News: Turris to be scratched again

Porter Stoutheart

We Got Wood
Jun 14, 2017
14,876
11,256
I see no reason for any team to take Turris, neither does the Hockey News, barring a lot of retention by Preds, ie 50% max and get no value in return. 23pts last year, soft/lazy, 3c at best.
Nobody will get Turris, then, if that was an accurate impression of him. Fortunately, it's not. Now, I don't like Turris - I'm glad the Preds chose to upgrade on him by signing Duchene. But he's a decent NHL player and can score 50 pts in s #2c role. He is soft. He is definitely not lazy at all. He works hard on the ice, skates well, is adequate defensively.

If you have him as your #2C you'll always kind of wish you had somebody a little better, or that one of your top young prospects will one day show enough to displace him. But in the meantime he can get the job done. The better your 2nd line wingers are, the better Turris will do for you - he does need help to succeed. But he did alright for us even with Fiala and Smith on his wings, who aren't exactly all-stars.

I think $6M is a tad pricey for what he brings, but the Flyers signed a very similar caliber of player in Hayes for more. Bozak and Hayes are reasonable comparables and Turris is right in the middle salary-wise. Anybody expecting 50% retention will have the phone hung up on them in a hurry... the Preds would only have to pay $2M on a buyout, so there's no chance whatsoever of any larger retention than that. Your THN reporter is totally out to lunch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Filthy Dangles

Porter Stoutheart

We Got Wood
Jun 14, 2017
14,876
11,256
Wow, he has really tanked if he’s being scratched.

Maybe he can be moved for scraps at the deadline.
Again, if you read the thread, he's not being scratched due to performance. There's something else going on. Either he requested a trade and they're sitting him while trying to move him, or he has some other gripe with the coach/team that has led to the scratching as a form of punishment. That wasn't quite as clear at first as it is now - but the Preds called up Mathieu Olivier to play a few minutes on the 4th line, and now after Arvidsson got injured they've called up Daniel Carr and put him straight in as the replacement. They've skipped right over Turris, who is unquestionably a better player than those two, even as a winger. So there's something else going on for sure.
 

Porter Stoutheart

We Got Wood
Jun 14, 2017
14,876
11,256
Kevin Miller, John Moore (LH but plays right a lot) and Conor Clifton. All I would say are better. Clifton is young with some upside. Miller and Moore are almost healthy and 2 of these 3 will sit. Any of those interest you as a piece and then add some picks and possibly others to make the salaries work? I need to look a capfriendly.
Miller would interest me most. If he was healthy and still able to play with some of the physicality he used to, he'd probably be a perfect fit.

I imagine you guys are right to the cap so would indeed need some balancing. What's Backes' status? Since he only has 1 year left after this, there might be a way to use him as a cap balancer, if we don't have any better offers. I get the sense he's mostly "done" as a player. But at least the shorter term and IR potential might make him a better fit than some of the other dumps out there. :dunno:
 
  • Like
Reactions: veganbruin

veganbruin

Registered User
Sep 20, 2013
3,223
3,414
Boston, MA
Miller would interest me most. If he was healthy and still able to play with some of the physicality he used to, he'd probably be a perfect fit.

I imagine you guys are right to the cap so would indeed need some balancing. What's Backes' status? Since he only has 1 year left after this, there might be a way to use him as a cap balancer, if we don't have any better offers. I get the sense he's mostly "done" as a player. But at least the shorter term and IR potential might make him a better fit than some of the other dumps out there. :dunno:

I think something could be done if we were able to send Backes your way even if that’s where we include the picks and prospects and the real hockey trade is Kevan Miller for Kyle Turris. We are up against it but if you subtract those two it looks a lot better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NNCbama

Fig

Absolute Horse Shirt
Dec 15, 2014
12,957
8,449
Trading Turris for Backlund doesn't solve anything for us with the center depth of Johansen - Duchene - Bonino - Sissons even without Turris. And besides, I don't know if I'd trade Backlund for Turris straight up if I was Flames. While Turris has historically been a better producer, there are question marks above him (altho as well evidenced in this thread, we believe he is back to his old self and these benchings are something else) and Backlund is a core piece who is familiar

Hamonic on the other hand is exactly what we should be looking for in my opinion. At first Santini looks like a gross underpayment, but then, GMs seem to give more value to young defensemen with still some potential to grow than we do here at HF.

I'm oddly curious. Assuming that the Flames need to move salary out to make ends meet on any deal, what's the add required (and whose side) if the foundation of a trade looks something like:

Flames want:
- Turris at 5.25 AAV (or lower if you want to oblige)
- Nashville to take Frolik at full cap (4.3 AAV expiring)

Flames offer:
- Hamonic (3.85 Expiring)

The expectation would be that Turris would help being a middle 6 C/RW option for the Flames who desperately want another RHS in the top 6.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NNCbama

Remember2004

Registered User
Oct 20, 2010
1,870
70
If Nashville retained half I wouldn't mind him being our 3C in Calgary. What would it take? Salary would have to be going back the other way as we have 0 cap space.
 

Gh24

Registered User
Feb 12, 2014
1,693
645
I'm oddly curious. Assuming that the Flames need to move salary out to make ends meet on any deal, what's the add required (and whose side) if the foundation of a trade looks something like:

Flames want:
- Turris at 5.25 AAV (or lower if you want to oblige)
- Nashville to take Frolik at full cap (4.3 AAV expiring)

Flames offer:
- Hamonic (3.85 Expiring)

The expectation would be that Turris would help being a middle 6 C/RW option for the Flames who desperately want another RHS in the top 6.

Poile went with the NJ's offer on Subban since it was the only one that didn't include retention. Did he foresee a possible roster deadlock and bought himself some space to work with? Will he retain on Turris or just hold on to him as depth and expose him at the expansion draft? Either way, retention is doable imo. Let's assume we re-sign both Granlund (6M) and Smith (3.5M) in this scenario. (If it makes you guys who don't believe we resign them digest this easier, consider them as codenames for top6 and top9 forwards and what their caphits may look like)

After filling other expiring roster spots with youngsters, counting Santini cap hit (1.4M / 0.34M) at NHL level and including this retention, we still have around 3M to play with next year. This allows us to either sign/trade for a 3rd pair veteran dman.

We currently have 2.5M in free cap space, so something has to be worked out. Either we make additional moves, add some value to the trade via picks/prospects or increase Turris retention to 1M (which is the highest I would go with these presented numbers) for you to retain either Frolik or Hamonic to make it work for us.

I obviously don't know what the long term plans are and how much cap space Poile wants to save for extensions. Fabbro and Saros needs to be resigned next year, but at the same time Bonino's contract expires. Ekholm and Forsberg are UFA in three years. That's gonna take an additional 6M. Hopefully cap increase covers (most of) that.

As others have pointed out, the deadlock situation has probably decreased Turris's trade value significantly and it's hard to tell what it is. I think it's quite obvious we're not getting any long term assets (outside cap savings of course), thought. What else is obvious is that we're not making any decisions, so I think it's pointless to try to find the exact deal/value to satisfy two fans or fanbases. I think the foundation of the deal is what makes for better speculation and this seems like a great one for us. Trading from a position of strength to address weaker areas.
 

Porter Stoutheart

We Got Wood
Jun 14, 2017
14,876
11,256
I'm oddly curious. Assuming that the Flames need to move salary out to make ends meet on any deal, what's the add required (and whose side) if the foundation of a trade looks something like:

Flames want:
- Turris at 5.25 AAV (or lower if you want to oblige)
- Nashville to take Frolik at full cap (4.3 AAV expiring)

Flames offer:
- Hamonic (3.85 Expiring)

The expectation would be that Turris would help being a middle 6 C/RW option for the Flames who desperately want another RHS in the top 6.
Sold. I think you better give Turris 2nd-line or better wingers and not count on him playing RW at all, though. With that caveat, he can be effective. With less... he gets iffy.

We do have around $3M in cap space, but this deal might tip a little past what we can handle there. Worth pursuing whatever tweaks are needed to balance it out, though.
 

bert

Registered User
Nov 11, 2002
35,984
21,919
Visit site
Nobody will get Turris, then, if that was an accurate impression of him. Fortunately, it's not. Now, I don't like Turris - I'm glad the Preds chose to upgrade on him by signing Duchene. But he's a decent NHL player and can score 50 pts in s #2c role. He is soft. He is definitely not lazy at all. He works hard on the ice, skates well, is adequate defensively.

If you have him as your #2C you'll always kind of wish you had somebody a little better, or that one of your top young prospects will one day show enough to displace him. But in the meantime he can get the job done. The better your 2nd line wingers are, the better Turris will do for you - he does need help to succeed. But he did alright for us even with Fiala and Smith on his wings, who aren't exactly all-stars.

I think $6M is a tad pricey for what he brings, but the Flyers signed a very similar caliber of player in Hayes for more. Bozak and Hayes are reasonable comparables and Turris is right in the middle salary-wise. Anybody expecting 50% retention will have the phone hung up on them in a hurry... the Preds would only have to pay $2M on a buyout, so there's no chance whatsoever of any larger retention than that. Your THN reporter is totally out to lunch.
Good post
 

Fig

Absolute Horse Shirt
Dec 15, 2014
12,957
8,449
I apologize in advance for the wall of text.

Poile went with the NJ's offer on Subban since it was the only one that didn't include retention. Did he foresee a possible roster deadlock and bought himself some space to work with? Will he retain on Turris or just hold on to him as depth and expose him at the expansion draft? Either way, retention is doable imo. Let's assume we re-sign both Granlund (6M) and Smith (3.5M) in this scenario. (If it makes you guys who don't believe we resign them digest this easier, consider them as codenames for top6 and top9 forwards and what their caphits may look like)

After filling other expiring roster spots with youngsters, counting Santini cap hit (1.4M / 0.34M) at NHL level and including this retention, we still have around 3M to play with next year. This allows us to either sign/trade for a 3rd pair veteran dman.

We currently have 2.5M in free cap space, so something has to be worked out. Either we make additional moves, add some value to the trade via picks/prospects or increase Turris retention to 1M (which is the highest I would go with these presented numbers) for you to retain either Frolik or Hamonic to make it work for us.

I obviously don't know what the long term plans are and how much cap space Poile wants to save for extensions. Fabbro and Saros needs to be resigned next year, but at the same time Bonino's contract expires. Ekholm and Forsberg are UFA in three years. That's gonna take an additional 6M. Hopefully cap increase covers (most of) that.

As others have pointed out, the deadlock situation has probably decreased Turris's trade value significantly and it's hard to tell what it is. I think it's quite obvious we're not getting any long term assets (outside cap savings of course), thought. What else is obvious is that we're not making any decisions, so I think it's pointless to try to find the exact deal/value to satisfy two fans or fanbases. I think the foundation of the deal is what makes for better speculation and this seems like a great one for us. Trading from a position of strength to address weaker areas.

I might get skewered by my own fan base of whom many do not want anything to do with Turris, but my thoughts are along the lines that Turris can bounce back if his usage is revised and his line mates are modified. Maybe playing closer to home helps too, whatever. Whether that means Calgary can do it, I'm not totally sure, but I do think he would be a fit in our middle 6.

I've been intrigued by a Turris swap for a RHS middle 6 option since even before the Neal trade much to the chagrin of some of my fellow Flames fans. I did assume he could sorta play some RW, but if your comments are correct, he's a centre through and through and isn't a good wing conversion candidate (even if temporary?). I would like to clarify some of your concerns though.

NSH cap:
- OUT 5.25 (assumption retention to 5.25)
- IN 8.15
- Difference: 2.9

This might be a wee bit higher than what you have available at the moment ($2.5 mil cap space I believe?), so a scrub contract may need to come back to the Flames to balance things out for this season. Both Frolik and Hamonic are expiring, so the concerns about cap space in future years isn't a huge concern unless you specifically want to try and re-sign them. On the Flames side though, we already have a Lucic at 5.25 AAV. Our concerns are having another boat anchor contract if this gambit fails (so extra retention would be awesome) but obviously, why would Poile start a charity for us? And if Turris doesn't bounce back we lose big time, but you guys are free and clear. I think that would be the major part of the considerations for the remaining value balancing, but I'm glad the concept seems to have enough of a foundation to consider. If the balancing part never seems to make sense, then the deal doesn't make sense. That's fine. It just seems kinda fun to see if there's something conceptually that might be workable.

Sold. I think you better give Turris 2nd-line or better wingers and not count on him playing RW at all, though. With that caveat, he can be effective. With less... he gets iffy.

We do have around $3M in cap space, but this deal might tip a little past what we can handle there. Worth pursuing whatever tweaks are needed to balance it out, though.

The Flames do have a ton of centres that can swing wing, so I ultimately still think he's somewhat of a fit. I'm also sorta envisioning an idea where Turris on the Flames would be be playing 2 or 3C in a sort of lower end pseudo version of the Anisimov situation in Chicago a few years back. As long as his wingers are above average, he will survive just fine. He'd probably be separated from Lindholm who is our only other top 5 RHS, so I'm mainly assuming Turris would play with Backlund (LW in international tournaments) and Tkachuk (LW/RW) and Turris/Backlund would take turns taking face offs on their strong side. Worst case scenario, he is shuffled down to the line below in a 2A/2B set up with guys like Mangiapane and Czarnik without miscasting in a checking role like he (sorta?) currently is in Nashville (no offense; pun not intended).


I understand the Flames side to argue it has a reasonable enough foundation to be contemplated by Flames fans if Nashville can kick in enough incentive for us to take the longer term risk, but with Nashville, I don't know whether the idea even fits beyond surface stuff. My understanding so far is:

Nashville:
- Moves a reasonably talented but excessive/redundant option in Turris and unlocks his cap long term IF the cost makes sense.
- Frolik is a better wing fit for LW or RW to what Turris can offer for "less cap" and expires after this season giving long term flexibility?
- Hamonic is a useful piece for the current season. He is UFA after this season like Frolik so again there's long term flexibility?

What I don't know is:
- Does it bother you guys that you could end up with nothing left on your roster from the trade after this season? Or is that actually a benefit? (ie: Allows prospect graduation)
- It seems that you guys are somewhat comfortable with the concept at 5.25. What if we pushed our luck and tried to get retention closer to something around 1-1.5 mil AAV? Is that too close to a deal breaker assuming the retention is 4.5 seasons?
- Flames are also interested in possibly moving a guy like Jankowski who is reasonably acceptable as a LW, but very meh as a centre. Flames have way too many damn LW (JG, Tkachuk, Bennett, Mangiapane, Dube etc.). Could adding a guy make sense in making the deal slightly bigger? What about Bennett? Or is LW a non positional need for you guys?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NNCbama

Porter Stoutheart

We Got Wood
Jun 14, 2017
14,876
11,256
I apologize in advance for the wall of text.



I might get skewered by my own fan base of whom many do not want anything to do with Turris, but my thoughts are along the lines that Turris can bounce back if his usage is revised and his line mates are modified. Maybe playing closer to home helps too, whatever. Whether that means Calgary can do it, I'm not totally sure, but I do think he would be a fit in our middle 6.

I've been intrigued by a Turris swap for a RHS middle 6 option since even before the Neal trade much to the chagrin of some of my fellow Flames fans. I did assume he could sorta play some RW, but if your comments are correct, he's a centre through and through and isn't a good wing conversion candidate (even if temporary?). I would like to clarify some of your concerns though.

NSH cap:
- OUT 5.25 (assumption retention to 5.25)
- IN 8.15
- Difference: 2.9

This might be a wee bit higher than what you have available at the moment ($2.5 mil cap space I believe?), so a scrub contract may need to come back to the Flames to balance things out for this season. Both Frolik and Hamonic are expiring, so the concerns about cap space in future years isn't a huge concern unless you specifically want to try and re-sign them. On the Flames side though, we already have a Lucic at 5.25 AAV. Our concerns are having another boat anchor contract if this gambit fails (so extra retention would be awesome) but obviously, why would Poile start a charity for us? And if Turris doesn't bounce back we lose big time, but you guys are free and clear. I think that would be the major part of the considerations for the remaining value balancing, but I'm glad the concept seems to have enough of a foundation to consider. If the balancing part never seems to make sense, then the deal doesn't make sense. That's fine. It just seems kinda fun to see if there's something conceptually that might be workable.



The Flames do have a ton of centres that can swing wing, so I ultimately still think he's somewhat of a fit. I'm also sorta envisioning an idea where Turris on the Flames would be be playing 2 or 3C in a sort of lower end pseudo version of the Anisimov situation in Chicago a few years back. As long as his wingers are above average, he will survive just fine. He'd probably be separated from Lindholm who is our only other top 5 RHS, so I'm mainly assuming Turris would play with Backlund (LW in international tournaments) and Tkachuk (LW/RW) and Turris/Backlund would take turns taking face offs on their strong side. Worst case scenario, he is shuffled down to the line below in a 2A/2B set up with guys like Mangiapane and Czarnik without miscasting in a checking role like he (sorta?) currently is in Nashville (no offense; pun not intended).


I understand the Flames side to argue it has a reasonable enough foundation to be contemplated by Flames fans if Nashville can kick in enough incentive for us to take the longer term risk, but with Nashville, I don't know whether the idea even fits beyond surface stuff. My understanding so far is:

Nashville:
- Moves a reasonably talented but excessive/redundant option in Turris and unlocks his cap long term IF the cost makes sense.
- Frolik is a better wing fit for LW or RW to what Turris can offer for "less cap" and expires after this season giving long term flexibility?
- Hamonic is a useful piece for the current season. He is UFA after this season like Frolik so again there's long term flexibility?

What I don't know is:
- Does it bother you guys that you could end up with nothing left on your roster from the trade after this season? Or is that actually a benefit? (ie: Allows prospect graduation)
- It seems that you guys are somewhat comfortable with the concept at 5.25. What if we pushed our luck and tried to get retention closer to something around 1-1.5 mil AAV? Is that too close to a deal breaker assuming the retention is 4.5 seasons?
- Flames are also interested in possibly moving a guy like Jankowski who is reasonably acceptable as a LW, but very meh as a centre. Flames have way too many damn LW (JG, Tkachuk, Bennett, Mangiapane, Dube etc.). Could adding a guy make sense in making the deal slightly bigger? What about Bennett? Or is LW a non positional need for you guys?
Happy to read a thorough reply! For the questions above:

1. Expiring contracts are definitely considered a benefit. We don't have a direct need for that cap space next year, most of our roster is locked up long term, but having greater flexibility to shop UFAs is always a plus. No worries here if we have nothing to show for it at the end of the year. We can't currently find a spot for Turris to play, after all.

2. I'm more comfortable snuggling up close to the salary cap than Poile might be. He seems to place a pretty high priority on leaving himself some wiggle room, contrary perhaps to the latest NHL GM fashions. I would be mildly shocked if he accepted a deal that left him with less than $1.5-2M cap space, alas. I personally think he should consider compromising on his cushion philosophy if necessary in order to facilitate a trade that gives him greater future flexibility. But he's probably more stubborn/patient than I am.

3. Given #2 above, some form of additions/tweaks may actually be a necessity. I would absolutely be interested in Bennett. Moreso than Frolik or Hamonic, actually. I know you guys are keen to move Frolik, though.

I think if you played Turris at center with Tkachuk it would be an absolute slam-dunk way to maximize his contribution. Somebody who will go into the dirty areas and another guy like Backlund who could back him up defensively might really ignite Turris. He has a decent mix of offensive skills but definitely would benefit if he's not the go-to guy on his line. Tkachuk would be perfect for him. I may not know enough about Mangiapane and Czarnik, but that feels like you'd be taking some extra risks on Turris' productivity there.
 

Seanaconda

Registered User
May 6, 2016
9,546
3,318
What about something around Puljujarvi for Turris?
Then Oilers flip RNH for something of more value, and still have Turris as second line centre.
Nooo no no no unless we are trading Hopkins for 2 better forwards than him this is not the move oilers should make . Oilers should be trading picks and / or dmen for forwards not one of the 3 good forwards

(Sorry Neal and kassian but Neal's slow and kassian gets to play with 2 of the best forwards in the nhl )

And the trade should be for a right shot sniper to go with every left shot play maker we have in spades
 
Last edited:

Barnaby

Registered User
Jul 2, 2003
8,650
3,414
Port Jefferson, NY
I don’t see Turris having any value. He’s either scratched for poor play or being a malcontent. That’s a huge red flag for a guy with 5 years left on a deal at 6 million per. If I’m a GM then I’m not taking that colossal risk. If a GM takes on that deal, and two weeks in he’s a healthy scratch then that’s a fireable offense. If he was expiring or had 1.5 years left then I could def see a team kicking the tires on him. Otherwise you retain a serious amount or take back a cap dump with term. You can’t just say he’s a 50 point guy but struggled last year, and is a healthy scratch this year. Teams will need to see that first before accepting that contract. How many legit top 6 centers sit down as a healthy scratch? Dumping his whole contract and bringing back an asset on top of it isn’t realistic to me, but I’ve been wrong before...
 

Porter Stoutheart

We Got Wood
Jun 14, 2017
14,876
11,256
Bogosian for Turris, 20% retained and New Jersey's 2nd round pick make sense to me.
I could see us retaining just enough to balance the contracts for this year if the Sabres are already capped out, but that's about it. Bogosian would be a respectable add for our bottom-pairing for 50 games, but has no value to us beyond that. There's no scenario in which we give up a 2nd to make it happen. Keeping Turris long-term as an insurance policy is worth more to us. We'd have to give up at least a 2nd if one of our centers went down to injury, so just having Turris on hand, given how well he has played so far, is more valuable to us.

The team is perhaps being polite about trying to accommodate Turris' desire to be traded, but end of the day, if there is no positive-value deal out there, I think we just keep him. It would be different perhaps if we had any cap issues on the horizon. But we really don't. I don't think anybody - Turris or other teams - has any leverage to force Poile into taking a negative-value trade. Because bottom line Turris has positive value to us, even sitting in the pressbox.
 

greasysnapper

Registered User
Apr 6, 2018
2,588
1,694
I could see us retaining just enough to balance the contracts for this year if the Sabres are already capped out, but that's about it. Bogosian would be a respectable add for our bottom-pairing for 50 games, but has no value to us beyond that. There's no scenario in which we give up a 2nd to make it happen. Keeping Turris long-term as an insurance policy is worth more to us. We'd have to give up at least a 2nd if one of our centers went down to injury, so just having Turris on hand, given how well he has played so far, is more valuable to us.

The team is perhaps being polite about trying to accommodate Turris' desire to be traded, but end of the day, if there is no positive-value deal out there, I think we just keep him. It would be different perhaps if we had any cap issues on the horizon. But we really don't. I don't think anybody - Turris or other teams - has any leverage to force Poile into taking a negative-value trade. Because bottom line Turris has positive value to us, even sitting in the pressbox.

This is like an ad for anti-depressants. You just need to talk about the clouds made out of cotton candy.

Unfortunately, even if he is serviceable, the cap is what makes him a negative value asset. Even for the Preds. Especially if he's in the pressbox. My guess is if the Preds want out, they'll have to do a Marleau like trade and offer up something like a 1st+. Marleau for example is still a good player but he wasn't worth what he was getting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Barnaby

Porter Stoutheart

We Got Wood
Jun 14, 2017
14,876
11,256
This is like an ad for anti-depressants. You just need to talk about the clouds made out of cotton candy.

Unfortunately, even if he is serviceable, the cap is what makes him a negative value asset. Even for the Preds. Especially if he's in the pressbox. My guess is if the Preds want out, they'll have to do a Marleau like trade and offer up something like a 1st+. Marleau for example is still a good player but he wasn't worth what he was getting.
... to Toronto who were pinned by the Cap. The Preds have no cap constraints whatsoever, however. We have no motivation whatsoever to do a Marleau-like trade. We're not going to turn around and sign somebody better in mid-season to fill that cap space. We have other players who aren't worth what they are getting as well. Johansen, say. But we aren't looking to trade him. A player doesn't have to be worth exactly what he is getting on the cap to have positive value to the team he's on. Dozens of players would be getting packaged up with draft picks and traded away if that was how it always had to work. Things might change in a year or two, who knows. For now, there is no negative value trade that should be considered.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Filthy Dangles

Porter Stoutheart

We Got Wood
Jun 14, 2017
14,876
11,256
So, Turris doesn't want a trade. Poile doesn't want a trade. Lavy won't play him.
Which if true is not really a big deal. Needless to say, fans and media would rather there be some drama. Trades are entertaining, they generate interest and hits to websites and so on. Poile is definitely wise to just dismiss it all and work to his own agenda. And who knows, maybe next game one of our centers hits the IR and Turris is back and everybody forgets all about it. For a little while anyway...
 

BigFatCat999

First Fubu and now Pred303. !@#$! you cancer
Apr 23, 2007
18,816
3,005
Campbell, NY
Which if true is not really a big deal. Needless to say, fans and media would rather there be some drama. Trades are entertaining, they generate interest and hits to websites and so on. Poile is definitely wise to just dismiss it all and work to his own agenda. And who knows, maybe next game one of our centers hits the IR and Turris is back and everybody forgets all about it. For a little while anyway...

If nothing happens, Preds have depth at forward and extra picks for a defensemen. BUUUUUUT Turris does not have a NTC.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->