Speculation: What is the best asset you part with to trade Bickell?

[Hawkaholic]

With so much speculation out there that the Leafs may take on Bickells contract from us, what is the highest rated pick or prospect you would give up to get rid of Bryan Bickell?

*this poll is assuming it is just Bryan Bickell + (asset) for late draft pick or unknown prospect in return*

I would give up a 2nd next year, or Mark McNeill or a lesser prospect. Not much higher than that.

Click to read more...

 

[Illinihockey]

I'd give up a third and a fifth, maybe a lesser prospect.

 

[tdfxman]

like I posted in that main board thread, we have A class assets and B class. if tor would TAKE B class stuff, it doesn't really matter. if it is higher end stuff, it's a no-brainer. It won't be a 1st anytime, it won't be a 2nd next year since we won't trade the 1st, so that is our TDL piece next year, for smaller if any deal.

So I hope we get rid of him. 3M would help a lot. So dumping a 3 and 4th plus a body isn't too much cost to solve a problem. Only the hawks know how big the problem is. this year, it doesn't really matter. next year it doesn't hurt much really either. So again, we give them a few picks they buy off us for 4M bucks.

 

[hockeydoug]

It depends on what's coming back.

For example Brisbois came back with Rundblad. If they're getting more back besides just capspace, as I suspect Bowman would do, I wouldn't object to giving up more than a first or a good prospect.

 

[b1e9a8r5s]

2nd, McNeil, Mott or Hinostroza.

I don't really know prospects though except what I hear on these boards or the little time they've been up. So maybe I'm not valuing their worth properly.

 

[hockeydoug]

The problem with most of the Hawks #4-10 prospects, especially forwards, is that literally every team has those guys already. Demand is really small, have to find a match with a team.
How many prospect pools, let alone big teams, benefit from a Hinostroza? McNeil? One thing to be willing to trade them, another to find a team that is going to be high on them. If all it took was Svedberg and Hinostroza to move Bickell, I think he would have been gone by now.

 

[piteus]

The problem with most of the Hawks #4-10 prospects, especially forwards, is that literally every team has those guys already. Demand is really small, have to find a match with a team.
How many prospect pools, let alone big teams, benefit from a Hinostroza? McNeil? One thing to be willing to trade them, another to find a team that is going to be high on them. If all it took was Svedberg and Hinostroza to move Bickell, I think he would have been gone by now.

If all it took was Svedberg to rid of Bickell's contract, I would have personally drove both of them to their next team ... even if it was Vancouver ... in a Mini Cooper ... after a big meal at a Mexican restaurant.

 

[TeddyGoalsevelt]

I'm not quite sure why he has been looked over as much as he has, but I think McNeill still has potential. IMO, he's our second best 'B' prospect, after Hartman.

 

[hawksfan50]

Clearly the answer is Ivan Nalimov ...Leafs would extolling on their goalie of the future etc...

 

[Sarava]

Have a feeling it will be Hartman. I'd hate to see him go, but the cap needs some fixing.

And regarding McNeill - if the Hawks aren't interested in him, Babcock probably isn't either.

 

[HawksFan37]

I voted the 2017 2nd round pick, or any prospect with a value equal or less to that. So basically not Dano or Schmaltz. I'd have a hard time dealing Pokka or Forsling as the Hawks lack a little depth in the D pipeline as well, but it would depend on the deal on those two.

 

[Pepe Silvia]

2016 3rd and/or 2017 2nd. Plus prospects like McNeill and Hinostroza.

 

[Pepe Silvia]

2nd, McNeil, Mott or Hinostroza.

I don't really know prospects though except what I hear on these boards or the little time they've been up. So maybe I'm not valuing their worth properly.

Motte should not be included

 

[RedBaronIndian]

Mcneill or 2017 2nd. Dont know which one has higher value. Would be okay with both as well.

 

[JaegerDice]

McNeil+2nd

Nothing more than that.

 

[Central PA Hawk Fan]

McNeil+2nd

Nothing more than that.

Came to post this. I maybe would do Hartman + a 3rd. This is for all of Bickell's contract with no money coming back the other way, meaning a complete salary dump. No roster player coming back, just give us some low pick or ECHL prospect.

 

[Pepe Silvia]

McNeil+2nd

Nothing more than that.

I'd replace McNeill with Chicago's 2016 3rd if Toronto would prefer that, but otherwise I definitely agree.

 

[here come the]

Is there really a Bickell trade to be made? You have to believe Stan has been at this since the draft and hasn't found anything. Maybe someone is more willing to bite, but I think the asking price is too high. However I'd be fine with any prospect below Hartman/Forsling and a 3rd, but don't think that's reasonable.

 

[Central PA Hawk Fan]

Is there really a Bickell trade to be made? You have to believe Stan has been at this since the draft and hasn't found anything. Maybe someone is more willing to bite, but I think the asking price is too high. However I'd be fine with any prospect below Hartman/Forsling and a 3rd, but don't think that's reasonable.

We're just speculating off the rumor that the Leafs inquired about Bickell, maybe they view it as a chance to acquire some assets for nothing.

 

[Pepe Silvia]

Is there really a Bickell trade to be made? You have to believe Stan has been at this since the draft and hasn't found anything. Maybe someone is more willing to bite, but I think the asking price is too high. However I'd be fine with any prospect below Hartman/Forsling and a 3rd, but don't think that's reasonable.

It helps that Toronto has the money and is in a position that they don't really care about paying Bickell for another year. Obviously the Hawks would still need to entice them, but the Leafs are different from every other team.

 

[here come the]

It helps that Toronto has the money and is in a position that they don't really care about paying Bickell for another year. Obviously the Hawks would still need to entice them, but the Leafs are different from every other team.

Agree, but haven't the Leafs been that way all season? Or at least the last couple months? Don't get me wrong I want it to happen, but I just don't see it.

 

[JaegerDice]

Agree, but haven't the Leafs been that way all season? Or at least the last couple months? Don't get me wrong I want it to happen, but I just don't see it.

Yeah, but earlier this season they weren't sure if they could move Phaneuf. There were even rumors Babcock didn't want them to (yet), he wanted to see what the player was like.

Then they moved him with no salary retained. So that opened a lot of space.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

It really all depends, so I can't say for sure.

If, for instance, we got a great LW or defender at half retained and they took Bickell with us holding nothing of his salary, I'd be willing to part with a lot more than if all we got was a bag of pucks.

Regardless, you have to look at the potential cap savings as part of any deal we have Bickell traded in. That alone is valuable. I think that if a team was able to eat all of Bickell's cap hit, it'd be worth more than a second and a prospect that's just not getting a chance in McNeill for the Hawks. You'd probably have to toss in Danault or Dano to make that possible.

 

[piteus]

Yeah, but earlier this season they weren't sure if they could move Phaneuf. There were even rumors Babcock didn't want them to (yet), he wanted to see what the player was like.

Then they moved him with no salary retained. So that opened a lot of space.

It opened a lot of cap space in years 2, 3, and 4. Supposedly, the Leafs took on an extra $3mn of salary next year taking in all the expiring assets. Or at least that's what a Yahoo article claimed.

So I was wrong, the Leafs are willing to take near term salary. BUT they did it to get rid of Phaneuf's enormous 5 year contract. With a 26 year old Stamkos available for ~$11mn, I'd rather remain cap flexible than for some lower draft picks / 2nd tier prospects. JMO.

 

[JaegerDice]

It opened a lot of cap space in years 2, 3, and 4. Supposedly, the Leafs took on an extra $3mn of salary next year taking in all the expiring assets. Or at least that's what a Yahoo article claimed.

So I was wrong, the Leafs are willing to take near term salary. BUT they did it to get rid of Phaneuf's enormous 5 year contract. With a 26 year old Stamkos available for ~$11mn, I'd rather remain cap flexible than for some lower draft picks / 2nd tier prospects. JMO.

I'm not 100% convinced the Leafs brass are as excited about the prospect of signing Stamkos for a blank cheque as the Leafs fanbase is...