Speculation: Trade Deadline

[flyersfan187]

I assume it's the Flyers or Devils, and Flyers seem more likely.

Talbot/prospect/1st for Simmonds maybe. I doubt Talbot would want to be a 1b to Hart though.

 

[JayB]

This is a roundabout way of saying Puljujarvi has rocks for brains and stone hands. Why that is deemed "upside" to bet on is beyond me. He has more in common with Magnus Paajarvi than Jake Voracek. People can say he went 4th overall, point to his WJC playing with 2 actual stars, point at his physical tools, point to Edmonton being a poor developmental team, but you need things to work with that I am deeply DEEPLY skeptical Puljujarvi posseses.

Saying a future bust has potential is the oldest sell in the book. Edmonton has developed good players. Sometimes a Puljujarvi or Yakupov simply is what he is on his own merits.

Thank God someone is at the same page with me. I hope this team doesnt even think about Poolparty as any level piece of trades. My point of view as finnish hockeyfan, things could go only worse with adding PJ.

 

[Tripod]

So Talbot is potentially blocking a trade that is a bigger deal then just him from a team in the East. I wonder if it is the Flyers.

Likely blocking it so he can negotiate with the acquiring team, on a contract.

No sense uprooting your life for 3 months unless it benefits you.

 

[BackToTheBrierePatch]

Not for me. EDM needs to add more imo.

Like what? 2 top 5 picks? Gudas is a good player. But you take that deal ans say thank you and good doing business with you

 

[Outlaw Samurai]

Still think TO could be the Simmer trade we need but maybe wishful thinking on my part. Nashville also makes a lot of sense.

Adding Hagg to ensure a better return makes too much sense. Likely means it won't happen..

I don't think we move Gudas but who knows. If a playoff team offers up a sizeable package you have to listen.

This Talbot rumour is interesting. Tripod's point about wanting an extension makes sense.

 

[baudib1]

I guess Carolina could be the team asking for Talbot in a deal as well.

 

[The Madrigal]

I guess Carolina could be the team asking for Talbot in a deal as well.

I'm thinking Philly, Carolina, or Jersey. The fact that the report said part of a bigger deal tells me it's the Flyers/Simmonds or Carolina/Ferland.

 

[Outlaw Samurai]

I guess Carolina could be the team asking for Talbot in a deal as well.

That's true. We know they are open to trading a top 4 D too. Hamilton going back in a deal? Chia drafted him right?

 

[kelmitchell]

Is there anyway we can find out which 12 teams are on simmonds no trade list?

 

[Beef Invictus]

I'm thinking Philly, Carolina, or Jersey. The fact that the report said part of a bigger deal tells me it's the Flyers/Simmonds or Carolina/Ferland.

I'd not be surprised if Carolina just outbids anyone for any G improvement at this point.

 

[Pantokrator]

I still disagree with that (both the statement and the idea behind the statement). You should always be looking to improve your team and if you are playoff team that can add a big piece, even at the cost of a top prospect, you have to do it. There has always been this idea around here that prospects are more valuable than current NHL players because there is a chance that they will be better than the NHL player a few years down the road. Certainly possible for that to happen but just as possible (if not moreso) that the prospect is as good or worse than the NHL player you are acquiring. That's not to suggest that all prospects should be traded for veteran rentals...they shouldn't. But if you are a team that is in the playoffs and you have a young guy that maybe is not making an impact this year and you can get someone you think will make an impact and put your team over the top, you are insane to think "no we shouldn't do that because in a couple years this player may be better" because I would bet dollars to donuts a couple years down the road you will be thinking, "damn we were close in 2019, if only we had another piece or two that could have put us over the top" and not "glad we didn't trade that prospect, now we have a chance to win a Cup in a couple years!"

There are obviously bad deals (Forsberg for Erat being one of the most glaring). But can you think of any others? The list is probably not that long. I would bet there are at least a similar number of trades where the prospect didn't turn out the way the other team wanted than there are ones where the prospect made the original team look bad. And again, not suggesting that every year every team should trade all their prospects for veteran rentals. But if you are a playoff team and you can get a player you think puts you over the top, you are a bad GM if you decide to hang on to a player because he MIGHT be better down the road (with obvious exceptions...no one is suggesting that Toronto should trade Nyalnder for Martin Erat).

I concur. This is why I am against trading Gudas, Hagg, and Ghost if the return is just picks. I understand for Simmonds because he is a UFA. But the idea that a pick is better than a player who is able to play decent minutes for an NHL roster is dangerous.

 

[Dicky Dangles]

I wonder if Fletch looks to deal Simmonds during this break to soften the blow of the aftermath from teammates and the media, or if he waits to see how the team looks after the break to see if they continue to look good. He would have a few weeks to decide if this group "figured it out" and needs Simmonds going forward, or not. It seems like this one decision already will be a huge benchmark in Fletch's legacy.

 

[JojoTheWhale]

Still want no part of Edmonton's assets in a significant deal unless they're giving me their 1st. Nothing else they would reasonably move piques my interest. And I probably look to move it on down the line in the summer if the right player is available.

I still disagree with that (both the statement and the idea behind the statement). You should always be looking to improve your team and if you are playoff team that can add a big piece, even at the cost of a top prospect, you have to do it. There has always been this idea around here that prospects are more valuable than current NHL players because there is a chance that they will be better than the NHL player a few years down the road. Certainly possible for that to happen but just as possible (if not moreso) that the prospect is as good or worse than the NHL player you are acquiring. That's not to suggest that all prospects should be traded for veteran rentals...they shouldn't. But if you are a team that is in the playoffs and you have a young guy that maybe is not making an impact this year and you can get someone you think will make an impact and put your team over the top, you are insane to think "no we shouldn't do that because in a couple years this player may be better" because I would bet dollars to donuts a couple years down the road you will be thinking, "damn we were close in 2019, if only we had another piece or two that could have put us over the top" and not "glad we didn't trade that prospect, now we have a chance to win a Cup in a couple years!"

The argument is not binary. You can make trades for non-rentals too. Do that. It's better.

And quite frankly, no one available at the deadline is going to put you "over the top." The best team doesn't win the Cup every year. You're talking about a postseason tournament where the best team strives for a ~30% chance to win. The guys available at the deadline are largely secondary pieces who will barely move your chances.

If you believe your window of contending extends for the next few years and the prospect is someone you value highly and expect to be ready relatively quickly, the bar for the prospect coming out ahead in total playoff impact is not anywhere near a PP1 type player.

 

[renberg]

The text that popped up last week for which Carchidi was ripped might have been real but premature. Simmonds for Talbot and Pulhajarvi may have been on the table and now has been expanded to include Spooner and Weise.
The original deal may have been spiked because Talbot wouldn't accept the deal. Now that he knows that he isn't the Oilers guy with the extension that they gave Koskonin. Who knows, maybe if the Flyers offer him an extension, he accepts it and the trade goes down.

 

[Dicky Dangles]

Also, we really need to be utilizing the Fletch movie connection
more. We're missing a great opportunity here.

 

[Domino666]

The text that popped up last week for which Carchidi was ripped might have been real but premature. Simmonds for Talbot and Pulhajarvi may have been on the table and now has been expanded to include Spooner and Weise.
The original deal may have been spiked because Talbot wouldn't accept the deal. Now that he knows that he isn't the Oilers guy with the extension that they gave Koskonin. Who knows, maybe if the Flyers offer him an extension, he accepts it and the trade goes down.

I don’t want any of those players, and Fletch can get better for Simmer, PJ is well a nitwit and most likely would wilt here, Talbot ehhh I mean he’s not atrocious bit he doesn’t want to play second fiddle to Hart, but I’m really hoping the Flyers don’t make any trades with Edm

 

[Rebels57]

Carolina makes a lot more sense for Talbot than Philly.

 

[TCTC]

The Oilers don't have any interesting pieces. Their 1st would be nice, I guess but there should be better options if we're trading Simmonds.

 

[tictactoe]

Talbot/prospect/1st for Simmonds maybe. I doubt Talbot would want to be a 1b to Hart though.

we do not need Talbot.. Elliott or Stolarz this year.

 

[deadhead]

I concur. This is why I am against trading Gudas, Hagg, and Ghost if the return is just picks. I understand for Simmonds because he is a UFA. But the idea that a pick is better than a player who is able to play decent minutes for an NHL roster is dangerous.

Depends on the circumstances. Teams aren't giving up NHL starters when they're trying to go deep into the playoffs. So it's either draft picks or unproven prospects.

And draft picks are trade currency before the draft, especially if you want to pry away players from teams that are rebuilding, or, facing a salary cap squeeze down the road and want to refill their talent pipeline for a reload.

 

[Pantokrator]

Depends on the circumstances. Teams aren't giving up NHL starters when they're trying to go deep into the playoffs. So it's either draft picks or unproven prospects.

And draft picks are trade currency before the draft, especially if you want to pry away players from teams that are rebuilding, or, facing a salary cap squeeze down the road and want to refill their talent pipeline for a reload.

I'm all for getting picks, especially for players we are trying to get rid of - Weal, Weise, Lehtera, et al., or UFAs because we know we have to get rid of the asset or get nothing in return.

But for a player like Gudas - a capable top 4 d-man with an edge and a good contract - just a draft pick seems really sketchy. It is putting us into a more unknown zone where we have to hope our prospects pan out vs. having a veteran to help out during the transition. That is my concern.

And it seems getting a 2nd for Hagg is pointless, since Hagg is the type of player you usually get in the 2nd round, if at all. From 1990-1999, 25% of second rounders turned into serviceable NHLers (How Many Draft Picks Make It to the NHL?). So to trade Hagg for a draft pick that has a 25% chance of turning into an NHLer is really bad odds. I think he would be better served in a package deal or to be a sacrifice in the expansion draft.

 

[BernieParent]

Likely blocking it so he can negotiate with the acquiring team, on a contract.

No sense uprooting your life for 3 months unless it benefits you.

... and, of course, I'll get a no-trade clause with you guys ..."

"No."

"What? But Peter gave me one. He gives it to everyone!"

"We don't. Most teams don't. Especially for non-core players and double-especially for backup goalies."

"Oh."

 

[BernieParent]

Also, we really need to be utilizing the Fletch movie connection
more. We're missing a great opportunity here.

This one seems relevant around the TDL:

although I'd prefer that Flyers management is the doctor.

 

[BernieParent]

I'm all for getting picks, especially for players we are trying to get rid of - Weal, Weise, Lehtera, et al., or UFAs because we know we have to get rid of the asset or get nothing in return.

But for a player like Gudas - a capable top 4 d-man with an edge and a good contract - just a draft pick seems really sketchy. It is putting us into a more unknown zone where we have to hope our prospects pan out vs. having a veteran to help out during the transition. That is my concern.

And it seems getting a 2nd for Hagg is pointless, since Hagg is the type of player you usually get in the 2nd round, if at all. From 1990-1999, 25% of second rounders turned into serviceable NHLers (How Many Draft Picks Make It to the NHL?). So to trade Hagg for a draft pick that has a 25% chance of turning into an NHLer is really bad odds. I think he would be better served in a package deal or to be a sacrifice in the expansion draft.

A 2nd is a valuable trade chip, too. It took a 2nd to move up and draft Konecny.

 

[Ghosts Beer]

And it seems getting a 2nd for Hagg is pointless, since Hagg is the type of player you usually get in the 2nd round, if at all. From 1990-1999, 25% of second rounders turned into serviceable NHLers (How Many Draft Picks Make It to the NHL?). So to trade Hagg for a draft pick that has a 25% chance of turning into an NHLer is really bad odds. I think he would be better served in a package deal or to be a sacrifice in the expansion draft.

I agree with you completely on this; in fact made the same points yesterday.