Proposal: Columbus- Anaheim
- Thread starter Vatican Roulette
- Start date
All Mighty
Registered User
Probably the only way we take Hartnell is if Bieksa is involved form our side for protection reasons.
Halla
Registered User
- Jan 28, 2016
- 14,727
- 3,779
Maurice of Orange
13:21 🏒🏒
- Feb 5, 2016
- 10,772
- 7,318
Id have to agree, Bieksa would have to go to Columbus for this deal to work.
Plus Anaheim already has Bernier for a backup to Gibson in Anaheim, and has Dustin Tokarski, Kevin Boyle and Matt Hackett in San Diego AHL, so I don't see how Anton Forsberg fits into this deal.
Vatican Roulette
Baile de Los Locos
I looked at that:
Getzlaf
Perry
Hartnell
Rakell
Silfverberg
Cogliano
Would all the Ducks would need to protect with this trade. On defense, they still protect 3.
Lindholm
Vatanen
Bieska
Fowler
IMO a deal can be made for Bieska.
MMC
Global Moderator
No, I'd love Hartnell and Forsberg fills a need as after Gibson we have nothing in net, but I don't want to give up Jones.
Vatican Roulette
Baile de Los Locos
Forsberg fits into the deal as a better goaltender than the depth above. He's the #3 that can be an NHL back-up today. With potential to be more.
WhatTheDuck
9 - 20 - 8
In all likelihood, Bieksa doesn't factor in on expansion protection at all. He will either waive his NMC to be left unprotected (a formality since Vegas won't take him), or if he refuses he'll be bought out of the final year of his deal. Both of those are much more likely scenarios than letting him eat up a protection slot over better, younger, cheaper Dmen.
If BM promises to honor the NMC after the expansion draft, there's no reason for Bieksa not to play ball.
As for the OP deal, I think it should just be simplified to Stoner + 2nd for Hartnell , anything more steep than that and I would pass. I really can't see the Ducks flipping Jones away already, and I'd say he fits more of a need than Forsberg.
Maurice of Orange
13:21 🏒🏒
- Feb 5, 2016
- 10,772
- 7,318
For a trade to work between Anaheim and Columbus just do Hartnell for Bieksa and a draft pick straight up.
Columbus would have to retain 750k in the first 2 years and 2.375mil in the last year of Hartnell's deal.
To Columbus: D Bieksa and say a 3rd round pick
To Anaheim: LW Hartnell < with retained salary
Columbus would have to retain 750k in the first 2 years and 2.375mil in the last year of Hartnell's deal.
To Columbus: D Bieksa and say a 3rd round pick
To Anaheim: LW Hartnell < with retained salary
Vatican Roulette
Baile de Los Locos
Well my thinking is that Anaheim still has Ritchie, top PF prospect that's NHL ready IMO. Plus, Anaheim's LW prospect depth is strong....Roy, Kerdiles.
Jones might make the depth better, but Hartnell is established and will help the Ducks to another cup before Jones will.
Sean Garrity
Quack Quack Quack!
Sean Garrity
Quack Quack Quack!
Vatican Roulette
Baile de Los Locos
Goose of Reason
El Zilcho
- May 1, 2013
- 9,732
- 9,466
Vatican Roulette
Baile de Los Locos
Bieksa has NO reason to waive his NMC so he won't. His next contract will be based on the numbers he puts up for the next two years.
Would he rather continue to play for the best defensive team in the league or probably one of the worst in Las Vegas?
Sean Garrity
Quack Quack Quack!
I understand that, just noting that giving up Jones is not the same as giving up a Roy/Kerdiles type.
Vatican Roulette
Baile de Los Locos
After Bernier, the Ducks have nothing. Failed NHL back-ups.
Flipping Jones in this deal gives the Ducks a proven top line PF. They also lose salary in Stoner.
Vatican Roulette
Baile de Los Locos
I agree.
Giving up Jones, as in the OP, gives the Ducks a solid LW that can play the top line this year, and the next.
Also in the OP, Anaheim sends Stoner. That's a not needed dman at 3.1 for 2 years.
MMC
Global Moderator
Hartnell isn't young enough to bridge our gap between NHL LWs and prospect LWs. Ritchie, yes is ready to play in the NHL and is, IMO, a lock for our team next year.
Vatican Roulette
Baile de Los Locos
Hartnell plays the top line LW this year and next.
Ritchie plays the 2nd line LW now and the future.
After that the Ducks have good depth.
Everyone in this thread is arguing about bieksa waiving to come or retention on Hartnell but skipping over the fact that CBJ have no reason to trade Hartnell unless it's for an expiring contract pick or non ready prospect... we wouldn't be taking back bad contracts or current NHL guys. We barely have room.for our own guys.
Scott Hartnell is still a solid hockey player. This would be hilariously stupid for the Jackets. Hartnell still has value as a player, he isn't strictly a cap dump like many apparently think. Not sure why people have this impression. Dude scored 23 goals and almost had 50 points.
