Murray likes the Sens post-Heatley trade

Dash wrote:Is it Elliott too good for a back-up role in Ottawa after basically splitting last season? Yes. Is he a number one elsewhere? I don't think so. And how you think Elliott for Sharp would even happen is crazy, yet alone for Seabrooke. That's just crazy.

Look at all the #2 or even #1b goalies out there that are as good or better than Elliott that could be available.

Elliott and a draft pick for Sharp depending on what happens with Huet, I can 100% see happening. Cheap contract and a borderline number 1 goaltender coming in for a guy that is probably going to get dealt anyways... perhaps.

How much worse if AT ALL is Elliott then Huet. I think Elliott is a better goaltender right now and will be the rest of his career and he basically makes league min.

Elliott is Chicago makes as much sense as A Train in Chicago. Now, if it happens or if it's fair, thats debatable, I think it's close personally.

Ottawa 100% doesnt have any real need to move Elliott for the sake of moving him, it's great having him back there. For Elliott to actually be moved you would need a guy like Sharp coming back or a top tier prospect, otherwise who cares, he's a perfect backup and the potential to be number 1. He's a piece other teams would want not a piece Ottawa wants to move, that's the difference here.

**** SHARP! WE NEED ****ING DEFENCEMEN!

Also, what happens if we acquire a guy like Sharp (which we won't) and then Leclaire goes down (*knock on wood*) which frankly I can't say isn't particularly likely. Are we going to compete with Mike Brodeur and our **** blue-line?

Keep Elliott around.

111519 wrote:i bet elliott and kelly would get kadri out of toronto right now....

I'd take that bet.

111519 wrote:i bet elliott and kelly would get kadri out of toronto right now....

i wouldn't want that even if possible.

Flo The Action wrote:

111519 wrote:i bet elliott and kelly would get kadri out of toronto right now....

i wouldn't want that even if possible.

Then you, sir, are nuts.

The only negative about Kadri is that he's a Toronto Maple Leaf.

I don't want to give up Elliott because he's too important as an insurance policy. But to get Kadri?

N4L wrote:

Dash wrote:Is it Elliott too good for a back-up role in Ottawa after basically splitting last season? Yes. Is he a number one elsewhere? I don't think so. And how you think Elliott for Sharp would even happen is crazy, yet alone for Seabrooke. That's just crazy.

Look at all the #2 or even #1b goalies out there that are as good or better than Elliott that could be available.

Elliott and a draft pick for Sharp depending on what happens with Huet, I can 100% see happening. Cheap contract and a borderline number 1 goaltender coming in for a guy that is probably going to get dealt anyways... perhaps.

How much worse if AT ALL is Elliott then Huet. I think Elliott is a better goaltender right now and will be the rest of his career and he basically makes league min.

Elliott is Chicago makes as much sense as A Train in Chicago. Now, if it happens or if it's fair, thats debatable, I think it's close personally.

Ottawa 100% doesnt have any real need to move Elliott for the sake of moving him, it's great having him back there. For Elliott to actually be moved you would need a guy like Sharp coming back or a top tier prospect, otherwise who cares, he's a perfect backup and the potential to be number 1. He's a piece other teams would want not a piece Ottawa wants to move, that's the difference here.

yeah i could see that happeing too but i thought chicago had good G prospects?

asq2 wrote:

Flo The Action wrote:

111519 wrote:i bet elliott and kelly would get kadri out of toronto right now....

i wouldn't want that even if possible.

Then you, sir, are nuts.

The only negative about Kadri is that he's a Toronto Maple Leaf.

I don't want to give up Elliott because he's too important as an insurance policy. But to get Kadri?

elliott is way to important to us in case leclaire is injured and i don't like kadri.

asq2 wrote:**** SHARP! WE NEED ****ING DEFENCEMEN!

Also, what happens if we acquire a guy like Sharp (which we won't) and then Leclaire goes down (*knock on wood*) which frankly I can't say isn't particularly likely. Are we going to compete with Mike Brodeur and our **** blue-line?

Keep Elliott around.

You would turn down an Elliott for Sharp deal?

N4L wrote:

asq2 wrote:**** SHARP! WE NEED ****ING DEFENCEMEN!

Also, what happens if we acquire a guy like Sharp (which we won't) and then Leclaire goes down (*knock on wood*) which frankly I can't say isn't particularly likely. Are we going to compete with Mike Brodeur and our **** blue-line?

Keep Elliott around.

You would turn down an Elliott for Sharp deal?

some things you can't turn down. sharp could also effectively replace kelly on the PK making kelly trade bait once again.

That's all Im saying. There is no reason to trade Elliott, but if Chicago said "we need a goalie, we like Elliott, Sharp is available, how bout it?" Ummmm, yes.

I would obviously trade Elliott for Sharp, then sign Fernandez or some other veteran free agent goalie, then move Picard/Campoli for one defenceman that helps us in both aspects of that zone.

N4L wrote:

asq2 wrote:**** SHARP! WE NEED ****ING DEFENCEMEN!

Also, what happens if we acquire a guy like Sharp (which we won't) and then Leclaire goes down (*knock on wood*) which frankly I can't say isn't particularly likely. Are we going to compete with Mike Brodeur and our **** blue-line?

Keep Elliott around.

You would turn down an Elliott for Sharp deal?

Primarily because it won't happen.

Secondly, because it's a move for the present but doesn't address the key issue on the team, while also making us walk a dangerous line with Leclaire's health.

Tons of backups around the league, if someone is willing to give Elliott the number 1 job and deal a good player that can help The Sens right now and in the future, you do it.

asq2 wrote:

N4L wrote:

asq2 wrote:**** SHARP! WE NEED ****ING DEFENCEMEN!

Also, what happens if we acquire a guy like Sharp (which we won't) and then Leclaire goes down (*knock on wood*) which frankly I can't say isn't particularly likely. Are we going to compete with Mike Brodeur and our **** blue-line?

Keep Elliott around.

You would turn down an Elliott for Sharp deal?

Primarily because it won't happen.

Secondly, because it's a move for the present but doesn't address the key issue on the team, while also making us walk a dangerous line with Leclaire's health.

Wasnt my point, but if you can do something like that, even if it is not an imidiate need, you obviously do.

I would think that if a bona fide, high quality top 6 forward was offered up for Elliott, Murray would be very tempted to bite. But, the likely hood of that is pretty low I think.

shabbs wrote:I would think that if a bona fide, high quality top 6 forward was offered up for Elliott, Murray would be very tempted to bite. But, the likely hood of that is pretty low I think.

Again, I look right at Chicago.

N4L wrote:

shabbs wrote:I would think that if a bona fide, high quality top 6 forward was offered up for Elliott, Murray would be very tempted to bite. But, the likely hood of that is pretty low I think.

Again, I look right at Chicago.

If I'm looking at Chicago, I'm looking at Barker before Sharp.

Barker's more of a PP specialist/puck mover, his defense is rubbish. Do we need another one of those guys? Granted Barker's offense makes up for any D deficiencies he has, but still, he won't be the answer to bringing this D together.

Sharp on the other hand....there's your successor to Alfie IMO. Can play in all situations, would become Michalek and Spezza's linemate for as long as we could afford to keep him, would really be a threat to score 35 goals on our top line, reasonable contract, leader. It's always been a dream of mine personally.

I totally understand what people are saying about D before offense though.