Trade Bonanza 2012! Speculation, Rumours, the Works!

spader wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:Well, I posted a "value of" thread on HF and people said there was no way he'd be moved and called Bogosian a 'franchise D-man' - which I disagree with, but w/e.

He certainly has the potential. Whether he'll realize that potential in the NHL is another story.

I'm tempted to say what you see is what you get, but I think he'll get slightly better - which is still really strong obviously, but I disagree that he's a 'franchise' D-man. There aren't many of those.

rooneypoo wrote:

Hoags wrote:Oh FFS I hope Murray doesn't mortgage the future in a lame attempt to get Alfie a cup. This team will be lucky to win a single playoff game.

I'm all for winning but don't give up a good prospect for a pending UFA, much less a 1st.

If there's another Turris-esque opportunity out there -- i.e., a good young player with high potential but not in the best of circumstances -- then I certainly would consider moving our 1st. For example: Bogosian for our 1st+? Done.

I wouldn't move it for a pure rental, but for a good young player, yes. I'm no prospect expert, but I don't get the sense that there's a whole lot of excitement building for the players projected to go in the top 10-60 spots of the draft.

I will always give Dorion and the staff a 1st round pick to work with TBH. Galchenyuk/Collberg/Ceci would be there around 15 possibly.
This is based on the fact I don't think We're getting a player of Bogosian's calibre with that 1st rounder especially in February where the 1st is still in a playoff position.

rooneypoo wrote:

Hoags wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:
If there's another Turris-esque opportunity out there -- i.e., a good young player with high potential but not in the best of circumstances -- then I certainly would consider moving our 1st. For example: Bogosian for our 1st+? Done.

I wouldn't move it for a pure rental, but for a good young player, yes. I'm no prospect expert, but I don't get the sense that there's a whole lot of excitement building for the players projected to go in the top 10-60 spots of the draft.

Oh if there's a Turris-esque opportunity out there ... sure.

I really doubt it, can't really think of anything, can't see Jets would trade Bogosian.

Turris was a special case that we pounced on. He forced Phoenix to trade him, they wouldn't have otherwise, that doesn't happen often.

But for a pending UFA ... don't give up a lot just because there's a bidding war going on (lots of buyers, few sellers). We'll be doing a better job rebuilding the Hurricanes than the Sens.

I tend to agree -- but my larger point is that we shouldn't consider that 1st rounder as somehow untouchable. If there is any mid- to long-term upgrade to be had, then we need to be open to the possibility of moving it.

I've been saying so for weeks.

SeawaySensFan wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

Hoags wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:
If there's another Turris-esque opportunity out there -- i.e., a good young player with high potential but not in the best of circumstances -- then I certainly would consider moving our 1st. For example: Bogosian for our 1st+? Done.

I wouldn't move it for a pure rental, but for a good young player, yes. I'm no prospect expert, but I don't get the sense that there's a whole lot of excitement building for the players projected to go in the top 10-60 spots of the draft.

Oh if there's a Turris-esque opportunity out there ... sure.

I really doubt it, can't really think of anything, can't see Jets would trade Bogosian.

Turris was a special case that we pounced on. He forced Phoenix to trade him, they wouldn't have otherwise, that doesn't happen often.

But for a pending UFA ... don't give up a lot just because there's a bidding war going on (lots of buyers, few sellers). We'll be doing a better job rebuilding the Hurricanes than the Sens.

I tend to agree -- but my larger point is that we shouldn't consider that 1st rounder as somehow untouchable. If there is any mid- to long-term upgrade to be had, then we need to be open to the possibility of moving it.

I've been saying so for weeks.

I think it's cute how you guys finish each others sentences.

What? 1st round picks are a good thing?

Even more valuable you say when the team that holds it looks like they could have a high pick? Madness.

Trading assets when the team isn't good enough to make a serious play for the Stanley Cup is a bad move for the future of a franchise?

Riprock wrote:What? 1st round picks are a good thing?

Even more valuable you say when the team that holds it looks like they could have a high pick? Madness.

Trading assets when the team isn't good enough to make a serious play for the Stanley Cup is a bad move for the future of a franchise?

There are a number of scenarios in which it makes sense for just about any team to trade away its first. The key thing is to be building value across the board, in whatever form, and to winning, now and later.

If another Turris-esque deal comes along, we can't nix it just because we are of the Church of Holy Prospects and can't disobey our first commandment, "Thou shalt not trade 1sts". That's way too dogmatic.

Managing a team & winning is all about flexibility. Last year's cup winner team was built through FA signings & trades, and contains the fewest percentage of players drafted by the franchise in a long time, if not ever.

No one is denying that 1sts have value. Of course they do. But there's more than one way to parlay that value in the hockey world. Using 1sts to get good young talent is a sensible move, for instance -- i.e., our 1st for Runblad, Runblad + 2nd for Turris. Trading our first for Ruutu, without an extension in place, would be stupid. Trading it for a guy like Bogosian (just a 'for example'), however, would be a different story.

rooneypoo wrote:

If another Turris-esque deal comes along, we can't nix it just because we are of the Church of Holy Prospects and can't disobey our first commandment, "Thou shalt not trade 1sts". That's way too dogmatic.

I spit up a little when I read this

As I've been saying for months, it's not a matter of if but when Bogo will be a Senator. Stay tuned.

I wouldn't consider our 1st rounder "untradeable". Although 1sts are typically traded when a team has more than 1 first round pick.

If Murray can acquire a player better than what our scouting staff can get in the 1st round, that fits our needs better than he'll do it.

If we do trade our 1st rounder it'll be at the draft (kind of like the Rundblad trade).

SeawaySensFan wrote:As I've been saying for months, it's not a matter of if but when Bogo will be a Senator. Stay tuned.

bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla.

rooneypoo wrote:

Riprock wrote:What? 1st round picks are a good thing?

Even more valuable you say when the team that holds it looks like they could have a high pick? Madness.

Trading assets when the team isn't good enough to make a serious play for the Stanley Cup is a bad move for the future of a franchise?

There are a number of scenarios in which it makes sense for just about any team to trade away its first. The key thing is to be building value across the board, in whatever form, and to winning, now and later.

If another Turris-esque deal comes along, we can't nix it just because we are of the Church of Holy Prospects and can't disobey our first commandment, "Thou shalt not trade 1sts". That's way too dogmatic.

Managing a team & winning is all about flexibility. Last year's cup winner team was built through FA signings & trades, and contains the fewest percentage of players drafted by the franchise in a long time, if not ever.

No one is denying that 1sts have value. Of course they do. But there's more than one way to parlay that value in the hockey world. Using 1sts to get good young talent is a sensible move, for instance -- i.e., our 1st for Runblad, Runblad + 2nd for Turris. Trading our first for Ruutu, without an extension in place, would be stupid. Trading it for a guy like Bogosian (just a 'for example'), however, would be a different story.

Chara was the first piece. Plus they had Bergeron already there. Chiarelli built the team they have essentially. Kessel got them Seguin. Not too often that a team gives you a gift like that. It was just a matter of time before players wanted to be there. You have to be able to offer them more than just a contract.

Riprock wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

Riprock wrote:What? 1st round picks are a good thing?

Even more valuable you say when the team that holds it looks like they could have a high pick? Madness.

Trading assets when the team isn't good enough to make a serious play for the Stanley Cup is a bad move for the future of a franchise?

There are a number of scenarios in which it makes sense for just about any team to trade away its first. The key thing is to be building value across the board, in whatever form, and to winning, now and later.

If another Turris-esque deal comes along, we can't nix it just because we are of the Church of Holy Prospects and can't disobey our first commandment, "Thou shalt not trade 1sts". That's way too dogmatic.

Managing a team & winning is all about flexibility. Last year's cup winner team was built through FA signings & trades, and contains the fewest percentage of players drafted by the franchise in a long time, if not ever.

No one is denying that 1sts have value. Of course they do. But there's more than one way to parlay that value in the hockey world. Using 1sts to get good young talent is a sensible move, for instance -- i.e., our 1st for Runblad, Runblad + 2nd for Turris. Trading our first for Ruutu, without an extension in place, would be stupid. Trading it for a guy like Bogosian (just a 'for example'), however, would be a different story.

Chara was the first piece. Plus they had Bergeron already there. Chiarelli built the team they have essentially. Kessel got them Seguin. Not too often that a team gives you a gift like that. It was just a matter of time before players wanted to be there. You have to be able to offer them more than just a contract.

Yeah, like a culture of winning, and the chance to win. You know, the opposite of bottoming out.

Not everyone can win though. Someone's got to lose. Need to have a good team to win, and you do that by drafting, or trades, or free agency.

Winning comes eventually.

What's happening here in Ottawa is nothing short of amazing - even if we don't make the playoffs. People MUST see that, right? I mean...how could you not notice?

SpezDispenser wrote:What's happening here in Ottawa is nothing short of amazing - even if we don't make the playoffs. People MUST see that, right? I mean...how could you not notice?

Well, I expected them to be around where they are, plus a lot of the guys on this team will not be around when they are true contenders. I'm not flabbergasted by where they are unlike the ignorant experts and such around the league.

It's not that amazing when you look at the vets they have. People ignored them altogether. These vets will be gone soon, so that's when we'l see what the team is made of.

I'd say that their great start was amazing, in that I was amazed that they were winning. Wasn't expecting it. Happy they did though. I think that the ast 10 or so games is more of what I was expecting, and likely the real team coming through.

Lots of factors though, like fatigue, and over dependence on a few people.

Big Ev wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:What's happening here in Ottawa is nothing short of amazing - even if we don't make the playoffs. People MUST see that, right? I mean...how could you not notice?

Well, I expected them to be around where they are, plus a lot of the guys on this team will not be around when they are true contenders. I'm not flabbergasted by where they are unlike the ignorant experts and such around the league.

It's not that amazing when you look at the vets they have. People ignored them altogether. These vets will be gone soon, so that's when we'l see what the team is made of.

There will hopefully be a staggered period when the vets start leaving. Alfie and Gonchar could go together, with Alfie being the damaging piece. That'll be really tough. Gonchar hasn't done a whole lot recently. I would put him in the 'solid NHLer' category and suggest that he can be replaced via free agency. Kuba's a tougher one because he moves the puck decently and has skill on the PP (relatively speaking). The easiest one might be Chris Phillips. Out with Phillips, in with someone like Borowiecki and you're done there.

It'll be really interesting to track this team next year and especially the year after. Will Murray dip into the free agency pool to try to replace Alfie's on and off ice leadership? I would imagine he will, but he might just want to turn the ship over to the young players and hope they don't fade like they are now.

Riprock wrote:I'd say that their great start was amazing, in that I was amazed that they were winning. Wasn't expecting it. Happy they did though. I think that the ast 10 or so games is more of what I was expecting, and likely the real team coming through.

Lots of factors though, like fatigue, and over dependence on a few people.

Ah. So toss out the first 48 or so games, and focus on the last 6, because they tell the real story. Gotcha!