Proposal: Ott/Edm - Ott/Col - Ott/Arizona

Meeqs

Registered User
Aug 23, 2012
9,295
1,677
USA
Pretty easy no from the Avs. Hoffman is a great player but the deal isn't able to come close to replace losing what Landeskog brings and would certainly cost more in cap hit.

Also with all the criticism Chabot has gotten recently he's not a prospect I would give up much for.
 

Hennessy

Ye Jacobites, by name
Dec 20, 2006
14,600
6,094
On my keister
I always love these proposals where the OP pencils in his team's lineup after the haul. It just underscores how there was zero regard for the other teams' needs.
 

Avs44

Registered User
May 16, 2011
21,889
10,678
Wouldn't do it. Landeskog is younger, signed, and brings a lot of qualities Hoffman doesn't. Chabot isn't a big enough incentive.
 

Hale The Villain

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Apr 2, 2008
26,809
15,449

Chabot actually was one of the best players in development camp, he just wasn't as dominant as the Sens hoped.

Sens management is woefully incompetent. They were praying Chabot would come in and absolutely dominate in development camp so they had an excuse to not get off their ass and sign a good bottom pairing defenseman, which is our biggest need right now.

His "poor" showing in development camp doesn't change the fact he's an excellent prospect that shouldn't be moved in any circumstances by the Sens.
 

WrinkledPossum

Play Dead
Apr 23, 2016
3,367
1,068
Arizona wants to improve their D. So if Stone is moved it's for an upgrade on D. Not a downgrade. There could be a deal to be made with a Coyotes LW prospect for Lazar.
 

Real Smart Sens Fan

Registered User
Jun 14, 2014
4,760
4
Pretty easy no from the Avs. Hoffman is a great player but the deal isn't able to come close to replace losing what Landeskog brings and would certainly cost more in cap hit.

Also with all the criticism Chabot has gotten recently he's not a prospect I would give up much for.

lol... "all" the criticism? I think you got duped by a very deliberately planted news story.

The Sens want Chabot to come into camp and steal the #5 D position. He was one of our top players and easily our best dman in development camp, but they want him to be even better. In no way is the organization sour on Chabot, and they even say that the expectations were raised because he was so dominant in the Q last year.

I still think the org might value Chabot higher than Brown, who they just traded up for at 11 OV, and I think the same could be said about Chabot vs Jost. That's a trade I doubt they would make, despite "all the criticism Chabot has gotten recently".
 

BK201

Registered User
Apr 11, 2011
10,818
316
1. Way too much to give up for Yakupov. Even if Ottawa is about to lose Puempel to waivers, Ottawa has zero use for Yakupov.

2. Seriously doubt Colorado entertains an offer like this for Landeskog, they could get more. Also, even if they do it, Ottawa is getting great production from Hoffman already. Why take this risk and give up Ottawa's only serious top-4 defensive prospect.

3. I'm not even going to bother addressing the value, but the trade makes no sense for other reasons. Ottawa needs a bottom pairing LHD to play with Wideman, not a top-4 RHD. Who is Stone going to replace? Ceci? How much of an upgrade is that? With this trade Ottawa will end up playing either Ceci or Stone on the bottom pairing, Wideman in the pressbox, and having no one to play beside Ceci/Stone now that you've traded Boro.

Really???? On the Colorado trade. My first thought was **** Landedkog and Colorado for that matter at that price.
 

FightingIrish17

Registered User
Jun 13, 2013
1,014
132
Umm not really lol. Yakupov was a 1st overall pick. Lazar was mid first. I think most fans would rather have Lazar at this point.

Meh, statistically Yakupov but I like the intangibles with Lazar, they're kinda a wash. The only thing really separating them is that Yakupov is more likely to play with skilled players in 16-17 where as Lazar seems to be buried in the bottom six. Both need good teammates, so therefore my pick would be Yakupov based on his situation.
 

Nac Mac Feegle

wee & free
Jun 10, 2011
35,451
9,857
Don't want Yak.

A huge no to deal #2. Landeskog isn't that good. Not even freaking close.

Arizona wouldn't do #3. That would be a nice win for Ottawa.
 

GWNR

Registered User
Dec 10, 2013
2,786
352
Ottawa, Ontario
1. I'd gladly do that. Don't think Edmonton would.
2. Nothing against Landy, I Just think we need Hoffman's style more (we're slow as it is and Hoffman has solid speed)
3. I'd rather keep Lazar. He's been underwhelming, but he's still young and we are the ones that botched his development by keeping him up last year. Should have been in Bingo.

Chabot had a fine rookie camp. He didn't dominate, but he certainly didn't underwhelm. I'm not concerned until I see him underwhelm in real games. He's likely going to be one of the best D-men in the Q this year, be a top 4 for team Canada and be a roster player next year.
 

TeamRenzo

Registered User
Jul 20, 2009
3,208
1,119
Yeah? I think Chabot is a key part of Ottawa's future, but you know best...

I think the "harsh" words are Randy's way of motivating this kid because they know he is going to be awesome and dont want to make the same mistakes they did with Cowen.

Chabot will be awesome, I have no doubt about it.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad