Toggle sidebar

Speculation: Trade Rumors/Speculation Thread Part II (Mod warning post #861)

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
theFiGS said:
I'd hate to see miller go but if it's del zotto miller and 2nd I'm cool with it. Gotta give to get
Click to expand...

Agree on the whole 'give to get' thing, but if we move Miller, our C depth is:

Step - no worries
Richards - buy out
Brassard - inconsistent RFA who while need a $4m qual offer
Boyle - UFA
Lindburg

Granted even with Miller it is pretty thin, but without him it's non-existent. There will be a couple of 2/3 line Cs as UFAs, but do we really want to overpaying for average players again?
 
broadwayblue said:
If he's playing then a deal isn't imminent. You don't sit a guy because you might trade him next week.
Click to expand...

If he's playing then a deal with him in the trade isn't imminent.

Could be other parts. We are all just speculating it's him. He's logical but you never know.
 
mike14 said:
Agree on the whole 'give to get' thing, but if we move Miller, our C depth is:

Step - no worries
Richards - buy out
Brassard - inconsistent RFA who while need a $4m qual offer
Boyle - UFA
Lindburg

Granted even with Miller it is pretty thin, but without him it's non-existent. There will be a couple of 2/3 line Cs as UFAs, but do we really want to overpaying for average players again?
Click to expand...

Miller has been playing wing mostly hasn't he? I'm not worried about center as much as I am the scoring depth we've always lacked.
I wanna see miller as this teams 3rd line center but if that means getting a projected 30-40 goal scorer then you pull that trigger. I think lindberg will be this teams 3rd line center
 
-31- said:
Even if it's 1-500, you think that would be enough risk to hold Del Zotto out of the lineup?
Click to expand...

Yea. Team's don't operate like this. Chance isn't something you take, no matter how small, in a business (if you can prevent it).

He could be blindsided, he could lay down to block a shot and get a broken hand or foot, he could get his skate caught in a rut, he could take a puck to the jaw, etc.

The point of the trade is to improve the team. If a trade is being done then the GM thinks its for the better of the team. If that's the case you don't **** around with it and take unnecessary chances, even if it means you have a better shot of winning 1 game.
 
kenjets36 said:
If he's playing then a deal with him in the trade isn't imminent.

Could be other parts. We are all just speculating it's him. He's logical but you never know.
Click to expand...

Bing, not sure how this was missed, someone said he was about to be traded, I offered that the fact that he is playing tonight makes that LESS LIKELY to be true.

It's simply asset management, if you're about to get rid of a player via trade, you've already made up your mind about him, makes zero sense to keep him in the lineup and risk botching a trade you just made presumably which made your team better. Now not only is your team without a player as a result of injury, but it is without the benefit of the trade.

Even if it is .0001% you sit the person, it's a no brainer.
 
mike14 said:
Agree on the whole 'give to get' thing, but if we move Miller, our C depth is:

Step - no worries
Richards - buy out
Brassard - inconsistent RFA who while need a $4m qual offer
Boyle - UFA
Lindburg

Granted even with Miller it is pretty thin, but without him it's non-existent. There will be a couple of 2/3 line Cs as UFAs, but do we really want to overpaying for average players again?
Click to expand...

Stepan is our 1C which was the most difficult piece to obtain. 2C isn't as difficult to get if Brassard doesn't pan out, which I don't see why he wouldn't. He's played like a 2C ever since he got here. Besides, other players are going to be bought out this offseason anyways because it's the last year to use the compliance buyout. I'm not sure who's available, but grabbing someone of Lecavalier's caliber isn't a bad stop gap. That plus other FA that are available. Getting a 2C isn't THAT difficult as long as Stepan continues his 1C capabilities.
 
1000 vCash Del Zotto shots wide it ricochets around the boards hits a stanchion flies across the ice, his him in the chin and breaks his jaw.
 
gmerger37 said:
Bing, not sure how this was missed, someone said he was about to be traded, I offered that the fact that he is playing tonight makes that LESS LIKELY to be true.

It's simply asset management, if you're about to get rid of a player via trade, you've already made up your mind about him, makes zero sense to keep him in the lineup and risk botching a trade you just made presumably which made your team better. Now not only is your team without a player as a result of injury, but it is without the benefit of the trade.

Even if it is .0001% you sit the person, it's a no brainer.
Click to expand...

Dunno where all this imminent stuff is coming from, tbh. If a trade was imminent we'd have a lot more sources in on it. If Del Zotto was in it he'd be held out. I can't imagine who else would be in it that the Rangers would part ways with. Certainly not Kreider or Miller. McIlrath given his slow development and knee problems can't be a center piece for Edmonton.

Leads me to believe it's just all speculation that has no actual credence.
 
Barbara Underhill said:
1000 vCash Del Zotto shots wide it ricochets around the boards hits a stanchion flies across the ice, his him in the chin and breaks his jaw.
Click to expand...

1000 v cash that Pyatt triple axels over the boards for a change, swinging his stick into Del Ziti's face causing an injury and incurring a too many men on the ice penalty bc DZ can't get off the ice.
 
gmerger37 said:
Bing, not sure how this was missed, someone said he was about to be traded, I offered that the fact that he is playing tonight makes that LESS LIKELY to be true.

It's simply asset management, if you're about to get rid of a player via trade, you've already made up your mind about him, makes zero sense to keep him in the lineup and risk botching a trade you just made presumably which made your team better. Now not only is your team without a player as a result of injury, but it is without the benefit of the trade.

Even if it is .0001% you sit the person, it's a no brainer.
Click to expand...

kenjets36 said:
Yea. Team's don't operate like this. Chance isn't something you take, no matter how small, in a business (if you can prevent it).

He could be blindsided, he could lay down to block a shot and get a broken hand or foot, he could get his skate caught in a rut, he could take a puck to the jaw, etc.

The point of the trade is to improve the team. If a trade is being done then the GM thinks its for the better of the team. If that's the case you don't **** around with it and take unnecessary chances, even if it means you have a better shot of winning 1 game.
Click to expand...
lol.
 
kenjets36 said:
I mean you're incorrect. Don't see what's funny.
Click to expand...

You are trying to make a point about a trade thats likely not even happening here in real life.

More importantly, players are rarely held out of a lineup until a trade is finalized. This notion that you would hold a player out of the lineup at the mere thought of trading him is whats so funny.
 
Bleed Ranger Blue said:
You are trying to make a point about a trade thats likely not even happening here in real life.

More importantly, players are rarely held out of a lineup until a trade is finalized. This notion that you would hold a player out of the lineup at the mere thought of trading him is whats so funny.
Click to expand...

Imminent would mean the trade is about to happen - i.e. all the parts are agreed upon.

There is absolutely no way a GM will agree to a trade then allow that team to play the player they are getting. Are you delusional?
 
Bleed Ranger Blue said:
You are trying to make a point about a trade thats likely not even happening here in real life.

More importantly, players are rarely held out of a lineup until a trade is finalized. This notion that you would hold a player out of the lineup at the mere thought of trading him is whats so funny.
Click to expand...

See last years iginla trade.
 
kenjets36 said:
Imminent would mean the trade is about to happen - i.e. all the parts are agreed upon.

There is absolutely no way a GM will agree to a trade then allow that team to play the player they are getting. Are you delusional?
Click to expand...

No, sir.

But that is a delusional definition of imminent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom