Rumor: Trade Rumors/Proposals 2018-2019 (Part 17)

[Qward]

No interest in being a continual farm team for the rest of the league.

 

[danielpalfredsson]

The thinking was to emulate a scenario like vegas in year one. Commit to a well balanced roster of middle six/2nd pairing players as your core (white, norris, pageau, etc), and maybe one or two stars at max. The rest can be recycled in futures deals before their raises come up. Keep the money spread out across non-flashy guys that can win but who won't break the bank. It isn't ideal, but i think its a legit strategy for a cash strapped team.

Since when does Vegas only have 1 star?

Fleury, Stone are both superstars. Stone borders on being a franchise winger depending on the hockey philosophy of the evaluator.

Then in that second tier they are loaded with stars. They have Stastny, Theodore, Pacioretty Marchessault, Tuch, W.Karlsson, R.Smith, and most likely next year Cody Glass who will probably put up 40-60 points depending on his usage. Their roster is incredibly deep, especially at forward. It's the farthest thing from how you are portraying we can build our roster like. I assume you are using Norris, Pageau, and White as a stand in for basically "two way 3rd line forwards who play hard but won't score more than 45 points".

The idea that Vegas is this hard working teams of non-stars that we can emulate is not rooted in reality. I've seen it floated out there a year ago when they were in the final because their cap number was low, but the only reason their cap number was low was because their entire roster was a year away from being paid. Basically a similar situation to Chabot's cap number being low.

 

[Deku]

Since when does Vegas only have 1 star?

Fleury, Stone are both superstars. Stone borders on being a franchise winger depending on the hockey philosophy of the evaluator.

Then in that second tier they are loaded with stars. They have Stastny, Theodore, Pacioretty Marchessault, Tuch, W.Karlsson, R.Smith, and most likely next year Cody Glass who will probably put up 40-60 points depending on his usage. Their roster is incredibly deep, especially at forward. It's the farthest thing from how you are portraying we can build our roster like. I assume you are using Norris, Pageau, and White as a stand in for basically "two way 3rd line forwards who play hard but won't score more than 45 points".

The idea that Vegas is this hard working teams of non-stars that we can emulate is not rooted in reality. I've seen it floated out there a year ago when they were in the final because their cap number was low, but the only reason their cap number was low was because their entire roster was a year away from being paid. Basically a similar situation to Chabot's cap number being low.

He was talking about their roster in year 1, so we can't count Stone/Stastny/Pacioretty. However I'd say Marchessault and Karlsson played at a "star" level that season despite not being considered stars beforehand

I think that team was lightning in a bottle as well, dont think it's much of a replicable model to go by

 

[danielpalfredsson]

I just think we could conceivably convert chabot and his sky high value into something that helps the team more long term. As stated before, most people disagree because they don't think we'd get a good enough return. Thats fair, but instead of just saying that they basically call me dumb for raising it, because internet. I honestly think it might happen. I suspect dorion and co have a roster salary distribution in mind for where they expect to put their salary dollars. It will come down to what they think he will command and whether he is a star they want to build the backend around. If he's not, and they can get a great deal, the right play is to deal him now.

People don't like the idea because aside from Ryan and Smith we have no long term money on the books that should prevent us from committing to our best player. The idea of an NHL team trying to liquidate a 22 year old superstar D who has 5 years of team control left requires significant evidence and reasoning because it is so far out of range with conventional thinking.

If you put out a controversial/incredibly unconventional idea and you don't give fleshed out reasoning as to why it makes sense, people won't get on board with the idea let alone take it seriously. The burden of proof with those kind of ideas is on the person proposing them.

 

[danielpalfredsson]

He was talking about their roster in year 1, so we can't count Stone/Stastny/Pacioretty. However I'd say Marchessault and Karlsson played at a "star" level despite not being considered stars beforehand

They had two top 30 NHL scorers, three top 45 NHL scorers. 5 players on pace for 25+ goals. William Karlsson who was 3rd in NHL goal scoring had a near franchise level season that year.

I get production is a very 1 dimensional way to illustrate this, but the idea that they had no stars in the first season is false. Did they play above their level? Maybe. But characterizing the 17-18 VGK as a team that can be built on a strict budget that has no stars and a bunch of low scoring 2 way forwards is completely out of line with reality.

In order to maintain and build on that roster they had to become one of the highest spending teams in the league.

 

[dumbdick]

People don't like the idea because aside from Ryan and Smith we have no long term money on the books that should prevent us from committing to our best player. The idea of an NHL team trying to liquidate a 22 year old superstar D who has 5 years of team control left requires significant evidence and reasoning because it is so far out of range with conventional thinking.

If you put out a controversial/incredibly unconventional idea and you don't give fleshed out reasoning as to why it makes sense, people won't get on board with the idea let alone take it seriously. The burden of proof with those kind of ideas is on the person proposing them.

I did suggest reasons. Many of them. And i think we need to be highly unconventional to be competitive in this league with our payroll.

 

[Deku]

I did suggest reasons. Many of them. And i think we need to be highly unconventional to be competitive in this league with our payroll.

Maybe not that unconventional though. If the team isn't competitive within the next 3/4 years (which if you trade Chabot, it wont be), do you do the same thing with Tkachuk? Then Batherson if he becomes a star? Then with whoever we draft in the top 5 next year?
Dealing Chabot right now would be the exact opposite of progress in the rebuild, just moving the team even further from competing, no matter the return IMO

 

[danielpalfredsson]

I did suggest reasons. Many of them. And i think we need to be highly unconventional to be competitive in this league with our payroll.

Here are the reasons you suggested. I don't think they were very strong or convincing.

to fully complete the rebuild?
How does trading a 22 year old superstar with 5 years of team control left complete a rebuild? Wouldn't that be counter productive?

He's due for a raise next season and i suspect his trade value will never be higher than it is right now.
The raise should not be an issue. We have almost no money on the books. Why not prioritize our best player and trade away lesser players as a consequence of money?

I love him too, but i also loved stone and karl so why not blow it all up entirely?
That's not really an argument.

It could put us in a better spot long term depending on the return.
Again, burden of proof is on you. If you can think of realistic scenarios where trading a 22 year old superstar D puts a team in a better spot long term, you probably need to be more specific because people are going to have an incredibly difficult time believing that to be true.

There's nothing wrong with having outside the box ideas, or ideas that go against the norm, but if you're going to propose such a radical idea without providing some serious and strong reasoning, it shouldn't be unexpected that people are going to view the idea negatively and not take it all that seriously.

 

[dumbdick]

Maybe not that unconventional though. If the team isn't competitive within the next 3/4 years (which if you trade Chabot, it wont be), do you do the same thing with Tkachuk? Then Batherson if he becomes a star? Then with whoever we draft in the top 5 next year?
Dealing Chabot right now would be the exact opposite of progress in the rebuild

I think "draft as good as you can and then sign all the best ones" is every team in the league's strategy. Its a recipe for parity and I dont think we get ahead with this approach. Even of we get lucky at the draft table, im not sure it compensates for our lack of spending. Every team has good prospects.
I think you look at the roster as a whole and sign the players that best fit the system and spending constraints. Every dollar spent on chabot is theoretically a dollar not spent elsewhere on the roster (queue the $0.05 melnyk quip). Basically i want dorion to figure out what a winning team at our payroll looks like, and then do his best to get a team that meets those specifications. I believe that recipe has very few stars and a strong middle six. If chabot happens to fit the mold, barring a solid offer i would keep him. If he doesnt, then keep an eye out for a trade if a good one presents itself. But be very selective about which stars we lock up, because we can only have so many and theyre highly valuable assets that could be used to give us an edge down the road via futures trade or be used to strengthen other parts of the team.

 

[dumbdick]

Here are the reasons you suggested. I don't think they were very strong or convincing.

to fully complete the rebuild?
How does trading a 22 year old superstar with 5 years of team control left complete a rebuild? Wouldn't that be counter productive?

He's due for a raise next season and i suspect his trade value will never be higher than it is right now.
The raise should not be an issue. We have almost no money on the books. Why not prioritize our best player and trade away lesser players as a consequence of money?

I love him too, but i also loved stone and karl so why not blow it all up entirely?
That's not really an argument.

It could put us in a better spot long term depending on the return.
Again, burden of proof is on you. If you can think of realistic scenarios where trading a 22 year old superstar D puts a team in a better spot long term, you probably need to be more specific because people are going to have an incredibly difficult time believing that to be true.

There's nothing wrong with having outside the box ideas, or ideas that go against the norm, but if you're going to propose such a radical idea without providing some serious and strong reasoning, it shouldn't be unexpected that people are going to view the idea negatively and not take it all that seriously.

I hope you're not like this in real life.

 

[Deku]

I think "draft as good as you can and then sign all the best ones" is every team in the league's strategy. Its a recipe for parity and I dont think we get ahead with this approach. Even of we get lucky at the draft table, im not sure it compensates for our lack of spending. Every team has good prospects.
I think you look at the roster as a whole and sign the players that best fit the system and spending constraints. Every dollar spent on chabot is theoretically a dollar not spent elsewhere on the roster (queue the $0.05 melnyk quip). Basically i want dorion to figure out what a winning team at our payroll looks like, and then do his best to get a team that meets those specifications. I believe that recipe has very few stars and a strong middle six. If chabot happens to fit the mold, barring a solid offer i would keep him. If he doesnt, then keep an eye out for a trade if a good one presents itself. But be very selective about which stars we lock up, because we can only have so many and theyre highly valuable assets that could be used to give us an edge down the road via futures trade or be used to strengthen other parts of the team.

I get what you're saying about choosing the right star players to build around, but with how we've already torn everything down, it would be a bit goofy to not build around the one star you have left who is only 22. I think any plan that a 22 year old star offensive defenseman doesn't fit into is a bad plan.

 

[dumbdick]

I get what you're saying about choosing the right star players to build around, but with how we've already torn everything down, it would be a bit goofy to not build around the one star you have left who is only 22. I think any plan that a 22 year old star offensive defenseman doesn't fit into is a bad plan.

Fair enough

 

[PoutineSp00nZ]

No interest in being a continual farm team for the rest of the league.

Neither do I.

If that's what the senators turn into I'm switching teams until a new owner comes in

 

[Samsquanch]

Since when does Vegas only have 1 star?

Fleury, Stone are both superstars. Stone borders on being a franchise winger depending on the hockey philosophy of the evaluator.

Then in that second tier they are loaded with stars. They have Stastny, Theodore, Pacioretty Marchessault, Tuch, W.Karlsson, R.Smith, and most likely next year Cody Glass who will probably put up 40-60 points depending on his usage. Their roster is incredibly deep, especially at forward. It's the farthest thing from how you are portraying we can build our roster like. I assume you are using Norris, Pageau, and White as a stand in for basically "two way 3rd line forwards who play hard but won't score more than 45 points".

The idea that Vegas is this hard working teams of non-stars that we can emulate is not rooted in reality. I've seen it floated out there a year ago when they were in the final because their cap number was low, but the only reason their cap number was low was because their entire roster was a year away from being paid. Basically a similar situation to Chabot's cap number being low.

Its pretty funny to me because Stone was definitely NOT considered a superstar in Ottawa for 98% of his time here. He was a star winger; a sure fire 1st liner. But not a super star.

But as per usual when he left the rest of the league (and our own fanbase too) is ready to call him a top 3-5 winger.

Vegas doesn't have a super star imo, but more so an impressive collection of good to elite players. Imo.

 

[Micklebot]

Its pretty funny to me because Stone was definitely NOT considered a superstar in Ottawa for 98% of his time here. He was a star winger; a sure fire 1st liner. But not a super star.

But as per usual when he left the rest of the league (and our own fanbase too) is ready to call him a top 3-5 winger.

Vegas doesn't have a super star imo, but more so an impressive collection of good to elite players. Imo.

To be fair, his last two years here his production exploded; he was a 60-65 pts player for 3 years then in 17-18 he becomes a pt per game guy and follows that up with a similar performance in 18-19, so of course the league will start to recognize him as more than they did for the majority of his time here.

As much as some might be over-hyping him because management let him slip away (top 5 winger I think is a little high, maybe top 5 RW but even that might be a stretch), I think you are doing your best to minimize him.

 

[JD1]

To be fair, his last two years here his production exploded; he was a 60-65 pts player for 3 years then in 17-18 he becomes a pt per game guy and follows that up with a similar performance in 18-19, so of course the league will start to recognize him as more than they did for the majority of his time here.

As much as some might be over-hyping him because management let him slip away (top 5 winger I think is a little high, maybe top 5 RW but even that might be a stretch), I think you are doing your best to minimize him.

Scoring exploded. Stone along with it.

He played 77 games and finished T42 in scoring.

 

[Micklebot]

Scoring exploded. Stone along with it.

He played 77 games and finished T42 in scoring.

Right, but the points stands that his production climbed the last 2 years with Ottawa relative to the majority of his time here. Also, the trade the VGK resulted in him taking some time to find chemistry, he was trending much higher prior to the trade, and found his place come playoffs.

		Pts/GP rank
2018/2019*		24th
2017/2018		14th
2016/2017		46th
2015/2016		35th
2014/2015		39th
* with Ottawa only

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Also helps that he lead all players in playoff scoring per game. Makes up for his slow finish to the season after the trade.

Now you could argue the difference is being the guy on a terrible team the last two years, but the perception of him imo is based on his production not some anti Ottawa sentiment. I'd also argue being in trade rumours and his playoff performance puts the spotlight on him as fans take a closer look to drool over what they might have traded for. It's exposure, nothing more.

 

[Tnuoc Alucard]

We have a rookie gm who mortgaged our future, lost horribly, and for some reason is still around calling all the shots for the rebuild, with no one above him evaluating his performance.

Craig Button rated the Ottawa Senators prospect pool a B+

 

[Que]

Has anyone heard anything about Duchene?

That sign and trade talk has gone quiet and I can’t tell if that’s because of a pending deal or not.

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

Neither do I.

If that's what the senators turn into I'm switching teams until a new owner comes in

On that note, what makes anyone think a new owner will be any different? Whoever comes in will be paying out at least $500 mil for the team, and likely another couple hundred million for at least a share in a downtown arena. Investing close to a billion dollars in Ottawa....and that's before signing any checks to the players.

I'm going to be honest here....I can count on ONE hand how many teams in this league could invest that kind of capital and get it back in my lifetime (say, the next 30 years) and make a profit. Ottawa ain't on the list.

We seriously have to be prepared for the next owner to be a bottom third to middle of the pack spender, at best. That's the reality of this market. And NO, that is not a diss against the fans or city....we face the same reality as Vancouver and Winnipeg, and the Alberta teams (when the oil dries up). There are limits to this market.


What we need, is strong management. Boost the scouting staff (both pro and amateur), and do whatever we can to get the most bang out of our drafting bucks. Then try to fill in the rest of the roster with mid-tier vets. Hang on as long as we can.

 

[Beville]

Has anyone heard anything about Duchene?

That sign and trade talk has gone quiet and I can’t tell if that’s because of a pending deal or not.

Meetings with MTL apparently

 

[JD1]

Right, but the points stands that his production climbed the last 2 years with Ottawa relative to the majority of his time here. Also, the trade the VGK resulted in him taking some time to find chemistry, he was trending much higher prior to the trade, and found his place come playoffs.

		Pts/GP rank
2018/2019*		24th
2017/2018		14th
2016/2017		46th
2015/2016		35th
2014/2015		39th
* with Ottawa only

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Also helps that he lead all players in playoff scoring per game. Makes up for his slow finish to the season after the trade.

Now you could argue the difference is being the guy on a terrible team the last two years, but the perception of him imo is based on his production not some anti Ottawa sentiment. I'd also argue being in trade rumours and his playoff performance puts the spotlight on him as fans take a closer look to drool over what they might have traded for. It's exposure, nothing more.

Stone finished 42, 62, 67, 35, 30 in scoring the last 5 years from current season to 5 years ago

In terms of ppg, he finished 47, 14, 46, 33, 37.

You have a big vocabulary. I think you can find a more accurate term than exploded to describe his recent scoring.

 

[BatherSeason]

Craig Button rated the Ottawa Senators prospect pool a B+

For a team that traded 3 mega superstar players and had a bunch of draft picks this year, their rating should be better. Also, if we are going to put stock in these type of reports, which we should, then why is it ok to discount mock drafts and draft rankings when it fits the narrative of our scouting staff/management knowing more than the people who create such reports?

 

[benjiv1]

For a team that traded 3 mega superstar players and had a bunch of draft picks this year, their rating should be better.

Eh, a significant amount of the pieces we received won’t be cashed in until next year+.

2020 SJ 1st
2020 Dal 2nd
2020 CBJ 2nd
2021 SJ 2nd
2021 CBJ 2nd

Add those in to what we already have, and our own future picks, and we SHOULD bump that rating up.

 

[branch]

If they trade Chabot might as well pack it in for the franchise. If it gets to that point obviously they don't belong in the league anymore.