Proposal: Buffalo-Tampa Bay
- Thread starter dkollidas
- Start date
We can't deal Namestnikov for a UFA, at least not one with that kind of salary. He would essentially be a rental. We'd have no hope of bringing him back.
I do think Namestnikov can be had, mind you.
garmonbozia
Registered User
- Jan 10, 2006
- 921
- 97
Kulikov could only be part of a Tampa trade if Garrison was going back. Even that only happens if Yzerman intends on buying out the last year of Garrison's deal. Most Lightning fans would prefer Garrison over Kulikov, but, financially it could fit the plan.
Namestnikov won't get moved with Stamkos out. It would need to be a deal so lateral for each team as to be nonsensical. If it was Buffalo I would expect it around Girgensons, Larsson, or Foligno with picks to balance one way or the other. None of those deals are all that enticing either direction, why bother? I think if Namestnikov gets moved it will be after the season for an expansion draft exempt prospect or a pick.
Namestnikov won't get moved with Stamkos out. It would need to be a deal so lateral for each team as to be nonsensical. If it was Buffalo I would expect it around Girgensons, Larsson, or Foligno with picks to balance one way or the other. None of those deals are all that enticing either direction, why bother? I think if Namestnikov gets moved it will be after the season for an expansion draft exempt prospect or a pick.
Aladyyn
they praying for the death of a rockstar
Jim Bob
RIP RJ
Namestnikov isn't untouchable but his inexpensive contract means that a) we don't really gain much of anything capwise by moving him, and b) by remaining on our roster he represents a cheap replacement for one of the forwards we are going to lose this summer. In short while we'd be open to moving him it's difficult to see a compelling reason for us to do so unless it's as incentive for someone to take one of our high-priced NMC players off our hands before the expansion draft.
Not to mention we also have a shortage at center at the moment with Stamkos out so Namestnikov gives us valuable depth at the position in case somebody like Johnson goes down.
He was effective with Stamkos and Kucherov. Granted most decent players would be on a line with those two, but the point is he's a cost effective guy you can plug in to fill a hole where needed. Maybe he could develop better with a permanent spot in the lineup or maybe a utility plug is all he'll ever be, but I just don't see the point of throwing him away for a rental unless that rental looks like the final piece to put us over the top. Otherwise I'd rather use him as part of a package to get some real improvement or to clear out a cap dump, leave him as expansion bait for Vegas, or move him after the expansion draft when we'll know what our primary need is and would have the option of trading him for a defenseman if desired.
I'm not sure if you're trying to pump his tires for a trade discussion or not, but he was not very effective as our top line C. If Vlad Namestnikov winds up a top-6 center with us, it probably means we're not contending for anything. He is what he is. An average to above average depth player who plays with a lot of speed and very little creativity.
tsujimoto74
Moderator
- May 28, 2012
- 30,630
- 23,402
Sabres have needed a top 4 left-handed D for a while. We're not turning around and trading the one we just got.
Among our forwards he's currently seventh in scoring; we're almost certainly going to lose two of the players above him in the upcoming offseason and could well lose a third forward if we don't resign Boyle. Namestnikov might not be a superstar in waiting but an "average to above average depth player who plays with a lot of speed" is not without value and should not be thrown away carelessly.
Despite his limitations Vlad is still one of the best options within the organization to fill one of the holes that will open next season, and even if we decide to look to free agency to fulfill that need I'd still rather use him to get something that will help us beyond this season. As expansion bait he might keep Vegas from taking somebody like Sustr, or if we trade him even a solid bottom pairing defenseman or cheap depth scorer in return would be better for us long term than a rental would be. Sure, if there's a rental available that would put us over the top then I'm all for moving him, but otherwise I see no reason to throw a quality depth player away when he might be more useful either as a plug or as trade bait after the expansion draft.
I mean, if we're out of it by the deadline, and Kulikov is an unsigned, pending UFA, I don't think Murray would hesitate to deal if he can get something for the future (late 1st, good prospect or young player).
Last edited:
Or we could re-sign him so we don't have a gaping hole on the left side of our defense again.
wunderpanda
Registered User
- Apr 9, 2012
- 5,604
- 591
Garrison+ for Kane ?
We don't want that punk in our organization, and while Garrison will likely be available this summer I doubt we'd move him before then.
