2014 Trade Deadline Thread (All General Deadline Talk/Proposals/Blog Rumors in here)

[IMLACHnME]

Not sure what the value would be from Columbus but I can see it being a hefty one. Moulson alone will get Buffalo at least a first rounder and possibly more assets. Ott might get you a first as well, maybe a second rounder with potential other assets. Then Buffalo might ask for a 2015 1st or a top prospect/young player already in the NHL for Foligno.

I know some fans here wants Foligno and Moulson/Ott but not sure if JD and Jarmo would give all those assets to add Foligno and a rental player

Who normally plays with Brandon Dubinsky? Matt Moulson seems to me to be ideal as his winger, the guy to park himself near the net and retrieve passes from #17.

 

[CBJWerenski8]

Who normally plays with Brandon Dubinsky?

Recently Atkinson and Calvert.

 

[major major]

Columbus isn't in win-now mode, and I can't imagine would make the best offer for either Ott or Moulson. I'd love to acquire Marcus, I imagine Rychel would make a balanced return. I take it Buffalo is more interested in adding wing prospects?

 

[alphafox]

Who normally plays with Brandon Dubinsky? Matt Moulson seems to me to be ideal as his winger, the guy to park himself near the net and retrieve passes from #17.

Honestly I though Moulson would be good fit for Johansen, especially as he has already played with Tavares who I think has a similar game to Johansen (particularly with how he is shooting the puck right now. However I don't know that I would want to break up the Jenner-Johansen-Horton trio.

 

[Robert]

Columbus isn't in win-now mode, and I can't imagine would make the best offer for either Ott or Moulson. I'd love to acquire Marcus, I imagine Rychel would make a balanced return. I take it Buffalo is more interested in adding wing prospects?

I don't want Ott, but I would take Moulson... The Jackets could use a veteran as him.. he and Horton would have a ball getting this bunch of kids into the playoffs... As for Marcus Foligno, I say no right now, he's too green.

 

[NotWendell]

Moulson is the only guy I want out of free agency (or by trade beforehand) for this club - that and a better backup goalie.

 

[Sore Loser]

No Thanks...

For those who follow stats and such:

Matt Moulson with the Islanders (and Tavares): 304 games played, 118 goals, 105 assists, a -10 rating.

Without JT and the Isles: 69 games played, 15 goals, 19 assists, even rating.

While the stats without superstar talent aren't a huge deciding factor; I think he's comparable to several guys that we already have, and I don't believe he makes us a better team. He's just a serviceable second/third line left wing, who had the fortune of playing with one of the top-10 most talented players in the world.

In essence, we have about 6 of those guys.

 

[Robert]

For those who follow stats and such:

Matt Moulson with the Islanders (and Tavares): 304 games played, 118 goals, 105 assists, a -10 rating.

Without JT and the Isles: 69 games played, 15 goals, 19 assists, even rating.

While the stats without superstar talent aren't a huge deciding factor; I think he's comparable to several guys that we already have, and I don't believe he makes us a better team. He's just a serviceable second/third line left wing, who had the fortune of playing with one of the top-10 most talented players in the world.

In essence, we have about 6 of those guys.

I don't base stuff on fantasy games... I have watched Moulson this season, he would help stabilize the team when (for example) up or down two goals, end of periods, on the road or back to back... The CBJ are good but still a tad fragile at times and without a doubt they lack the KILLER instinct.. I think a veteran guy as Matt Moulson is exactly what the fragile CBJ need...

 

[major major]

For those who follow stats and such:

Matt Moulson with the Islanders (and Tavares): 304 games played, 118 goals, 105 assists, a -10 rating.

Without JT and the Isles: 69 games played, 15 goals, 19 assists, even rating.

While the stats without superstar talent aren't a huge deciding factor; I think he's comparable to several guys that we already have, and I don't believe he makes us a better team. He's just a serviceable second/third line left wing, who had the fortune of playing with one of the top-10 most talented players in the world.

In essence, we have about 6 of those guys.

I don't think we should go for Moulson, but if you're going to call his totals inflated because of JT you should be a bit more charitable about his scoring in Buffalo, that's a tough environment to score in.

 

[Sore Loser]

I don't think we should go for Moulson, but if you're going to call his totals inflated because of JT you should be a bit more charitable about his scoring in Buffalo, that's a tough environment to score in.

I'm sorry ... did I say something negative about his scoring pace in Buffalo?

 

[EspenK]

Interesting read about Girardi & the Jackets.

http://www.jacketscannon.com/2014/2/2/5370862/2014-nhl-trade-deadline-should-the-jackets-target-dan-girardi-rangers-cbj-rumors

The suggested price seems a bit high but I guess I could live with it.
Maybe a 2nd instead of a 1st or a lesser prospect. Guess I'd rather see one of Savard/Golo/Erixon go if Heatherington projects out as a big, shutdown d-man.

 

[Jackets16]

Interesting read about Girardi & the Jackets.

http://www.jacketscannon.com/2014/2/2/5370862/2014-nhl-trade-deadline-should-the-jackets-target-dan-girardi-rangers-cbj-rumors

The suggested price seems a bit high but I guess I could live with it.
Maybe a 2nd instead of a 1st or a lesser prospect. Guess I'd rather see one of Savard/Golo/Erixon go if Heatherington projects out as a big, shutdown d-man.

I would not trade Heatherington. He is the type of defenseman we have needed and still need. I would trade any of the 3 you listed before him.

 

[major major]

Putting aside the return in the trade, do we even want to be paying Girardi $5.5m a year until he's 36? What is his body going to be like in a few years? We already have 3 big money defencemen signed long term, and presumably we'll have Murray making big bucks soon too. Add Girardi and its 5 big money defencemen. We don't know what will happen with the development of Prout, Heatherington, Goloubef, Erixon, and Savard. We might have multiple top four NHL defencemen from that bunch. Its too easy to construct a scenario in which his contract becomes a problem.

I do like the idea of acquiring Girardi, because he can play the shutdown game better than anyone we currently have, but if we get him, it either has to be on a short term deal (three years maybe), or we need to trade one of Tyutin or JJ.

 

[Jackets16]

IMO, you will see a defenseman traded for Girardi or in another trade. Just another reason to not trade a guy like Heatherington.

 

[Crede777]

I'd consider a trade around Tyutin for Girardi. Consider, mind you.

 

[EspenK]

Putting aside the return in the trade, do we even want to be paying Girardi $5.5m a year until he's 36? What is his body going to be like in a few years? We already have 3 big money defencemen signed long term, and presumably we'll have Murray making big bucks soon too. Add Girardi and its 5 big money defencemen. We don't know what will happen with the development of Prout, Heatherington, Goloubef, Erixon, and Savard. We might have multiple top four NHL defencemen from that bunch. Its too easy to construct a scenario in which his contract becomes a problem.

I do like the idea of acquiring Girardi, because he can play the shutdown game better than anyone we currently have, but if we get him, it either has to be on a short term deal (three years maybe), or we need to trade one of Tyutin or JJ.

Your raise a good point. I thought about that. Having a D corps with little or no flexibility to move players for the next 3-5 years is not appealing. Murray is two years away from big buck status so that helps a bit. Another point to consider in the ever rising cap world are Tyutin, JJ & Wiz really big buck d-men? Maybe Wiz is a mill or so too high but one year of all four of them plus Girardi & Murray, as well as one without Wiz could be sustainable. As always lots of things to consider.

 

[Sore Loser]

No way do I give up a first round pick and a prospect such as Heatherington for Girardi. Just no thank you. If a deal goes onto the table, I say it should center around Nikitin and their choice of Erixon or Goloubef, and throw in a second round pick if it expedites the deal. If that's not rich enough for their blood, let them keep him. That's way too much for a second pair guy.

 

[Jackets16]

Your raise a good point. I thought about that. Having a D corps with little or no flexibility to move players for the next 3-5 years is not appealing. Murray is two years away from big buck status so that helps a bit. Another point to consider in the ever rising cap world are Tyutin, JJ & Wiz really big buck d-men? Maybe Wiz is a mill or so too high but one year of all four of them plus Girardi & Murray, as well as one without Wiz could be sustainable. As always lots of things to consider.

How would there be no flexibility? I am pretty sure we wouldn't have any problem trading guys like Johnson or Tyutin if we made them available.

 

[EspenK]

How would there be no flexibility? I am pretty sure we wouldn't have any problem trading guys like Johnson or Tyutin if we made them available.

I was referring to Tyutin's and Wiz' NTC. Perhaps I should have said limited instead of none.

 

[Jackets16]

I was referring to Tyutin's and Wiz' NTC. Perhaps I should have said limited instead of none.

Okay. I still don't think we would have any problem.

 

[MFRONE]

Moulson will be 31 later this year. No way I want to give him big money and a long term deal at that age.

 

[punk_o_holic]

Moulson will be 31 later this year. No way I want to give him big money and a long term deal at that age.

Just wondering if you would be willing to give Vanek big money on a long term deal? Vanek is 30 and already rejected a 7 year 50 million dollar deal. Assuming he would want something around that so it would mean his contract would end when he's 37. Since Vanek is in a different class as Moulson, would he be an exception?

If it came down to....
Vanek at 7 years/$50m
vs
Moulson at lets say 5 years/$27.5 to $30m

which would you rather have?

 

[Sore Loser]

Just wondering if you would be willing to give Vanek big money on a long term deal? Vanek is 30 and already rejected a 7 year 50 million dollar deal. Assuming he would want something around that so it would mean his contract would end when he's 37. Since Vanek is in a different class as Moulson, would he be an exception?

If it came down to....
Vanek at 7 years/$50m
vs
Moulson at lets say 5 years/$27.5 to $30m

which would you rather have?

Paul Stastny

 

[stevo61]

Just wondering if you would be willing to give Vanek big money on a long term deal? Vanek is 30 and already rejected a 7 year 50 million dollar deal. Assuming he would want something around that so it would mean his contract would end when he's 37. Since Vanek is in a different class as Moulson, would he be an exception?

If it came down to....
Vanek at 7 years/$50m
vs
Moulson at lets say 5 years/$27.5 to $30m

which would you rather have?

Vanek without a 2nd thought but at the same time I think theres about a 5% chance of it happening even if pursued

 

[Jackets16]

Just wondering if you would be willing to give Vanek big money on a long term deal? Vanek is 30 and already rejected a 7 year 50 million dollar deal. Assuming he would want something around that so it would mean his contract would end when he's 37. Since Vanek is in a different class as Moulson, would he be an exception?

If it came down to....
Vanek at 7 years/$50m
vs
Moulson at lets say 5 years/$27.5 to $30m

which would you rather have?

Neither