Jump to content

Permanent Rumour Thread


Fanpuck33

Recommended Posts

Most of this team's problems are they have one player up front with grit and a nasty streak, Shaw.

 

Not saying the rest have zero grit, but they sure have zero nasty...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, KoRP said:

Most of this team's problems are they have one player up front with grit and a nasty streak, Shaw.

 

Not saying the rest have zero grit, but they sure have zero nasty...

 

I haven't seen the team getting pushed around this season, myself. 'Nasty' would not be my top priority. Puck-moving, yes.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya, I agree Cuke really, would just  like a minor roster tweak like Carr out, and someone bigger, tougher and maybe a little scrapping ability you know? Guess I just want McCarron to be there, or ready or better or something ;)

 

 

I don't believe this team is soft in general at all, quite aggressive, but not physical much, that's all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Davehab said:

Can you actually trade a player that is injured?  I don't think I have ever seen it done, but is there actually a rule?

 

You can.

 

The team receiving the player has to agree to the trade though... and have full details of the injury. 

If you don't give full details of an injury, then the other team can void the trade when they do their physical.  But if they knew of the injury and signed off on it, you can make the deal. 

 

 

Sabres got Evander Kane while he was injured.
We traded Theodore to Colorado while he was injured. 

Nathan Horton, Chris Pronger, Marc Savard, and Dave Bolland have all had their contracts traded while injured. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Commandant said:

 

You can.

 

The team receiving the player has to agree to the trade though... and have full details of the injury. 

 

Sabres got Evander Kane while he was injured.
We traded Theodore to Colorado while he was injured. 

Ya I for got about the Kane thing.  

 

I heard somewhere (can't remember) that Anaheim would be interested in Gallagher for one for their D-Men and thought at the time ya maybe that makes sense from a pure hockey deal point of view.  Except Gally was injured and didn't know if it could be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Davehab said:

Ya I for got about the Kane thing.  

 

I heard somewhere (can't remember) that Anaheim would be interested in Gallagher for one for their D-Men and thought at the time ya maybe that makes sense from a pure hockey deal point of view.  Except Gally was injured and didn't know if it could be done.

Would have to be a hell of a defenseman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Commandant said:

 

You can.

 

The team receiving the player has to agree to the trade though... and have full details of the injury. 

If you don't give full details of an injury, then the other team can void the trade when they do their physical.  But if they knew of the injury and signed off on it, you can make the deal. 

 

 

Sabres got Evander Kane while he was injured.
We traded Theodore to Colorado while he was injured. 

Nathan Horton, Chris Pronger, Marc Savard, and Dave Bolland have all had their contracts traded while injured. 

 

Subban

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talk about a high asking price for Martin Hanzal.  Per Elliotte Friedman:

 

Quote

1. We’ve been hearing about high prices for rentals. Word is Arizona’s initial ask from Montreal for Martin Hanzal was Michael McCarron and two draft picks — one a first-rounder, the other conditional. I look at it this way: You never know until you ask. But it also tells you why Hanzal is not a Canadien. We’ll see if both teams circle back.

 

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/30-thoughts-hanzal-talks-stall-canadiens-coyotes/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think prices are going to remain high this year.  Too many buyers and not enough sellers.  On top of that the rental market isn't that deep.  Hanzal is arguably the best rental center right now.  It's like a couple years back when Vermette was the hot commodity at the deadline.  The looming expansion draft also throws a wrench into team's plans.  If you're bringing in a player that you have to protect, you likely have to move a player that needs protection otherwise you risk losing a good player to Vegas along with whatever assets were dealt in the trade.  This makes rentals more attractive and likely ups their value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Commandant said:

I wouldnt do that move.

 

1st rounder fine

 

McCarron fine

 

Not both

 

I wouldn't move either a first or McCarron for Hanzal (and I like him more than most do probably).  He's a middle six rental player who they probably won't be able to bring back.  If I'm moving either of those pieces (not to mention the other conditional pick they wanted too), I want someone who's going to be around for more than just a few months coming back in the trade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, dlbalr said:

 

I wouldn't move either a first or McCarron for Hanzal (and I like him more than most do probably).  He's a middle six rental player who they probably won't be able to bring back.  If I'm moving either of those pieces (not to mention the other conditional pick they wanted too), I want someone who's going to be around for more than just a few months coming back in the trade.

 

I agree. Who do they think Hanzal is, Keith Primeau? And why does he justify a return like that as a rental? His whopping 18 points and -15 doesn't deserve a 1st round pick, let alone add another former one. The guy has a career high 41 points in a season.....but he is big though.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Commandant said:

He's typically (not this year, but typically) around .66 PPG, even if his career high is only 41 points. 

 

Also not sure why you even look at the -15, he's playing for a HORRID team. 

 

I am looking at his -15 because he is a part of a HORRID team. He has the second worst plus minus on a HORRID team, just because the team sucks doesn't excuse him for having a terrible rating. And because he gets lots of ice time, a person can argue that he is one of the main reasons they are HORRID. 

 

And sure, .66 points per game is decent, but what good is .66 points per game in the press box injured all the time? We can skew statistics whichever way we want to make a point, but the bottom line is that the guy only has a career high of 41 points as a soon to be 30 year old. So let's ship out a 1st round pick and hope he doesn't break a finger nail 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, illWill said:

 

I am looking at his -15 because he is a part of a HORRID team. He has the second worst plus minus on a HORRID team, just because the team sucks doesn't excuse him for having a terrible rating. And because he gets lots of ice time, a person can argue that he is one of the main reasons they are HORRID. 

 

And sure, .66 points per game is decent, but what good is .66 points per game in the press box injured all the time? We can skew statistics whichever way we want to make a point, but the bottom line is that the guy only has a career high of 41 points as a soon to be 30 year old. So let's ship out a 1st round pick and hope he doesn't break a finger nail 

 

1) He plays a ton of minutes and against top competition.  His advanced stats show that his linemates are better when they play with him, than when they don't.  This is why plus/minus is a terrible stat to judge a player by. It doesn't get into the complexities of who he is playing with, who he is playing against, what type of goaltending he is getting behind him, and whether or not he actually has a positive influence on his teammates.  Its 2017, we have a ton of analytics to measure all these things, why we are still looking at an archaic stat like plus/minus, i have no idea. Virtually no one who looks at statistics takes it seriously. 

 

2) Yeah, I don't expect him to play 82 games.  Fair point.

 

We aren't acquiring him to play 82 games, we are acquiring him to hopefully play about 20-25 playoff games.  If he's healthy at the deadline, I'll cross my fingers that he can stay healthy enough to do his thing in the playoffs. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Commandant said:

I'm looking at what they got for vermette.  A rental middle-6 centre is costly. ... So i'm fine giving up a first rounder in the late 20s from what looks like a bad draft. 

 

That might be the market from past years but it's still not a price I'd pay.  If I'm parting with a first round asset, I want someone who's going to be around more than just the next 3-5 months.  Even in the sellers' markets, there are usually some bargain depth guys to be had and I'd rather add a couple of those than pay a first for a middle six rental player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...