Number1RedWingsFan52
Registered User
Maybe they will, But don't really want to do it. I saw somewhere and thought it was posted from a Jets fan suggesting that Overhardt doesn't want a bridge deal but might have to accept one.
Rumor: Lindholm Mega Thread: All Rumors/Proposals Go Here
- Thread starter hostilebynature
- Start date
- Status
Maybe they will, But don't really want to do it. I saw somewhere and thought it was posted from a Jets fan suggesting that Overhardt doesn't want a bridge deal but might have to accept one.
Number1RedWingsFan52
Registered User
Don't see Cheveldayoff doing a bridge deal any ways, Unless it's like a sign and trade and then the team that Trouba is traded to can negotiate a long term extension.
Maukkis
EZ4ENCE
- Mar 16, 2016
- 10,721
- 7,597
As the Dec 1st clock ticks any option is going to look great to his camp very soon
Number1RedWingsFan52
Registered User
As the Dec 1st clock ticks any option is going to look great to his camp very soon
That's true, We shall see what happens between now and Dec 1st.
Sojourn
Registered User
- Nov 1, 2006
- 50,523
- 9,377
Well, you suggested that Theodore and Larsson were unable to make the team with Lindholm sitting.
That's clearly not true.
Sojourn
Registered User
- Nov 1, 2006
- 50,523
- 9,377
Theodore has played 1. Larsson has played 4.
Anaheim has played 6 games. How high does that number need to be? In those 6 games, there has only been a single one where they didn't have Theodore or Larsson playing.
Number1RedWingsFan52
Registered User
Can't find it right now, Would Chevy do a bridge deal or would he want to get Trouba locked up longer though.
Chevy/Trouba would likely do whatever deal was requested by the purchasing team to make a trade
You said Larsson, Theodore, and Montour. I said one of these guys has been in every game (there was one game where they weren't that I forgot about).
For all but one game, one of the three players has been in the lineup. Meaning there's one spot open. Theo was considered the most NHL ready, but struggled in camp. Larsson won the spot (note that we needed a LHD though so it was between Larsson and Theo). Theo impressed in SD, and was brilliant in the game against Vancouver. You implied that these guys couldn't crack the NHL lineup. There's been a spot for one of them, and aside from one game, one of them has been in the lineup. The Ducks aren't the Oilers or Leafs. They don't just hand spots to young players unless they're absolutely ready.
Number1RedWingsFan52
Registered User
Totally agree, More then likely it would've to benefit Chevy more then Trouba. As he still has say in where Trouba gets dealt. Though Trouba more or less can chose a particular region in which he would like to play say the any Eastern US team.
Looking at the roster for San Diego....all those players are listed as current players. And my point was directed at Dracom who said Dano is not a good player because he is in the AHL.
btlaffin
Deathbat
- Jun 30, 2013
- 746
- 0
No shot. You're not getting Lindholm without moving Nylander or Marner. Plus if we trade Lindholm, there is no dire need to move Stoner. Absolutely no way would the Ducks take less value on Lindholm to move Stoner's contract.
Sojourn
Registered User
- Nov 1, 2006
- 50,523
- 9,377
And that's why you should look a little deeper before you try to say "Gotcha!"
Dano might well be a good player, but being in the AHL doesn't paint him in the best light. Winnipeg is his 3rd team now, and he has 69 games under his belt. You'd hope that a good player would be forcing the issue, and giving Winnipeg a good reason to keep him in the line-up.
I'm not saying he's good, or not good, by the way. It's just that, if you're going to use him as trade bait and try to argue that he's valuable(again, not saying he isn't), I think the burden of proof is on you to show that. For instance, I wouldn't give up anything of significance for Dano, because I don't think he's shown enough to prove he's worth it. I don't feel that Dano has shown a consistent upward trend in his game.
Number1RedWingsFan52
Registered User
Already been discussed, It would take one of either Nylander/Marner to get Murray interested in trading Lindholm to the Leafs and if Lindholm gets dealt then there's no need to move Stoner as well.
dracom
Registered User
I'll rephrase it then. Dano is not good enough to be playing on the Jets roster with the stacked wingers they have already. Good chance he's not a long term fit for the Jets. So when people are adding him to Trouba for Lindholm, I see us getting a worse defenseman wanting to play on the side we don't need him to, and a player the Jets don't have a use for now or in the future, and I don't see him as much of an improvement on what we have now. Not enough to trade Lindholm for at least.
- Jul 25, 2012
- 42,553
- 39,395
They are pretty equal to be honest, fowlers contract is also pretty great for the time being.
And what I am saying is that if someone is categorizing a player by the league he plays in is the "Gotcha". Check out Dano's stats before you make those statements...very good NHL numbers 69 games and 31 points and only 21 years old. So Dano for Montour or Theodore when he gets sent back down is fair for you then? AHL scrub for AHL scrub, but Dano has way more games in the show....that is a trend.
dracom
Registered User
Man, with those points it's a mystery why he keeps getting traded and keeps going back to the AHL...
JetsHomer
Registered User
- Nov 29, 2011
- 10,941
- 3,146
dracom
Registered User
What's the answer to him being on his third team now?
So Dano would need to clear waivers if he went back the NHL and sent back to the AHL? That's how I'm understanding being waiver eligibility, so the Jets would lose him for nothing like I said early.
- Status
