Senovision
Registered User
- May 23, 2011
- 2,916
- 1,969
I think they will make a trade for sure if this losing skid continues.
What kind of trade is anyone's guess.
What kind of trade is anyone's guess.
Last edited:
Proposal: Free agency edition Trade Rumours/Proposals [MOD - Stay on Topic] 5
- Thread starter AchtzehnBaby
- Start date
Micklebot
Moderator
- Apr 27, 2010
- 56,993
- 34,765
The question to me is why are we struggling,
Sanderson is a big part, from being our clear best Dman last year, to the worst +/- on the team this year, with 1 ES pt all year
Pinto is a big part of it, from close to a 60 pts pace last year, to a 22 pt pace this year.
Ullmark has been a big part, expected to be a top 10 goalie for us, has been an trainwreck.
I don't think we can solve any of that by making a trade. That doesn't mean we shouldn't make trades, just that a trade should not be aimed at solving the short term, rather it should have a longer term outlook.
Big Muddy
Registered User
- Dec 15, 2019
- 9,036
- 4,370
I’d have to wonder about that given that Staois seems to be methodical & patient (perhaps). He doesn’t seem prone to knee-jerk reactions imo.
Last edited:
Blotto71
Okay, maybe the worst is behind us...?
Too many passengers. Lack of ownership, urgency, accountability on the part of many players.
And maybe Justin Peter's isn't the best in class goalie coach we all thought he was.
frightenedinmatenum2
Registered User
I don't think acquiring Pinto is realistic. I don't see why the Sens trade him.
OK, his name was listed as one of the guys that could be moved. UHC really needs a C. Norris is too big a risk injury wise for that contract. Stutzle is untouchable so that left Pinto as a possible target / shake up.
Micklebot
Moderator
- Apr 27, 2010
- 56,993
- 34,765
I don't know whether Justin Peters is a good goalie coach or not or who "we all thought he was", but I am pretty damn sure he isn't the reason for Ullmark's struggles.
For most of the season, on D, the issue has been the top pair. I think Sanderson is playing hurt, it's the most likely explanation for the rapid fall off in his game.
Up front, I think the trio of Pinto Greig and Giroux have been the most disappointing, I give Perron a pass for now given the context. Giroux is getting old so I understand that, I don't think Pinto or Greig lacking onsetship for their play though, I'm pretty sure they know they need to be better.
You are contradicting yourself in the same sentence.
Norris is a huge risk injury wise … so let’s trade another center. So we are then left with thin center depth and one of them is always injured.
It’s the opposite… we need to keep Pinto because if/when Norris gets injured at least he can step in and play top 6. His name was listed because there was a contract negotiation that apparently wasn’t going well. Now he’s under contract he’s not going anywhere.
Pinto moving is extremely unlikely.
If you want to shake things up he’s not the guy you move.
No contradiction. I am talking as a fan of the team trading for someone from Ottawa.
I would not want my team to trade for Norris. Contract is too big for too long given his production and injury history. So a possible target, as it has been discussed the Sens need to shake up their core, is to try and acquire Pinto.
If he is not available, that is understandable.
Any trade we make at this point of our timeline will be to improve the Ottawa Senators. The days of throw in a 2nd round pick and here's some spare parts are over.
If we're moving out center depth, pinto and Stu are pretty untouchable.
Does Norris have injury history? For sure.
That's why he'd be avail. Trading pinto just because, simply doesn't work for Ottawa.
Good luck in your search.
Where does this idea that Norris is untradeable come from? Is it strictly injury history? Cause there's nothing in his game that suggests he can't be traded for something of value. On pace for ~35 goals (T37 in the league in goals), defensively responsible, elite faceoff guy, top unit penalty killer...he's not racking up the assists but his most common linemates are struggling hard at even strength scoring (Giroux, Greig, Batherson).
Micklebot
Moderator
- Apr 27, 2010
- 56,993
- 34,765
Yeah, I think with the injury history you need at least one full season before alleviating the fear.
Maybe by the deadline teams will show interest again.
You could make an argument that we should use one of Greig or Pinto to go after a RD that we can pair with Sanderson because Zub has been bad for over a year now, and you can't trust him to stay healthy. Sanderson has never had a real top-4 partner. He's still young, it'd be nice to give him one. Find him a Methot.
Who that RD is? I have no idea, maybe there are none available. Or maybe the Islanders would be willing to deal Pulock for a local guy like Pinto. If you want to go younger, maybe the Rangers dangle Schneider for help down the middle. A less flashy name could be someone like Kesselring from Utah.
If you could swing something like that, it lets you move Zub down to the third pair and then can move on from him in the summer or early next season to potentially make room for Yakemchuk.
Micklebot
Moderator
- Apr 27, 2010
- 56,993
- 34,765
Zub and Sanderson were fine as a pairing last year, even if there's room for improvement the issue with this season isn't Zub in the top 4.
Zub has been bad, and Sanderson has been bad. That pairing is certainly a reason for our play this season, IMO. Zub hasn't been good for a while, if we're being frank. This year, Sanderson has really struggled and Zub can't bail him out at all.
The problem we have is you can't really move Hamonic or JBD up, and Chabot finally looks good with a partner in Jensen and you don't want to mess that up.
So for 40 minutes a night, we're rolling out D-pairings that aren't playing well. You could live with having a young 3rd pairing if the top 4 was solid. But it's not.
If a deal was available, I'd move on from Pinto or Greig for a steady RD. Build from the D out.
A 2024 version of Foligno for Methot.
Last edited:
Micklebot
Moderator
- Apr 27, 2010
- 56,993
- 34,765
At some point people are going to have to realize we aren't fixing Sanderson's struggles by changing his partner, whatever he's dealing with will have to resolve itself.
The goal is not to fix Sanderson. The goal is to improve the team. Upgrading on Zub in the top 4 and having him anchor the 3rd pair (where Kleven needs help) would be a way to improve the team. And if you could do that by dealing from a position of relative strength in a less important position (3rd line C), why not?
Tuna99
Registered User
- Sep 26, 2009
- 15,915
- 7,879
Fix for Sanderson
Ott: Ryan Pulock, 2nd round pick
NYI: Art Zub, Ridley Greig
Sanderson - Pulock
Micklebot
Moderator
- Apr 27, 2010
- 56,993
- 34,765
I think you're exaggerating how "bad" he's been. He's not been the problem on that pairing,
I'm ok with an upgrade, but realistically iteans moving Zub out, not shifting him to the third pair. You can't really bring in many top 4 caliber guys while keeping Zub if you plan on staying under the cap,
The biggest improvement this team can likely make is getting people to play up to their abilities, anything else is likely to end up robbing Peter to pay Mary.
Haven't we said that for the last 3 years? Has it happened yet?
Maybe a part of the reason why some are not playing up to their abilities is because they're in the wrong role. Take Greig, for example. We were hoping to get 35-40 points out of him. Right now he's on pace for 25 and has been mostly invisible. Could it be because we're trying to play him at RW, a position he isn't suited for, instead of center, because there's no room at center?
So shouldn't we consider making room for him at C, or moving him for someone who's a better fit?
And depending on who you bring in, you could certainly move Zub to the third pair for the rest of this year, and probably next if Yakemchuk isn't ready.
Let's say the Rangers come to you and offer Schneider for Pinto, straight up (no idea if they would, I'm guessing no, but this is purely hypothetical).
Does moving Greig back to 3C and having a top 6 of Sanderson, Schneider, Chabot, Jensen, Zub and Kleven make this team better? I think it does.
Last edited:
Right now its injury risk and contract. However, if he plays healthy all this year, and we look to trade him next season instead, then he definitely can be traded, especially if we retain like 1mil. That would be one less year left on his term and he would've demonstrated that his shoulder is fixed and less of a risk. It just wont be easy to trade him until a year from now imo.
Micklebot
Moderator
- Apr 27, 2010
- 56,993
- 34,765
No?
We said we needed to get an actual goalie, and we needed a legit partner for Chabot. We said we need depth for the 4th line
Well, Chabot and Jensen have been great, the 4th line is the most consistent on the team, and Ullmark was supposed to be that legit starter.
We addressed clear needs as opposed to swapping out guys that were having down years.
Sanderson was in the exact same role last year, Pinto both performed better in similar roles last year. We've moved Greig around because guys aren't living up to expectations but he played wing at times last year too and was much better than he has been this year
He needs to force his way into a center role, he's proven nowhere near enough for us to make room for him and hope for the best
There's a salary cap, not sure who you have on mind but not a lot of options would work, maybe by the deadline when there's more room
There is no way we should be doing that, trading Pinto because he's struggling for a dozen games coming off an injury would be a massive blunder
I think it's short term gain for long term pain, watching Pinto thrive elsewhere will come back to haunt us.
frightenedinmatenum2
Registered User
Sorry, didn't see someone list that, my bad.
I think it's very unlikely that they trade Pinto. If they did trade him, it would have to be to fill another long-term position of need. Something like Pinto to Columbus for Jiricek. They aren't trading Pinto for bits and pieces.
Norris makes sense to trade because of the circumstances surrounding his injuries and his cap hit. I would do Norris for Crouse, but I don't think that's a realistic trade. I don't think Utah would want to take that cap hit and risk. I also think that despite his bad play this season, Crouse would be in demand if Utah made him available. HFBoards undervalues size and physicality, but players like Crouse who can bring that and be plugged into the top six are very rare.
Norris is a good player, and he has 40 goal upside, but he has missed a lot of hockey over the last few years and is tied to a massive contract. He hasn't returned to his pre-injury form. Nobody here knows how his shoulder is, so it's possible that it's as good as new - but people are going to be skeptical because he previously re-injured it multiple times.
If Norris didn't have the shoulder issues, I doubt most would even consider trading him. Pinto has had a rough start to his season and Norris in the short term has surpassed him again but I don't think the team would trade Pinto unless it's something like a 1 for 1 deal for a position of greater need (with Greig becoming the 3C), or at the end of the 2026 season if they suspect they will have trouble re-signing him and are afraid of an offer sheet.
