TimmyD
Registered User
I really think JR us hunting for a bigger name (Duchene,Bozak level). I just can't imagine a team is going to trade us a 3c for Scott Wilson because I don't think he is really all that valuable
I really think JR us hunting for a bigger name (Duchene,Bozak level). I just can't imagine a team is going to trade us a 3c for Scott Wilson because I don't think he is really all that valuable
Just a hunch, I think a 61 game sample size is a lot more logical to lean on than a 22 game cold streak. Just a hunch though.
The thing you're ignoring here is what trading Sheary would do down the lineup. Let's only talk about Duchene because the idea of trading Sheary for Bozak or Ryan ****ing Spooner is just nonsense. If you trade Sheary and whatever else it takes for Duchene (let's pretend it's only futures and not Maatta, when it would likely be required to have both), you have no more cap space available, Wilson is on your 3rd line when everyone is healthy and your 4th line is on caliber with what it was under Bylsma (aka bad). Your depth goes from the reason you won 2 straight cups to poor. If Sprong would come in and show he can play in the top-9, which I do think he'll be able to do next season, that lessens the blow, but your depth would still be worse with Sprong than it would be if you kept Sheary and instead traded say Wilson for an okay 3C.
Basically, trading Sheary for a 3C is just absolute overkill. If you want a great 3C, just start throwing futures at Toronto for Bozak. Spooner is just an awful option, I'd sooner go out and sign "relapsed into alcoholism" Ribiero before I'd trade for Spooner.
I think he's just waiting out GMs to get the right price for whatever he's after and I doubt it's a big name. He'll get someone good for the cap who will be here's for awhile.
I really think JR us hunting for a bigger name (Duchene,Bozak level). I just can't imagine a team is going to trade us a 3c for Scott Wilson because I don't think he is really all that valuable
Both are small sample sizes. My point is we haven't seen enough of Sheary to know for sure what kind of player he is going to be production wise the rest of his career. Its an unknown.
I am not suggesting we trade him if we dont have to. What I am suggesting is that if the choice is between Sheary and a good 3C I think the good 3C is a no brainier. Perharps Spooner was a bad example but if were talking Bozak if he had term left on his deal, TJ, or Duchene thats an easy call. If Bozak was so easy to acquire whats JR waiting for? We also need to send salary because right now were sitting at 3.2 in cap space so someone has to go the other way.
Our winger depth without Sheary is far better than our center depth without a 3C. Our center depth was just as important as our winger depth in the cup runs. We won because of FORWARD depth.
Without Sheary your looking at this
Guentzel-Crosby-Hornquvist
Rust-Malkin-(Kessel/Sprong)
Haglin-(TJ,MD,TB)-(Kessel/Sprong)
Wilson-Rowney-Reaves
vs
Guentzel-Crosby-Sheary
Rust-Malkin-(Kessel/Sprong)
Haglin-Rowney-(Kessel/Sprong)
Archy-Wilson-Reaves
I know which team I would rather match up against if I only have 2 legit pairings or if one of sid/malkin goes down.
We've had this discussion a couple times on here, I think Wilson actually has decent value. His resume is pretty strong overall, I don't think he's much less valuable than say Zach Hyman. The issue is that teams usually have guys like Wilson already, but I think you could probably find a team like the 2014 Penguins that would love to add Wilson to their 3rd line. I don't think Wilson would pull off a guy like Haula, but I do think he'd pull off a good enough 3C that could be effective here with Kessel.
Why are you comparing trading Sheary for a 3C to not trading for a 3C? That's just a completely unfair comparison.
But if a team is acquiring him to play him on their third line why are they sending us back a 3c which would then break up the line Wilson was acquired to play on? I can't see him alone getting us a good 3c. He could be a piece but not just by himself
We've had this discussion a couple times on here, I think Wilson actually has decent value. His resume is pretty strong overall, I don't think he's much less valuable than say Zach Hyman. The issue is that teams usually have guys like Wilson already, but I think you could probably find a team like the 2014 Penguins that would love to add Wilson to their 3rd line. I don't think Wilson would pull off a guy like Haula, but I do think he'd pull off a good enough 3C that could be effective here with Kessel.
Why are you comparing trading Sheary for a 3C to not trading for a 3C? That's just a completely unfair comparison.
In this scenario, I imagine there would be a team that has a 3rd line center caliber player playing as their 4C, but they want to improve their wing depth some. Someone like Riley Sheahan would fit that bill for example. The team wouldn't be trading their current 3C for Wilson, they'd be trading a 3C caliber player that's not playing 3C for Wilson. Guys like Larsson/Girgensons, Shore and Sheahan just off the top of my head fit into that category.
I actually think Wilson for Girgensons or Larsson would be a pretty reasonable deal to suggest. Girgensons once upon a time was an all star and a great 3C, but he was straight up awful under Bylsma.
But again I still feel like he is going to have to give upore then Scott Wilson to get that piece. We are going to be sending something of more value out at least in my opinion
I just honestly don't think any of those guys are good. The best would be Gigensons but if he doesn't bounce back that leaves in a pretty rough spot
So hypothetically speaking, you wouldn't move Sheary as the main piece (as in not Maatta, Sprong, ZAR as other pieces in deal) for Duchene?
Sheary signing that 3 year deal assures he opens the season on the team and won't get traded this year without some really bad play for an extended time or a absolutely unpassable trade offer from another team... gms are loathe to sign and trade without the players approval cause it sends a terrible message... just drop sheary from all trade talk... its not happening...
A deal with Buffalo makes a lot of sense imo, whether its for Girgensons or Johan Larsson.I do think that's something that could happen and benefit both teams. Botterill obviously is very familiar with Wilson since he was the WBS GM and was with him in Pittsburgh and the Sabres are pretty weak at LW overall on their roster.
In this scenario, I imagine there would be a team that has a 3rd line center caliber player playing as their 4C, but they want to improve their wing depth some. Someone like Riley Sheahan would fit that bill for example. The team wouldn't be trading their current 3C for Wilson, they'd be trading a 3C caliber player that's not playing 3C for Wilson. Guys like Larsson/Girgensons, Shore and Sheahan just off the top of my head fit into that category.
I actually think Wilson for Girgensons or Larsson would be a pretty reasonable deal to suggest. Girgensons once upon a time was an all star and a great 3C, but he was straight up awful under Bylsma.
A deal with Buffalo makes a lot of sense imo, whether its for Girgensons or Johan Larsson.
or how about a 3c with a high up side. playing wing because the team is loaded at center(wings) and sheary would be their top wing...
Why do I have this nagging feeling Rurtherford is still scheming / trying to figure out a way to pull off a big trade? No logical reason to believe it but somehow... I feel like we're not done here / not going to go sign some mediocre player to fit under the cap.
Not talking a Duchene trade but maybe someone else recently signed or otherwise signed to a decent contract who nobody is paying attention to.
Why do I have this nagging feeling Rurtherford is still scheming / trying to figure out a way to pull off a big trade? No logical reason to believe it but somehow... I feel like we're not done here / not going to go sign some mediocre player to fit under the cap.
Not talking a Duchene trade but maybe someone else recently signed or otherwise signed to a decent contract who nobody is paying attention to.
vabm8: Yeah that would work. And I think you're right about JR. He's conditioned me to be less cynical than I used to be about trades. heh
KIRK: so you're saying old man Rutherford not trading would be a new trick... right? Right?!
I think he would be worth taking a gamble on as the 3rd line C, has a fair amount going for him imo.Larsson maybe if we didn't have Rowney, but never for the 3rd line. If Larsson is our 3rd line C, we're ****ed.