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

[NyQuil]

Ha ha. I know how you feel as we get older & in our head we still think we can do what we did yrs ago but somehow the body just can't do it anymore & some younger kid blows by you. It sucks getting older.

However, in this case Seth Jones is the younger player & has managed to work himself into the best defenceman on the Blue Jackets & one of the best in the league, specifically on the right side. He probably gets the most ice time & certainly the most PP time, don't you think that if nothing else it would hurt his pride that the team went out & brought in a player to replace him in the top spot & push him down & reduce his ice time.

I'm sure you have been around athletes with big egos or super confident & proud who would take that quite personally? While winning is great & it is & when you are used to be "The Man" contributing to your team's success, I don't know a lot of people who would be okay with a diminished role unless of course your skills are also diminishing but Jones is moving into his prime, he is only going to get better. I don't think they need Karlsson & could use those assets to improve the team elsewhere.

In my case, I'm actually still improving but we have some ringers on the team now that actually make it much more fun to play.

It's a team game after all.

I sort of understand the point you are trying to make (e.g. look at Kyrie Irving) but I don't think it applies as often in hockey where the goal is a team championship and there are a lot of players getting the ice time.

Was Niedermayer pissed about the acquisition of Pronger in Anaheim? Or did he just smile at him as he raised the Cup over his head?

 

[Silencio]

see malkin and crosby

Yeah, Malkin/Crosby is the closest NHL equivalent I can think of to an Shaq/Kobe NBA style clashing of egos, and they obviously worked it out.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

that's an easy no. Panthers wouldn't be able to keep Karlsson. So that is way too much for a 1 year rental.

are we sure they wouldn't be able to keep him... they wouldn tbe able to keep him PLUS everyone else... but hes your best player if hes on your team.... you move out some guys for him

 

[Beezeral]

are we sure they wouldn't be able to keep him... they wouldn tbe able to keep him PLUS everyone else... but hes your best player if hes on your team.... you move out some guys for him

They would have to move Yandle who has a NMC. It would not be easy and makes the trade even more unlikely. Their roster would essentially be, Barkov/Huberdeau/Ekblad/Karlsson. Not much there.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

They would have to move Yandle who has a NMC. It would not be easy and makes the trade even more unlikely. Their roster would essentially be, Barkov/Huberdeau/Ekblad/Karlsson. Not much there.

theres quite a bit there. Not sure if you trust management to surround those guys though while working under a bit of a budget after signing the big 4..

 

[danielpalfredsson]

Just for the sake of discussion. Let's assume it is true that we cannot sign Erik Karlsson @ 12.5M and remain competitive with a 68M budget because of all the dead money we already have on the books.

Let's say an 8 years 12.5M deal with a full NMC was on the table for Karlsson, but the only way we could sign it is if we traded Gaborik+Ryan's contracts.

Essentially, we're trading for our own player Erik Karlsson here.

What would you guys be willing to package with Gaborik+Ryan? They don't necessarily have to be traded to the same team.

I am guessing with Ryan, it would probably take something substantial, like our top pick in this draft if it is a top 5 pick. Would you guys do that in the name of keeping Karlsson? Something like 2018 5th+Ryan to VGK for David Clarkson (Insured contract so only under 1M per season in actual cash, 5M cap hit x 2 years)

Gaborik is a bit easier to move I think since he can be bought out rather easily. Maybe something like Colin White+Gaborik for a 3rd. That'd be similar to the Bolland to ARZ trade, except Bolland was insured similar to MacArthur, so the actual real money consequences were much lower. So maybe it'd cost more.

I guess the short of the question is, if you assume what is stated in this post is true just for the sake of discussion, what kind of package of our own assets would you guys give up to keep be able to free up dead money to keep Karlsson?

 

[SenatorFrank]

Just for the sake of discussion. Let's assume it is true that we cannot sign Erik Karlsson @ 12.5M and remain competitive with a 68M budget because of all the dead money we already have on the books.

Let's say an 8 years 12.5M deal with a full NMC was on the table for Karlsson, but the only way we could sign it is if we traded Gaborik+Ryan's contracts.

Essentially, we're trading for our own player Erik Karlsson here.

What would you guys be willing to package with Gaborik+Ryan? They don't necessarily have to be traded to the same team.

I am guessing with Ryan, it would probably take something substantial, like our top pick in this draft if it is a top 5 pick. Would you guys do that in the name of keeping Karlsson? Something like 2018 5th+Ryan to VGK for David Clarkson (Insured contract so only under 1M per season in actual cash, 5M cap hit x 2 years)

Gaborik is a bit easier to move I think since he can be bought out rather easily. Maybe something like Colin White+Gaborik for a 3rd. That'd be similar to the Bolland to ARZ trade, except Bolland was insured similar to MacArthur, so the actual real money consequences were much lower. So maybe it'd cost more.

I guess the short of the question is, if you assume what is stated in this post is true just for the sake of discussion, what kind of package of our own assets would you guys give up to keep be able to free up dead money to keep Karlsson?

Retain on bobby and you'll have no problem moving him. He's a serviceable middle 6 he's just paid like a top line player.

What's the incentive for Vegas here? I think a trade for Clarkson would be a nice fit given our owner but that doesn't move the needle IMO.

 

[Joider]

Just for the sake of discussion. Let's assume it is true that we cannot sign Erik Karlsson @ 12.5M and remain competitive with a 68M budget because of all the dead money we already have on the books.

Let's say an 8 years 12.5M deal with a full NMC was on the table for Karlsson, but the only way we could sign it is if we traded Gaborik+Ryan's contracts.

Essentially, we're trading for our own player Erik Karlsson here.

What would you guys be willing to package with Gaborik+Ryan? They don't necessarily have to be traded to the same team.

I am guessing with Ryan, it would probably take something substantial, like our top pick in this draft if it is a top 5 pick. Would you guys do that in the name of keeping Karlsson? Something like 2018 5th+Ryan to VGK for David Clarkson (Insured contract so only under 1M per season in actual cash, 5M cap hit x 2 years)

Gaborik is a bit easier to move I think since he can be bought out rather easily. Maybe something like Colin White+Gaborik for a 3rd. That'd be similar to the Bolland to ARZ trade, except Bolland was insured similar to MacArthur, so the actual real money consequences were much lower. So maybe it'd cost more.

I guess the short of the question is, if you assume what is stated in this post is true just for the sake of discussion, what kind of package of our own assets would you guys give up to keep be able to free up dead money to keep Karlsson?

I, personally, won't be aggravated if EK is traded for good assets, but that is a big if. However, assuming your scenario, I think we should buy out Gaborik rather than try to force a piece in a deal to move him. With Ryan, I'd only want to give up a pick in the future, or in later rounds. I hate the optics of trading away a piece of the teams future to deal with a current problem. The only way we turn our play around next season is if players like White come into the team and do consistently well, giving us more depth. I can't really see a scenario where I'd like including future assets to move either Ryan or Gaborik, besides an average prospect like Perron or a later pick. Maybe a team that needs more cap and still wants players who can play would consider it for lesser value from us?

 

[danielpalfredsson]

Retain on bobby and you'll have no problem moving him. He's a serviceable middle 6 he's just paid like a top line player.

What's the incentive for Vegas here? I think a trade for Clarkson would be a nice fit given our owner but that doesn't move the needle IMO.

Bobby Ryan has missed a combined 40 games and counting over the last two seasons and so far has put up about an average of 10 goals/30 points a season during that time frame. Nobody is taking the guy even with retained money, and retaining money defeats the purpose.

I am not suggesting I would do it, only outlining what I think it'd take to move Ryan, which in turn would allow us to extend Karlsson at market value and compete within the framework of our current player salary budget.

Ryan (7.25M cap hit/7.50M salary, 4 years remaining)+2018 5th overall to VGK for
David Clarkson (5.25M cap hit/800k average post insurance salary, 2 years remaining).

Vegas' incentive is to take on a bad contract in order to get an asset. Similar to what they've been doing all this year, most recently at the deadline when they retained on Brassard in the three way deal with Pittsburgh.

 

[danielpalfredsson]

I, personally, won't be aggravated if EK is traded for good assets, but that is a big if. However, assuming your scenario, I think we should buy out Gaborik rather than try to force a piece in a deal to move him. With Ryan, I'd only want to give up a pick in the future, or in later rounds. I hate the optics of trading away a piece of the teams future to deal with a current problem. The only way we turn our play around next season is if players like White come into the team and do consistently well, giving us more depth. I can't really see a scenario where I'd like including future assets to move either Ryan or Gaborik, besides an average prospect like Perron or a later pick. Maybe a team that needs more cap and still wants players who can play would consider it for lesser value from us?

Here's the problem, if you don't want to give up an A+ asset, you don't get to dump Ryan. It's that simple. His contract is an albatross at this point. 7.5M salary for four more years when he just isn't playing full seasons and is not able to produce anymore due to playing through injuries.

The just of what I am saying, is I only think we can pay Karlsson market value and be successful under a 68M budget if we get rid of all the dead money we have.

So I am asking, for people who don't want to see Karlsson traded, at what point is the line drawn in terms of giving up assets to create a positive salary structure where we can keep Karlsson at market value?

If I am thinking in the shoes of another team, outside of a Karlsson+Ryan trade which is a different beast entirely, I only take Ryan's contract as a cap dump if it comes with a top 5 pick or Thomas Chabot. Nothing else is worth it. Would people be willing to do something like this to keep Karlsson? Or would they rather move Karlsson+Ryan for an offer of at least 2-3 1st round picks and a top prospect (AKA Vegas' supposed TDL offer).

 

[stempniaksen]

I guess the short of the question is, if you assume what is stated in this post is true just for the sake of discussion, what kind of package of our own assets would you guys give up to keep be able to free up dead money to keep Karlsson?

Realistically, I think our 1st this year (should it fall top-5) should be part of the "core" moving forward. The optics of moving that pick after this waste of a season would also look really bad.

I'd easily tack on White/Brown + to Bobby if someone took him without retention.

Tack on a mid pick and/or prospect to Burrows and MacArthur's deal (saves us in the ballpark of $3.5 million next year).

Buyout Gaborik.

I might be low-balling the prices a little bit, but I think Dorion can swing it without moving our 2018/2019 1st.

 

[Joider]

Here's the problem, if you don't want to give up an A+ asset, you don't get to dump Ryan. It's that simple. His contract is an albatross at this point. 7.5M salary for four more years when he just isn't playing full seasons and is not able to produce anymore due to playing through injuries.

The just of what I am saying, is I only think we can pay Karlsson market value and be successful under a 68M budget if we get rid of all the dead money we have.

So I am asking, for people who don't want to see Karlsson traded, at what point is the line drawn in terms of giving up assets to create a positive salary structure where we can keep Karlsson at market value?

If I am thinking in the shoes of another team, outside of a Karlsson+Ryan trade which is a different beast entirely, I only take Ryan's contract as a cap dump if it comes with a top 5 pick or Thomas Chabot. Nothing else is worth it. Would people be willing to do something like this to keep Karlsson? Or would they rather move Karlsson+Ryan for an offer of at least 2-3 1st round picks and a top prospect (AKA Vegas' supposed TDL offer).

That makes sense. I guess if I had to move a more significant asset I'd consider White because of our centre depth prospect wise. I'm pretty sure Brown, Chlapik, and Batherson have higher ceilings anyway. I'd still rather just keep Ryan's contract than lose someone like White but if it were to keep Karlsson, I'd at the very least consider it.

 

[SenatorFrank]

Bobby Ryan has missed a combined 40 games and counting over the last two seasons and so far has put up about an average of 10 goals/30 points a season during that time frame. Nobody is taking the guy even with retained money, and retaining money defeats the purpose.

I am not suggesting I would do it, only outlining what I think it'd take to move Ryan, which in turn would allow us to extend Karlsson at market value and compete within the framework of our current player salary budget.

Ryan (7.25M cap hit/7.50M salary, 4 years remaining)+2018 5th overall to VGK for
David Clarkson (5.25M cap hit/800k average post insurance salary, 2 years remaining).

Vegas' incentive is to take on a bad contract in order to get an asset. Similar to what they've been doing all this year, most recently at the deadline when they retained on Brassard in the three way deal with Pittsburgh.

Sorry i read that as a 5th rounder. I think VGK take the 5OA and run.

As for bobby, I still think the kid can play but he's got to play a middle 6 role with the ability to sneak a little PP time. A small retention (15-25%) gives him positive value IMO. His injury history is a concern but when he is playing he's a decent producer. He's got 27 points in 51 this year, he can still contribute. Finding a fit that both A) doesn't require Melnyk to pay him too much and B) provides value to the purchaser is the challenge.

 

[50 in 07]

Here's the problem, if you don't want to give up an A+ asset, you don't get to dump Ryan. It's that simple. His contract is an albatross at this point. 7.5M salary for four more years when he just isn't playing full seasons and is not able to produce anymore due to playing through injuries.

The just of what I am saying, is I only think we can pay Karlsson market value and be successful under a 68M budget if we get rid of all the dead money we have.

So I am asking, for people who don't want to see Karlsson traded, at what point is the line drawn in terms of giving up assets to create a positive salary structure where we can keep Karlsson at market value?

IMO, and of course others will disagree, I'd give up any prospect except for our first rounder this year, Chabot, or Gustavsson to get rid of Ryan. Losing White/Brown/Chlapik/Formenton/Batherson to dump Ryan would suck but if it's the only way we get to keep Karlsson I'd do it. (obviously I don't mean all of them)

 

[Sensung]

There is no need to get rid of Ryan.

We are miles under the cap.

 

[Duncstar]

There is no need to get rid of Ryan.

We are miles under the cap.

Did you see how much better our team got without Phaneuf? Ryans pretty slow. I'm happy keeping him 1/2 a seasin until the deadline, but hopefully we roll him out then at 25% retained. This team is getting faster, by clearing out our slower players, and it's working.

I'll rejoice after Smith is gone. Great guy but I can't stand the stupid penalties

 

[Sensung]

Did you see how much better our team got without Phaneuf? Ryans pretty slow. I'm happy keeping him 1/2 a seasin until the deadline, but hopefully we roll him out then at 25% retained. This team is getting faster, by clearing out our slower players, and it's working.

I'll rejoice after Smith is gone. Great guy but I can't stand the stupid penalties

So that is a want to get rid of for team speed issues, not NEED to get rid of him for money reasons.

 

[danielpalfredsson]

There is no need to get rid of Ryan.

We are miles under the cap.

Cap is mostly irrelevant to the Senators, unless there is a major change, we have currently have a 68M real salary budget.

 

[Sensung]

Cap is mostly irrelevant to the Senators, unless there is a major change, we have currently have a 68M real salary budget.

Oh, I'm aware. I just like to point out that we are logically discussing giving up assets because our owner is a cheap, lying prick.

It's not bad enough that we have to compete with a shorthanded roster this year, we also need to strip future teams of assets because of this assclown.

#MELNYKOUT!!!

 

[danielpalfredsson]

Oh, I'm aware. I just like to point out that we are logically discussing giving up assets because our owner is a cheap, lying prick.

It's not bad enough that we have to compete with a shorthanded roster this year, we also need to strip future teams of assets because of this assclown.

#MELNYKOUT!!!

People are going to discuss trades in the trade rumour thread based on the conditions we operate under. It shouldn't be mistaken as endorsing or not endorsing the conditions.

It is what it is.

 

[Langdon Alger]

There is no need to get rid of Ryan.

We are miles under the cap.

Ryan is signed for 4 more years. Just because it might not be a problem next year, doesn’t mean it won’t be a problem later.

If you can move him, you need to at least consider it.

 

[Sensung]

Ryan is signed for 4 more years. Just because it might not be a problem next year, doesn’t mean it won’t be a problem later.

If you can move him, you need to at least consider it.

I'd hold onto him for at least one more year and then retain to get a buyer. If he has a good season, then his value goes up in addition to less future commitment for the team taking his contract.

 

[Langdon Alger]

Ryan, Gaborik and Burrows can’t all be here next year. At least one of them has to be gone. Hopefully 2, ideally all 3.

 

[Stylizer1]

Tavares sign and trade Ryan going the other way with our top pick this year.

 

[Adele Dazeem]

Tavares sign and trade Ryan going the other way with our top pick this year.

Hard pass.