Rumor: Trade Rumours Thread Part V: Gaborik "available"; LeBrun: NYR interested in D. Boyle

[Kwayry]

He would be, but Hawks are being generous with 4th added to Olsen, who is a late first.
They do not want to be suckers doing a 1 for 1 for McNeil.
It is possible to think of a bigger deal of Boyle +, but some of us need to stop insisting on Boyle for McNeil as 1 for 1, and either expand, or accept the upgrade and move on.

What's the difference between Gaunce and McNeil, except a year of development?

 

[Kwayry]

If we can agree on what to add which Chicago will accept, sure. Otherwise YES on Olsen, unless you can cough up a better offer.

Bernie, I know we had this argument before, please forget about Olsen, we have no place to fit him. Unless you want to flip for another asset, which one?

 

[Punxrocknyc19*]

does Nashville or any team have any future Scott Hartnell Wayne Simmonds type player?? a player that hasnt broke out yet but potential is there.. Rangers need a power forward.. the power forward the Rangers have isnt that aggressive or physical on a regular basis.. wish the Rangers have some nastiness up front and on the blueline with skill..

 

[bernmeister]

Had the same thought, we probably have to add our 2nd, or if we are lucky our early 3rd.
I would only do the 2nd if we get a first back in the Gaborik trade. Otherwise it's not worth.

We would have to add at least our second. However, we may be able to make a bigger deal and not use the pick by dealing other assets. Will post later.

 

[Kwayry]

does Nashville or any team have any future Scott Hartnell Wayne Simmonds type player?? a player that hasnt broke out yet but potential is there.. Rangers need a power forward.. the power forward the Rangers have isnt that aggressive or physical on a regular basis.. wish the Rangers have some nastiness up front and on the blueline with skill..

Then you want to trade him to Vancouver for Kassian and have to take back salary. Nashville doesn't have that asset.

 

[Kwayry]

We would have to add at least our second. However, we may be able to make a bigger deal and not use the pick by dealing other assets. Will post later.

Make it short or don't post

 

[iamitter]

Blum and Ellis are interchangeable to me. Bourque over Hornqvist for me though

Ellis fits us better, is playing better and looks like he has the higher potential. Blum seems to have stalled.

I wouldn't put them on the same tier.

 

[bernmeister]

Olsen is quite old for a prospect. He is there Sanguinetti.

Irrelevant.
?1 is he + 4th the best return for Boyle? THIS IS THE DOMINANT CONSIDERATION

2 We are not married to the guy. He has to fit into our immediate/short term plans, whether that is to play him, or flip him for other assets.

BTW how old? mid 20s? with lots of time being prepped.

 

[Kwayry]

Irrelevant.
?1 is he + 4th the best return for Boyle? THIS IS THE DOMINANT CONSIDERATION

2 We are not married to the guy. He has to fit into our immediate/short term plans, whether that is to play him, or flip him for other assets.

BTW how old? mid 20s? with lots of time being prepped.

Very relevant, 24 and lefty. we have enough lefties.
Unless you want to flip him for another asset, this deal makes no sense.

 

[I Eat Crow]

Well the prevailing trade is Hornqvist + Blum + first.
they are too high on Ellis.

Ellis fits us better, is playing better and looks like he has the higher potential. Blum seems to have stalled.

I wouldn't put them on the same tier.

I don't watch much of either player, but my understanding is that Ellis has better puck moving capabilities, while Blum has more of a two way game and size.

I agree Ellis would be a better get, but it would be tougher to get him out of Nashville than Blum

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

Would love to get Bourque/Fisher/1st from Nashville.

If we're trading Gaborik, I really think we need to get back two NHL forwards in the trade.

 

[bernmeister]

Hawks blessed with a lot of prospects/players hitting on all cylinders now, so a guy like Skjei further in the pipeline not only is not a concern, it could be an asset as to ELC management/cap juggling

Something around (first thoughts)
Clendenning, Olsen, McNeil, Beach, + 2013 CBH 1st
for
Skjei, Darroll Powe, Boyle, Peter Ceresnak, Brandon Mashinter, and 2013 Ranger 2nd and 3rd.

Analysis
Chicago has enough to get by this year. Skjei (probably better skater) is comparable to Clendenning (better developed overall) Powe is listed as a C but plays W, has speed, and upgrade as to available now vs. McNeil, the comparable; Boyle to Olsen discussed, Mashinter >> Beach. Get 2 picks in deep draft for 1 higher pick. Ceresnak added for upcoming D depth.

Some upside to bottom 6, does not diminish upper 6 or current Ds; some reduction of depth as to immediately available D, offset once Skjei advances. Loss of a first against other plusses and 2 picks.

Rangers get a righty D sooner than later plus Olsen for now.
McNeil competes w/Lindberg for 4C, Yogan in the mix.
Beach is a gamble, see what if anything he has left.
Obtain a late 1st (lose 2 lesser picks).

presently:
Gaborik Richards Nash
Hagelin Stepan Callahan
Pyatt Miller Haley
Bickel/Beach Halpern Asham

As soon as he gets enough development time, Kreider returns, Haley eventually supplants Asham. Again McNeil , Lindberg, Yogan

Staal Girardi
McD Stralman
MDZ Clendenning

Gilroy
Olsen
McIlrath
Hamrlik

Deal Eminger for late pick

Depending upon moves that have to be made for cap, Gaborik now and maybe Staal later, there is more depth.

 

[Kwayry]

Would love to get Bourque/Fisher/1st from Nashville.

If we're trading Gaborik, I really think we need to get back two NHL forwards in the trade.

Fisher is going to be 33 in June with 2 more years of 4.2Mil caphit.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

Fisher is going to be 33 in June with 2 more years of 4.2Mil caphit.

True.

Well, I'd still like to get two forwards in a trade for Gaborik. I think we're fine on the backend.

 

[Kwayry]

Hawks blessed with a lot of prospects/players hitting on all cylinders now, so a guy like Skjei further in the pipeline not only is not a concern, it could be an asset as to ELC management/cap juggling

Something around (first thoughts)
Clendenning, Olsen, McNeil, Beach, + 2013 CBH 1st
for
Skjei, Darroll Powe, Boyle, Peter Ceresnak, Brandon Mashinter, and 2013 Ranger 2nd and 3rd.

Analysis
Chicago has enough to get by this year. Skjei (probably better skater) is comparable to Clendenning (better developed overall) Powe is listed as a C but plays W, has speed, and upgrade as to available now vs. McNeil, the comparable; Boyle to Olsen discussed, Mashinter >> Beach. Get 2 picks in deep draft for 1 higher pick. Ceresnak added for upcoming D depth.

Some upside to bottom 6, does not diminish upper 6 or current Ds; some reduction of depth as to immediately available D, offset once Skjei advances. Loss of a first against other plusses and 2 picks.

Rangers get a righty D sooner than later plus Olsen for now.
McNeil competes w/Lindberg for 4C, Yogan in the mix.
Beach is a gamble, see what if anything he has left.
Obtain a late 1st (lose 2 lesser picks).

presently:
Gaborik Richards Nash
Hagelin Stepan Callahan
Pyatt Miller Haley
Bickel/Beach Halpern Asham

As soon as he gets enough development time, Kreider returns, Haley eventually supplants Asham. Again McNeil , Lindberg, Yogan

Staal Girardi
McD Stralman
MDZ Clendenning

Gilroy
Olsen
McIlrath
Hamrlik

Deal Eminger for late pick

Depending upon moves that have to be made for cap, Gaborik now and maybe Staal later, there is more depth.

That is just unrealistic, stopped reading when I saw the number of players the Rangers are trading.
Took them a while to find a useful player like Powe and you want to trade him.
And asset management 101 tells you to not do big trades, reduces the value of the return.

 

[iamitter]

Would love to get Bourque/Fisher/1st from Nashville.

If we're trading Gaborik, I really think we need to get back two NHL forwards in the trade.

I would like that, too.

I just really think Ellis would fit with our team well.

Bourque+Ellis+Halischuk+1st

 

[Kwayry]

True.

Well, I'd still like to get two forwards in a trade for Gaborik. I think we're fine on the backend.

I can see that. If I can get a top RD with another trade, Hornqvist + Bourque + Klein + 2nd for Gaborik?

 

[bernmeister]

Very relevant, 24 and lefty. we have enough lefties.
Unless you want to flip him for another asset, this deal makes no sense.

We have to agree to disagree.
Yes, IF you have a choice between Olsen and an Olsen counterpart who is righty, yes you take the righty when you need one.

But no, this is where you guys, respectfully IMO, are completely wrong.
Balance is nice, It is not overriding.

most important consideration is to add talent.
Bend buckle and break to that reality. We need more assets and talent.

If you want to suggest a better offer for Boyle, I have an open mind on that. But if Olsen is the best return, you get him instead of nothing. No, do not want to have Boyle for playoffs, want to add asset and develop.

Also stop insisting adamantly that these things have to work upon your timetable.

If you can flip a guy fairly quickly, terrif, I'm in your corner.

But at least do step 1, get the guy, field the offers, and take the one you want if you're going to flip him, as opposed to not getting and not having the depth from more assets so you can make more moves.

Also, we eventually must look at moving Staal/Girardi, for cap reasons. Not saying immediately, eventually.
But the faster we build up development and have depth and options, the better off we are.

We don't HAVE TO FLIP Olsen
can have
McD first pair lefty
MDZ second pair lefty
Olsen third pair lefty

and move Staal IF you get OVERPAYMENT FOR HIM

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

I can see that. If I can get a top RD with another trade, Hornqvist + Bourque + Klein + 2nd for Gaborik?

That'd be a solid trade. Klein is a good player.

Don't think Nashville would move Klein, though. They need to keep the D they have.

 

[Kwayry]

That'd be a solid trade. Klein is a good player.

Don't think Nashville would move Klein, though. They need to keep the D they have.

They are keeping both Blum and Ellis, I can see them willing to move Klein in that case. The second maybe a problem.

 

[Kwayry]

We have to agree to disagree.
Yes, IF you have a choice between Olsen and an Olsen counterpart who is righty, yes you take the righty when you need one.

But no, this is where you guys, respectfully IMO, are completely wrong.
Balance is nice, It is not overriding.

most important consideration is to add talent.
Bend buckle and break to that reality. We need more assets and talent.

If you want to suggest a better offer for Boyle, I have an open mind on that. But if Olsen is the best return, you get him instead of nothing. No, do not want to have Boyle for playoffs, want to add asset and develop.

Also stop insisting adamantly that these things have to work upon your timetable.

If you can flip a guy fairly quickly, terrif, I'm in your corner.

But at least do step 1, get the guy, field the offers, and take the one you want if you're going to flip him, as opposed to not getting and not having the depth from more assets so you can make more moves.

Also, we eventually must look at moving Staal/Girardi, for cap reasons. Not saying immediately, eventually.
But the faster we build up development and have depth and options, the better off we are.

We don't HAVE TO FLIP Olsen
can have
McD first pair lefty
MDZ second pair lefty
Olsen third pair lefty

and move Staal IF you get OVERPAYMENT FOR HIM

You are killing me, in order to fit Olsen, we may have to trade Staal?

Come on man. I'd rather go get somebody else, simpler.
We just disagree on this one.

 

[iamitter]

I can see that. If I can get a top RD with another trade, Hornqvist + Bourque + Klein + 2nd for Gaborik?

I just don't see why they would move Hornqvist+that much. Hornqvist has already scored 30 before, will cost way less and is much younger. Is that worth it for 1.5 years of Gaborik?

 

[bernmeister]

That is just unrealistic, stopped reading when I saw the number of players the Rangers are trading.
Took them a while to find a useful player like Powe and you want to trade him.
And asset management 101 tells you to not do big trades, reduces the value of the return.

You are confessing a closed mind.
It is not unrealistic. It is your opinion it is unrealistic. Whether it is one big deal or a couple of smaller ones, something basically along these lines can be done.

It is a fair honest discussion to have about dealing Skjei for Clendenning lets talk

 

[Kwayry]

I just don't see why they would move Hornqvist+that much. Hornqvist has already scored 30 before, will cost way less and is much younger. Is that worth it for 1.5 years of Gaborik?

I am not a Nashville fan. But like I said before, they have a hard time attracting top end FA's. If Gaborik thrives in their system, and I don't see why not as he thrived under Lemaire in Minnesota, he can be convinced to stay. Plus they are starved for scoring. But that's just my opinion.

 

[Kwayry]

You are confessing a closed mind.
It is not unrealistic. It is your opinion it is unrealistic. Whether it is one big deal or a couple of smaller ones, something basically along these lines can be done.

It is a fair honest discussion to have about dealing Skjei for Clendenning lets talk

That makes more sense. What do you have in mind? and please keep it short, tough to read an essay when you have alcohol in your system.