All Offseason Trades

That's very silly. So we could sign Wiercioch to a lower amount and trade him for a 5th instead of letting him walk? Or a team could offer a piece of Dung and sign Wiercioch to 800K?

Once traded the team doesn't have to sign him at the qualifying offer

Well, Diddle, as if Wiercioch doesn't have some value then. A 4th or 5th, come on...

PTFlea wrote:That's very silly.  So we could sign Wiercioch to a lower amount and trade him for a 5th instead of letting him walk?  Or a team could offer a piece of Dung and sign Wiercioch to 800K?

If they could do that with Chiasson and sign him for $800K then I don't see why not Wiercioch. Unless there is a rule as to how low that non-qualifying offer can be. I'd read something about a different kind of arbitration where you can try to reduce an RFA's QO. Maybe something like that is involved here.

Chiasson wasn't given a QO. He was signed before the deadline.

Oglethorpe wrote:Chiasson wasn't given a QO.  He was signed before the deadline.  

http://www.habseyesontheprize.com/2016/4/18/11414614/key-important-dates-calendar-nhl-off-season-summer-entry-draft-free-agent-agency-training-camp

The last day to qualify RFAs passed on Monday. If unqualified, they become UFAs on July 1st, so there is a window there after the QO deadline has passed but they are still not UFAs.

Once a QO has been extended (even if it is not accepted) the player will retain their "restricted" status. So Wiercioch can still be traded up until Friday.

I could have sworn that a while ago I read somewhere how the QO deadline was at 3PM but I can't find any such info now. Typically that's midnight but maybe not in this case.

I just can't figure out why, if the Sens could have traded Wiercioch and the receiving team did not need to match his $2.7M salary on his next contract, that they could not find a taker. The guy *is* a serviceable 3rd pairing puck mover and with the right partner could do well even on the 2nd pairing. IMO he is more valuable than Chiasson.

So if I'm getting it right we got an AHL D-man for Chiasson?

Wow... Chiasson might of not been the best forward we had but he was ok.

Flo The Action wrote:So if I'm getting it right we got an AHL D-man for Chiasson?

Wow... Chiasson might of not been the best forward we had but he was ok.

Certainly better than "DSP."

SeawaySensFan wrote:

Flo The Action wrote:So if I'm getting it right we got an AHL D-man for Chiasson?

Wow... Chiasson might of not been the best forward we had but he was ok.

Certainly better than "DSP."

Opens up room on the 4th line for Lazar.

Flo The Action wrote:So if I'm getting it right we got an AHL D-man for Chiasson?

Wow... Chiasson might of not been the best forward we had but he was ok.

He was not very OK either....and just goes to show you how fleeced we got on the spezza trade.  2 years later, I think we can all agree on it.

Only person remaining is Nick Paul.

Michallica wrote:

Flo The Action wrote:So if I'm getting it right we got an AHL D-man for Chiasson?

Wow... Chiasson might of not been the best forward we had but he was ok.

He was not very OK either....and just goes to show you how fleeced we got on the spezza trade.  2 years later, I think we can all agree on it.

Only person remaining is Nick Paul.

Yeah Chiasson wasn't spectacular but he seemed to start getting it by the end of the season. Might still find his game.

Yeah the Spezza trade was terrible but it was better than having him walk

What we should have done is hung on to him and traded him at the deadline if we were out of the playoffs. It gets to a point where letting a player go is the better option (how much money was spent on "developing" Chiasson and Guptill? Even Paul is far from a guarantee to make it on a regular basis. The mistake was in giving him the 'C'. Should have given it to Phillips and nobody -- NOBODY -- would have complained. A legacy player in his final year or two. If Spezza was going to be here for another 5-6 years he could have waited another couple years for the 'C', and if he wasn't then he would have been spared the embarrassment.

Michallica wrote:

Flo The Action wrote:So if I'm getting it right we got an AHL D-man for Chiasson?

Wow... Chiasson might of not been the best forward we had but he was ok.

He was not very OK either....and just goes to show you how fleeced we got on the spezza trade.  2 years later, I think we can all agree on it.

Only person remaining is Nick Paul.

And that guy we got for Chiasson.

wprager wrote:What we should have done is hung on to him and traded him at the deadline if we were out of the playoffs.  It gets to a point where letting a player go is the better option (how much money was spent on "developing" Chiasson and Guptill?  Even Paul is far from a guarantee to make it on a regular basis.  The mistake was in giving him the 'C'.  Should have given it to Phillips and nobody -- NOBODY -- would have complained.  A legacy player in his final year or two.  If Spezza was going to be here for another 5-6 years he could have waited another couple years for the 'C', and if he wasn't then he would have been spared the embarrassment.

Everyone would have complained even more if phillips had the C. Given to a player who could barely play anymore.

Could of gotten even less at the deadline, it might have been to the stars for a lesser package.

It would have been seen as a move to reward a legacy player and a short-term thing. I don't think any of the players would have had a problem with that.

Adam Larsson for Taylor Hall straight up. Cue all the people who assume that we could have swept in and made the same trade.

Horrific trade for Edmonton.

spader wrote:Adam Larsson for Taylor Hall straight up. Cue all the people who assume that we could have swept in and made the same trade.

Ceci + 2nd rounder might have worked....

Oiler fans are beside themselves but this pretty much means Lucic is signing with them. They needed a shutdown stable defenceman, now they got him. Could have gotten more though...