Speculation: - Roster/Trade Discussion Thread - WTF is up with Brett Howden? | Page 45 | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League
Toggle sidebar

Speculation: Roster/Trade Discussion Thread - WTF is up with Brett Howden?

  • If you are having issues logging in, we have found opening the log in page in a new tab/window rather than using the pop out should resolve these issues. We are working to get this resolved and thank you for patience.
Tkachuk, Hellebucyk? Maybe a guy like Werenski? MacTavish? Lots of possibilities. Maybe even Fox, but that wouldnt be great for us since he still has full control. so if he wanted to get traded it'd make sense for him to try to do it now.
 
bobbop said:
How about the Dallas goaltender who was pulled from the Stanley Cup parade and traded?

Roman Turek?
Click to expand...

I did not know this. Holy crap that would suck.

Just looked it up.
- Stars win Cup in triple OT (so game starts on 19 June, but ends 20 June).
- Turek traded 20 June because the Stars were worried about losing him for nothing in the Atlanta expansion draft (how were any staff sober enough to sign off on the trade?)
- Parade on 21 June. Turek still attends
That's a wild 48 hours! :laugh:
 
  • Haha
Reactions: frozenrubber and Boris Zubov
Rangers Ducks cause why not


Schneider, Trocheck and for McTavish, Mintyukov 18th work out??


McTavish would be a great buy low candidate



1000041086.jpg


Trocheck for Hage incoming
 
Last edited:
bernmeister said:
bro, did ya read it like w/context to prior pts I made....

There was huge lamentation from a coupla guys that among other concerns, COULD NOT be done b'c cap; specif too far below cap floor, like 32m.

I said there were ways around that, incl signing guys we have rights to not yet under contract, and offering bridge deals early for some.

Then I said, you could also weaponize it.

And this proves my pt.
You can sign Rads and overpay a bit for just 2 years above market, then retain slightly before flipping him to DET for the needed pivot at 8.

ALL THOSE DOTS CONNECT
so it can be done, proves my pt.

bro
lwdb


Setting aside any deep dive critical eval of any of these players
what I said holds.

You said whatev else, I have a prob w/a 1st line w/o 1st liners
I said, setting aside what has to be done long term, including go coupla steps back to go ahead several steps,
that aside
it can be done if you are prepared when opportunity knocks

How flawed Larkin is/isn't, he's a legit 1C in 2026.

bern's pt is, once again, you CAN go outside the box
lwdb
you know ya wanna
Click to expand...
Just because somebody said they wanted a 1/2lb salami sandwich, and you came back saying it can be done by buying 1lb of Ham to trade, does not mean it made any sense at all.
 
Last edited:
bernmeister said:
bro, did ya read it like w/context to prior pts I made....

There was huge lamentation from a coupla guys that among other concerns, COULD NOT be done b'c cap; specif too far below cap floor, like 32m.

I said there were ways around that, incl signing guys we have rights to not yet under contract, and offering bridge deals early for some.

Then I said, you could also weaponize it.

And this proves my pt.
You can sign Rads and overpay a bit for just 2 years above market, then retain slightly before flipping him to DET for the needed pivot at 8.

ALL THOSE DOTS CONNECT
so it can be done, proves my pt.

bro
lwdb


Setting aside any deep dive critical eval of any of these players
what I said holds.

You said whatev else, I have a prob w/a 1st line w/o 1st liners
I said, setting aside what has to be done long term, including go coupla steps back to go ahead several steps,
that aside
it can be done if you are prepared when opportunity knocks

How flawed Larkin is/isn't, he's a legit 1C in 2026.

bern's pt is, once again, you CAN go outside the box
lwdb
you know ya wanna
Click to expand...

You know drafting Jessiman, McIlrath and Kravtsov was going outside the box. So was signing Billy Tibbets for what that was worth. Going outside the box fails more often than it succeeds and leaves fans wondering sometimes decades later why the f*** did the team do this or that? It's kind of like the Middleton for Hodge or Ridley/Miller for Carpenter or Norstrom/Ferraro for Kurri/McSorley trades too.

You're a bit off also on how below the floor the Rangers would be with that team you had about a week ago---you were about 38/39 under the floor. Bringing in an $8 mil Larkin contract doesn't quite nearly solve the problem and it seems to me you're really not interested in following the cap rules set for every other NHL team. Outside the box? Did you see what the NHL did to Vegas after Torts decided he wasn't going to do one post game playoff presser? To the league and no doubt the other owners the cap is sacrosanct---what they'll do to the Rangers after they come in $30 mil + under the floor I can only guess. The other thing is Larkin won't be interested in playing your Rangers team---if you've followed his reasoning why he wants out of Detroit (and the Red Wings and Larkin himself have always traded on his being a Michigan native) it's because he's sick of losing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nsvoyageurs
TGWL said:
Just because somebody said they wanted a 1/2lb salami sandwich, and you can back saying it can be done by buying 1lb of Ham to trade, does not mean it made any sense at all.
Click to expand...
sorry this post is not in sufficient enough English to make sense
pls rephrase into something cogent if you wish
pt is I proved my pt
 
eco's bones said:
You know drafting Jessiman, McIlrath and Kravtsov was going outside the box. So was signing Billy Tibbets for what that was worth. Going outside the box fails more often than it succeeds and leaves fans wondering sometimes decades later why the f*** did the team do this or that? It's kind of like the Middleton for Hodge or Ridley/Miller for Carpenter or Norstrom/Ferraro for Kurri/McSorley trades too.

You're a bit off also on how below the floor the Rangers would be with that team you had about a week ago---you were about 38/39 under the floor. Bringing in an $8 mil Larkin contract doesn't quite nearly solve the problem and it seems to me you're really not interested in following the cap rules set for every other NHL team. Outside the box? Did you see what the NHL did to Vegas after Torts decided he wasn't going to do one post game playoff presser? To the league and no doubt the other owners the cap is sacrosanct---what they'll do to the Rangers after they come in $30 mil + under the floor I can only guess. The other thing is Larkin won't be interested in playing your Rangers team---if you've followed his reasoning why he wants out of Detroit (and the Red Wings and Larkin himself have always traded on his being a Michigan native) it's because he's sick of losing.
Click to expand...
c'mon EB I know you are better than this my friend...

1. first bold = unsubstantiated opinion, not backed up by fact
yes, there are bad trades but those are not nec 'outside the box' or at least are not to the extent you/imply suggest
second bold
none of my trades in the last blueprint remind of those deals at all

2. As to being a bit off the cap
I think I said roughly or approx, and if I forgot on that, that's on me. But it is no big whoop -- the premise holds.
Whether it is 36, 38 or 40 -- pt still overrides. I am creating a mountain of cap due to necessary priority of shedding vets -- several have to go before their value declines, in some cases, declines further.

Setting aside that byproduct of getting cap relief -- which it must be acknowledged is not the same bad thing as taking on and getting stuck w/excess cap -- setting aside lower cap must bend buckle and break to ditching excess vets from roster, it is easily enuf managed.

Again, as I said earlier, but you glossed over here, we can
1. sign guys whose rights we have we have yet to sign
2. extend certain existing guys who are elc or just after to smart mid range bridge deals.
Each of those are a couple of mil each.

Now, you get to be creative and do something along the lines of what I said.

We happen to have an opportunity to obtain a Larkin, which some consider def no or at least meh, while others would say sure, esp if move on.
I said overpay Rads but only by a couple mil, only 1-2 yrs, and no nmc/ntc for him to do so. Then we retain couple mil, and flip for Larkin

But say we don't.
Say we keep Rads, deal him elsewhere down the road
Or not.
Say we keep him the whole 1-2 yrs while we await better pivot options to emerge as our Ds from this draft arrive.

This is mathematical, it is objective, not subjective.
It is fact, not opinion, theoretically, this approach CAN be employed.

Whether or not someone wants to go in another direction, like more of the same w/too much vets, etc., is fair as a topic for debate.
As a matter of personal preference.

But it cannot be said dots to this theory do not connect
THEY DO
 
TGWL said:
You telling me to "rephrase into something cogent" is the ultimate burn. I back down.

View attachment 1251847
Click to expand...
I recall sly and the family stone, it's a family affair
inexactly the lyrics are something like

When a chile grows up to be
somebody who loves to learn
and another
chile grows up to be
somebody ya love to burn

it's all messed up but mom loves em both anyway

it's an HB affair

 
  • Like
Reactions: HatTrick Swayze
GoAwayRempe said:
Minnesota is going to move Yurov+ to get this one done.

Hilarious that his teams are basically the Last 2 teams to win a cup (and maybe the winners for the last 4 years after this SCF is over) and the team with Quinn Hughes on it.
Click to expand...
Having Quinn Hughes is as good as having won SCs?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

  • ... and 4 more.
    • Total: 29 (members: 17, guests: 12)

    Latest posts

    Ad

    Ad

    Top Bottom