Speculation: Off Season Trade Thread vol. V: Should he stay or should he go now?

[Stylizer1]

You mean Spezza +/- is because of the ****** team ? Turris was +22 with same team. And please, dont start with Spezza plays against "harder competition" stuff

1 line was +.

 

[ChabotToTrot]

lol, I meant are pick would be the top 10 pick. The chances our team would be pretty trash if we go option 2 route.

But I feel we should collect as many 2015 picks as we can.

Now looking more at that lineup I think you're right, but really you never know with our sens I agree we should definitely pick up as many picks as possible, especially considering how deep that draft is, but I'd rather not see our team suck

 

[trentmccleary]

I actually don't believe we have to get an equal player back to come out well if/when we trade Spezza. Our D was atrocious last year, so if we pick up a serviceable but not flashy D who can log 3/4 minutes our team would improve dramatically. We are overloaded at C, so while losing a PPG player hurts it may not be catastrophic.

A 3/4 D on a good contract plus a first round pick will put us in a good position moving forward. Anything beyond that is gravy IMO.

The problem is that we don't need average players, especially young ones.

What are people offering on the trade board?
- A young-ish 2nd/3rd line center.. while we have Turris, Zibanejad and Smith. We don't need that player. They're offering it because Spezza would displace somebody they know will never be a 1st liner.
- A depth d-man or a young-ish potential 3/4 like you're asking for... Why? Because they don't want to give up quality as they're likely acquiring Spezza to improve their contention possibilities. So that offer is what? A Methot or worse yet, a wannabe Methot? Our defense is already extremely young and some are already expected to move into the 3/4 range --> soon. What we need is a #2 all round d-man right now to push everybody behind Karlsson down a notch and for years to come.
- A mid-1st rounder? ... Well, fiddle-dee-dee! Another potential average player; maybe a 40 point forward or a #4 d-man if we're very lucky.

If this deal is supposed to improve us by setting us for years to come, why are assuming that teams are going to give up easy pieces that are we already chalk full of? Why don't we start by looking at pieces we actually need?

Potential 1st liner: B.Ryan... potential, because we have no way of knowing whether he can carry a line the way Alfie and Hossa used to be able to do.
2nd liners: Turris, MacArthur, Zibanejad
Potential 2nd/3rd liners: no shortage of these... the AHL'ers ripped it up offensively this season: Stone, Hoffman, Pageau, Puempel, Prince, DaCosta, Schneider. Not to mention Lazar. All of these players will be getting their chances to sink or swim within the 2 seasons to see whether they fit in the organization or not.
3rd liners: Z.Smith, Greening

We don't need 2nd or 3rd liners. There's more than enough internal competition in the next 2 years to fill out those lines.

#1 Karlsson
#2
#3/4 Methot
Potential 3/4 and bottom pairing Ceci, Cowen, Wiercioch, Gryba, Phillips, Borowiecki. Not to mention the pro players who had good years who might be able to crack the lineup as depth players: Wideman, Claessen, Wikstrand

We don't need mid or below D-men, we aready have lots of those and expect some to improve towards being mid-pairing D-men. We need a good all-round #2 D-man.

What's the point in acquiring 2nd/3rd liners and 3/4 d-men for Spezza (or worse yet, potential 2nd/3rd liners and 3/4 d-men)?

 

[Lehner]

What's the point in acquiring 2nd/3rd liners and 3/4 d-men for Spezza (or worse yet, potential 2nd/3rd liners and 3/4 d-men)?

I agree, thats why I like Yakupov or Theodore + 20151st.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

Won't yakupov bring the same complaints as spezza. And the KHL factor. I think he's too big of a risk. Free agency is one thing. But this trade needs to work out.

 

[StefanW]

The problem is that we don't need average players, especially young ones.

What are people offering on the trade board?
- A young-ish 2nd/3rd line center.. while we have Turris, Zibanejad and Smith. We don't need that player. They're offering it because Spezza would displace somebody they know will never be a 1st liner.
- A depth d-man or a young-ish potential 3/4 like you're asking for... Why? Because they don't want to give up quality as they're likely acquiring Spezza to improve their contention possibilities. So that offer is what? A Methot or worse yet, a wannabe Methot? Our defense is already extremely young and some are already expected to move into the 3/4 range --> soon. What we need is a #2 all round d-man right now to push everybody behind Karlsson down a notch and for years to come.
- A mid-1st rounder? ... Well, fiddle-dee-dee! Another potential average player; maybe a 40 point forward or a #4 d-man if we're very lucky.

If this deal is supposed to improve us by setting us for years to come, why are assuming that teams are going to give up easy pieces that are we already chalk full of? Why don't we start by looking at pieces we actually need?

Potential 1st liner: B.Ryan... potential, because we have no way of knowing whether he can carry a line the way Alfie and Hossa used to be able to do.
2nd liners: Turris, MacArthur, Zibanejad
Potential 2nd/3rd liners: no shortage of these... the AHL'ers ripped it up offensively this season: Stone, Hoffman, Pageau, Puempel, Prince, DaCosta, Schneider. Not to mention Lazar. All of these players will be getting their chances to sink or swim within the 2 seasons to see whether they fit in the organization or not.
3rd liners: Z.Smith, Greening

We don't need 2nd or 3rd liners. There's more than enough internal competition in the next 2 years to fill out those lines.

#1 Karlsson
#2
#3/4 Methot
Potential 3/4 and bottom pairing Ceci, Cowen, Wiercioch, Gryba, Phillips, Borowiecki. Not to mention the pro players who had good years who might be able to crack the lineup as depth players: Wideman, Claessen, Wikstrand

We don't need mid or below D-men, we aready have lots of those and expect some to improve towards being mid-pairing D-men. We need a good all-round #2 D-man.

What's the point in acquiring 2nd/3rd liners and 3/4 d-men for Spezza (or worse yet, potential 2nd/3rd liners and 3/4 d-men)?

I don't disagree that we should try to get a #2 D for Spezza, but my starting assumption was that we will not get equal value back. In my mind, if we move Spezza our team will lose out in overall quality, but we can still come out ok providing we get something we need.

When I look at our D I see us as being overloaded with 5/6 guys. Gryba, Phillips, Boro are all in that boat. The tricky part is the guys who have potential to be 3/4, such as Cowen and Ceci (I'm assuming Wiercioch will be moved, but if not he is on this list). The team banked on young guys stepping up into those roles this year, and when some players regressed we were in trouble. If, for the sake of argument, one player steps up and plays well enough to earn a top 4 role that still leaves a hole with xxx, Karlsson, and Methot as our top 4 guys. Thus I argued that a top 4 D, even a 3/4, would help our team.

My other assumption is that our scoring will go down without Spezza. I believe we are in agreement here. If our scoring drops, we cannot afford to anything but a rock solid D. Worst case scenario would be if our D plays as poorly as last year, which would put us in the McDavid sweepstakes. So again, my thought was solidifying our D has to be the #1 goal. If it is unrealistic to get a #2 guy, as I see it a 3/4 can still work in the current team dynamic.

I think our disagreement stems over whether we believe Methot can bounce back into top 2 form. I believe it is possible, but you may be right about him realistically being more of a 3/4 guy as he was for most of his career. However, a different stay at home 3/4 guy still works with Karlsson anyway. The big thing to avoid is ending up with another Cowen situation where Karlsson is tied to our weakest D.

 

[ChabotToTrot]

If and its a big if Spezza goes to Edmonton I'd rather get Eberle and maybe a 3rd or 4th back from them as opposed to Yakupov. I agree with the KHL factor, don't like there being a possibility of him leaving. And if we're getting rid of Spezza I don't want an even bigger defensive liability in Yakupov. However I don't watch a ton of edmonton games so I could just be completely wrong

 

[Burrowsaurus]

Eberle is ideal. He probably be best possible player we can acquire with this trade. Followed by oshie Schwartz kadri. First overall huberdeau.

 

[Karl Eriksson56]

Is there any scenario where lehner becomes our franchise goalie?

 

[Qward]

Is there any scenario where lehner becomes our franchise goalie?

yes. Just give him time and a solid core of D infront of him.

 

[trentmccleary]

I don't disagree that we should try to get a #2 D for Spezza, but my starting assumption was that we will not get equal value back. In my mind, if we move Spezza our team will lose out in overall quality, but we can still come out ok providing we get something we need.

When I look at our D I see us as being overloaded with 5/6 guys. Gryba, Phillips, Boro are all in that boat. The tricky part is the guys who have potential to be 3/4, such as Cowen and Ceci (I'm assuming Wiercioch will be moved, but if not he is on this list). The team banked on young guys stepping up into those roles this year, and when some players regressed we were in trouble. If, for the sake of argument, one player steps up and plays well enough to earn a top 4 role that still leaves a hole with xxx, Karlsson, and Methot as our top 4 guys. Thus I argued that a top 4 D, even a 3/4, would help our team.

My other assumption is that our scoring will go down without Spezza. I believe we are in agreement here. If our scoring drops, we cannot afford to anything but a rock solid D. Worst case scenario would be if our D plays as poorly as last year, which would put us in the McDavid sweepstakes. So again, my thought was solidifying our D has to be the #1 goal. If it is unrealistic to get a #2 guy, as I see it a 3/4 can still work in the current team dynamic.

Wiercioch could be moved for a 3/4.
A 3/4 could be signed as UFA.
Cowen and/or Ceci could turn into a 3/4. As soon as next season.

I think our disagreement stems over whether we believe Methot can bounce back into top 2 form. I believe it is possible, but you may be right about him realistically being more of a 3/4 guy as he was for most of his career. However, a different stay at home 3/4 guy still works with Karlsson anyway. The big thing to avoid is ending up with another Cowen situation where Karlsson is tied to our weakest D.

Methot was never a #2. A #2 is a good all-round d-man, not a 1-way d-man pressed into service behind Gonchar because Karlsson was hurt.

Offensively, we have Karlsson and what else? ... Wiercioch and Ceci? Two guys who are almost never in the lineup at the same time. Two guys who are bottom pairing d-men right now.
We aren't going anywhere with Karlsson and three 1-way d-men in our top-4. We aren't going anywhere with a 2nd pairing that has trouble moving the puck and is unable to create options for our forwards in the offensive zone.

 

[TheBradyBunch]

If Murray does in fact agree with you Trent, and wants top end talent instead of depth, I strongly suspect we'll get a top 3 fwd or a top 3 DMan.

 

[TheBradyBunch]

Umberger will be dealt this offseason, would you trade Greening for him?

 

[BigRig4]

If Murray does in fact agree with you Trent, and wants top end talent instead of depth, I strongly suspect we'll get a top 3 fwd or a top 3 DMan.

It will most likely be a D. Trading a top 3 fwd would just be lateral movement for the other team.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

Umberger will be dealt this offseason, would you trade Greening for him?

Twice

 

[Qward]

Twice

wait, doesn't that mean you would trade Greening to CBJ for RJU, then trade him again which would mean we would get greening back?

 

[Burrowsaurus]

wait, doesn't that mean you would trade Greening to CBJ for RJU, then trade him again which would mean we would get greening back?

Then id do it thrice.

 

[Tkachuk27]

Jason Spezza for Ty Rattie and Shattenkirk

Puempel Lazar Rattie

Cowen Karlsson
Methot Shattenkirk
Claesson Ceci

 

[PierresGabriels]

Something about the first overall seems so juicy to me. Ekblad would be G as ******* in the long run on our team.

 

[Benjamin]

Umberger will be dealt this offseason, would you trade Greening for him?

He just put up 34 points in 76 games while slowly regressing over the last few years and makes 4,6mil over the next 3 years. I'd rather have Greening.

 

[TheBradyBunch]

He just put up 34 points in 76 games while slowly regressing over the last few years and makes 4,6mil over the next 3 years. I'd rather have Greening.

Yep, same. Was just curious what others though. Also I dont see how a top 3 f for Spezza would be a lateral move unless we're talking like, Chicago.

Kings top 3:
Kopitar, Carter, Williams

Rangers:
Zuccarello, Stepan, Richards

Ducks:
Getzlaf, Perry, Bonino

Predators:
Smith, Horqvist, Fisher

Blues:
Oshie, Steen, Backes

I see 3 players on those lists who are even close to Jason's level.

 

[TheBradyBunch]

I really hope the Blues dont get Spezza. Their fans are insanely immature and disrespectful and no matter what they give up, getting Spezza will make them a better team. F that.

 

[Hemmer Time]

I don't think anyone is going to pay so much for one year of Spezza. Personally, I think getting elite prospect talent is better than getting players that can help now. We aren't going to get a team's future core however (ex: Lindholm). Heck, I doubt we can even get Theodore because Anaheim has no depth behind him and Vatanen.

If management isn't willing to pay this year, I suggest we do a rebuild again because the 2015 draft is really worth it. If we can trade Spezza for Etem + 10th + Sorrensen, that sets us up really well for a youth movement. Or, we can add to Spezza (Gryba?) to get Shattenkirk + Rattie.

Assuming trade number one goes down, we have:

MacArthur - Turris - Ryan
Etem - Zibanejad - Stone
Hoffman - Smith - Condra/prospect
Greening - Pageau - prospect/Neil

Cowen (if he takes a step forward) - Karlsson
Methot - Ceci
Wiercioch - Gryba
Phillips
Boro

We add:
10th overall selection, someone like Jake Virtanen or Perlini or Nylander, all very good prospects.
Likely high 2015 1st selection (our own)
Sorrensen (who looks pretty good if you ask me)

however, if we choose this route I want some or all of Phillips, Greening, Neil gone. I also would be open to flipping Ryan for good young players/top prospects because he would be too old by the time our core is ready. Ideally, we'd be a playoff team two years down the road and depending on the picks a contender in around 4 years, when Karlsson is 27 (more mature) and Turris is 28-29 and Z-bad is 24.

 

[Micklebot]

Then id do it thrice.

I'd rather bank on Greening rebounding than Umberger not continuing to regress.

Put Umberger with Neil and smith instead of Johansen and Foligno and his perceived performance plummets further.

 

[StefanW]

Wiercioch could be moved for a 3/4.
A 3/4 could be signed as UFA.
Cowen and/or Ceci could turn into a 3/4. As soon as next season.

Possibly, but I think you are being optimistic. The only teams that would give a decent return for Wiercioch would be teams in need of either offense or depth from the back end. Teams that come to mind (e.g. Colorado) don't have extra 3/4 to give up in that type of move. They would be looking to add. If Weircioch was a part of a package to get Ehrhoff, for example, then yeah maybe.

Signing a top 4 D as a UFA is possible but unlikely due to our budget. While I think our team can afford to pay at value for such a D, overpaying for a UFA (and top 4 D always get paid well as UFAs) is not in our cards.

Methot was never a #2. A #2 is a good all-round d-man, not a 1-way d-man pressed into service behind Gonchar because Karlsson was hurt.

Offensively, we have Karlsson and what else? ... Wiercioch and Ceci? Two guys who are almost never in the lineup at the same time. Two guys who are bottom pairing d-men right now.
We aren't going anywhere with Karlsson and three 1-way d-men in our top-4. We aren't going anywhere with a 2nd pairing that has trouble moving the puck and is unable to create options for our forwards in the offensive zone.

Ceci and Wiercioch did not play at the same time because the team believed they are redundant. I suspect the team wants one puck moved guy on each of the top four units, and good defensive guys with grit filling out the 5/6 moving forward.

I disagree with your definition of #2 D because I am focused on a #2 D who can play with Karlsson. While it is always great to have 2 way guys, the emphasis for anyone playing beside Karlsson is, and always will be, to play responsible D in order to open up Karlsson's game. That is why Methot was able to fill there effectively two seasons ago even though he has always been a 3/4 guy.