Proposal: 2016-17 Trade Rumours and Proposals Thread Part X

[50 in 07]

This is all IMO, I'm sure many will disagree

-No to Landeskog, he is not good enough offensively to warrant the price Colorado is asking for

-No to Duchene, and here's why. But by all accounts Colorado is asking for a huge package, Chabot would 100% have to be in the package. Duchene is a 1C, yes, and he is better than both Turris and Brassard. But the difference between having Duchene/Turris/Brassard compared to Turris/Brassard/JGP is not Chabot + 1st + roster player, which is the type of package it would take. Yeah it would create matchup issues for other teams, but overall we'd be paying a huge premium for a marginal upgrade (relatively speaking).

- In general: no to trading White, Chabot, Brown unless it's for a significant upgrade. Cost controlled assets are too important to us to give them up for marginal upgrades. Pragmatically speaking, we aren't trading for Tavares, OEL, or whatever other elite 1C or 1D anytime soon. It's just not gonna happen.

Therefore the best thing is for us to do is hope these guys plus a few others develop into impact NHLers. We have too many holes to fill via trade, and there's no sense in creating one hole to fill another. If past years are anything to judge by, we ain't signing a top 6 forward or top 4 D via free agency either.

Stay the course, think long term not short term. The last thing we need is to trade a blue chipper for a great but not elite player, and have another debacle blow up in our face. (See Zibanejad, Mika).

 

[Viletho]

This is all IMO, I'm sure many will disagree

-No to Landeskog, he is not good enough offensively to warrant the price Colorado is asking for

-No to Duchene, and here's why. But by all accounts Colorado is asking for a huge package, Chabot would 100% have to be in the package. Duchene is a 1C, yes, and he is better than both Turris and Brassard. But the difference between having Duchene/Turris/Brassard compared to Turris/Brassard/JGP is not Chabot + 1st + roster player, which is the type of package it would take. Yeah it would create matchup issues for other teams, but overall we'd be paying a huge premium for a marginal upgrade (relatively speaking).

- In general: no to trading White, Chabot, Brown unless it's for a significant upgrade. Cost controlled assets are too important to us to give them up for marginal upgrades. Pragmatically speaking, we aren't trading for Tavares, OEL, or whatever other elite 1C or 1D anytime soon. It's just not gonna happen.

Therefore the best thing is for us to do is hope these guys plus a few others develop into impact NHLers. We have too many holes to fill via trade, and there's no sense in creating one hole to fill another. If past years are anything to judge by, we ain't signing a top 6 forward or top 4 D via free agency either.

Stay the course, think long term not short term. The last thing we need is to trade a blue chipper for a great but not elite player, and have another debacle blow up in our face. (See Zibanejad, Mika).

Or.. Ryan

I agree with you.

It isn't the time to trade for them because of the expansion draft coming. In the off season, that's another story. But will they still be available in the off-season.

 

[HSF]

the team is more competitive with Brassard and Turris down the middle then i rmr anytime with Zibby.

You need game breakers to win. Duchene is a game breaker.

Dzingle - Turris - Ryan
Smith - Brassard - Stone
Hoffman - Duchene - Pyatt/Lazar

is contender level

 

[Sens Vader]

the team is more competitive with Brassard and Turris down the middle then i rmr anytime with Zibby.

You need game breakers to win. Duchene is a game breaker.

Dzingle - Turris - Ryan
Smith - Brassard - Stone
Hoffman - Duchene - Pyatt/Lazar

is contender level

im not sure about contender level, but Duchene Turris Brassard is substantially better than Turris Brassard Pageau down the middle and would give us the centre depth needed to contend in the east.

However like many have said I am against trading Chabot ++ which is the likely asking price. Its Ceci or move on really, and I see Colorado having better options.

 

[HSF]

I get that chabot is hyped up and has top pairing potential but you are also getting a young high end center which is equally as difficult to find.

if we didn't have karlsson then I would be more worried about keeping chabot but with Karlsson Phaneuf and Ceci developing i would do it to get a high end center and depth

 

[BankStreetParade]

I can't see this team trading Chabot. He's too valuable in the long term. Phaneuf and Methot aren't getting any younger and the pipeline of left-hand shot defensemen in the organization is fairly thin after Chabot. Doesn't hurt that he could turn out to be a gifted point producer and all-around defenseman with elite skating. Too much risk in trading him away unless it was for a young, star player at the LHD position and quite frankly that trade makes more sense after the expansion draft passes and we have an idea of who gets picked off our roster.

 

[danielpalfredsson]

im not sure about contender level, but Duchene Turris Brassard is substantially better than Turris Brassard Pageau down the middle and would give us the centre depth needed to contend in the east.

However like many have said I am against trading Chabot ++ which is the likely asking price. Its Ceci or move on really, and I see Colorado having better options.

If the team is trading for Duchene they most likely cannot keep Turris after next year so it'll be Duchene-Brassard-Pageau down the middle.

The only way acquiring Duchene is plausible IMO is if we trade Turris this summer for the best possible return to offset what we give up for Duchene. Because if we don't, Turris will most likely walk in 2018 because we can't keep everybody under a cap let alone under a budget. We could keep both until 2018, if we're okay with losing Turris for "nothing"

Let's say we give up Colorado's asking price of a young blue chip defender (Chabot), a first, and a roster playing (guessing one of Pageau or Dzingel as they are the only guys who would qualify as roster players who aren't older UFAs). We'll lose Turris in 2018 (or 2017 if we decide to trade him) as a consequence of the trade and we'd also still most likely have to dump Ryan as well. (refer to my post a few pages back on our 2018 salary projection).

The return for Turris might be good, but won't be anywhere near Chabot+1st+Roster player (Pageau+Dzingel?). Logically, anyone willing to part with that would just go after Duchene first.

So then when swapping Duchene for Turris, Turris is one of our assistant captains and is still a 1st line center. There is a difference between him and Duchene, but I don't think it is as great as some people think. You're looking at possibly hurting team chemistry as well as trading away a guy who is comfortable in Ottawa and might be more likely to take a team friendly contract than Duchene who'll be more attractive to other teams as a free agent and like Ryan was when he extended would be new to the city with very few roots here.

I don't think loading up for one run and then having to ditch another good player (in this case predicting Turris) is worth giving up Chabot+1st+roster player.

 

[50 in 07]

I get that chabot is hyped up and has top pairing potential but you are also getting a young high end center which is equally as difficult to find.

if we didn't have karlsson then I would be more worried about keeping chabot but with Karlsson Phaneuf and Ceci developing i would do it to get a high end center and depth

Duchene is not that young at 26, and while he is absolutely a 1C, and he's better than Turris and Brassard, it's not by that much.

Duuchene had 1 70 point season 3 seasons ago which is his career season. The past 2 seasons he's been roughly a 30 goal 60 point guy. Not significantly better than Turris, who is a 60 point guy himself and on pace for 30 goals this year. Last season Brassard was just under 30 goals and just under 60 points.

Is the difference between them Chabot+? Absolutely not.

 

[danielpalfredsson]

I get that chabot is hyped up and has top pairing potential but you are also getting a young high end center which is equally as difficult to find.

if we didn't have karlsson then I would be more worried about keeping chabot but with Karlsson Phaneuf and Ceci developing i would do it to get a high end center and depth

If this wasn't a cap league with UFA status at 27, and we didn't have moving parts to consider, I would easily give up Chabot+1st+Dzingel or Pageau for Duchene. But I think when you look at all the moving parts, and all the off ice consequences it isn't a move that makes sense for Ottawa right now.

Duchene is not that young at 26, and while he is absolutely a 1C, and he's better than Turris and Brassard, it's not by that much.

Duuchene had 1 70 point season 3 seasons ago which is his career season. The past 2 seasons he's been roughly a 30 goal 60 point guy. Not significantly better than Turris, who is a 60 point guy himself and on pace for 30 goals this year. Last season Brassard was just under 30 goals and just under 60 points.

Is the difference between them Chabot+? Absolutely not.

Duchene as he has played the last few years isn't all that much better than Turris. He has a better skillset, and his ceiling is much higher, but its a gamble on whether he'll reach it and have that big breakout season that gets him discussed with the elite scoring centres of the league. Duchene's ceiling is higher than Turris', but still his PPG 70 point season (it was in about 70 games) came when the Avalanche were absolutely on fire. Get this, their top 4 centres (although they played wing at times) were O'Reilly, Stastny, MacKinnon, and Duchene.

If the Sens would be getting the Duchene of the last few years he is in no way worth the asking price when you consider the cap ramifications.

 

[SpezDispenser]

If the team is trading for Duchene they most likely cannot keep Turris after next year so it'll be Duchene-Brassard-Pageau down the middle.

The only way acquiring Duchene is plausible IMO is if we trade Turris this summer for the best possible return to offset what we give up for Duchene. Because if we don't, Turris will most likely walk in 2018 because we can't keep everybody under a cap let alone under a budget. We could keep both until 2018, if we're okay with losing Turris for "nothing"

Let's say we give up Colorado's asking price of a young blue chip defender (Chabot), a first, and a roster playing (guessing one of Pageau or Dzingel as they are the only guys who would qualify as roster players who aren't older UFAs). We'll lose Turris in 2018 (or 2017 if we decide to trade him) as a consequence of the trade and we'd also still most likely have to dump Ryan as well. (refer to my post a few pages back on our 2018 salary projection).

The return for Turris might be good, but won't be anywhere near Chabot+1st+Roster player (Pageau+Dzingel?). Logically, anyone willing to part with that would just go after Duchene first.

So then when swapping Duchene for Turris, Turris is one of our assistant captains and is still a 1st line center. There is a difference between him and Duchene, but I don't think it is as great as some people think. You're looking at possibly hurting team chemistry as well as trading away a guy who is comfortable in Ottawa and might be more likely to take a team friendly contract than Duchene who'll be more attractive to other teams as a free agent and like Ryan was when he extended would be new to the city with very few roots here.

I don't think loading up for one run and then having to ditch another good player (in this case predicting Turris) is worth giving up Chabot+1st+roster player.

It's hard to think it wouldn't be Brassard on the way out via trade.

 

[karlsgod65]

IMO I think this is the worst year to make a trade for either a D or F.
With the Vegas expansion draft looming all this does is push another player out of protection at the cost of what we are already trading.

Therefore, when making a significant trade this season you have to also consider what player you are now leaving unexposed (either D or F slot).

I'd just ride it out this year - just my opinion

 

[Sens Vader]

If the team is trading for Duchene they most likely cannot keep Turris after next year so it'll be Duchene-Brassard-Pageau down the middle.

The only way acquiring Duchene is plausible IMO is if we trade Turris this summer for the best possible return to offset what we give up for Duchene. Because if we don't, Turris will most likely walk in 2018 because we can't keep everybody under a cap let alone under a budget. We could keep both until 2018, if we're okay with losing Turris for "nothing"

Let's say we give up Colorado's asking price of a young blue chip defender (Chabot), a first, and a roster playing (guessing one of Pageau or Dzingel as they are the only guys who would qualify as roster players who aren't older UFAs). We'll lose Turris in 2018 (or 2017 if we decide to trade him) as a consequence of the trade and we'd also still most likely have to dump Ryan as well. (refer to my post a few pages back on our 2018 salary projection).

The return for Turris might be good, but won't be anywhere near Chabot+1st+Roster player (Pageau+Dzingel?). Logically, anyone willing to part with that would just go after Duchene first.

So then when swapping Duchene for Turris, Turris is one of our assistant captains and is still a 1st line center. There is a difference between him and Duchene, but I don't think it is as great as some people think. You're looking at possibly hurting team chemistry as well as trading away a guy who is comfortable in Ottawa and might be more likely to take a team friendly contract than Duchene who'll be more attractive to other teams as a free agent and like Ryan was when he extended would be new to the city with very few roots here.

I don't think loading up for one run and then having to ditch another good player (in this case predicting Turris) is worth giving up Chabot+1st+roster player.

thats not true at all. The difference between his current contract and future contract will be less than 3 million, money we can shed someone else. But yes we will have to dump Ryan very soon, which will be a great day.

but I agree, I don't wanna move Chabot ++ for him even its fair. So I think its unlikely to happen but it will still be fun to see a deadline with big names available.

 

[danielpalfredsson]

It's hard to think it wouldn't be Brassard on the way out via trade.

Brassard makes a 3.33M average salary until 2019. Trading him to make room for Duchene doesn't really work. Cheapest roster player replacement makes about 800k, so we're looking at freeing up 2.5M. It doesn't solve the problem, and there is also no way the Sens should ditch that sort of value in getting AT LEAST a good 2nd line centre for 3.33M. Brass won't be getting a raise until 2019, which is after Turris is a UFA.

The issue with Turris is not what he makes now, but what he'll make in 2018 (anywhere from 6M-7M). To add Duchene, we have to at the very least ditch Ryan or Methot to fit Duchene in for the 2017 season. AND THEN WE STILL HAVE TO walk away from Turris (or 1 of Stone or Hoffman) when he Turris UFA in 2018.

Acquiring Duchene makes zero sense from a team building point of view unless Melnyk is gonna let the Sens spend to the cap. There'd be tons of risk involved, tons of moving parts. The upside wouldn't justify it.

 

[danielpalfredsson]

thats not true at all. The difference between his current contract and future contract will be less than 3 million, money we can shed someone else. But yes we will have to dump Ryan very soon, which will be a great day.

but I agree, I don't wanna move Chabot ++ for him even its fair. So I think its unlikely to happen but it will still be fun to see a deadline with big names available.

Where would you suggest we shed money to make room for Turris at 6M and Duchene at 7.5M long term? I've looked at this teams cap long term, and I really don't think the money is there.

 

[Micklebot]

If we were to go after Duchene, I'd want it to be as a long term replacement for Brassard. Colorado likely has zero interest in Brassard, rather they want a top 4 Dman.

Minnesota has too many top 4 D to protect come expansion draft. Could they be convinced to send one of their D for a package of Brassard + 2017 1st?

To Sens
Duchene

To Colorado
one of Brodin, Spurgeon, or Dumba, possibly a plus to balance things out

To Minni
Brassard
2017 1st (Ott)

Is that enough to pri away Duchene? I think we need to add, but how much and to who? Is this even a good starting point?

 

[Sens Vader]

Where would you suggest we shed money to make room for Turris at 6M and Duchene at 7.5M long term? I've looked at this teams cap long term, and I really don't think the money is there.

well you are first assuming the trade would take on Duchene's full 6 million dollar contract, which is unrealistic to expect. IF Duchene is on the Sens, money would have to be going back

you are also looking 2 and a half years down the line for his contract extension, and giving Turris a 2 million dollar raise in a year and a half. A lot can happen in a few years, especially with expansion coming up, budget and salary cap included.

The argument essentially boils down to not being able to take on any salary with Kalrsson Stone and Turris contacts coming up in the coming years - which essentially negates any meaningful improvement to the roster (yet the same can be said for 90% of teams that have contracts coming up in the next few years). Ryan and Methot will have to be gone like you said (one potentially via expansion) and that is expected. Anderson will be off the books as well (although we surely need to find a replacement.)

prospects will determine a lot as well, if Brown and White develop quickly - then yes guys like Turris and Brassard and Pageau can be trade chips - which is a good thing.

We can afford Duchene this year and next year with minor tweaks to the roster, and that would be the point - trying to win now.

 

[danielpalfredsson]

If we were to go after Duchene, I'd want it to be as a long term replacement for Brassard. Colorado likely has zero interest in Brassard, rather they want a top 4 Dman.

Minnesota has too many top 4 D to protect come expansion draft. Could they be convinced to send one of their D for a package of Brassard + 2017 1st?

To Sens
Duchene

To Colorado
one of Brodin, Spurgeon, or Dumba, possibly a plus to balance things out

To Minni
Brassard
2017 1st (Ott)

Is that enough to pri away Duchene? I think we need to add, but how much and to who? Is this even a good starting point?

I don't think it makes sense to move Brassard at all. Moving a guy who was brought in partially because of his leadership/playoff experience who also is on a great value contract doesn't make much sense. Especially not at what might be his lowest point value wise.

We're basically doubling Brassards salary with Duchene, so the team will still have to cut bait on other players to make room.

 

[danielpalfredsson]

well you are first assuming the trade would take on Duchene's full 6 million dollar contract, which is unrealistic to expect. IF Duchene is on the Sens, money would have to be going back

you are also looking 2 and a half years down the line for his contract extension, and giving Turris a 2 million dollar raise in a year and a half. A lot can happen in a few years, especially with expansion coming up.

The argument essentially boils down to not being able to take on any salary with Kalrsson Stone and Turris contacts coming up in the coming years. Ryan and Methot will have to be gone like you said (one potentially via expansion) and that is expected. Anderson will be off the books as well (although we surely need to find a replacement.

We can afford Duchene this year and next year with minor tweaks to the roster, and that would be the point - trying to win now.

If we acquire Duchene Methot shouldn't be gone until his contract is up. The team can't lose both Methot and Chabot, that makes no sense. That isn't worth adding Duchene. Our top 4 would be terrible.

We have to cut bait on Ryan (or Methot) to keep Turris in 2018 AS IT IS before even adding Duchene. But being able to trade Ryan without taking back a burdening contract isn't guaranteed and as stated before we cannot cut bait on Methot if we give up Chabot.

Anderson being off the books is irrelevant because we'll still have to pay a starting goalie. Starting goalies make 4M minimum. There's a possibility that we might have a small window with Driedger or someone else as our starter on a dirt cheap bridge deal, but that's not something you can bank on as a certainty. The position is too volatile to predict this far out so it is safer to assume we'll have to pay someone at least what the cheapest starters cost which is about 4M. So goaltending isn't an area where we can cut money.

How does the team afford Duchene next year with minor tweaks? I don't get it. We apparently have a 68M budget according to Melnyk at the end of last season. We have 58.5M devoted to 14 skaters next year. Let's say the other 9 skaters cost 800k, that's an added 7.2M which brings us up to almost 66M.

So that leaves us with a bit over 2M. But you have to take away whatever Pageau and Dzingel make above that 800k amount. Remember.....we can't just ditch Methot with Chabot gone. If he is considered off the team, Hammond could be bought out to free up 1M in money, but that adds 500k to next year's salary.

So where are we at? We have to let Smith walk as a UFA. Otherwise have kept our team barely together BEFORE adding Duchene.

So when you look at it this way, the only options to make room to add Duchene who'd cost 5.2M above the amount dictated for an average skater (800k) would be to find a way to cut bait on Ryan while taking very little or no salary back.

Then in 2018, that's when the team has to cut bait on Turris. No real money coming off the book (only Anderson but we'll need a starting goalie) and we have raises to Stone, Turris, and Ceci (who is now more important if we've given Chabot up).

Brassard is not an option because of how low his salary is. So the consequence of acquiring Duchene would be three things. The team loses the pieces they give up for him (Chabot+), they most likely lose Zack Smith, and they have to lose one of Turris, Stone, or Hoffman to make room to keep him as they won't be able to keep everybody.

Now things can happen, Eugene Melnyk's heart could grow three times in size, the NHL could make a ton more revenue and the cap could go way up. But as it is now, those things don't seem all that likely so the only way to judge the plausibility of Duchene fitting into our salary structure is to do it based on what we know today. That leads me to believe that it makes no sense to give up such a HUGE package on Duchene when the benefits are we load up for this years playoffs, but then have to deal with losing multiple*players, Turris, and Chabot as a consequence of the added salary. Makes zero sense.

 

[Micklebot]

I don't think it makes sense to move Brassard at all. Moving a guy who was brought in partially because of his leadership/playoff experience who also is on a great value contract doesn't make much sense. Especially not at what might be his lowest point value wise.

We're basically doubling Brassards salary with Duchene, so the team will still have to cut bait on other players to make room.

I don't know if other GMs are as fickle wrt player value based on a half season of play. I don't personally see Brassards value around the league as having dropped, but maybe I'm in the minority there.

I think a big part of us bringing in Brass though was to have a LHC, well Duchene is that as well. In the end though, I'm trying to balance short and long term here. We add ~3 mil to the budget though, and that might mean we can't re-sign Smith, which would certainly hurt. Maybe we move him in part of the deal to balance things out.

In the end, I just don't see room on the team for Brass, Turris, and Duchene, and to me Brass is the least desirable (even though I'm happy with him despite his slow start).

 

[aragorn]

This is all IMO, I'm sure many will disagree

-No to Landeskog, he is not good enough offensively to warrant the price Colorado is asking for

-No to Duchene, and here's why. But by all accounts Colorado is asking for a huge package, Chabot would 100% have to be in the package. Duchene is a 1C, yes, and he is better than both Turris and Brassard. But the difference between having Duchene/Turris/Brassard compared to Turris/Brassard/JGP is not Chabot + 1st + roster player, which is the type of package it would take. Yeah it would create matchup issues for other teams, but overall we'd be paying a huge premium for a marginal upgrade (relatively speaking).

- In general: no to trading White, Chabot, Brown unless it's for a significant upgrade. Cost controlled assets are too important to us to give them up for marginal upgrades. Pragmatically speaking, we aren't trading for Tavares, OEL, or whatever other elite 1C or 1D anytime soon. It's just not gonna happen.

Therefore the best thing is for us to do is hope these guys plus a few others develop into impact NHLers. We have too many holes to fill via trade, and there's no sense in creating one hole to fill another. If past years are anything to judge by, we ain't signing a top 6 forward or top 4 D via free agency either.

Stay the course, think long term not short term. The last thing we need is to trade a blue chipper for a great but not elite player, and have another debacle blow up in our face. (See Zibanejad, Mika).

Good post & agree.

However, improving the bottom six on this team either internally or externally after the expansion draft should be a top priority for this management team.

 

[SENSational1]

If we were to go after Duchene, I'd want it to be as a long term replacement for Brassard. Colorado likely has zero interest in Brassard, rather they want a top 4 Dman.

Minnesota has too many top 4 D to protect come expansion draft. Could they be convinced to send one of their D for a package of Brassard + 2017 1st?

To Sens
Duchene

To Colorado
one of Brodin, Spurgeon, or Dumba, possibly a plus to balance things out

To Minni
Brassard
2017 1st (Ott)

Is that enough to pri away Duchene? I think we need to add, but how much and to who? Is this even a good starting point?

Hate to disagree with a mod, but if Minni wanted to trade a package like that for a centre, wouldn't they rather want Duchene than Brass+1? In other words, if this trade happens it's with Ottawa out of the picture?

 

[Sens Vader]

If we acquire Duchene Methot shouldn't be gone until his contract is up. The team can't lose both Methot and Chabot, that makes no sense. That isn't worth adding Duchene. Our top 4 would be terrible.

We have to cut bait on Ryan (or Methot) to keep Turris in 2018 AS IT IS before even adding Duchene. But being able to trade Ryan without taking back a burdening contract isn't guaranteed and as stated before we cannot cut bait on Methot if we give up Chabot.

Anderson being off the books is irrelevant because we'll still have to pay a starting goalie. Starting goalies make 4M minimum. There's a possibility that we might have a small window with Driedger or someone else as our starter on a dirt cheap bridge deal, but that's not something you can bank on as a certainty. The position is too volatile to predict this far out so it is safer to assume we'll have to pay someone at least what the cheapest starters cost which is about 4M. So goaltending isn't an area where we can cut money.

How does the team afford Duchene next year with minor tweaks? I don't get it. We apparently have a 68M budget according to Melnyk at the end of last season. We have 58.5M devoted to 14 skaters next year. Let's say the other 9 skaters cost 800k, that's an added 7.2M which brings us up to almost 66M.

So that leaves us with a bit over 2M. But you have to take away whatever Pageau and Dzingel make above that 800k amount. Remember.....we can't just ditch Methot with Chabot gone. If he is considered off the team, Hammond could be bought out to free up 1M in money, but that adds 500k to next year's salary.

So where are we at? We have to let Smith walk as a UFA. Otherwise have kept our team barely together BEFORE adding Duchene.

So when you look at it this way, the only options to make room to add Duchene who'd cost 5.2M above the amount dictated for an average skater (800k) would be to find a way to cut bait on Ryan while taking very little or no salary back.

Then in 2018, that's when the team has to cut bait on Turris. No real money coming off the book (only Anderson but we'll need a starting goalie) and we have raises to Stone, Turris, and Ceci (who is now more important if we've given Chabot up).

Brassard is not an option because of how low his salary is. So the consequence of acquiring Duchene would be three things. The team loses the pieces they give up for him (Chabot+), they most likely lose Zack Smith, and they have to lose one of Turris, Stone, or Hoffman to make room to keep him as they won't be able to keep everybody.

Now things can happen, Eugene Melnyk's heart could grow three times in size, the NHL could make a ton more revenue and the cap could go way up. But as it is now, those things don't seem all that likely so the only way to judge the plausibility of Duchene fitting into our salary structure is to do it based on what we know today. That leads me to believe that it makes no sense to give up such a HUGE package on Duchene when the benefits are we load up for this years playoffs, but then have to deal with losing multiple*players, Turris, and Chabot as a consequence of the added salary. Makes zero sense.

I have stated SEVERAL times trading Chabot ++ (cost controlled assets) for Duchene makes zero sense for Ottawa. I would not do it. There is no scenario where Ottawa takes on his 6 million dollar contract in a trade - no scenario.

You could say the only way we get Duchene is for Chabot + 1st + and that is completely fair, but Ottawa cannot afford that trade, and in turn the only way Ottawa take Duchene is in a trade where EQUAL money goes the other way - which in turn dismantles the discussion.

Ryan gone would be fantastic (and an expiring contract coming back is what we would want e.g Beauchemin), and Methot is already likely gone with expansion. Essentially your argument assumes Chabot for Duchene and the consequential cap repercussion of that deal - which is a fair topic since that is the likely asking price - but I am however assuming the only deal that makes sense for Ottawa where Duchene is in a sens uniform is if a trade is around Ceci ++ (other players with salary). 90% of teams that take on 6 mil in cap will run into trouble, we are no different if thats your point. the trade ONLY makes sense based on the pieces we give up, and I have been very clear in the pieces I would move for it to 'make sense' - none of which end with 6 million coming back our way. So yes, trading Chabot + 1st + prospect for Duchene doesn't work, I agree.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

Hate to disagree with a mod, but if Minni wanted to trade a package like that for a centre, wouldn't they rather want Duchene than Brass+1? In other words, if this trade happens it's with Ottawa out of the picture?

You hate standing up for what you believe in?

 

[NB613]

I have stated SEVERAL times trading Chabot ++ (cost controlled assets) for Duchene makes zero sense for Ottawa. I would not do it. There is no scenario where Ottawa takes on his 6 million dollar contract in a trade - no scenario.

You could say the only way we get Duchene is for Chabot + 1st + and that is completely fair, but Ottawa cannot afford that trade, and in turn the only way Ottawa take Duchene is in a trade where EQUAL money goes the other way - which in turn dismantles the discussion.

Ryan gone would be fantastic (and an expiring contract coming back is what we would want e.g Beauchemin), and Methot is already likely gone with expansion. Essentially your argument assumes Chabot for Duchene and the consequential cap repercussion of that deal - which is a fair topic since that is the likely asking price - but I am however assuming the only deal that makes sense for Ottawa where Duchene is in a sens uniform is if a trade is around Ceci ++ (other players with salary). 90% of teams that take on 6 mil in cap will run into trouble, we are no different if thats your point. the trade ONLY makes sense based on the pieces we give up, and I have been very clear in the pieces I would move for it to 'make sense' - none of which end with 6 million coming back our way. So yes, trading Chabot + 1st + prospect for Duchene doesn't work, I agree.

Well put! Couldnt have said this better myself. Only add-on is that with expansion looming we have to be extra cautious with who we gain and strategic with who we give up. Dorion will have to be very creative in order to minimize the damage. Minor moves shoukd be expected and nothing can happen before the macarthur situation is dealt with.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

What would we give up for Janick Hansen. 30 y/o 3 mil salary end of 2017/18

We don't have a 2nd for 2 years so... would the Canucks accept Lazar and a 3rd? How can we entice them? Would you offer a 1st for him?