Rumor: Trade Rumor Thread Part VI: Gaborik for Peanuts

[Heyoooo*]

Schenn, Simmonds, Voracek. All were considered bottom 6 guys when they were dealt. Worked out pretty well. A bottom 6 player at age 20 is still a bottom 6 player right now. They just have high upside

edit: Others beat me to it.

 

[Barnaby]

I'm torn between wanting a deal to shake things up or wanting to hold fast because of all the roster turnover/lack of training camp.

 

[JaeTM]

Gabby for Eriksson

 

[sexton11]

No time to read all 30 pages, I'm sure this has been brought up, but what would a NYR/ANA trade look like to bring Perry here? I know the ducks are playing out of this world and Perry is a UFA in a few months, but I think he'd be a perfect fit here...

 

[Barnaby]

No time to read all 30 pages, I'm sure this has been brought up, but what would a NYR/ANA trade look like to bring Perry here? I know the ducks are playing out of this world and Perry is a UFA in a few months, but I think he'd be a perfect fit here...

He'd cost a TON... and the only way you can even consider it would be if you had him agreed to a contract. I don't see it happening at all...

My guess would be that it would gut this team/farm way too much post Nash trade. Acquiring and signing Perry - then dealing Gaborik to recoup some of those losses would sound good IN THEORY, but this isn't NHL 2013.

 

[sexton11]

He'd cost a TON... and the only way you can even consider it would be if you had him agreed to a contract. I don't see it happening at all...

My guess would be that it would gut this team/farm way too much post Nash trade. Acquiring and signing Perry - then dealing Gaborik to recoup some of those losses would sound good IN THEORY, but this isn't NHL 2013.

I was thinking it would have to include Gabby out the gate. They lose the couple months of perry and gain a new linemate for getzlaf for next season

 

[Kwayry]

TSN insider trader, Dreger, Lebrun, McKenzie

saying Gaborik is available for the right price, they want 2 bottom 6 type F, Righty D......but Gabby has a high contract so not that teams in.......if he starts scoring then more will line up............that's what I got out of it

Wouldn't Bourque + Wilson + Ellis/Blum qualify?

 

[Zuuuuc]

I'm not looking for a ledge because this team has lost 3 of 4, but its painfully obvious that this team isn't as good as it was last season, and we didn't have Nash last season.
Last season we had Gaborik having a good year and Richards, despite not putting up tonnes of points, was still a top line centre that let the rest of the pieces fall in the right place. This season we have Nash and Callahan going, and Stepan/Hagelin are providing our secondary but then black holes in the bottom 6.
As much as I'm opposed to trading Gaborik, if we can get a couple of second line players to bump guys like Boyle down from the third line, I'd do it. We are at the 50 contract limit so Gaborik would have to be lumped together with 1 or 2 AHL redundancies, preferably 2 so we could still add something (maybe Zucc, maybe a trade deadline acquisition)
Hagelin - Stepan - Nash works, and it clicked for a good stretch. Richards and Callahan is the making of a great line with Zucc or a piece from a potential Gaborik trade. JT Miller would slot in nicely into the third line C spot with Zucc and a potential Gaborik trade or both pieces from a potential trade.
We can't do top 6 bottom 6. Toronto tried it last year and look where they ended up. We do have 3 top players, despite two of them not playing like top players, but in todays NHL u need top 9 bottom 3. No more Boyle or Haley on the third line.
How much better would we all feel if we had a competent scoring threat third line, and Boyle Halpern Pyatt on the 4th line, where they belong

 

[Samuel Culper III]

Schenn, Simmonds, Voracek. All were considered bottom 6 guys when they were dealt. Worked out pretty well. A bottom 6 player at age 20 is still a bottom 6 player right now. They just have high upside

No.

Voracek was a young ~50 point scorer (on a bad team, no less) with obvious room for more growth. A poster like you knows that 50 point third liners are a myth, for the most part, especially when they're doing it at 20 and 21 years old. He was already a legitimate top-six forward with his absolute ceiling being that of a first liner. He was widely considered a good, young, 2nd liner with upside. Schenn, about 6 months before the trade was being called the best player not in the NHL by some (probably the prospect enthusiasts around these parts mostly, but still... he was a very highly touted prospect). Simmonds was viewed, basically, a lot like Dubinsky, as a guy who was ideal on the third line but could play in the top-six, and do pretty well. Simmonds and Voracek were also both known to be pretty solid defensively. None of them were really considered "bottom six" guys; you could make an argument for Simmonds, and that's it really. Schenn was being talked about as a #1C kind of prospect and Voracek had proven himself as a young top-six talent on a bad team.

 

[Samuel Culper III]

Wouldn't Bourque + Wilson + Ellis/Blum qualify?

With Ellis, it's a package I'd take.

Wilson has been turning it on a bit this year, and I think he was a bit mishandled in Nashville. He's still got a lot of potential and he's from CT, so a move closer to home might be good for him as well. At worst he'd be a good third liner for us,but he could end up being a very nice top-six player still. Bourque is a very good bottom-six guy, in a Callahan mold, who would fit the team really nicely. Ellis would be a big help, in my opinion. He's a right handed, offensive minded kid with really nice upside who could be sheltered by any of our defensive stalwarts and do his thing. He could help the PP, the breakout and the transition game and we really could use the RH shot.

It would be nice to get a forward that's a little more proven than Wilson, but that's the kind of package that makes the team deeper and stronger, even if it doesn't come with the shiny new toy.

 

[Samuel Culper III]

Realistically, I'm not ready to lynch Gaborik or point the finger of blame at him. If he's dealt I think it will be more a matter of him only having a year on his deal and us being in a position where cap space would be helpful in making sure we can re-sign our guys and have some $$ left over to assess and address our needs. Any return for Gabby should have some top-six upside somewhere in the package, be at worst, strong third liners who will contribute, and cost us a lot less, cap wise. Gabby being traded, if it takes place, should be more of a calculated decision for future flexibility and provide some depth to round out the roster, let Miller go back to the AHL where he can develop (hopefully with confidence and poise to help him shine down there, from playing in the bigs for a while), and put players in better positions to succeed, even it decreases our firepower on paper.

Richards, on the other hand, does need to have the finger pointed directly at him. He's a huge problem. Yeah, we could use a more purposed, productive bottom six that actually has some semblance of a specific design but when your #1C (and he's going to get those minutes whether he plays like one or not) plays as badly as Richards has been, and Hagelin, Callahan, Nash and Stepan (4/5 of the rest of the top six) can't really be asked to do much more than they have been, overall, it's simply going to be difficult to find sustained success. I honestly don't believe there is an answer as to "how to get Richards going" or that anything is going to click, or he's going to bounce back. As much as I'm in favor of buying him out and fully understand the cap restructure penalty, I'd almost advocate trading him anyways, if Glen could actually get us a nice return, because he's not going to turn around and retire for a few years yet and there's a good chance it's worth the penalty a few years down the road, if we can move Richards now and take the return and get back to serious contention next year and the year after.

Combined, if both Richards and Gaborik were moved, for packages similar to the Nashville one I responded to earlier, we could have a lot more depth and a lot more options, and if Glen can work his magic trade winning ways, I think we'd be a lot better off trying to do this by committee than trying to go with the "the superstars provide the offense and everyone else just grinds and jams" approach. If Torts is going to have us play this kind of system, than we need three lines that are all designed to forecheck, grind, cycle AND score, and do it in ALL ways; Nash or Callahan driving the net, Stepan setting someone up in the slot, Hagelin winning a battle behind the net and jamming the puck in from the side, etc. and a fourth line that is going to provide boundless energy, grit and occasional goal. The reason we were "better off" last year is because even though we were worse on paper, we were better equipped to do it by committee. Dubi might have had an abysmal year, but he COULD get it done. Even if he didn't convert a lot that season, he was one of many who COULD be part of the committee. Same for John Mitchell. Same for Christensen, even. Same for Anisimov. Same for Fedetenko. None of these guys seem like big contributors, but they were able to help get it done in that full-team effort way. Guys like Halpern, as well as he's filled his role, are a lot less likely to get that occasional goal we need. Guys like Pyatt are just too "meh". Miller and Kreider need more time. Boyle would be better off on a fourth line with Powe and Haley.

 

[Kwayry]

With Ellis, it's a package I'd take.

Wilson has been turning it on a bit this year, and I think he was a bit mishandled in Nashville. He's still got a lot of potential and he's from CT, so a move closer to home might be good for him as well. At worst he'd be a good third liner for us,but he could end up being a very nice top-six player still. Bourque is a very good bottom-six guy, in a Callahan mold, who would fit the team really nicely. Ellis would be a big help, in my opinion. He's a right handed, offensive minded kid with really nice upside who could be sheltered by any of our defensive stalwarts and do his thing. He could help the PP, the breakout and the transition game and we really could use the RH shot.

It would be nice to get a forward that's a little more proven than Wilson, but that's the kind of package that makes the team deeper and stronger, even if it doesn't come with the shiny new toy.

Blum ain't too shabby either, plus he has the size, the wheels and he is RD.
Would love to get Hornqvist instead of Wilson, but he doesn't qualify as a bottom 6.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

Wilson is outscoring Gaborik this year.

Nashville won't be moving him, he's probably their best skater after Weber.

 

[Kershaw]

Blum ain't too shabby either, plus he has the size, the wheels and he is RD.
Would love to get Hornqvist instead of Wilson, but he doesn't qualify as a bottom 6.

Ellis is slow relative to his size. He was a disaster defensively in the WJC. I'm not sure he's NHL ready.

 

[Samuel Culper III]

Wilson is outscoring Gaborik this year.

Nashville won't be moving him, he's probably their best skater after Weber.

I'd be inclined to agree, but he's disappointed them for so long, I'm not sure they'd pass on a player like Gaborik over a 25 game sample size. Maybe they would though; like I said a few posts up, he's turned it on this year, finally, but I think a player like Gaborik is more than just a scoring winger to Nashville. He's star power which the franchise has never really had up front and after losing Suter, I could see the fans hungering for a move like that.

 

[Samuel Culper III]

Blum ain't too shabby either, plus he has the size, the wheels and he is RD.
Would love to get Hornqvist instead of Wilson, but he doesn't qualify as a bottom 6.

For some reason I swore Blum was a lefty. I'd probably prefer him, to be honest.

 

[Kershaw]

I'd be inclined to agree, but he's disappointed them for so long, I'm not sure they'd pass on a player like Gaborik over a 25 game sample size. Maybe they would though; like I said a few posts up, he's turned it on this year, finally, but I think a player like Gaborik is more than just a scoring winger to Nashville. He's star power which the franchise has never really had up front and after losing Suter, I could see the fans hungering for a move like that.

They had Kariya Forsberg Radulov.

 

[Thumpz]

You can't trade Richards. For example; If you were to trade Richards this offseason, and he were to retire a year before his contract ended, we'd be on the hook for a 10.66 Million Cap hit that season for a player that's retired. If he retires 3 seasons early, you carry a ~3.5 cap hit for ALL three seasons. Do you even take the chance for that to happen? What if the Rangers have far and away the BEST structured team in the league that season, but are sitting right up against the cap and bam, they're hit with having to clear almost 11 Million in cap space because of Richards.

Unless you can get an absolute slam dunk in free agency this summer, you ride Richards next season and hope that he gets his mojo back before using the Amnesty buyout on him and going seperate ways.

 

[Kwayry]

Wilson is outscoring Gaborik this year.

Nashville won't be moving him, he's probably their best skater after Weber.

Hornqvist? But he is not bottom 6.

 

[ImIdaho]

I was thinking it would have to include Gabby out the gate. They lose the couple months of perry and gain a new linemate for getzlaf for next season

The problem is that there is no reason for Anaheim to want to do the trade. They're currently 2nd in the West, have 4 pts less than Chicago, have a 13 point edge in their division, and have 11 points on the next two teams in the conference. (Vancouver and St. Louis).

 

[MrAlmost]

So we are looking to get 2 bottom line players and a RD for Gaborik? That doesnt sound very good.

 

[Numbah4]

So we are looking to get 2 bottom line players and a RD for Gaborik? That doesnt sound very good.

The Bruins aren't pleased with Nathan Horton. He's a UFA at the end of the year. Does Gaborik receive 7.5m next year? Wondering what the buyout would be if he was traded and it didn't work out.
Nathan Horton and a 1st for Gaborik and Boyle??

 

[Vitto79]

Trade Gilroy for a late pick, sign Zuccarello, demote Miller

 

[RangerBoy]

2 bottom six forwards and a top 4 right handed defenseman. The top 4 right handed D is worth Gaborik by himself.

 

[RangerBoy]

You can't trade Richards. For example; If you were to trade Richards this offseason, and he were to retire a year before his contract ended, we'd be on the hook for a 10.66 Million Cap hit that season for a player that's retired. If he retires 3 seasons early, you carry a ~3.5 cap hit for ALL three seasons. Do you even take the chance for that to happen? What if the Rangers have far and away the BEST structured team in the league that season, but are sitting right up against the cap and bam, they're hit with having to clear almost 11 Million in cap space because of Richards.

Unless you can get an absolute slam dunk in free agency this summer, you ride Richards next season and hope that he gets his mojo back before using the Amnesty buyout on him and going seperate ways.

Its actually worse. Scenario. Rangers trade Richards to TB. Off season 2013. He retires in the off season of 2017 before the three $1M annual salary years begin.

Rangers are hit with a $17M cap penalty. $5,666.667 for 3 years.

http://www.capgeek.com/recapture-ca...ason_percentage=1&off_season_traded_year=2013