Small Trade! (Rumour no more)

rooneypoo wrote:I'm not sure I follow. Khabby and Gerber are both in contract years, and you say yourself that the talent difference between the two is marginal... so how will the fact that it's a contract year motivate one mediocre goalie when it won't the other? Why doesn't the logic apply to both equally?

Personally, I want nothing to do with Khabby and his enormous price tag. Cut it in half and we'll talk. Until then, it's a non-starter in my mind.

Agreed. Even then I don't really see any reason to take Khabibulin over Gerber unless he is actually better. Lehtonen on the other hand.......

504Heater wrote:

Oh...I dunno. He used to be such a prolific scorer that I guess Murray's hoping an invite to play with Fish, Vermette, Spezza, Heatley and Alf breathes new life into him.

I like it a lot. It gives us a true top six and allows for Foligno to learn more with Kelly in a checking line before taking the plunge. Plus...gives us nice callups for when injuries strike.

I like the NHL experience up there - and I think at 1.5 million (or less hopefully!), this guy could turn out to be one of the best pickups of the summer.

Or he could suck. :D

For $1.5 mil or so, I have to admit that it would be hard to pass up. G. Murray will never play a full season again because of injuries, but I think he's still good for 65 games and 45-50 points, especially when paired with legitimate top-6 players.

I worry a lot about what it would mean for our young guys, tho'.

Acrobat wrote:Sorry for the excess verbage above...
got carried away...

Bah. No need to apologize. I mean, have you seen some of my posts? :D

PKC wrote:

Agreed. Even then I don't really see any reason to take Khabibulin over Gerber unless he is actually better. Lehtonen on the other hand.......

Say no more, friend. I've been on the Lehtonen bus for months now. Heck, I think I may be the one driving it. 8)

The only reason I'm not full on the bus is because I know there is pretty much no chance of acquiring him without paying an arm, a leg, two livers, half a lung, and a working heart.

Also interesting to note that nhlscap.com doesn't have Picard listed at all on the team, but Ryan Shannon is already in the minors' section.

PKC wrote:The only reason I'm not full on the bus is because I know there is pretty much no chance of acquiring him without paying an arm, a leg, two livers, half a lung, and a working heart.

Or, you might be surprised how easily attainable he is. Does Atlanta want Hedman or Tavares, or do they want the 5th overall. There's definitely a difference.

We have two 1st Rounders to dangle for Kari too......

504Heater wrote:

PKC wrote:The only reason I'm not full on the bus is because I know there is pretty much no chance of acquiring him without paying an arm, a leg, two livers, half a lung, and a working heart.

Or, you might be surprised how easily attainable he is. Does Atlanta want Hedman or Tavares, or do they want the 5th overall. There's definitely a difference.

I think they want to make the playoffs to be honest. Even though it seems slightly unrealistic, they still NEED to make the playoffs for so many different reasons.

PKC wrote:
I think they want to make the playoffs to be honest. Even though it seems slightly unrealistic, they still NEED to make the playoffs for so many different reasons.

I can ruin that fairy tale by telling them the ending.

"We wanted more defencemen and we wanted guys who could play NHL games, so we made the move," Gillis explained. "We've been following Nycholat for the last month or so and when the Andrej Meszaros trade happened, Nycholat became expendable in Ottawa"

Nycholat, 29, figures to help anchor the Manitoba Moose blue line along with fellow veteran Nolan Baumgartner. He is on a one-way contract for $550,000 but it's believed the Moose will pay part of his salary if he winds up in Winnipeg.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/sports/canucks/story.html?id=f38e7dbb-5312-4bd0-82ed-330bca6d01a2

Poor Lawrence. That hurts for him. A lot.

Money Farmer wrote:We have two 1st Rounders to dangle for Kari too......

Would you spend those on Lehtonen?

Acrobat wrote:
I have had to do a fair bit of learning about goalies and goaltending because my 10-yr old son has taken up goaltending (much to my dismay...why do some people take pleasure in stopping frozen pieces of rubber with their body parts? Especially their head?)

A year ago, after watching pre-season games where both Elliot and Price were in, the one thing I can say is that both are very mobile, and both move exceptionally well. I have heard a lot of people say that Elliot has the potential to be like Price; I don't doubt it. His speed across the net, his vision of the play, his anticipation were all excellent. I didn't see a significant drop-off (there was a slight difference, but it was small) when you compared Elliot to Price - keep in mind that when I saw Price up close, it was just as he was breaking in to the NHL, though. What I found interesting was that Elliot actually seemed a bit more confident when he was handling the puck. He did have a few miscues with misplaying angles and such, but nothing major. I didn't see anything acrobatic however - it was all very technical, very precise, very "by the book" (my son has done camps with Eli Wilson, and it was exactly the way Wilson teaches - almost no improvisation at all; kind of freaky actually, like watching a "how-to" video)

All in all, to my inexperienced eye, I'd have to say that Elliot does look like he has the potential. It comes down to how much Eli can mold that raw talent. But you are right, we may already have our top ten (or top five) goalie.

Very, very cool read. I noticed his lateral movement at development camp and also that when he was scored on, he shook it off, got back up and got back into net. Good head on his shoulders for a goalie. Very poised. Very cool.

Great read. This should seriously be in here:

http://gmcentralhockey.sosblog.com/Members-Blog-b2.htm

You really should write it up as a blog. Or at least give it's own thread.

rooneypoo wrote:

Acrobat wrote:I really wonder if he adds that much more that what we already have. Couldn't we spend the $1.5-2.5M somewhere better (say, perhaps, Gerber, Neil, and a pick for Khabibulin, Barker, and a first?)

As much as I don't think Khabibulin is all that much better, he is in a contract year, so he has the incentive to kick it up a notch, whereas Gerber may not be able to do so.

I'm not sure I follow. Khabby and Gerber are both in contract years, and you say yourself that the talent difference between the two is marginal... so how will the fact that it's a contract year motivate one mediocre goalie when it won't the other? Why doesn't the logic apply to both equally?

Personally, I want nothing to do with Khabby and his enormous price tag. Cut it in half and we'll talk. Until then, it's a non-starter in my mind.

Poor wording on my part.

I should have stated "the performance" is minimally different; Khabibulin has demonstrated that he can be phenomenal (admittedly, he can pull boners like the best of them too.) I also won't deny that Gerber has talent; in fact I think that we have yet to see Gerber's best in the NHL. It may have been what we saw at the WC against Team Canada.

I agree that the price tag is ugly. But Chicago needs to dump him, and desparately. So maybe, we can move someone in addition to Gerber (McAmmond? Neil?) and grab someone cheap or a draft pick. I am assuming here that Chicago would have a deal in place to flip Gerber - there's no way I want both on the books.

But here's the options (and I'll try to present them fairly):

1. Gamble on a scorer that might return to form, and, if he stays healthy enough to play more than 55-60 games, score 15-20 goals more than your already league-leading total. This will have little impact on overall team dynamic, given the players already brought in, however it may crowd out some of the young guns looking for a spot;

2. Gamble on a goalie that might return to prior form, and steal a few extra games that you might not have otherwise won, but who is otherwise no worse than what you already have. Given the lack of confidence the team has shown in goaltending in the past, this may (no promises) increase the confidence of the defense and forwards in their breakouts, and improve overall play (or it may all be media hype);

3. Go with the status quo, and hope that your forwards, including the young guns, as well as the goalies (Gerber, Auld, Elliot) can all withstand the media onslaught.

IMHO, the third is the default option.
The return on #1 is minimal. Winning 7-4 is no better than 6-4.

Last year, it all fell apart when our goaltending situation went to pot. Option 2 addresses that, both on the ice, and mentally.

504Heater wrote:

Acrobat wrote:
I have had to do a fair bit of learning about goalies and goaltending because my 10-yr old son has taken up goaltending (much to my dismay...why do some people take pleasure in stopping frozen pieces of rubber with their body parts? Especially their head?)

A year ago, after watching pre-season games where both Elliot and Price were in, the one thing I can say is that both are very mobile, and both move exceptionally well. I have heard a lot of people say that Elliot has the potential to be like Price; I don't doubt it. His speed across the net, his vision of the play, his anticipation were all excellent. I didn't see a significant drop-off (there was a slight difference, but it was small) when you compared Elliot to Price - keep in mind that when I saw Price up close, it was just as he was breaking in to the NHL, though. What I found interesting was that Elliot actually seemed a bit more confident when he was handling the puck. He did have a few miscues with misplaying angles and such, but nothing major. I didn't see anything acrobatic however - it was all very technical, very precise, very "by the book" (my son has done camps with Eli Wilson, and it was exactly the way Wilson teaches - almost no improvisation at all; kind of freaky actually, like watching a "how-to" video)

All in all, to my inexperienced eye, I'd have to say that Elliot does look like he has the potential. It comes down to how much Eli can mold that raw talent. But you are right, we may already have our top ten (or top five) goalie.

Very, very cool read. I noticed his lateral movement at development camp and also that when he was scored on, he shook it off, got back up and got back into net. Good head on his shoulders for a goalie. Very poised. Very cool.

Great read. This should seriously be in here:

http://gmcentralhockey.sosblog.com/Members-Blog-b2.htm

You really should write it up as a blog. Or at least give it's own thread.

I think that's the second one I've poured out tonight - perhaps just a mood I'm in.
Or perhaps just avoiding work.

Can it be cut and pasted?

Acrobat wrote:

504Heater wrote:

Acrobat wrote:
I have had to do a fair bit of learning about goalies and goaltending because my 10-yr old son has taken up goaltending (much to my dismay...why do some people take pleasure in stopping frozen pieces of rubber with their body parts? Especially their head?)

A year ago, after watching pre-season games where both Elliot and Price were in, the one thing I can say is that both are very mobile, and both move exceptionally well. I have heard a lot of people say that Elliot has the potential to be like Price; I don't doubt it. His speed across the net, his vision of the play, his anticipation were all excellent. I didn't see a significant drop-off (there was a slight difference, but it was small) when you compared Elliot to Price - keep in mind that when I saw Price up close, it was just as he was breaking in to the NHL, though. What I found interesting was that Elliot actually seemed a bit more confident when he was handling the puck. He did have a few miscues with misplaying angles and such, but nothing major. I didn't see anything acrobatic however - it was all very technical, very precise, very "by the book" (my son has done camps with Eli Wilson, and it was exactly the way Wilson teaches - almost no improvisation at all; kind of freaky actually, like watching a "how-to" video)

All in all, to my inexperienced eye, I'd have to say that Elliot does look like he has the potential. It comes down to how much Eli can mold that raw talent. But you are right, we may already have our top ten (or top five) goalie.

Very, very cool read. I noticed his lateral movement at development camp and also that when he was scored on, he shook it off, got back up and got back into net. Good head on his shoulders for a goalie. Very poised. Very cool.

Great read. This should seriously be in here:

http://gmcentralhockey.sosblog.com/Members-Blog-b2.htm

You really should write it up as a blog. Or at least give it's own thread.

I think that's the second one I've poured out tonight - perhaps just a mood I'm in.
Or perhaps just avoiding work.

Can it be cut and pasted?

For sure. Just cut it and paste in the member's blog area.

Acrobat wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

Acrobat wrote:I really wonder if he adds that much more that what we already have. Couldn't we spend the $1.5-2.5M somewhere better (say, perhaps, Gerber, Neil, and a pick for Khabibulin, Barker, and a first?)

As much as I don't think Khabibulin is all that much better, he is in a contract year, so he has the incentive to kick it up a notch, whereas Gerber may not be able to do so.

I'm not sure I follow. Khabby and Gerber are both in contract years, and you say yourself that the talent difference between the two is marginal... so how will the fact that it's a contract year motivate one mediocre goalie when it won't the other? Why doesn't the logic apply to both equally?

Personally, I want nothing to do with Khabby and his enormous price tag. Cut it in half and we'll talk. Until then, it's a non-starter in my mind.

Poor wording on my part.

I should have stated "the performance" is minimally different; Khabibulin has demonstrated that he can be phenomenal (admittedly, he can pull boners like the best of them too.) I also won't deny that Gerber has talent; in fact I think that we have yet to see Gerber's best in the NHL. It may have been what we saw at the WC against Team Canada.

I agree that the price tag is ugly. But Chicago needs to dump him, and desparately. So maybe, we can move someone in addition to Gerber (McAmmond? Neil?) and grab someone cheap or a draft pick. I am assuming here that Chicago would have a deal in place to flip Gerber - there's no way I want both on the books.

But here's the options (and I'll try to present them fairly):

1. Gamble on a scorer that might return to form, and, if he stays healthy enough to play more than 55-60 games, score 15-20 goals more than your already league-leading total. This will have little impact on overall team dynamic, given the players already brought in, however it may crowd out some of the young guns looking for a spot;

2. Gamble on a goalie that might return to prior form, and steal a few extra games that you might not have otherwise won, but who is otherwise no worse than what you already have. Given the lack of confidence the team has shown in goaltending in the past, this may (no promises) increase the confidence of the defense and forwards in their breakouts, and improve overall play (or it may all be media hype);

3. Go with the status quo, and hope that your forwards, including the young guns, as well as the goalies (Gerber, Auld, Elliot) can all withstand the media onslaught.

IMHO, the third is the default option.
The return on #1 is minimal. Winning 7-4 is no better than 6-4.

Last year, it all fell apart when our goaltending situation went to pot. Option 2 addresses that, both on the ice, and mentally.

I watched every single Sens game last year, yes, even when we played god-awful for the last 2 1/2 months. Gerber had absolutely nothing to do with what happened, nothinig at all; in fact, he was head and shoulders our best player down the regular season stretch, which is not to say he was stellar but that his average to decent play stood out against all the god-awful play going on around him. Martin Brodeur or Roberto Lunogo would have looked just as bad playing behind that team. We imploded, and that implosion had little or nothing to do with Gerber. To pin that on him, if that is indeed what you're implying -- but perhaps you just mean the Emery situation in general? and if so, well, he's gone now -- is to seriously misrepresent what happened last year.

If Gerber can play anything like he did in the second half of the season, he will be able to provide the average goaltending that we would probably get from Khabby, except he'd come at half the price and miss less games due to injury. I'm no big fan of Gerber, but I just don't think Khabby is much of an upgrade (if at all) at twice the price. Khabby is now 5 years removed from his best hockey; I don't see him rekindling the fire now.

I wonder after this trade if Murray has something else bigger in the works still. We do have the assets to make a move for a quality D-man or Goalie. Especially if the rumer is true that Glen Murray has been invited to camp. Does the addition of Shannon to the team push another prospect out the door, or to add depth, or package him along with Schubert or Gerber, and a vet forward (Neil/McAmmond) for a quality D-man or Goalie....HMMMMM training camp is looking like its going to be very interesting this year.