Confirmed with Link: Namestnikov to COL for 2021 4th rd pick

[Xspyrit]

lol at reading this thread... Really? HYPERBOLE much?

Kind of reminds me when several people were complaining at a depth signing a few years ago saying he was overpaid when the salary was under 1 M$ lol. Can't remember the player at the moment but damn, some fans of this team are really cheap, small town mind I guess.

People complain a lot about the smallest things here.

Something I have repeated a lot over the years : a storm in a glass of water

We have Boedker sitting in the pressbox making 4.5 million who has been healthy all year and has played 11 games, we had Verraneau/Davidsson in the pressbox in the AHL. We had/have tons of bodies to fill our forward lineup, we didn't need to spend 2 million on Namestikov when we have a guy in Boedker riding the pine who we could have just inserted. .

? Boedker makes 3.0 this year (like last season). Unless someone can explain me how the Cap Hit matters to the Ottawa Senators

But yeah Boedker became a sunk cost. No idea what happened to this guy, he was pretty decent with the Yotes and even Avs/Sharks.

We actively sell picks to save money, yet we are fine bringing in a 4 million dollar player with no intentions of keeping him, and gave up more than we received in return.

That's what lacks foresight and direction, what we received is what it is, not a big deal as I led with

Rangers retained 750 K$ on Names' salary, so 3.25

Maybe there was an intention of keeping and this season was an audition for him. If he played all year like he did at the beginning, things would have probably be very different (so either they extend him or trade him for more). It was a low risk low reward move.

It's like buying a car 10 000$, using it for 8 months, driving it every day. Yes you had to spend on gas, insurance, etc but if you sell it 9750$ after this time, will you cry over it? That's pretty much what happened and why it's a bit ridiculous to complain about this.

Having Namestnikov was driving a car most of the season. Having Boedker instead would have been riding a bike.

Really?! I'm surprised because I usually have a lot of respect for your opinion on these kinds of things. I've been saying I'd happily take a 4th or 5th. He's really not a very good NHL player. Barely above replacement level as far as I can tell.

I was very confused by people expecting we could get anything more than a fourth. That would be like buying a used car, driving it for a year, and then expecting to get more for it than you paid...

EDIT : lol I basically just made the same analogy

Actually, my sister got more for a couple of Mercedes a few years ago. I make money flipping houses and hockey cards but cars, no idea how to do that lol

 

[JD1]

Probably the best day in Dorion's life again.

Might be the best, but not the proudest. That was last year

 

[aragorn]

It's better than nothing & adds something to next yr's draft which hopefully they can turn into something.

 

[Ice-Tray]

Names was a good player for us this year, he played the way team wants to play on D, and had an excellent motor and determination on most nights. He allowed us to keep the kids in Belleville, while playing the game the way the coaches wanted (unlike the guys essentially benched all year).

Nice gamble, served his purpose for the season, but unfortunately was not able to return a better draft pick.

Still a solid move for our season, just didn’t give us that little pop at the end.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

why do we keep moving luchuk

 

[Golden_Jet]

What a waste. What the hell was the point of the whole namestnikov acquistion then?

To send Batherson back to Belleville

 

[Icelevel]

To send Batherson back to Belleville

that's not accurate

 

[Answer]

Why would we even do this trade? Should've kept him. Was such a useful player and was relatively young

 

[R2010]

Why would we even do this trade? Should've kept him. Was such a useful player and was relatively young

If he was willing to take a cheap 2 yr contract why not try signing him

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

why do we keep moving luchuk

high demand

 

[Alfie11]

If he was willing to take a cheap 2 yr contract why not try signing him

I don't think he was going to sign for cheap. If he goes to UFA doesn't get offers, then he may be forced to take less but I don't think he was taking a bargain deal yet.

 

[Karl Eriksson]

Bang on market value

 

[MatchesMalone]

that's not accurate

You sure?

 

[DrEasy]

I don't think he was going to sign for cheap. If he goes to UFA doesn't get offers, then he may be forced to take less but I don't think he was taking a bargain deal yet.

Who knows, maybe now that they've played here for a while, Namestnikov, Ennis or DeMelo wouldn't be against coming back here next year? (ok who am I kidding)

 

[Icelevel]

You sure?

that we acquired namestnikov for a 4th so we could send batherson down?

 

[MatchesMalone]

that we acquired namestnikov for a 4th so we could send batherson down?

That's how I saw the trade from the time it happened.

Everyone knew we'd be able to trade him again at the deadline, so we didn't trade a 4th round pick to send Batherson down, we dropped a few spots in the draft to buy Batherson more time. It was blatantly clear after the first two games that he wasn't ready.

 

[stempniaksen]

That's how I saw the trade from the time it happened.

Everyone knew we'd be able to trade him again at the deadline, so we didn't trade a 4th round pick to send Batherson down, we dropped a few spots in the draft to buy Batherson more time. It was blatantly clear after the first two games that he wasn't ready.

The flipside to this argument is "why didn't the team just call-up Beaudin (among others) as opposed to moving an asset".

This is mostly me playing devil's advocate, since I agree with/understand the Namestnikov trade more than other minor pick deals (Reilly, Peca, ect), but I think there's some validity to the argument since Beaudin came up a few weeks later.

 

[MatchesMalone]

The flipside to this argument is "why didn't the team just call-up Beaudin (among others) as opposed to moving an asset".

This is mostly me playing devil's advocate, since I agree with/understand the Namestnikov trade more than other minor pick deals (Reilly, Peca, ect), but I think there's some validity to the argument since Beaudin came up a few weeks later.

Because they wanted to try to actually compete I games. Organizational depth.

 

[stempniaksen]

Because they wanted to try to actually compete I games. Organizational depth.

So they stopped trying to compete when Beaudin was eventually called up? They already had Boedker in the pressbox around as well.

I don't know what the right answer is here, but giving up assets (even "meaningless" ones) in a tank year when the whole point is to bottom out seems less than ideal. Obviously there was an opportunity to pump and dump with Namestnikov, but now that he's gone and we didn't (quite) recoup the value I'm not sure it was a move that ultimately needed to me made.

 

[MatchesMalone]

So they stopped trying to compete when Beaudin was eventually called up? They already had Boedker in the pressbox around as well.

They didn't have to call up Beaudin as soon or as in as prominent a role. Organizational depth.

 

[MatchesMalone]

So they stopped trying to compete when Beaudin was eventually called up? They already had Boedker in the pressbox around as well.

I don't know what the right answer is here, but giving up assets (even "meaningless" ones) in a tank year when the whole point is to bottom out seems less than ideal. Obviously there was an opportunity to pump and dump with Namestnikov, but now that he's gone and we didn't (quite) recoup the value I'm not sure it was a move that ultimately needed to me made.

We're probably not that far apart here. I don't think it was a great trade, but I can see the reasoning behind it. Best case scenario pump and dump, worse case scenario he adds organizational depth for the year to help keep top prospects down and then recoup similar value at the deadline. Not much lost.

 

[stempniaksen]

They didn't have to call up Beaudin as soon or as in as prominent a role. Organizational depth.

"Organizational depth" matters less in a season where "competing" means piling up losses and protecting the kids though. They didn't/don't need "good" depth this season, they just need enough bodies to ensure the kids are slotted properly. I just think it's short sighted to move pieces that could help FYOUS (or whatever we're ultimately building towards) as opposed to using them on random players in a down year.

 

[stempniaksen]

We're probably not that far apart here. I don't think it was a great trade, but I can see the reasoning behind it. Best case scenario pump and dump, worse case scenario he adds organizational depth for the year to help keep top prospects down and then recoup similar value at the deadline. Not much lost.

We're not far apart at all, I understand your side of things as well (and I would typically agree, just not sure I do when the goal to this season isn't winning).

Like I said, I'm playing devil's advocate here (especially on the Names deal) as it was likely worth the risk to pump and dump. It obviously didn't work out as we all would have hoped, but that doesn't take away from the logic of the deal without the power of hindsight. The Reilly/Peca deals make less sense to me, from that perspective, since I think the odds of recouping a pick are lower than with Namestnikov.

 

[Ice-Tray]

The flipside to this argument is "why didn't the team just call-up Beaudin (among others) as opposed to moving an asset".

This is mostly me playing devil's advocate, since I agree with/understand the Namestnikov trade more than other minor pick deals (Reilly, Peca, ect), but I think there's some validity to the argument since Beaudin came up a few weeks later.

There is no flip side. They hoped that Names could be a reclamation project and get something of higher value back in return as well.

He served a purpose, one that Beaudin could have served, in terms of a body on he ice capable of putting DJ level effort, but they also hoped for a resurgence.

It didn’t happen, and instead they got some solid play from the guy, got to leave kids in Belleville, and got a 4th back at the TDL.

He served his purpose well, we just didn’t get the icing.

 

[Ice-Tray]

We're not far apart at all, I understand your side of things as well (and I would typically agree, just not sure I do when the goal to this season isn't winning).

Like I said, I'm playing devil's advocate here (especially on the Names deal) as it was likely worth the risk to pump and dump. It obviously didn't work out as we all would have hoped, but that doesn't take away from the logic of the deal without the power of hindsight. The Reilly/Peca deals make less sense to me, from that perspective, since I think the odds of recouping a pick are lower than with Namestnikov.

I think Reilly and Peca are cheap bottom line players that won’t be asking for term or big dollars next year. We’ll need some guys to fill out the roster who can play Sens style hockey, and when the scouts find cheap options, I’m fine if we go and grab a few.

Not all available NHL fodder will be able to play the way DJ wants this team to play, we obviously have to find the ‘right’ players. Some will be filler, some will be character, all will have roles, and all will have to have that aggressiveness and that motor.

And all must be cheap and easy to walk away from. The kids, and core, are king.