CBJ released Stoll from his PTO. Any interest in seeing him on a 2-way deal to try and hold down the 4C position or do you think we have enough of that in Grant and COR?
At this point, I don't think there's any real need. Jame may feel differently.
CBJ released Stoll from his PTO. Any interest in seeing him on a 2-way deal to try and hold down the 4C position or do you think we have enough of that in Grant and COR?
CBJ released Stoll from his PTO. Any interest in seeing him on a 2-way deal to try and hold down the 4C position or do you think we have enough of that in Grant and COR?
If we were going to go a route like that I reckon RI hards, gaustad, legwand etc would've had offers from us. I'd take an easy pass on stoll at this point.
A line of Stoll, Gaustad and Deslauriers would be Corsi heaven.
No one mentioned adding 2 of 3 which is asinine considering 2 are centers...moulson will play a ton of time on our 4th line as is so it's gonna be a corsi bumper fire regardless bit at least ONE of stoll, Richards or gaustad could win draws and take those defensive minutes off ror...
How about Rinaldo? He's a winger.
How about Rinaldo? He's a winger.
Didn't Goose retire?
I have more of an opinion question and not putting much stock in the Sabres picking up Fowler. But IF that were to happen, does anyone have an opinion on if that puts more pressure on 55 to sign?
We would have to clear some space obviously to accomidate both contracts, but in my mind, it keeps Franson off the ice where he belongs.
At this point, I don't think there's any real need. Jame may feel differently.
I would think bringing in a bigger contract like that might sour the conversations with Risto actually.I have more of an opinion question and not putting much stock in the Sabres picking up Fowler. But IF that were to happen, does anyone have an opinion on if that puts more pressure on 55 to sign?
I would think bringing in a bigger contract like that might sour the conversations with Risto actually.
Right now, we have the space to potentially give him the money he wants/feels he deserves. Bringing in Fowler is basically saying "there's absolutely no chance of you making more than 5.5 per (or however much we'd have left)... so sign at that price, or don't sign at all". I don't think either side would appreciate anyone forcing hands like that.
I'd do Girgensons for Fowler, ANA has no leverage - would not give them more.
Then you don't get Fowler. Like it or not, Fowler DOES have more value than just Girgensons, even given Anaheim's cap/salary situation.
They're in a bind, they won't get full value for Fowler unless some GM doesn't understand leverage.
https://www.nhl.com/news/new-york-i...ddy-in-trade-with-chicago-blackhawks/c-732999
I'd do Girgensons for Fowler, ANA has no leverage - would not give them more.
Leverage is overstated most of the time. First off, you have to understand that GM's are human. Humans tend to not be rational 100% of the time, so even if they are in a situation where selling Fowler low to ease their cap situation is the best move, which is likely not true if we're talking about a straight up swap for Girgensons, their Murray may not do that. GM's don't like getting ripped off. They can be stubborn. There are other moves that could theoretically be made, even if the moves are worse for them in the grand scheme, which probably isn't the case.
Another way leverage is overstated is that people talk about it while ignoring supply and demand. Do you think the Buffalo Sabres are the only team interested in Fowler? Of course not. Therefore, you are not just bidding against what the Ducks are willing to give take for Fowler, but what other teams are willing to give up for Fowler. If Buffalo is offering Girgensons and another team is offering something better, the spot the Ducks are in becomes completely irrelevant.