one2gamble
Registered User
- Dec 24, 2007
- 17,342
- 8,589
yep, that seems crazyNo kidding, Pitt doesn’t have a whole lot? Yager?
yep, that seems crazyNo kidding, Pitt doesn’t have a whole lot? Yager?
Gotta love the main boards. Dubas went from hero again to zero again in between Friedman posts.
Yeah this is potentially worse the Jack Johnson and Bobby Ryan’s contracts not quite Dipeitro bad thoughObviously, but Matty Beniers getting a $50M contract with 100 career points feels insane to me. Like I totally get it from Seattle's perspective, you have to lock your 1C down as soon as you can, that's not the player to nickel and dime, it just feels crazy to get that much money with effectively one good season to your name.
Ill believe it when I see it. So far hes more of a back scratch for back scratch dont rock the boat kinda guyMaybe maybe not. He's never been in a position where it made sense to do so. HE may end up being the most ruthless GM in hockey history.
That’s what he wants you to think bwahaha.Ill believe it when I see it. So far hes more of a back scratch for back scratch dont rock the boat kinda guy
I don't think Trotz would be so arrogant as to even bring up the names "Celebrini" or "Smith", but Bystedt and Edstrom are perfectly reasonable names to bring up as the base of a deal. I'd rather move one of them than Musty.Huge prospect swap today and the Jets did excellent with the return. Thinking about Askarov after I heard the trade went down. Nashville will probably want Musty or one of our top center prospects in return. If that's the asking price, I'd walk away quickly.
Agreed. Smithh or celly are obvious non-starters. I too like what Ive seen fro musty and would be reticent to move him. Aside from dickinson, I think musty is our 4th best prospect and a future legit NHLer.I don't think Trotz would be so arrogant as to even bring up the names "Celebrini" or "Smith", but Bystedt and Edstrom are perfectly reasonable names to bring up as the base of a deal. I'd rather move one of them than Musty.
Yeah there are certain teams in the NHL that you look at for certain positions and have to question why they are already giving up on a certain player they are top at developing.I don't know how else to say it, but if Nashville, with its track record of developing goaltending talent, doesn't want to hold on to Askarov, then it seems unlikely that he's going to be a top-tier goaltender.
At this point in the rebuild, there should be no rush from the Sharks; they can afford to wait for the best opportunity while continuing to accumulate assets.
I also get worried when teams get a hyped goaltending prospect; he gets put on a pedastal and penned in as the GOTF, and for 3-5 years the team ignores the other opportunities.
So bringing in 2 nhl level backup goalies had nothing to do with askarov wanting out?Seems it's Askarov who has given up on the Preds vs the Preds giving up on Askarov
I don't know how else to say it, but if Nashville, with its track record of developing goaltending talent, doesn't want to hold on to Askarov, then it seems unlikely that he's going to be a top-tier goaltender.
Counterpoint - Nashville is trying open a championship window now with their signings, and when those signings are older players, you can't risk time with a unproven goalie.I don't know how else to say it, but if Nashville, with its track record of developing goaltending talent, doesn't want to hold on to Askarov, then it seems unlikely that he's going to be a top-tier goaltender.
At this point in the rebuild, there should be no rush from the Sharks; they can afford to wait for the best opportunity while continuing to accumulate assets.
I also get worried when teams get a hyped goaltending prospect; he gets put on a pedastal and penned in as the GOTF, and for 3-5 years the team ignores the other opportunities.
Sure, but if they think Askarov is the real deal, then they shouldn't move him, at least right now, for anything less than a standout proposal.Counterpoint - Nashville is trying open a championship window now with their signings, and when those signings are older players, you can't risk time with a unproven goalie.
Aside, i totally agree with the hesitancy. there could just be more to the story as to why they are going with Saros now
I’d rather keep Musty.Selling high on Musty could be a smart move. See if you can even get the Preds to send back a pick along with Askarov.
I'm concerned about what his value will be a year from now if he goes back to Sudbury and his production regresses which is very possible.I’d rather keep Musty.
I'd say signing Saros to an 8 year extension weighed more to his thinking. I'm sure the Preds knew he was unhappy befohis agent made it public knowledgeSo bringing in 2 nhl level backup goalies had nothing to do with askarov wanting out?
If nashville was really thinking askarov was that good they would not have brought in matt murray and scott wedgewood this offseason.
its also possible he becomes a dominant NHL player in a few years. Askarov has the same potential and risk as Musty at the moment. Neither are proven. Why give up on potential for one while swapping for the other? It doesn’t make sense.I'm concerned about what his value will be a year from now if he goes back to Sudbury and his production regresses which is very possible.
It's going to be like Logan Couture; the D+2 junior year means nothing. His D+3 season will be the key; does he tear up the AHL or make the NHL?I'm concerned about what his value will be a year from now if he goes back to Sudbury and his production regresses which is very possible.