Proposal: Free agency edition Trade Rumours/Proposals [MOD - Stay on Topic] 5

PlayOn

Registered User
Jun 22, 2010
1,719
2,106
I know the immediate reaction is to freak out about giving up #7/#12 for Ullmark but none of the speculation is saying that's all Ottawa would be getting back. If Staois can use a high pick to fill 2 or 3 roster holes (including the biggest one in nets) while also adding more picks later in the draft I don't see that as an automatic loss.

People around here talking about #25+ should be enough aren't taking into consideration that there are still a couple teams left looking to add a goalie. Our favourite team the Red Wings have pick #15 and I wouldn't be shocked at all if they put that on the block for Ullmark.

Obviously I want Staois to stick to his guns, but the difference between Ullmark and Stolarz/Broissoit is significant and is also probably the difference between this team fighting for a playoff spot next season.
The Bruins board guy with sources said they’re discussing Lauko as part of the deal. Makes sense for us, he will be useful, but he’s also a 4th liner.

Yzerman today said he wouldn’t expect any big Blockbuster trades with the 15th pick. He could be lying of course, but worth consideration.

7/12 just seems like a stretch to me, but that doesn’t mean it won’t happen. It feels like 25 + another good piece would be fair value but what do I know.
 

bicboi64

Registered User
Aug 13, 2020
4,788
3,012
Brampton
Having Korpisalo on the roster even as a back up is silly it’s not about saving $ with a buyout it’s about having a terrible goalie off our roster when we have to make the playoffs next year it really is that simple.
Even if Korpisalo improves, as a back up, he'd still be on the lower end and not capable of winning us a game or two when we need it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OttawaSenators11

Dionysus

Registered User
Oct 7, 2007
5,513
2,894
Around the bend
It would be a pretty Sens thing if Korpisalo gets a proper helmet and his eyes fixed, we trade him, and then he has a vezina calibre season lol

Haha pay a huge price to move him and he bounces back huge. Wouldn't even be surprised. He had good games, just very inconsistent.

Doesn't help having loads of giveaways at terrible times and a soft defense that can't protect the front of the net.
 

frightenedinmatenum2

Registered User
Sep 30, 2023
1,944
1,941
Orange County Prison
Staios needs to find a legitimate plan B to Ullmark and progress those trade talks to the point that Boston either has to make the deal or not.

Ullmark has a partial-NTC, but he also has a full-NTC by proxy because no team will give up top assets for him without an extension. He is going to require a substantial commitment both in AAV and terms. There won't be many teams able to give him that on top of giving up A-level assets.

I don't think keeping him is an option for Boston. First, players usually don't like when teams drag their names through trade rumors, have legitimate avenues to allow them to move on and in this case secure the biggest contract of their career, but the team doesn't move them because they want too much in return. We see it all the time where fans say "We can keep him, we don't have to trade him.", but then before training camp, the player is gone because holding on to them like that is not possible in real life where teams have to manage relationships with player agents, and their own roster players.

Additionally, they would benefit from using his cap space to fill another need. They have 21M in cap space with 17 players already signed, but Swayman needs an extension. Swayman is going to get 8 million on a long-term deal. If they keep Ullmark at 5M, that puts them in a situation where they only have about 8M to fill 4 roster spots. While that is doable, it doesn't leave them much room to add a defenseman or a forward who can be a difference maker. Conversely, if they trade Ullmark to Ottawa for Chychrun, it shifts Ullmarks cap hit to a position of greater need.

The Bruins likely think that Ottawa doesn't have leverage because they cannot afford another losing season with Brady's NMC looming, and relationships between the team and some players already tested - and goalie is the biggest position of need. Not to mention, the past regime was always very aggressive to pay when they wanted a player. So perhaps teams feel that we can be pushed into doing that again. That is why Staios needs a legitimate backup plan that he is fine with, where he can progress the talks to a point that if he turns around and says to Boston x y z for Ullmark, final offer or else we're going with John Gibson or whoever it may be, there is actual gravity to the threat.
 

DJB

Registered User
Jan 6, 2009
16,402
11,100
twitter.com
The Bruins board guy with sources said they’re discussing Lauko as part of the deal. Makes sense for us, he will be useful, but he’s also a 4th liner.

Yzerman today said he wouldn’t expect any big Blockbuster trades with the 15th pick. He could be lying of course, but worth consideration.

7/12 just seems like a stretch to me, but that doesn’t mean it won’t happen. It feels like 25 + another good piece would be fair value but what do I know.

He is suggesting a 3 way with the Flyers

Ott: 12 + pick (m guessing 32)
Phi: 7

Ott: Ullmark, Lauko
Bos: 12 + player

From what he is saying

That seems way too expensive to me. We can’t afford to move off that #7 since we haven’t had a first in 4 years?
 

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
54,795
32,209
He is suggesting a 3 way with the Flyers

Ott: 12 + pick (m guessing 32)
Phi: 7

Ott: Ullmark, Lauko
Bos: 12 + player

From what he is saying

That seems way too expensive to me. We can’t afford to move off that #7 since we haven’t had a first in 4 years?
I feel like a heck of a lot more than Lauko would need to come back to justify 12th for Ulmark, they can pound salt if that's what they want imho.
 

Gil Gunderson

Registered User
May 2, 2007
31,397
17,228
Ottawa, ON
He is suggesting a 3 way with the Flyers

Ott: 12 + pick (m guessing 32)
Phi: 7

Ott: Ullmark, Lauko
Bos: 12 + player

From what he is saying

That seems way too expensive to me. We can’t afford to move off that #7 since we haven’t had a first in 4 years?
I like how we give up the valuable player Philly sends us too.
 

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
54,795
32,209
I don't buy into 7 for 12 + 32, either. Will be very disappointed if the Sens move down this year given the talent that will be there at 7.
Moving down from 7 to 12 for 32 seems about right value wise, so it boils down to who the Sens want. They may have an unconventional guy at 7 on their list, or intel that their guy could still be there at 12. They might really like Yakemchuk or Parekh and feel they'll still be there.

I honestly think there are about 6 guys that could go 7th or 12th and not blink an eye.
 

JackieDaytona

regular human hockey fan.
Oct 21, 2007
1,520
1,397
7 to 12 for only 32 seems like a shit deal to me, even if that is reasonable value historically.

Moving from one of the first picks of the crowded 'second tier' to getting to pick whatever is leftover from that group and only getting the last pick in the first round seems like a risk, the juice is not worth the squeeze. I hope we can land a RHD later in the round - Elick, Emery, etc. - those guys won't be around at 32, they may not even be there at 25...
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrEasy

frightenedinmatenum2

Registered User
Sep 30, 2023
1,944
1,941
Orange County Prison
He is suggesting a 3 way with the Flyers

Ott: 12 + pick (m guessing 32)
Phi: 7

Ott: Ullmark, Lauko
Bos: 12 + player

From what he is saying

That seems way too expensive to me. We can’t afford to move off that #7 since we haven’t had a first in 4 years?

Giving up 12th overall for a young top level goalie is not expensive on paper, but I agree that it's the same mistake we keep making. Because of the nature of the 2021 draft, we really haven't had a 1st round pick since 2020, and we have only had a few 2nd rounders. Additionally, we're missing a 1st sometime in the next few years.

While we'd still have 3 picks in the top 41 this year, it's a tough move to make with how bad our prospect pool is.

With that said, I think this is a scenario where with Giroux coming up as a UFA, and Brady's NMC kicking in (along with him only having a few years left on his contract if they choose to keep him beyond his NMC), they need to win now. It's a very toxic situation that is unlikely to be good for the team long term, and there is little room for error.
 

BankStreetParade

Registered User
Jan 22, 2013
6,848
4,240
Ottawa
No way his first trade is going to be to give up a 7OA pick. This is his first opportunity to show the fans where this team is heading and he's not going to use it for an elaborate trade sequence that could fall apart anywhere along the way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SensFactor

ottawagm

Registered User
May 6, 2023
628
590
He is suggesting a 3 way with the Flyers

Ott: 12 + pick (m guessing 32)
Phi: 7

Ott: Ullmark, Lauko
Bos: 12 + player

From what he is saying

That seems way too expensive to me. We can’t afford to move off that #7 since we haven’t had a first in 4 years?
I don't like that deal unless the player going to Boston is Korpisalo
 

L'Aveuglette

つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Jan 8, 2007
47,980
20,009
Montreal
The speculation around New Jersey was also always about the 10th pick for a goalie. Some were even saying 10th + Holtz!

But as it turns out, they were able to acquire Markstrom with significant retention and it didn't cost them the 10th pick, or a premier prospect/player.

I expect the same thing to happen here, if we land Ullmark.



Where out of the division? New Jersey just got their goalie so there's no team in the metro that really needs him.

And reportedly, Ullmark already nixed a trade to Colorado because he doesn't want to play out West, and that's why LA moved on as well.

So it seems like you have Ottawa and maybe Toronto, another in-division team, but one that's unlikely to offer as good a package and is a much bigger threat to the Bruins.

It's looking like it's either Ullmark to Ottawa or Ullmark stays in Boston.

Whoever came up with that speculation needs a brain check.
 

Gil Gunderson

Registered User
May 2, 2007
31,397
17,228
Ottawa, ON
25th+31/32+whatever we get from the Chychrun trade should be more than enough to get us back in the top 15 of the draft, but value-wise trading 12+a good player for Ullmark seems shitty.
 

frightenedinmatenum2

Registered User
Sep 30, 2023
1,944
1,941
Orange County Prison
While Ullmark apparently won't waive to go to Toronto, if you're Boston, wouldn't you rather send him to Ottawa?

We haven't made the playoffs in 7 years or whatever. They face Toronto almost every year. Toronto's major weakness has been goaltending. Do they really want to solve that for Toronto?

Something around 7 for 12+32 and 12 for Ullmark would be a lot more palatable if Philadelphia takes Korpisalo, even if we have to kick in another asset, or if we have to do something like take Cal Petersen's 1 year contract to offset Korpisalo.
 

frightenedinmatenum2

Registered User
Sep 30, 2023
1,944
1,941
Orange County Prison
25th+31/32+whatever we get from the Chychrun trade should be more than enough to get us back in the top 15 of the draft, but value-wise trading 12+a good player for Ullmark seems shitty.

If we want in the top 15 of the draft, the path of least resistance would be to keep 12 and then send the bundle of picks to Boston. There is no guarantee that a team in the top 15 will be open for business.

25+32+39 is roughly the equivalent to 12. While that is lot of draft capital to give up, I think people would be happier with that than they would with us giving up 12. (Arguably, we'd be better off keeping the three picks and giving up 12 because our prospect pool is so thin.)

25+32+39 for Ullmark and a roster player is the same as 12 for Ullmark and a roster player value wise, but the optics are probably better for the team.

I think Chychrun gets moved in a hockey trade if he doesn't go to Boston or Philadelphia. We have other needs to fill. I don't think we move him for draft picks.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad