Should the A-Train make a one way trip out of town?

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

asq2 wrote:My point is that by trading Volchenkov for prospects, we're signalling that we have no intention of competing with the names I just mentioned. Alfredsson will be retired, Phillips and Kuba will be in the twilight of their careers if not retired, and Fisher will be an old guy by the time Cowen, Karlsson, Wiercioch and Lehner are capable of being the core of a contending team.

It would be more efficient to do a full re-build and trade those guys for future pieces as well. It would especially be a slap in the face to Alfredsson to move the A-Train: you're telling him he'll be spending the last few seasons of his career on a team with no intentions of being anything other than a bottom feeder while the kids develop.

That may be what's best for the team in the long run, but I'm not sure I'm prepared to do that (ie move Volchenkov) because we owe it to Alfredsson.

So are you suggesting Murray pick up some FAs in the mean time in order to be contenders until those prospects are core players so Alfie has a shot at the cup?

I'm suggesting that we not move Volchenkov. Partially it's because UFAs nowadays are becoming scarcer with these longer deals, and are all getting overpaid, so I don't see how to replace him that way.

I'm not suggesting that we move Karlsson for Kaberle and Elliott for Rafalski (not that that jives anymore, since Detroit's goaltending has been better of late) and Cowen for Niedermayer and Wiercioch for Ray Whitney, either. It's very, very unlikely that Alfredsson will win a Cup as a player on the Sens. But there's a huge difference between trying and intentionally being a bottom-feeder and re-building. He admitted himself that last season was probably the hardest for him in the NHL. Do you want to condemn him to three more years like that, in his final contract?

Now, moving Volchenkov on his own probably won't do that, but it's symbolic of differing attitudes. Certainly, moving Volchenkov isn't going to make us any better in the short-term.

N4L wrote:
As for owing it to Alfi, we owe him a cup for sure, but a lot of teams owed it to a guy to win a cup but it just isnt possible in Ottawa. Alfi will not win a cup in Ottawa, doesnt mean you have to trade him. You need him here for a rebuild just as much as you would need him here for a cup run. Thus I dont buy the "you have to trad everyone to truly rebuild"

Alfie will win a Cup with Ottawa, whether he be playing at the time or whether he be President at the time, he will win one here.

I still don't think we need to rebuild either, we need to rebuild our D though, that I do believe.

Dash wrote:Having , let's say, 3.5 million to spend elsewhere, like a legitimate #1 dman, is much better than spending another 3.5 (like Phillips) on a one-dimensional player. If you had a defence of all Volchenkovs and Phillips, you could expect maybe 12 goals total from your defence. We need a Cambpell, Boyle, Bouwmeester, Weber, Phaneuf, Burns, Pronger, Chara...

These guys don't just fall out of the sky. There's nobody out there that will magically sign with us with our cap space, especially since we'll be a dung team without him. Look no further than us signing an over-the-hill Kovalev to a $10 million deal for proof.

Anyway, Volchenkov is better than Phaneuf, better than Campbell and better than Burns this season.

He's contributed offensively, was an absolute behemoth on our penalty kill and makes our blue-line much more deep, given that we can then put an NHL-calibre defender in Kuba on the second pairing.

Dump Cheechoo in the minors, trade Kovalev away with incentives if need be. Again, if you're Chicago, do you let Keith walk because you've got Campbell?

There was a lot more going on in Ottawa last year then just losing, along with the year before. 1, his year started out with a knee opperation, then you have your 2nd fired coach in less then a year, Im sure the Heatley thing was well known in the locker room before anyone really knew for sure what was going on.

Losing like they did last year and losing while giving an effort and playing to the best of their abilities are two completely different things. Ill buy a ticket to a hard working team that's in every game and will lose more then they win.

N4L wrote:

asq2 wrote:Chris Kelly is a fourth line player earning $2.2 million. That's way above the price generally reserved for that role. Anyway, he's only been here since the lock-out.

Volchenkov is one of our top-pairing defenceman (I would say our number 1 this season) earning $2.5 million, which is way below the price generally reserved for that role. Even when we discuss $4 million, for the role he plays that's at best a fair salary for him.

While Kelly is entrenched in the team, he's significantly less of a key to our success.

I'm not particularly sure how moving Volchenkov creates a more balanced team, since defence is our worst attribute at the moment and he's one of only 3 top-4 calibre defencemen on the squad.

Unless, of course, you're talking about teams several years down the line, but then the same can equally be said of Alfredsson, Phillips, Kuba, Fisher, etc.

No way a player like A Train should be making more then 3.5. The guy isnt a game changer, he's a solid number 3, 4 guy and should be paid as such. Just because he MIGHT be the number 1 in Ottawa doesnt make him a number 1 defenseman.

Am I the only one remembering what this guy does on the penalty kill?

It's not like he's asking for $8 million a season and we're debating whether to give it to him. This guy is an absolute rock and we shouldn't trade him just because we're paying too much money to players with substantially less of a role like Neil and Kelly.

N4L wrote:There was a lot more going on in Ottawa last year then just losing, along with the year before. 1, his year started out with a knee opperation, then you have your 2nd fired coach in less then a year, Im sure the Heatley thing was well known in the locker room before anyone really knew for sure what was going on.

Losing like they did last year and losing while giving an effort and playing to the best of their abilities are two completely different things. Ill buy a ticket to a hard working team that's in every game and will lose more then they win.

That's seems contradictory to your willingness to trade the player who embodies hard work, self-sacrifice and team mentality.

It's not like he's Jason Smith, either, he's a damn good hockey player.

Also, while your point about Heatley is valid, I highly doubt Alfredsson wants to play out his final few years on a team with no intention of being anything more than a bottom feeder. He'd be better off retiring or playing somewhere else.

SensGirl11 wrote:

N4L wrote:
As for owing it to Alfi, we owe him a cup for sure, but a lot of teams owed it to a guy to win a cup but it just isnt possible in Ottawa. Alfi will not win a cup in Ottawa, doesnt mean you have to trade him. You need him here for a rebuild just as much as you would need him here for a cup run. Thus I dont buy the "you have to trad everyone to truly rebuild"

Alfie will win a Cup with Ottawa, whether he be playing at the time or whether he be President at the time, he will win one here.

I still don't think we need to rebuild either, we need to rebuild our D though, that I do believe.

Winning it as a player is a lot different then winning it as a part of managment. Def not the same. There isnt a Sens fan on the planet that doesnt want to see Alfi hoisting the cup, but it wont be as the captain.

Trading him in the last year of his contract is perhaps something that may happend but not with 3 years to go.

People seem to be really selling guys like Cowen and Karlsson really short. Even Lee is starting to turn things around. Cowen was supposed to be a top 5 overall pick before his injury and is showing why that is as the Captain of Spokane. Karlsson, Cowen and maybe even Lee (If he continues to improve) should all have an impact on D next season. We still have Leclaire and Elliott so Lehner shouldn't even enter the conversation. Weircioch doesn't need to be on the team for this D to be good as early as next season. I think if A-Train is traded it sends one or a combination of the following as a message:

A - Volchie wanted too much money

B - Cowen is ready to step in and be an impact player

C - Ottawa has no chance of making the playoffs and the return in a trade was too good to turn down

When I say a blue chip prospect for A train I mean someone who could likely step in to the top six next season and be an impact player not someone who will develop in the system for 2 or 3 years and the hopefully with some luck he'll be a top six forward.

asq2 wrote:

N4L wrote:

asq2 wrote:Chris Kelly is a fourth line player earning $2.2 million. That's way above the price generally reserved for that role. Anyway, he's only been here since the lock-out.

Volchenkov is one of our top-pairing defenceman (I would say our number 1 this season) earning $2.5 million, which is way below the price generally reserved for that role. Even when we discuss $4 million, for the role he plays that's at best a fair salary for him.

While Kelly is entrenched in the team, he's significantly less of a key to our success.

I'm not particularly sure how moving Volchenkov creates a more balanced team, since defence is our worst attribute at the moment and he's one of only 3 top-4 calibre defencemen on the squad.

Unless, of course, you're talking about teams several years down the line, but then the same can equally be said of Alfredsson, Phillips, Kuba, Fisher, etc.

No way a player like A Train should be making more then 3.5. The guy isnt a game changer, he's a solid number 3, 4 guy and should be paid as such. Just because he MIGHT be the number 1 in Ottawa doesnt make him a number 1 defenseman.

Am I the only one remembering what this guy does on the penalty kill?

It's not like he's asking for $8 million a season and we're debating whether to give it to him. This guy is an absolute rock and we shouldn't trade him just because we're paying too much money to players with substantially less of a role like Neil and Kelly.

What's the difference between A Train and Jay Mckee, honestly? It's not 3 million dollars. I love A Train as a player but he is limited in what he can do. EDIT Im not saying Vulchi isnt a better player then Mckee, just not 3 million dollars better.

Just because A Train is a hard worker and sacrafices the body doesnt mean other guys dont or shouldnt. A Train leaving The Sens wouldnt change the dynamic of the team all that much in the short term and defently not the long term.

Am I gonna complain or question anything if A Train is resgined? Hell no, I'll be as happy as anyone, all I am saying is trading A Train is a possibility and a good one IMO if things go down hill in Ottawa and there is an offer made that makes a lot of sense for Murray.

Cap'n Clutch wrote:People seem to be really selling guys like Cowen and Karlsson really short. Even Lee is starting to turn things around. Cowen was supposed to be a top 5 overall pick before his injury and is showing why that is as the Captain of Spokane. Karlsson, Cowen and maybe even Lee (If he continues to improve) should all have an impact on D next season. We still have Leclaire and Elliott so Lehner shouldn't even enter the conversation. Weircioch doesn't need to be on the team for this D to be good as early as next season. I think if A-Train is traded it sends one or a combination of the following as a message:

A - Volchie wanted too much money

B - Cowen is ready to step in and be an impact player

C - Ottawa has no chance of making the playoffs and the return in a trade was too good to turn down

When I say a blue chip prospect for A train I mean someone who could likely step in to the top six next season and be an impact player not someone who will develop in the system for 2 or 3 years and the hopefully with some luck he'll be a top six forward.

I'd imagine I've watched them play more than 95% (if not all) of the posters on this site. Defencemen take a while to develop, unless they're Doughties, Bogosians, or Johnsons. Even Schenn took a step back this season.

Cowen is arguably a prospect of or close to that calibre (definitely on a par with Schenn, anyway), so there's a good chance he could step in and have a decent impact. Karlsson and Wiercioch will take longer because they're not at NHL-calibre weight and Karlsson's D is still a work in progress.

However, I think this season, especially since Kuba and Volchenkov have been alternatively down, has proven that you need more than one or two solid defencemen to compete. That Cowen and Karlsson and to a lesser extent Wiercioch are on the verge of being integrated/have already begun being integrated onto the NHL squad is all the more reason to re-sign Volchenkov, because we can try to compete whilst taking advantage of their rookie salaries.

You re-sign Volchenkov, and you have:

Phillips - top-4 offensive defenceman if available (or Lee)
Cowen - Volchenkov
Kuba - Karlsson
*Carkner

That's not an overwhelming blue-line, but it's much more competitive and deep than it is this season and Cowen and Karlsson are integrated and playing with capable, experienced partners.

People talk about Volchenkov asking for too much money but I highly doubt he'll wind up with more than $4 million, or at the very worst $4.5 million. That's only a $1.5-2 million raise. Why has nobody addressed the idea of moving salary up front? We've got replaceable guys like Ruutu, Neil and Kelly earning significant coin, and under-achievers like Kovalev and Cheechoo earning big coin as well.

The money differential between our forwards and our defence is outrageous. Spezza and Kovalev earn more than our entire regular blue-line combined. It'd be good to pay someone like Volchenkov some coin because it would be symbolic of a desire to create a more balanced roster.

You can talk about the length of the deal, which is definitely where the downsides come in, but by then Kuba's no longer on the payroll, and later in the deal, if necessary, it's easier to buy him out. Also, if you're seriously concerned with the lack of forward prospects, we've got three picks in the first two rounds this season.

I just think there are so many better solutions to our problems than trading Volchenkov.

I would rather have A Train then Kuba if that is the actual choice. 3.7 for A Train over 3.7 for Kuba, yes. Again though, it all comes down to numbers, the circumstances going forward, and so on.

Kuba's deal runs out in two seasons after this one. He'll be 35 and you can just let him walk.

Either way, Im no saying to trade A Train but it could happen. A lot depends on how they do once he's back in the lineup and what he's asking for.

Obviously. I'm just saying that from the evidence that we've received thus far, it doesn't make sense to trade Volchie unless you want to do a full re-build.

To be perfectly honest if we're not contenders I'd prefer to take the Pittsburgh Penguins route to success by sucking arse for 2 or 3 years and picking up players in the draft that are close to the calibre of Malkin, Crosby and J. Staal. I do realize that will never happen here in Ottawa so lets keep on tinkering and tweaking in hopes of the right mix.

asq2 wrote:Obviously. I'm just saying that from the evidence that we've received thus far, it doesn't make sense to trade Volchie unless you want to do a full re-build.

Well it also doesnt make sense to sign Vulchankov for 5 years at 4.5 mil. Again, there are a lot of scenario's that have to play out along with what the desires are of the team and player.

If A Train asked for what Komiserek got, I would let him walk. I dont think he's a 4 million dollar D man.

It also won't happen because players the calibre of Crosby and Malkin are generational and not found in most drafts. Hall is a terrific player, but definitely a cut below at least.

If you do want to do that (and we did it before, with less successful results coming from Yashin and Daigle), though, then we're moving most of our blue-line, Alfredsson, Fisher, and maybe even Spezza.

I don't see that happening either.

asq2 wrote:
People talk about Volchenkov asking for too much money but I highly doubt he'll wind up with more than $4 million, or at the very worst $4.5 million. That's only a $1.5-2 million raise. Why has nobody addressed the idea of moving salary up front? We've got replaceable guys like Ruutu, Neil and Kelly earning significant coin, and under-achievers like Kovalev and Cheechoo earning big coin as well.

The money differential between our forwards and our defence is outrageous. Spezza and Kovalev earn more than our entire regular blue-line combined. It'd be good to pay someone like Volchenkov some coin because it would be symbolic of a desire to create a more balanced roster.

You can talk about the length of the deal, which is definitely where the downsides come in, but by then Kuba's no longer on the payroll, and later in the deal, if necessary, it's easier to buy him out. Also, if you're seriously concerned with the lack of forward prospects, we've got three picks in the first two rounds this season.

I just think there are so many better solutions to our problems than trading Volchenkov.

That's exactly it. When it comes to this discussion, both you and N4L raise differing but equally valid points. The logic behind trading him, given a set of assumptions about the state of this team, has definite merit. That being said, the logic behind re-signing him and shedding some unnecessary salary from the forward ranks is very strong.

Before he got injured, Volchenkov was our best defender. It wasn't a question. He was making smarter plays in all three zones than any of the others and leading all of them in virtually every statistical category. Additionally, we've gone in the tank since his injury and we've now fallen well behind the Conference leaders. While we may not be a true contender in the East, we certainly boast a roster that should be in the upper echelon of teams in the Eastern Conference.

When you look at our salary structure for strictly next season, we have almost 35 million tied-up in just 9 forwards; we also have 3 RFA's most of us would like to hold on to and 2 UFA's who can take the spot of someone already signed for that season (Shannon for Cheechoo and Donovan for Ruutu). Our defense, on the other hand, has a an overwhelming 8 million tied-up in 3 players, with a additional 2+ likely to be added to the squad in the form of our two prized rookies. That leaves 1-2 slot(s) open for an additional player to round out the D-corps. We have 1 UFA and 3 RFA's. The hierarchy for priority re-signings is debatable, but the 1st slot is not---we all know Volchenkov is more important to this team now and in the future than any of Lee, Campoli, or Picard; in all likelihood, we can get all three of them on 2-way contracts, but if one holds out we can just tell him to go Diddle himself.

Add in goalies and we've got approximately 46-47 million tied-in to 9 F, 5 D, and 2 G. That leaves us almost 10M for 3-4 forwards and 1-2 D. Obviously we all know to look a little further down the line than that, but thats the financial snapshot for next season. At worst (best) players like Regin, Lee, and Foligno have solid seasons and we have to fork over 3M to each of them. Add in Winchester and Smith at 1M total and there's your 10M.

So what do we do? Buy out Cheechoo? Thats 2M saved. Trade Ruutu? With the replacement player, that somewhere in the $500,000 range. Trade/buy-out Kelly? That's another 1.5-2.2M to add in, minus the cost of his replacement.

The question is: Are we a better team with Volchenkov---and for the sake of argument, let's say Winchester, Smith, and Bass---than we are with Cheechoo, Ruutu, and Kelly, plus a downgrade, Volchie replacement?

Imo the value of those 3 tradeables shouldn't be underestimated, but it still doesn't match what Volchenkov brings to the table. He is far less replaceable than any of the three we would have to move to afford him. And the year after, Kovalev comes off the books, which immediately frees up the money Volchenkov's contract will take up, plus...