RUMOUR: Ottawa and Chicago talking trade

rooneypoo wrote:In any event, the key points to take out of this are, 1) Campbell should be the one CHI moves, 2) there will be teams who will take him, albeit, I don't think anyone will give up much of value in return for that contract, and 3) there are many, many other teams who are much better positioned than OTT to take him and his contract on.

Depends on who Ottawa sends the other way. It's not black and white but Buff and Soupy are.

rooneypoo wrote:

davetherave wrote: @Rooney> your Campbell to Islanders scenario runs completely contrary to Garth Snow's tight money policy in Long Island.

Besides, they have Mark Streit.

Columbus' financial issues preclude taking on Campbell's contract.

Dallas has Stephane Robidas. No reason to trade for Campbell.

If Campbell gets traded, it's to a team that wants to spend the big bucks to make a big splash.

LOL. The Islanders winning games this year also goes contrary to Snow's policy this year -- he might get forced into taking action if they keep playing well. And Stephane Robidas is absolutely not a player like Campbell. Campbell is EXACTLY what the doctor ordered for DAL. Actually, the more I think about DAL, the better the fit is.

In any event, the key points to take out of this are, 1) Campbell should be the one CHI moves, 2) there will be teams who will take him, albeit, I don't think anyone will give up much of value in return for that contract, and 3) there are many, many other teams who are much better positioned than OTT to take him and his contract on.

The entire CHI management should be fired if they can't find a way to unload Campbell sometime in the next 7+ months. Freeing up that cap space is absolutely essential to the long-term health of that club.

@Rooney> One, you're being judgmental about Chicago management based on your presumptions.

Two, you're not looking at the logic of, and the facts cited in, my response to you.

Three, saying Snow will be 'forced' to do something is pure conjecture on your part.

Four, you also apparently don't watch Dallas play--they just beat Detroit BTW, and decisively, as per Babcock's post game comments. "Just what the doctor ordered?"

Robidas does exactly what Campbell does...driving the offense.

So Nieuwendyk has zero reason to trade for that type of defenseman at $7MM, especially when the Stars' owner, Tom Hicks, is strapped for cash.

And why does Chicago deal Campbell to a West Conference rival?

Five, I have said repeatedly that I don't think the Sens and Campbell are right for each other.

Six, the topic of this thread is possible Ottawa-Chicago trades.

Your thoughts on that subject, sir?

MurderOnIce wrote:Couldn't say it better.

Obviously.

davetherave wrote:

MurderOnIce wrote:Couldn't say it better.

Obviously.

My feelings are hurt.

davetherave wrote:
So back to Ottawa and Chicago...what's your package?

I don't even know anymore. We need D and Chicago shouldn't want to part with any of theirs. Barker doesn't excite me as much as Campbell, but his cap hit is much less. I don't know...

MurderOnIce wrote:

davetherave wrote:

MurderOnIce wrote:Couldn't say it better.

Obviously.

My feelings are hurt.

I gave you a plus and doubled your reputation points because I felt bad for you.

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

MurderOnIce wrote:

davetherave wrote:

MurderOnIce wrote:Couldn't say it better.

Obviously.

My feelings are hurt.

I gave you a plus and doubled your reputation points because I felt bad for you.

Don't worry but thanks. Dave is just needlessly abrassive sometimes.

SpezDispenser wrote:

davetherave wrote:
So back to Ottawa and Chicago...what's your package?

I don't even know anymore. We need D and Chicago shouldn't want to part with any of theirs. Barker doesn't excite me as much as Campbell, but his cap hit is much less. I don't know...

We need to make them want to part with theirs.

MurderOnIce wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

MurderOnIce wrote:

davetherave wrote:

MurderOnIce wrote:Couldn't say it better.

Obviously.

My feelings are hurt.

I gave you a plus and doubled your reputation points because I felt bad for you.

Don't worry but thanks. Dave is just needlessly abrassive sometimes.

I just thought it was funny that by giving you 1 Rep point I doubled your Rep points.

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

MurderOnIce wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

MurderOnIce wrote:

davetherave wrote:

MurderOnIce wrote:Couldn't say it better.

Obviously.

My feelings are hurt.

I gave you a plus and doubled your reputation points because I felt bad for you.

Don't worry but thanks. Dave is just needlessly abrassive sometimes.

I just thought it was funny that by giving you 1 Rep point I doubled your Rep points.

Yeah whats up with that? My unpopularity is driving me to drink.

It's hard to find a team that has nicer forwards at mid-level prices. After they've gone through the playoffs there will be some nice names available I'm sure.

SpezDispenser wrote:It's hard to find a team that has nicer forwards at mid-level prices. After they've gone through the playoffs there will be some nice names available I'm sure.

I think removing Campbell from the books helps their situation a lot. They are also deep enough to absorb that type of loss.

davetherave wrote:

@Rooney> One, you're being judgmental about Chicago management based on your presumptions.

Two, you're not looking at the logic of, and the facts cited in, my response to you.

Three, saying Snow will be 'forced' to do something is pure conjecture on your part.

Four, you also apparently don't watch Dallas play--they just beat Detroit BTW, and decisively, as per Babcock's post game comments. "Just what the doctor ordered?"

Robidas does exactly what Campbell does...driving the offense.

So Nieuwendyk has zero reason to trade for that type of defenseman at $7MM, especially when the Stars' owner, Tom Hicks, is strapped for cash.

And why does Chicago deal Campbell to a West Conference rival?

Five, I have said repeatedly that I don't think the Sens and Campbell are right for each other.

Six, the topic of this thread is possible Ottawa-Chicago trades.

Your thoughts on that subject, sir?

One, I'm not being judgmental or presumptive. Shipping Campbell out for a low-money return is the easiest way for CHI to solve its impending cap woes. Simple. Fact. Therefore, CHI management needs to get it done. They can wait for the off-season if they want, provided the tagging issue doesn't force their hand before then, but that's the move they have to make, 100% for sure.

Two, I am looking at the logic of your response. In fact, I dare say it's the other way around. OTT does not have the pieces CHI will be looking to acquire in a dollars for dollars trade (i.e., good players on expiring contracts), and OTT isn't in a cap position to do anything other than trade dollars for dollars. If the goal for CHI is to clear cap space for next year, they will need to clear salary out without bringing in salary that carries over into next year. Bringing in a guy like Fisher in return for Campbell doesn't make sense. There are so many other teams who could send guys on expiring contracts in return, and so many other teams who have the cap space to absorb Campbell's contract. OTT will not deal Fisher for Campbell straight up, and OTT can't take Campbell + another $3 mil contract back for Fisher for cap reasons.

Three, of course it's conjecture. It's also conjecture to say that all things are in a holding pattern until otherwise announced. The simple fact is that teams who rise quicker than expected and who are pushing for a playoff spot have again and again made moves to get them over the hump. See NYI and Ryan Smith, or ATL and Keith Tkachuk. It's happened before, and history suggests it will happen again. It's conjecture, sure -- but then it's also conjecture that when I wake up tomorrow, the sun will rise again. We must all live with this philosophical uncertainty, alas.

Four, I do watch DAL play, being a big Morrow enthusiast. It's been painfully obvious ever since Zubov lost his step that DAL has needed a point-producing D. Robidas has never surpassed 26 points in his 10+ years in the NHL. He's a very handy player -- strong defensively, tough as nails, capable of putting up, say, Phillips-like offensive numbers -- but absolutely no one is going to mistake him for Brian Campbell. (And DAL's "decisive" victory over DET was a 3-1 game, where a sure-fire DET goal was wrongly called off. And in any event, Babcock's comments tell me more about the state of his own team, and DAL as a whole, than Robidas's offensive prowess.)

Five, I whole-heartedly agree. Why is it that you're jumping down my throat again?

Six, I take issue with the whole concept of a CHI-OTT thread, for all the issues listed above. And that in itself is a contribution to this discussion, as I'm trying to convince people of the futility of such speculation. CHI and OTT are not a good fit, for all the reasons I just listed. There are so many better options and better fits.

You've got this strange passive-aggressive thing going on, Dave, esp. whenever CHI enter the conversation, and it's very off-putting. Lots of smiles and winky faces and friendly addresses framing a bunch of scathing commentary on issues that aren't nearly as open-and-shut as you present them. Just saying.

rooneypoo wrote:You've got this strange passive-aggressive thing going on, Dave, esp. whenever CHI enter the conversation, and it's very off-putting. Lots of smiles and winky faces and friendly addresses framing a bunch of scathing commentary on issues that aren't nearly as open-and-shut as you present them. Just saying.

+1

We can all get along. If you want to say something, could you PM Dave and work it out?

SpezDispenser wrote:We can all get along. If you want to say something, could you PM Dave and work it out?

Plus none of this is giving us an idea of what we have to give up to get Soupy.

I think the guy you are looking at right now, at least from a Chicago perspective, would be Brent Sopel.

Chicago does not have to worry about the cap until next year, but waiting until too late can leave them in a pinch to get ripped off, or worse they might have to let people walk for nothing or waive them.

Chicago's not about to give away players that are helping them win just so they can prepare for next season. Moving any roster players for that matter when you are a playoff contender is a bad move. The purpose is to get better with addition, not subtraction.

Quite literally all they have to do is waive Sopel and Huet and they'll be comfortably under the cap.

If I was them, I'd be looking to add an "Anton Volchenkov", but I will not give you more than Beech and a 1st (and that's probably too much) - and you'll need to take Sopel so we stay below the salary cap.

That's why I thought Sopel's name was being thrown in here.

I will bet anyone who's interested, that the only way a player like Cam Barker goes during this season, is if an Anton Volchenkov is going the other way. They won't shed salary now the more I think about it. They've got such an easy out in the summer. Bowman just has to say "hey, I didn't sign Huet, I'm sorry this had to happen, but I want to move forward with my vision."