Speculation: 2024-25 - Free Agency/Trade Thread

All Mighty

Registered User
Sep 20, 2014
12,087
19,101
California
allmightyhockeytalk.com
Very possible but as the Columbus "insider" that's a great way to lose credibility pretty quickly. Portzline writes for the Athletic so I can't get his articles but the link below is a good summary. He has been all over the place on this one...
Of the roster players on our team, I think Strome, Lundestrom, LaCombe, and Vaakanainen could be part of a Laine deal. LaCombe is the most valuable piece of that group, and I could see him not even being on the table for Laine given all his risk. I doubt Verbeek would swap Strome for Laine just because that would weaken an already weak leadership group. Lundestrom and Vaakanainen aren't sexy pieces, but they would add some depth to the Jackets. I suppose McGinn could be involved, too, but I can't see any team really wanting him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tomd

robbieboy3686

Registered User
Jan 17, 2016
2,965
2,012
I don't love the idea of trading LaCombe for a "well, if he doesn't work out it's just money" kind of gamble. IMO he's probably our best trade piece right now ('best' in terms of balancing probable value with how much it would hurt to lose him) and if he's going to be moved, I'd rather it be involved in something with a little less potential to derail spectacularly.

Rather do something with picks, trade a dice roll for a dice roll. But Columbus probably doesn't need to settle for just that.
Lacombe doesn’t have more than a 1-2 year window on this team. He’s a stop gap for other more talented better fitting younger d men we have in the pipeline. I’ll die on this hill
 

Dr Johnny Fever

Eggplant and Teal
Apr 11, 2012
21,901
6,611
Lower Left Coast
Lacombe doesn’t have more than a 1-2 year window on this team. He’s a stop gap for other more talented better fitting younger d men we have in the pipeline. I’ll die on this hill
There’s nothing wrong with your opinion, but I’d still rather give Lacombe that window to up his value than use it to take on a guy who is a big question mark on the ice as well as in the clubhouse.
 

DavidBL

Registered User
Jul 25, 2012
6,149
4,152
Orange, CA
There’s nothing wrong with your opinion, but I’d still rather give Lacombe that window to up his value than use it to take on a guy who is a big question mark on the ice as well as in the clubhouse.
Does Lacombe really have the opportunity to be more than a 3rd pair guy given what's in front of him? Not sure there is much likely hood of him actually increasing his value.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DuckRogers10

Dr Johnny Fever

Eggplant and Teal
Apr 11, 2012
21,901
6,611
Lower Left Coast
Does Lacombe really have the opportunity to be more than a 3rd pair guy given what's in front of him? Not sure there is much likely hood of him actually increasing his value.
I didn’t say what I thought he would be. Only that I don’t want to trade him for Laine. Why do you keep arguing with me? It’s my opinion.
 

tomd

Registered User
Apr 23, 2003
9,985
5,838
Visit site
Does Lacombe really have the opportunity to be more than a 3rd pair guy given what's in front of him? Not sure there is much likely hood of him actually increasing his value.
For 24-25 anyway, it is more likely that Zellweger gets more sheltered minutes than LaCombe IMO. I tend to doubt that Zellweger is ready for 82 NHL games in a top 4 role. But either way, I suspect there will be a fair degree of experimentation putting some of these LHD on the right side. LaCombe actually finished the year pretty well and I'm not as anxious as others are to dump him...especially for a semi-rental.
 

caliamad

Registered User
Mar 14, 2003
4,429
385
Visit site
Lacombe could easily become the next Francois beachemein or Josh manson. Way too early to write him off.

Having said that I’d move him for the right package. And by that I mean legit rhd 2 way top 4 young defenseman.

For 24-25 anyway, it is more likely that Zellweger gets more sheltered minutes than LaCombe IMO. I tend to doubt that Zellweger is ready for 82 NHL games in a top 4 role. But either way, I suspect there will be a fair degree of experimentation putting some of these LHD on the right side. LaCombe actually finished the year pretty well and I'm not as anxious as others are to dump him...especially for a semi-rental.
Yep, he made it through his first real season.

Zellweger hasn’t. He could be up and down all season finding consistency.

Lacombe was asked to play way above his experience, he struggled with success, but considering he played pretty damn good.
 

DavidBL

Registered User
Jul 25, 2012
6,149
4,152
Orange, CA
For 24-25 anyway, it is more likely that Zellweger gets more sheltered minutes than LaCombe IMO. I tend to doubt that Zellweger is ready for 82 NHL games in a top 4 role. But either way, I suspect there will be a fair degree of experimentation putting some of these LHD on the right side. LaCombe actually finished the year pretty well and I'm not as anxious as others are to dump him...especially for a semi-rental.
That's an interesting thought. I tend to think Zell has already passed Lacombe so I hadn't really viewed this year with much experimentation. A lot will depend on how they use Dumoulin.
 

tomd

Registered User
Apr 23, 2003
9,985
5,838
Visit site
Those are three very different defenseman.

I don’t see LaCombe having the physical edge to his game like Beauch or tough to play against like Manson.

I find his game similar to Vaaks - smooth, steady play.
My best (but not perfect) comp for LaCombe would be a blend between Vaak and Fowler. He would be so much more valuable if he could elevate his physical play.
 

CrazyDuck4u

Registered User
Oct 14, 2006
6,578
3,606
Look people wanted to bring in Stamkos to use him as a pp specialist, Liane can be just that.. Dude can easily pot 25-30 playing with Carlson. They to key this year will be health and players finding form.. IM LOOKING AT YOU TERRY!!
 

Dr Johnny Fever

Eggplant and Teal
Apr 11, 2012
21,901
6,611
Lower Left Coast
I'm not trying to argue with you. Just trying understand your opinion more.
I've made this quite clear before. This is the last time I will repeat myself...

Laine is a unknown problem child who has not been good for 5 years. Until he proves otherwise, his value to me is minimal (low round pick minimal). Quite frankly, the chances that he reverts to his old form is infinitesimal, IMO.

Lacombe is young and was thrown into tough situations much of last year. I don't know what he may become but a solid mid pair D who could occasionally run PP2 is not out of the question IMO. I'm more willing to give him a chance to show that development than to give him away for Laine. I get it, you don't agree. That's fine.
 

JAHV

Registered User
Sponsor
Oct 3, 2023
1,100
1,665
Anaheim, CA
That's an interesting thought. I tend to think Zell has already passed Lacombe so I hadn't really viewed this year with much experimentation. A lot will depend on how they use Dumoulin.
Yeah, given how Zellweger was being used at the end of last season, there's no doubt that he's passed LaCombe. Zellweger was getting even strength minutes alongside Fowler on the top d-pairing and looking way more comfortable on his offside than LaCombe did.

I agree that how they use Dumoulin will be telling in how the rest of the defense looks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deuce22

Hockey Duckie

Registered User
Jul 25, 2003
18,226
13,198
southern cal
Uh a buy low scenario is getting Laine for less than he would cost if he were currently a 40 goal scorer. He has the talent but obviously issues are causing his value to sink.

I see a lot of people saying everything that “could” go wrong with Laine and I don’t disagree there are risks. But what if it goes right and suddenly the Ducks have a big Right Shot RW who scores 35 goals? That’s not worth giving up a 2nd or 3rd and a B prospect (not saying that is exactly what it will take because who knows how low a trade the Jackets will take)? To me he’s worth the risk.

And I’m not sure why you pivoted to Lacombe but you do spend a lot of time defending Lacombe and Eakins.

I don't know what your buy low scenario is. I informed you my preference for LaCombe would be above a "buy low" threshold and why. That gives you my specific standard of player (youth or prospect type) that I don't want to give up on. If you've been reading this thread, then you'd know LaCombe's name was brought up as the trade piece because the poster(s) don't think highly of LaCombe. If you're in agreement that LaCombe shouldn't be traded, then you can say you're in agreement about LaCombe. If you're not in agreement, then that's where we differ.

Again, you were the vague one in your description of "buy low". Even now you're still vague with a "B prospect" level. If it's future draft picks like a 2nd and 3rds or lower level prospects like G Clang or RD Helleson, then I don't mind taking a swing.

But because Laine hasn't helped the Blue Jackets out of the bottom-6 in the past four years, hasn't scored 35+ goals in over six seasons, has asked to be traded by two different teams, has been injury prone, and now also took time away from the game for mental issues while possessing an $8.7 mil hit per year for the next two years doesn't seem like a worthwhile endeavor.

It's odd. You read my posts, but don't understand my posts as if some ideas came out of nowhere? LaCombe is still here and Eakins was here two years ago and a topic of conversation because Cronin shit the bed. Yet, you can hang onto a player's production that only existed six seasons ago and believe he can reproduce it on a rebuild team? Laine was traded from a playoff type team in Winnipeg (where he scored 35+ goals) to a rebuild team in Columbus. It hasn't worked out for Columbus and we suck worse. I don't think we're a great environment for Laine, his mental issues, and probable need for an extension or be traded to a team that can give him an extension after this season is done, tbh.
 

Deuce22

Registered User
Jun 17, 2013
5,743
7,993
SoCal & Idaho
LaCombe is a decent prospect who has offensive upside that he wasn't really able to show last year because of his usage. His spot on the Ducks is tenuous I believe because he has already been passed by guys 3 years younger (Mintyukov, Zellweger) and will most likely be behind Luneau and Solberg soon. I like his game but see why people would be proposing him to be traded. My preferred outcome would be that Fowler is shipped out and LaCombe given a chance on his strong side. I think it is more likely that he is traded.
 

Son of Gib

Registered User
Nov 14, 2017
247
313
Los Angeles
Welp, Laine is trending on Twitter. Ducks not specifically mentioned as a destination by rumor sites, but we all know that doesn't necessarily mean anything.
 

Zegs2sendhelp

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Jul 25, 2012
41,665
37,942
LaCombe is a decent prospect who has offensive upside that he wasn't really able to show last year because of his usage. His spot on the Ducks is tenuous I believe because he has already been passed by guys 3 years younger (Mintyukov, Zellweger) and will most likely be behind Luneau and Solberg soon. I like his game but see why people would be proposing him to be traded. My preferred outcome would be that Fowler is shipped out and LaCombe given a chance on his strong side. I think it is more likely that he is traded.
Sign me up for trading fowler
 

DavidBL

Registered User
Jul 25, 2012
6,149
4,152
Orange, CA
I've made this quite clear before. This is the last time I will repeat myself...

Laine is a unknown problem child who has not been good for 5 years. Until he proves otherwise, his value to me is minimal (low round pick minimal). Quite frankly, the chances that he reverts to his old form is infinitesimal, IMO.

Lacombe is young and was thrown into tough situations much of last year. I don't know what he may become but a solid mid pair D who could occasionally run PP2 is not out of the question IMO. I'm more willing to give him a chance to show that development than to give him away for Laine. I get it, you don't agree. That's fine.
I've very clearly irritated you and that was not my intention, so I apologize for that. I was just looking for but more in depth discussion given that our opinions of the situation seemed so fat apart. I actually agree with your assessment of Lacombe for the most part. Obviously we disagree quite substantially on Laine so I guess we'll just leave it at that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ohcomeonref

Trojans86

Registered User
Dec 30, 2015
3,229
2,215
Does Lacombe really have the opportunity to be more than a 3rd pair guy given what's in front of him? Not sure there is much likely hood of him actually increasing his value.
I think you’re undervaluing his upside potential. Not saying he is going to hit it by he actually has very nice tools and was always drafted as a raw talent that needed a lot of seasoning. I see his potential and a very good top 4 d because of his tools.
 

DavidBL

Registered User
Jul 25, 2012
6,149
4,152
Orange, CA
I think you’re undervaluing his upside potential. Not saying he is going to hit it by he actually has very nice tools and was always drafted as a raw talent that needed a lot of seasoning. I see his potential and a very good top 4 d because of his tools.
It's not that I don't believe in his tools or upside. I'm not sure he'll have much in the way of opportunity to showcase and develop them and if he doesn't can he really increase his value much? It's not really an ideal situation for imo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: All Mighty

ZegrassyKnoll

Registered User
Dec 2, 2016
137
284
I feel the same way about lacombe as I did with Marcus Patterson. I see a Meh player who likely doesn’t fit here long term. I could see him playing a decade of solid nhl hockey and yet, somehow, I won’t really miss him when he’s gone.
From what I can tell. Pettersson has become a pretty significant player for the Pens. Granted, the Pens aren't a great team, but he's averaging over 22 minutes a night.

Not that we need more LDs but he and Gudas would probably be a really solid 2nd pairing for us. Hell, they'd probably be our best pairing at the moment.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad