KoRP Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 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... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stogey24 Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 Freedman had some speculation that Montreal might be a destination for Shattenkirk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoRP Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davehab Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 So....Matt Duchene is "sick" tonight and not playing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 5 minutes ago, Davehab said: So....Matt Duchene is "sick" tonight and not playing. Alex Galchenyuk is also "hurt" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davehab Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davehab Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meller93 Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDriveFor25 Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Gallagher for Lindholm. No other dman on the Ducks is worth it. Even then, still a tough trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neech Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Not many people thinking Simmonds is worth Pacioretty anymore, eh? Edit: looking at the stats they're actually pretty close, don't think either team would go for that trade! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 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/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stogey24 Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 F that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 I wouldnt do that move. 1st rounder fine McCarron fine Not both Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illWill Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 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..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illWill Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaos Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Hannah will end up going for a 2nd Rounder (the new currency for rentals) or a lower prospect. Arizona is asking big early cause.....hey why not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.