Would you trade these guys all in one package?

N4L wrote:Ya, pass on a player The Sens actually need as much as if not more then most guys on the team. Campbell is exactly the player The Sens need on the point to put them over in The East.

I'd pass on him purely from a contract stand point. 7.1 million for 6 more years at which time he is going to be 35 or so. Short term he is a good fit but long term we get bogged down. Will he still be preforming well in a couple of years time is my biggest worry. If he is hard to move now can you imagine in a couple of years if he goes on the decline. I'd be curious to see what other options are available first. Clearly its a very high risk vs reward scenario.

Why does no one ever comment on Gonchar? He won't be asking for more than Campbell and he's just as good (better IMO).

SpezDispenser wrote:Why does no one ever comment on Gonchar? He won't be asking for more than Campbell and he's just as good (better IMO).

Gonchar is worrisome due to age and possibly declining skills.

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:Why does no one ever comment on Gonchar? He won't be asking for more than Campbell and he's just as good (better IMO).

Gonchar is worrisome due to age and possibly declining skills.

Eh. Campbell's only a year removed from an poor season himself.

I'd prefer Gonchar if we could sign him to a short contract. He'd essentially be a stop-gap for Wiercioch as the secondary puck-mover behind Karlsson. Plus, he wouldn't cost any assets to acquire (apart from $).

If he's looking for a long-term deal, then it'd be an issue. But it's the same with Campbell; he just makes so much money for such a long time. He'd be the highest-paid player on the team.

I'd rather sign a Gonchar or Z. Michalek than trade for Campbell.

asq2 wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:Why does no one ever comment on Gonchar? He won't be asking for more than Campbell and he's just as good (better IMO).

Gonchar is worrisome due to age and possibly declining skills.

Eh. Campbell's only a year removed from an poor season himself.

I'd prefer Gonchar if we could sign him to a short contract. He'd essentially be a stop-gap for Wiercioch as the secondary puck-mover behind Karlsson. Plus, he wouldn't cost any assets to acquire (apart from $).

If he's looking for a long-term deal, then it'd be an issue. But it's the same with Campbell; he just makes so much money for such a long time. He'd be the highest-paid player on the team.

I'd rather sign a Gonchar or Z. Michalek than trade for Campbell.

Agreed! Soupy it is!!!

Cap'n Clutch wrote:
Gonchar is worrisome due to age and possibly declining skills.

His declining skills still put him at the top of the league though. His age and the fact that he's been knocked around recently are worrisome, but I wouldn't hesitate for one second signing him to a 3 year, 21 million dollar deal.

We all desperately need to realize that you can't magically put a left-handed D-man on the right side without problems. That's why sometimes this is a lot harder than it looks.

Yes, Michalek is right handed and that works like a charm. Campbell is replacing Kuba, so we're good there, but it's guys for the right side that will end up being the issue.

Right handed guys currently under contract:

1.Erik Karlsson
2.Brian Lee
3.Matt Carkner
4.Eric Gryba

In the pipeline:
Chris Wideman

In other words, we have one amazing right sider and one stdeady, third pairing righty (Carkner) and Brian Lee and Eric Gryba.

There's where the issue lies.

asq2 wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:Why does no one ever comment on Gonchar? He won't be asking for more than Campbell and he's just as good (better IMO).

Gonchar is worrisome due to age and possibly declining skills.

Eh. Campbell's only a year removed from an poor season himself.

I'd prefer Gonchar if we could sign him to a short contract. He'd essentially be a stop-gap for Wiercioch as the secondary puck-mover behind Karlsson. Plus, he wouldn't cost any assets to acquire (apart from $).

If he's looking for a long-term deal, then it'd be an issue. But it's the same with Campbell; he just makes so much money for such a long time. He'd be the highest-paid player on the team.

I'd rather sign a Gonchar or Z. Michalek than trade for Campbell.

No shot I would rather have Michalek over Campbell. Again, Campbell brings another dimension to The Sens that they have never had before and in The East he would put up way better numbers then in The West.

As for aquirering him, I would hardly say he would cost a lot of assets or at least any of value to The Sens or Murray. I like Campbell as a player and think at this point better then both players you mentioned.

Phoenix30 wrote:

N4L wrote:Ya, pass on a player The Sens actually need as much as if not more then most guys on the team. Campbell is exactly the player The Sens need on the point to put them over in The East.

I'd pass on him purely from a contract stand point. 7.1 million for 6 more years at which time he is going to be 35 or so. Short term he is a good fit but long term we get bogged down. Will he still be preforming well in a couple of years time is my biggest worry. If he is hard to move now can you imagine in a couple of years if he goes on the decline. I'd be curious to see what other options are available first. Clearly its a very high risk vs reward scenario.

Campbell's game may very well be better at 35 then it was at 25, a lot better. His game is based on speed and with the expierence he has gained in a ton of playoff seasons now along with his 23 mins a night, he's a good fit. I dont buy the he will be on the down turn of his career when he hits his mid 30's. Hell, it can be argued a D man's best years are not until he hits 32, 33 years old. Go down the list of Norris winners and see how old they are when they win the award... this year is an exception to that rule.

It's not a high risk because you know exactly what you are getting, a 40 plus point guy who plays a ton of mins and runs a good PP. People focus on that contract way more then they focus on the actual needs of The Sens. Besides Karlsson look at how little offense came from the blueline this year, practically none. Campbell changes that from the second he lands in Ottawa.

SpezDispenser wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:
Gonchar is worrisome due to age and possibly declining skills.

His declining skills still put him at the top of the league though. His age and the fact that he's been knocked around recently are worrisome, but I wouldn't hesitate for one second signing him to a 3 year, 21 million dollar deal.

Oof, no that's way too much IMO.

N4L wrote:No shot I would rather have Michalek over Campbell. Again, Campbell brings another dimension to The Sens that they have never had before and in The East he would put up way better numbers then in The West.

Eh, we've seen him in the East already. He broke 50 points once (though, in actuality, he broke the number in San Jose) which is pretty solid, but not $7+ million solid when his defensive play is, at best, average.

You've stated that defencemen tend to get better after 30, and I agree with you, but the issue with Campbell is IMO that he's primarily a puck-rushing defenceman, rather than a passing one. So, if he gets any kind of lower-body injury trouble - and I guess it's a testament to him that he hasn't thus far - his effectiveness will probably be much more limited.

SpezDispenser wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:
Gonchar is worrisome due to age and possibly declining skills.

His declining skills still put him at the top of the league though. His age and the fact that he's been knocked around recently are worrisome, but I wouldn't hesitate for one second signing him to a 3 year, 21 million dollar deal.

if pitts don't re-sign him he won't get 7 mill for 3 years. IMO he gets TOPS 5-5.5 a season.

SpezDispenser wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:
Gonchar is worrisome due to age and possibly declining skills.

His declining skills still put him at the top of the league though. His age and the fact that he's been knocked around recently are worrisome, but I wouldn't hesitate for one second signing him to a 3 year, 21 million dollar deal.

I like Gonch a lot too Spez, but we'd be regretting that contract by year 2.

SDH89 wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:
Gonchar is worrisome due to age and possibly declining skills.

His declining skills still put him at the top of the league though. His age and the fact that he's been knocked around recently are worrisome, but I wouldn't hesitate for one second signing him to a 3 year, 21 million dollar deal.

I like Gonch a lot too Spez, but we'd be regretting that contract by year 2.

quite possibly... that's a lot of money for a guy that might spend half a year injured.

SDH89 wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:
Gonchar is worrisome due to age and possibly declining skills.

His declining skills still put him at the top of the league though. His age and the fact that he's been knocked around recently are worrisome, but I wouldn't hesitate for one second signing him to a 3 year, 21 million dollar deal.

I like Gonch a lot too Spez, but we'd be regretting that contract by year 2.

You think? I dunno, maybe because he's getting old, but you could literally march the guy out for PPs only and he'd still get 60 points. Talk about a lethal puck mover, but yes, his age is an issue I suppose.

Flo The Action wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:
Gonchar is worrisome due to age and possibly declining skills.

His declining skills still put him at the top of the league though. His age and the fact that he's been knocked around recently are worrisome, but I wouldn't hesitate for one second signing him to a 3 year, 21 million dollar deal.

if pitts don't re-sign him he won't get 7 mill for 3 years. IMO he gets TOPS 5-5.5 a season.

Wow, really... What a bargain 5-5.5 would be for Gonchar - a guy who had 50 points in 60 games this year. Don't let the stats fool you, he's a PP QB of the highest accord. What I would do to get him on our team for 5 million bucks...whew.

Plus, you rejuvenate Kovalev instantly. He's interested like nothing you've ever seen on the PP. Same with Spez and Alfie. Just mayhem with Karlsson and the Gonch feeding them.

asq2 wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:
Gonchar is worrisome due to age and possibly declining skills.

His declining skills still put him at the top of the league though. His age and the fact that he's been knocked around recently are worrisome, but I wouldn't hesitate for one second signing him to a 3 year, 21 million dollar deal.

Oof, no that's way too much IMO.

N4L wrote:No shot I would rather have Michalek over Campbell. Again, Campbell brings another dimension to The Sens that they have never had before and in The East he would put up way better numbers then in The West.

Eh, we've seen him in the East already. He broke 50 points once (though, in actuality, he broke the number in San Jose) which is pretty solid, but not $7+ million solid when his defensive play is, at best, average.

You've stated that defencemen tend to get better after 30, and I agree with you, but the issue with Campbell is IMO that he's primarily a puck-rushing defenceman, rather than a passing one. So, if he gets any kind of lower-body injury trouble - and I guess it's a testament to him that he hasn't thus far - his effectiveness will probably be much more limited.

I think that's exactly what The Sens need though. Not only does he rush the puck, he joins the rush which I think with a guy like Spezza is exactly what you need. That extra second Spezza waits sometimes for the extra man in the zone, well, that extra man is Campbell. A PMD doesnt have to be passing the puck all the time and hell, he uses his assets to the best of his ability.

As for worrying about a lower body injury, well, if Karlsson breaks his leg he's screwed too. Cant base any kind of move on that, not really fair.

Anyways, I think Campbell would help this team a lot more then Michalek or Gonchar at this point, not to say I dont like those two. I just think Campbell is a perfect fit.

N4L wrote:As for worrying about a lower body injury, well, if Karlsson breaks his leg he's screwed too. Cant base any kind of move on that, not really fair.

Well, true. *Knock on wood*

But Karlsson's not locked into a $7+ million contract.