Would like Tatar/Nyquist but as you mentioned within the division means Detroit would likely ask for more.

In a lot of these situations, Ottawa would be doing the other team a favour. Based on what danielpalfredsson laid out, I would bet on the Sens not wanting to buyout a player as opposed to trading for an impact player even though most people can agree we need one.

Who was the last player the Sens bought out? Was it Emery or someone after that? Would love to know how someone persuades Uncle Euge to pay someone to not work for him.
 

Liver King

Registered User
Jan 23, 2016
7,430
5,266
Giroux to Ottawa makes a lot of sense based on the assets we have and the future of Philly. G also has a full NMC and Ottawa would work via trade.

Although expensive.. We would get the legit number 1 and massive help on the PP
 

operasen

Registered User
Apr 27, 2004
5,681
346
Giroux to Ottawa makes a lot of sense based on the assets we have and the future of Philly. G also has a full NMC and Ottawa would work via trade.

Although expensive.. We would get the legit number 1 and massive help on the PP

What does it take? Player X, Brown, 1st? Hammond and Wideman could be included to expand the package as well.
 

Liver King

Registered User
Jan 23, 2016
7,430
5,266
What does it take? Player X, Brown, 1st? Hammond and Wideman could be included to expand the package as well.

That would be my guess. Brown for sure to go along with Patrick and Couts would be huge for their future.

Then they will probably want one of our guys in Turris, Brassard or maybe Smith. After that it would be some combination of picks, prospects and salary additions like Hammond for example.

If im Philly right now I move G for younger cost controlled assets...you'll have to trade him eventually and hes not getting any younger. That could be a sign we should stay away...but screw it id love to see him in a sens jersey
 

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
53,723
30,903
Giroux to Ottawa makes zero sense unless you can ship out Phaneuf or Ryan as part of the deal. Neither seems likely though.

We cannot afford to add 8.25 mil in cap hit when we have to re-sign Turris, Stone, Ceci and then Karlsson a year later.
 

Nac Mac Feegle

wee & free
Jun 10, 2011
34,880
9,303
That would be my guess. Brown for sure to go along with Patrick and Couts would be huge for their future.

Then they will probably want one of our guys in Turris, Brassard or maybe Smith. After that it would be some combination of picks, prospects and salary additions like Hammond for example.

If im Philly right now I move G for younger cost controlled assets...you'll have to trade him eventually and hes not getting any younger. That could be a sign we should stay away...but screw it id love to see him in a sens jersey

Why pay all that for a guy who put up a whopping 3 points more than Turris, but has an $8.275 mil cap hit for the next 5 years? Plus, Girouxs point totals have gone down for 4 straight seasons now. There's a good chance Turris will out-point him next year.
 

Liver King

Registered User
Jan 23, 2016
7,430
5,266
Why pay all that for a guy who put up a whopping 3 points more than Turris, but has an $8.275 mil cap hit for the next 5 years? Plus, Girouxs point totals have gone down for 4 straight seasons now. There's a good chance Turris will out-point him next year.

Well imo Giroux is easily the superior player to Turris, and adding G would make Turris expendable. But thats just my opinion knowing the point totals were the same last year.

Turris likely gets above 6mil on a term longer than 5 years...so we would still have savings going forward if we keep him. Although we would be adding additional salary to the deal so it would likely even out

I really think Jeff Carter probably fits our situation a little better based on his contract and recent production. I am a biased fan of G though and Ill admit it lol
 

50 in 07

Registered User
Feb 10, 2016
1,953
357
Yost had a couple of under the radar bargain type guys he talked about in his latest article, probably a lot more realistic than some of the names being thrown around above.

Yohann Auvitu (D)
But 25 games of data is absolutely better than zero games of data, and in what we saw, Auvitu generally out-performed both his teammates in New Jersey and defenders around the league.
If anything, this is precisely the guy you do want to bet on – surely on a no-term, risk-free contract – to try to begin to test whether last year’s results were legitimate. If they were, Auvitu could really come into his own as a second-pairing/third-pairing tweener and just about two-thirds of the teams in the league are looking for exactly that type of player.

Brandon Pirri (F)
But at the end of the day, I think the question you have to ask is whether or not Pirri can materially help a team win games.
The answer to that question seems to be yes. Over the 226-games and 2,500 5-on-5 minutes Pirri has played at the NHL level, his team has scored about 51.1 per cent of the goals with him on the ice. (Just as a point of reference, Toronto scored 51.1 per cent of the goals with Auston Matthews on the ice last season.)

There are plenty of teams around the league – especially playoff-calibre teams close to the cap – that really need just one more depth forward to enhance their overall product. Pirri can probably be had on a one-year deal near league minimum, and that’s about as quality a bargain as you can ask for right now.

http://www.tsn.ca/talent/bargain-bid-adds-teams-should-consider-in-free-agency-1.800747
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad