Official Trade Speculation/Proposal Thread III

[seafoam]

What sort of prospect do you think we should expect to get from trading vanek?

A level (top 20 prospect)
B level (top 50 prospect)
C level (honorable mention)

If i'm garth i hold out for top 20 guy, even if it means not getting another asset with it.
we have too many guys as it is, we need high end talent, not volume imo.

B or C level.

Would you have wanted the Isles to give Reinhart for Vanek straight up at last year's deadline?

 

[TeamKidd]

B or C level.

Would you have wanted the Isles to give Reinhart for Vanek straight up at last year's deadline?

probably not, but if we were a vanek away from stanley cup contention? meaning we probably had a top4 d crew that was good and set for a while? ...maybe.

I'm talking a Beltran for Wheeler trade. Thats what i'm looking for.

 

[A Pointed Stick]

IMO, the best piece of the return for Vanek will be a goaltender, and I would bet that it is one from Anaheim. The only thing I wouldn't speculate on is the rest of the pieces in the deal.

 

[seafoam]

probably not, but if we were a vanek away from stanley cup contention? meaning we probably had a top4 d crew that was good and set for a while? ...maybe.

I'm talking a Beltran for Wheeler trade. Thats what i'm looking for.

There are quite a few options on the market that could be had for a lot cheaper with smaller cap hits. Because of those reasons, I'm not sure you are going to see teams give up blue-chip prospects for Vanek.

Moulson, Hemsky, and even Cammalleri could be moved.

 

[BillD]

B or C level.

Would you have wanted the Isles to give Reinhart for Vanek straight up at last year's deadline?

Can't look at it like that. Vanek would have made us stronger, but not a Cup contender. We had too many other holes like defense and goaltending even if we were able to get past the Pens.
A team that is 1 piece from being a real Cup favorite is the kind that takes on an impact rental at a high cost in prospects/picks. Cups don't come along every year.

 

[seafoam]

Can't look at it like that. Vanek would have made us stronger, but not a Cup contender. We had too many other holes like defense and goaltending even if we were able to get past the Pens.
A team that is 1 piece from being a real Cup favorite is the kind that takes on an impact rental at a high cost in prospects/picks. Cups don't come along every year.

The top buyers this trade deadline might not even think Vanek is the best fit for their team, and with the options I named above, I have a hard time seeing a team giving up a bluechip prospect for him.

 

[TeamKidd]

There are quite a few options on the market that could be had for a lot cheaper with smaller cap hits. Because of those reasons, I'm not sure you are going to see teams give up blue-chip prospects for Vanek.

Moulson, Hemsky, and even Cammalleri could be moved.

The question for the GM's are who makes the greatest impact on your chances of winning the cup. You gotta stop looking at it from a poor dreg team point of view...these teams competing for a cup, their owners, fan bases and coaches will be clamoring for the best player. thats vanek. cap hits are irrelevant to them so long as something can be worked out to accommodate him under the cap. As we saw in the PENS series, a strong PP wins games in the playoffs as everything is tight 5 on 5. to me, GMS dont get cute this time of year when they are trying to win the cup...they get the best damned player...AND in the process, prevent their rivals from getting said player...if that means a 19 year old in juniors goes the other way, so be it.

...or at least i hope they think like that

 

[blinkman360]

The top buyers this trade deadline might not even think Vanek is the best fit for their team, and with the options I named above, I have a hard time seeing a team giving up a bluechip prospect for him.

I don't think it's unlikely at all. Especially if Buffalo is looking for a 1st for Moulson. The gap between he and Vanek is pretty large. I'm sure there will be a few teams that won't want to settle, even if it means adding a significant piece. Especially if those teams either don't have an elite center and/or want the winger for their 2nd line. Vanek has proven he can produce without linemates. Moulson has not. I'm sure that will come into play for some teams.

Maybe we won't get a Toffoli, but I really wouldn't be shocked to see us get Andersen or even Gibson. Goalies are the most tradeable of the 'blue chip' prospects. Especially when the team trading them has other, more proven options. Even if they deal Gibson and let Hiller walk, they will still have Andersen and Fasth; Bobkov in the AHL(perhaps Poulin or Nilsson as well); plus a great deal of cap room, which could be used on the only elite UFA goaltender available in Miller, who apparently wants to play in California. The fact that neither LA nor San Jose have any need for Miller, and the fact that Anaheim is a relatively quick drive to LA(where Miller's wife works) makes them the absolute favorite to land him as long as they show interest.

At worst I would assume we could get them to part with Andersen, who would help us greatly, but if they see Vanek as such an important piece, I would absolutely hold out for Gibson and see if they cave. Stranger things have happened, and better prospects have been dealt for worse players.

 

[stranger34]

while the below is unlikely, we should at least allow for the possibility:

If a team thinks Moulson is a fit for them and they believe they can sign him before UFA he could very well go for as much, if not more than Vanek.

 

[_illicit_]

while the below is unlikely, we should at least allow for the possibility:

If a team thinks Moulson is a fit for them and they believe they can sign him before UFA he could very well go for as much, if not more than Vanek.

You can allow for the possibility. I choose to stay in reality...just sayin.

 

[Jester9881]

No way we're getting Gibson. We probably wouldn't even get Gibson for Vanek if he were signed beyond this season.

The going rate, based on what Iginla returned is a late 1st rounder and two middling prospects. I'd be fine with that

Edit: Maybe substitute a cap dump of a decent roster player or picks instead of the prospects. I'd be good with that as well.

 

[Quicklime]

while the below is unlikely, we should at least allow for the possibility:

If a team thinks Moulson is a fit for them and they believe they can sign him before UFA he could very well go for as much, if not more than Vanek.

If Moulson's agent pumped his tires enough to get his next contract within 1.5M of Vanek, I wouldn't be surprised, especially if it's a Chicago or Vancouver or another team that has the sort of center who can practically force-feed Moulson 40% of his points.

Other than that, if you think Moulson's getting more than Vanek, I hope you don't spend times at a bookie's box. There's no center outside of Crosby that would make Moulson as valuable as Vanek other than Tavares himself (Stamkos is a shooter - different kind of player) and while I see Moulson getting $4.8M from someone with a hair trigger, Vanek can get $7 from a team that isn't.

 

[Brunomics]

This won't be popular but if Martin has any value I'd add him into a Vanek deal as a type of sweetner if it works. I'm so sour on his game. He just looks happy to be playing in the NHL and doesn't look hungry anymore. None of his hits cause any turnovers or do anything. He doesn't even hit that hard anymore.

If he goes audition Halmo for the fourth line wing job. Also look to see if you could bring back Leo Komarov to fill the role.

It's not a big move but one that could help.

 

[War Admiral]

This won't be popular but if Martin has any value I'd add him into a Vanek deal as a type of sweetner if it works. I'm so sour on his game. He just looks happy to be playing in the NHL and doesn't look hungry anymore. None of his hits cause any turnovers or do anything. He doesn't even hit that hard anymore.

If he goes audition Halmo for the fourth line wing job. Also look to see if you could bring back Leo Komarov to fill the role.

It's not a big move but one that could help.

I agree. With the acquisition of Clutterbuck...Martin is expendable.

 

[scott99]

No way we're getting Gibson. We probably wouldn't even get Gibson for Vanek if he were signed beyond this season.

The going rate, based on what Iginla returned is a late 1st rounder and two middling prospects. I'd be fine with that

Edit: Maybe substitute a cap dump of a decent roster player or picks instead of the prospects. I'd be good with that as well.

Why should Snow shoot so low. I know he sucks as a GM, but Vanek at this point of his career is a better player than Iginla. The only reason Snow gets the same return that Calgary got for trading Iginla, is because Snow sucks. An average GM would get more.

 

[Hip Of Rick*]

Why should Snow shoot so low. I know he sucks as a GM, but Vanek at this point of his career is a better player than Iginla. The only reason Snow gets the same return that Calgary got for trading Iginla, is because Snow sucks. An average GM would get more.

That is the market value. Snow overpaid by a 1st round pick to get Vanek and I think we will be very disappointed when we look at what Moulson fetches and how the entire trade shakes out.

Snow made a huge unnecessary gamble in trading for Vanek when this team was not 1 upgrade away on forward from making noise in the playoffs. Without injuries we would barely be an 8th place contender. Snow made a move a cup contender makes. Bad move by the worst GM in hockey.

 

[TeamKidd]

That is the market value. Snow overpaid by a 1st round pick to get Vanek and I think we will be very disappointed when we look at what Moulson fetches and how the entire trade shakes out.

Snow made a huge unnecessary gamble in trading for Vanek when this team was not 1 upgrade away on forward from making noise in the playoffs. Without injuries we would barely be an 8th place contender. Snow made a move a cup contender makes. Bad move by the worst GM in hockey.

do we really have to rehash that move all the time in every single thread? I mean its not like we have a thread dedicated to that move...

but that is not market value. Top line wingers at the deadline get a good prospect and a first round pick, at the minimum. Especially this year, where there ISNT ANYONE ELSE AS GOOD AS HIM AVAILABLE and a lot of teams inquiring about his services, we should get more than that. I am looking for a 1st and a very good prospect at a minimum....and I dont think that is unreasonable.

I referenced it before, and I know it's a different sport, but I look at the Beltran for Wheeler trade as a good reference point.

 

[Hip Of Rick*]

do we really have to rehash that move all the time in every single thread? I mean its not like we have a thread dedicated to that move...

but that is not market value. Top line wingers at the deadline get a good prospect and a first round pick, at the minimum. Especially this year, where there ISNT ANYONE ELSE AS GOOD AS HIM AVAILABLE and a lot of teams inquiring about his services, we should get more than that. I am looking for a 1st and a very good prospect at a minimum....and I dont think that is unreasonable.

I referenced it before, and I know it's a different sport, but I look at the Beltran for Wheeler trade as a good reference point.

I hope we get a huge value back for Vanek. I just don't see it happening. To many negative factors that hurt his value.

A late 1st and an ok prospect (Lee type) or a late first and a 2 average prospects (Sundstrom/Persson) or a solid prospect (Nelson) and a 2nd/3rd. If we get more than that type of value I will be happy with this Vanek move in a vacuum.

As for other solid available wingers Callahan , Jagr, Cammalleri, Moulson, Hemsky, Michalek, Booth, Setoguchi . There are also a handful of centers available. Obviously not all them will be moved and Vanek is the best especially compared to the end of the list but teams have options.

 

[CREW99AW]

Someone posted the link below, confirming that Snow did offer Nino for Bernier.

Both Gillis and Lombardi passed on Nino. It is too soon to tell about Horvat. He is still a bright and shiny prospect.

The Bernier trade looks awful for the Kings at this point. Frattin was the key player going to LA and he has crapped the bed. A year later and the Kings are still looking for a cheap, 2nd line LW. IMO neither the isles or kings made out well.



http://www.newsday.com/sports/hocke...-minnesota-wild-for-cal-clutterbuck-1.5598703

 

[Hip Of Rick*]

Someone posted the link below, confirming that Snow did offer Nino for Bernier.

Both Gillis and Lombardi passed on Nino. It is too soon to tell about Horvat. He is still a bright and shiny prospect.

The Bernier trade looks awful for the Kings at this point. Frattin was the key player going to LA and he has crapped the bed. A year later and the Kings are still looking for a cheap, 2nd line LW. IMO neither the isles or kings made out well.



http://www.newsday.com/sports/hocke...-minnesota-wild-for-cal-clutterbuck-1.5598703

If it was a 1 for 1 offer Snow could have added. He still crapped the bed with the Nino trade and crapped the bed with the goaltending this year. When I think of Snow I think of crap.

 

[IslesRock4]

Someone posted the link below, confirming that Snow did offer Nino for Bernier.

Both Gillis and Lombardi passed on Nino. It is too soon to tell about Horvat. He is still a bright and shiny prospect.

The Bernier trade looks awful for the Kings at this point. Frattin was the key player going to LA and he has crapped the bed. A year later and the Kings are still looking for a cheap, 2nd line LW. IMO neither the isles or kings made out well.



http://www.newsday.com/sports/hocke...-minnesota-wild-for-cal-clutterbuck-1.5598703

I know a player's value is going to lower when he asks for a trade. But I cannot believe LA went with Toronto's offer and not Nino. They're still searching for help on LW, and Nino would have provided a cheap long term solution in the top 6. Makes you wonder. For Vancouver, if they were so set on getting Horvat, I can see why they'd turn down Nino straight up.

I really don't see the point in discussing this, though. What's done is done. Nino was a mistake from the day he was drafted. It went terribly for us, but we need to move on. The team has, so maybe the fans should too.

 

[CREW99AW]

I know a player's value is going to lower when he asks for a trade. But I cannot believe LA went with Toronto's offer and not Nino. They're still searching for help on LW, and Nino would have provided a cheap long term solution in the top 6. Makes you wonder. For Vancouver, if they were so set on getting Horvat, I can see why they'd turn down Nino straight up.

I really don't see the point in discussing this, though. What's done is done. Nino was a mistake from the day he was drafted. It went terribly for us, but we need to move on. The team has, so maybe the fans should too.

I am discussing it not to bring up the CC trade, but to show Snow was pursuing quality, young goalies last summer.

 

[Hip Of Rick*]

I am discussing it not to bring up the CC trade, but to show Snow was pursuing quality, young goalies last summer.

Snow tried, Snow pursued, Snow attempted. Snow achiev.... Those last 2 words don't go together

 

[Jester9881]

Why should Snow shoot so low. I know he sucks as a GM, but Vanek at this point of his career is a better player than Iginla. The only reason Snow gets the same return that Calgary got for trading Iginla, is because Snow sucks. An average GM would get more.

That's about the going value for a 1st line winger as a rental. This is not debatable. There is precedent.

 

[Jester9881]

I referenced it before, and I know it's a different sport, but I look at the Beltran for Wheeler trade as a good reference point.

How in the world is that a good reference point?