Proposal: 2016-17 Trade Rumours and Proposals Thread Part IX

Status
Not open for further replies.

Real Smart Sens Fan

Registered User
Jun 14, 2014
4,760
4
This right here. For me, Chabot/White/Brown don't move bar an appreciable, tangible upgrade at a position of need which makes sense both long and short term.

Landeskog isn't that. Av's would ask for Chabot, we say no, case closed.

Would you move Brown/White + for Landeskog? i would (although I'd much rather Duchene, and would obviously pay more for him).

I do agree, though, that Chabot should mostly be a non-starter - especially since Brown and White are probably similarly valued but fill less of a longterm and short-term need (especially if we are using them to acquire a top 6 fwd).
 

50 in 07

Registered User
Feb 10, 2016
1,953
357
Would you move Brown/White + for Landeskog? i would (although I'd much rather Duchene, and would obviously pay more for him).

I do agree, though, that Chabot should mostly be a non-starter - especially since Brown and White are probably similarly valued but fill less of a longterm and short-term need (especially if we are using them to acquire a top 6 fwd).

I don't think it matters if we are willing to do that trade, because I can't see Colorado moving Landeskog without getting help on the blue line in return. Same goes for Duchene. Friedman reported this and their fans are pretty much unanimously in agreement with this. So basically it's Chabot, or don't even pick up the phone.

I will say that Dzingel has shown he doesn't look out of place as a top 6 LW, so our current top 6 even with MacArthur out is adequate. I don't see us being in a position to move either blue chippers or first rounders because (1) we're a budget team so ELC's are huge; (2) we don't have a second rounder this year or the next year, and (3) the expansion draft is coming. The exception of course would be in a deal for a huge upgrade at some position, but realistically that isn't happening as much as some on here would like to believe.
 

SameeTheSniper

Registered User
Jun 15, 2016
211
0
Ottawa
My take on Landeskog.

Hes a border line first line winger... sure he desnt produce 60-70 points but you gotta look at the team hes on. The Avalanche suck offesinvily and defensivly. On a good team with a good coach, Landeskog will produce 60+ points, under Boucher he will. He is Much, much better then Ryan. landeskog has leadership, skill and he actually puts effort into his play day-in and out. Unfortunatley he isnt producing like many think he should be, but again, Colorado is a bad team under a bad caoch.

Can we get him? I mean we could, but it's not worth it.

The Avalanche will want a young defenseman. Not Ceci, Chabot. The Avalanche can certainley get someone better then Ceci. Chabotsthe guy they will want. They won't want White or Brown, they already have Duchene and Mackinnon down the middle, and Jost coming up later.

From our POV, if they asked for Chabot, sure its good value, but I'd still not make the deal. We are most likely going to lose Methot or Ceci at the expansion, whos going to replace them later on? It has to be Chabot. We need Chabot if we want to keep a solid top 4.
So no, chances of us getting Landeskog are very low unless we give up Chabot, which likely wont, and we shouldnt.
 

saskriders

Can't Hold Leads
Sep 11, 2010
25,064
1,599
Calgary
I agree giving up Chabot doesn't make sense since we are losing a defensemen to Vegas, and both Phaneuf and Methot are on the wrong side of 30.
 

SameeTheSniper

Registered User
Jun 15, 2016
211
0
Ottawa
Also, why do we want Landeskog?
We already have Dzingel, Hoffy, Smith and Macarthur down the LW. Adding Landeskog doesnt make much sense.
I think we should be looking for a RW guy, cause Ryan doesn't play like a top 6 forward anymore.

YYeah yeah, 7 million dollar 3rd line winger, but he isnt near the 2nd line winger we want him to be
 

Hale The Villain

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Apr 2, 2008
25,736
13,364
All significantly-valued tradeable assets should be used to acquire a #1 center, another top 4 defenseman and a future #1 goalie. Team does not have the expendable assets or money to divert towards more expensive top 6 wingers.
 

ReginKarlssonLehner

Let's Win It All
May 3, 2010
40,764
11,060
Dubai Marina
I would heavily consider trading Hoffman for a player who scores 25 and has much better all-around game. Even tho I think Hoffman still has one more gear to his game.

Obviously for a significant upgrade only. But I really doubt we can win a cup with our current roster + prospects in a couple years. Looking at other cup winners they tend to have more high end players than us.

What Im really afraid of doing us trading some assets now that we would need in the future when a big catch is available.

Dorion ****ed up HARD trading Zibanejad for Brassard. What an idiotic move, I really tried to be optimistic but reality is kicking in.

Imagine if we had Zib still, even if he didnt "breakout" like he is doing in NY, he would be muchhhhhhhhh more enticing in a package for like Duchene or what-not.

I want to keep all our eggs in one basket until a legit talent becomes available. For now we should just trade roster players. For example Turris+Ceci for Duchene then 3rd or 4th rounder for Tyutin.

All significantly-valued tradeable assets should be used to acquire a #1 center, another top 4 defenseman and a future #1 goalie. Team does not have the expendable assets or money to divert towards more expensive top 6 wingers.

Well said.
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,860
1,519
Ottawa
Its remarkable to think the Avs could be trading Duchene and Landeskog, especially after so much hand wringing here about how they had out-tanked us to get these players. Another failed tank attempt to add to the long list of them?

It feels like the desire for Duchene is very much like the wish we could get Ryan when he was still on Anaheim. I wonder if they would end similarly. Duchene-Ryan, is that a combo worth spending to the cap on? Would be nice though. But cant imagine giving up Chabot for that, that would kind of be not learning our lessons.
 

L'Aveuglette

つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Jan 8, 2007
47,821
19,795
Montreal
No to Landeskog. Especially if we're sending one of the few great prospects we have.


That is unless they straight up want Ryan in return with a 4th rounder...
 

aragorn

Do The Right Thing
Aug 8, 2004
28,552
9,057
All significantly-valued tradeable assets should be used to acquire a #1 center, another top 4 defenseman and a future #1 goalie. Team does not have the expendable assets or money to divert towards more expensive top 6 wingers.

Are you not contradicting yourself here? The first sentence wants to acquire top talent & the second sentence is saying we can't afford it or am I reading that wrong? If so, I agree that Ottawa needs a few more players but rather than elite players maybe some middle of the road players who can also add more offence that are affordable for this franchise is the way to go until some prospects can take their place in Chabot, White & Brown. But is this management team ready to do that?
 

Burrowsaurus

Registered User
Mar 20, 2013
42,294
15,965
Are you not contradicting yourself here? The first sentence wants to acquire top talent & the second sentence is saying we can't afford it or am I reading that wrong? If so, I agree that Ottawa needs a few more players but rather than elite players maybe some middle of the road players who can also add more offence that are affordable for this franchise is the way to go until some prospects can take their place in Chabot, White & Brown. But is this management team ready to do that?
He is saying we have it. But if we spend it all on a winger we won't have it for something we really need.
 

Bileur

Registered User
Jun 15, 2004
18,495
7,231
Ottawa
Also, why do we want Landeskog?
We already have Dzingel, Hoffy, Smith and Macarthur down the LW. Adding Landeskog doesnt make much sense.
I think we should be looking for a RW guy, cause Ryan doesn't play like a top 6 forward anymore.

YYeah yeah, 7 million dollar 3rd line winger, but he isnt near the 2nd line winger we want him to be

Not that I'm even sure I'd want to make a move from him but the reason is obvious.

He'd instantly be better than the LWs you mentionned. Plus, he brings a siillset we are lacking in our top 6.

Also, as much as I hope I'm wrong about this I think it would be foolish to count on MacArthur to play consistently for us again let alone produce consistently. Going into the season expecting him to be a top 6 forward with no backup plan was a major mistake. Any production from him has to be seen as a bonus at this point not a necessity.
 

Tundraman

ModerationIsKey
Feb 13, 2010
11,692
1,538
North
I would do White + Ryan + 1st for Landeskog in a heartbeat.

Well Landeskog does have 7 goals and is a -10 so it proves one thing.

No NHL GM job in your future unless of course Dorion quits in which case you are 1st on the list as long as you work cheap and do lots of those 3 for 1 deals.
 

aragorn

Do The Right Thing
Aug 8, 2004
28,552
9,057
He is saying we have it. But if we spend it all on a winger we won't have it for something we really need.

Oh okay! Thanks.

Does Ottawa still have that money in / money out policy with all trades? That will make it very difficult to make any trades if Melnyk doesn't want to add money or stick with this internal budget?
 

SAK11

Registered User
Oct 4, 2011
1,632
640
I saw this on twitter in regards to Landeskog:

His shots per game:
11/12: 3.29
12/13: 3.02
13/14: 2.74
14/15: 2.61
15/16: 2.25
16/17: 2.0

His ice time, and his PP time in these years has been similar.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->