Proposal: Columbus-Edmonton
- Thread starter lakai17
- Start date
Cowumbus
Registered User
Great ! So we have an agreement . NO DEAL to be had !!
DarthProbert
Registered User
- Feb 3, 2015
- 1,912
- 1,499
I’m confused by the extra parts in this deal. Who is Lagesson? Why does Edmonton want Vehvelianen?
MoeBartoli
Checkers-to-Jackets
- Jan 12, 2011
- 14,049
- 10,230
What about Bemstrom instead of Bjorkstrand or Texier and you keep Lagesson?
Personally I would love RNH and Caleb Jones with CBJ.
And I’m open with moving Savaard and VV for that package. But not Bjork, Tex, or Foudy. Is there another player we can put on the line? Bemstrom? Stenlund? Carlson? Etc.
780il
edm
Rather just keep Nuge and have him put up a ppg pace for us combined with his great all around game.
I might do it from Columbus' perspective, not sure. It's steep.
But it's a moot question anyways, RNH is way too important for Edmonton. This deal doesn't make sense for a number of reasons. RNH is more valuable for Edmonton than he would be for other teams. He's not Edmonton's 3C, he's Edmonton's best two-way forward and scores extremely well from the wing. Savard is a more consistent shutdown presence than Larsson but they do pretty much the same job with equal effectiveness most of the time. No need there. Columbus has just as many LD as Edmonton so there's no way to give ice time to Jones and Lagesson with the current lineup.
But it's a moot question anyways, RNH is way too important for Edmonton. This deal doesn't make sense for a number of reasons. RNH is more valuable for Edmonton than he would be for other teams. He's not Edmonton's 3C, he's Edmonton's best two-way forward and scores extremely well from the wing. Savard is a more consistent shutdown presence than Larsson but they do pretty much the same job with equal effectiveness most of the time. No need there. Columbus has just as many LD as Edmonton so there's no way to give ice time to Jones and Lagesson with the current lineup.
No. It's not going to work, not with Bjorkstrand/Texier and not with a lesser piece.
ChaoticOrange
Registered User
How does that make any sense whatsoever for Edmonton? I wouldn’t do it as is, this redo doesn’t come close to just RNH on his own.
Oilers Propagandist
Relax junior, it’s just a post.
lakai17
Registered User
- Aug 10, 2006
- 20,922
- 1,329
ChaoticOrange
Registered User
what on earth are you doing, trading RNH for Canadian Adam Larsson and plain ol’ beans
Burnt Biscuits
Registered User
- May 2, 2010
- 9,164
- 3,179
This is one of those threads where I'm not even sure what is trying to be achieved.
Like I can understand why CBJ would want RNH to be a 2nd line center for them and Caleb to reunite the Jones bros. a nice feel good story, but including Lagesson seems kind of random.
Then the Oilers are getting Savard who is a good d-man, but he's not really moving the needle, he's slightly better than Bear or Larsson and he'd likely push one of the two down a rung, but what are we doing with the other one? Are we congesting our right side so Bouchard can't make the team?
Bjorkstrand would be a nice add for us, but at the expense of Nuge, I don't see how that makes any sense he's clearly a downgrade and on CBJ's side he was their top goal scorer and they were the 4th lowest goal scoring team this past season, they'd likely prefer to keep him while adding more scoring.
The goalie prospect is kind of random, I mean sure we could use one, but he's probably a ways off from contributing if he's even good enough.
Like I can understand why CBJ would want RNH to be a 2nd line center for them and Caleb to reunite the Jones bros. a nice feel good story, but including Lagesson seems kind of random.
Then the Oilers are getting Savard who is a good d-man, but he's not really moving the needle, he's slightly better than Bear or Larsson and he'd likely push one of the two down a rung, but what are we doing with the other one? Are we congesting our right side so Bouchard can't make the team?
Bjorkstrand would be a nice add for us, but at the expense of Nuge, I don't see how that makes any sense he's clearly a downgrade and on CBJ's side he was their top goal scorer and they were the 4th lowest goal scoring team this past season, they'd likely prefer to keep him while adding more scoring.
The goalie prospect is kind of random, I mean sure we could use one, but he's probably a ways off from contributing if he's even good enough.
Llamamoto
Nice Bison. Kind Bison. Yep.
- Sep 5, 2018
- 8,855
- 12,207
Dumais
It's All In The Reflexes
- Jul 24, 2013
- 1,675
- 717
Not really a fan of RNH at that price, if we are giving up a young 20g winger that could break out (mostly likely would with McDrai) and a top 4 veteran rhd dman; would rather look elsewhere for someone who can challenge PLD or mentor him. Plus I would want someone that would fit in a Torts system a little better than RNH for that cost (just noticed the goalie prospect as well...jeez) rather wait until TDL and see if Wennberg can get it together.
Burnt Biscuits
Registered User
- May 2, 2010
- 9,164
- 3,179
What do you mean someone who would fit better in a Torts system? We've had 7 coaches and every one of them loved RNH to bits, with the possible exception of Eakins who just liked him a lot, he's the guy coaches go out of their way to praise for his attention to detail and smart plays.Dema said:
IMO Wennberg is a must buy-out you should really take advantage of the 1/3rd buy-out window while you still can, once he's no longer 26 that jumps up to having to pay-out 2/3rd's of the contracts value.
Agreed on Nuge, moving him would create a big hole in Columbus and create an even bigger hole in Edmonton. Wennberg is overpaid but funny enough as a player he's the exact type of savvy low-event guy that Edmonton really needs at 3C. Upgrading Sheahan to Wennberg would be a huge boost. Would obviously require retention to work.
