Deadline moves.

Speaking of figuring it out, Chiasson has been playing really well the last little while. His skating is much better than at the start of the season, he is asserting himself more -- both with and without the puck, and he is having a bit of success as well. Just like Smitty, he seems to have gotten his groove back.

So, do you hang on to him? Move him (who knows, there may be a taker -- you you can't teach size)? Or status quo and he goes quietly into the night?

Chiasson is a mysterious case. I can't imagine the return for him would be significant (3rd rounder at best). I'd rather just hang on to him for the stretch drive...if he keeps producing, then maybe a really cheap extension would be the result.

Flo The Action wrote:Yeah... As much as there was a bus about Schultz the field is pretty dead for him now. It did not pan out for him and he will likely not be qualified and have to sign for a one year 1mill or less deal next season(hello leafs?) I'd rather have wideman play the third pairing.

It's also debatable wether yak will ever be good. He should of figured it out by now. I have more faith that lazar will figure out how to be a top 6 than yak...

If I'm a bottom feeder like Toronto, Buffalo, etc, I would take a flier on Schultz assuming a low price. His play probably won't move the team much in the standings and you get an extended audition. It's not like playing D in Edmonton is easy.

dennycrane wrote:

Flo The Action wrote:Yeah... As much as there was a bus about Schultz the field is pretty dead for him now. It did not pan out for him and he will likely not be qualified and have to sign for a one year 1mill or less deal next season(hello leafs?) I'd rather have wideman play the third pairing.

It's also debatable wether yak will ever be good. He should of figured it out by now. I have more faith that lazar will figure out how to be a top 6 than yak...

If I'm a bottom feeder like Toronto, Buffalo, etc, I would take a flier on Schultz assuming a low price. His play probably won't move the team much in the standings and you get an extended audition. It's not like playing D in Edmonton is easy.

I'd do it. Schultz for Wiercioch straight up.

Schultz has scored 30+ points twice and put up 27 points in the locked out season over 48 games. What's killed him is his +/- but he was playing some pretty extensive minutes on a really bad team. The guys on the radio were saying he's been through so many coaching changes, so many different defensive situations, and played with so many ifferent partners. You can't blame him.

Sure he looks lost out there but so did Cowen and so does Wiercioch. He's an RFA at the end of the season - so is Wiercioch. If they retain the difference of his salary vs Wiercioch's then you're essentially trading two guys who might not even be tendered contracts next year. He'd play #5/6 minutes and if it doesn't work out you don't re-sign him. It's win-win.

dennycrane wrote:

Flo The Action wrote:Yeah... As much as there was a bus about Schultz the field is pretty dead for him now. It did not pan out for him and he will likely not be qualified and have to sign for a one year 1mill or less deal next season(hello leafs?) I'd rather have wideman play the third pairing.

It's also debatable wether yak will ever be good. He should of figured it out by now. I have more faith that lazar will figure out how to be a top 6 than yak...

If I'm a bottom feeder like Toronto, Buffalo, etc, I would take a flier on Schultz assuming a low price. His play probably won't move the team much in the standings and you get an extended audition. It's not like playing D in Edmonton is easy.

Exactly my point. It's low risk high reward. With Claesson likely making the team next year and Wideman extending, Wiercioch is bound to move. May as well trade him for a tryout and see where that goes.

Claesson isn't making the team next year IMO. Not sure why that would be likely

Edmonton is willing to eat up some salary to trade Schultz. But I don't know how that works when you're attempting to qualify a defender. I can't see anyone wanting to qualify Schultz at that price so either way he'll hit free agency. In that case....why even trade for him?

Sens wouldn't be entertaining it IMO

Ev wrote:Claesson isn't making the team next year IMO. Not sure why that would be likely

7th dman

DefenceWinsChampionships wrote:

Ev wrote:Claesson isn't making the team next year IMO. Not sure why that would be likely

7th dman

That's gonna be wideman

SpezDispensed wrote:

DefenceWinsChampionships wrote:

Ev wrote:Claesson isn't making the team next year IMO. Not sure why that would be likely

7th dman

That's gonna be wideman

No , wrong, wideman is our 6th Dman
Get it together spezz.

Ladd to Chicago.

Bad move for them. They're not contenders IMO

Ev wrote:Ladd to Chicago.

Bad move for them. They're not contenders IMO

It's really tough to understand you these days....are you ok?

And I don't see how it's a bad move. They're in win-mode right now as much as you can. Next up, Dan Hamhuis I bet.

Ev wrote:Claesson isn't making the team next year IMO. Not sure why that would be likely

The only guy knocking Claesson off the roster is Chabot, and that would be stupid. Another year in the Q should be the plan.

Michallica wrote:

Ev wrote:Ladd to Chicago.

Bad move for them. They're not contenders IMO

It's really tough to understand you these days....are you ok?

And I don't see how it's a bad move.  They're in win-mode right now as much as you can.  Next up, Dan Hamhuis I bet.  

Are you suggesting Hamhuis to the Hawks? They don't have the cap space. Do they?

Suggesting that Hamhuis will go to the hawks. I don't know how, they're talking about sending bickel's contract the other way or scuderi. But they find a way to get it done. Already rumored to be in on him and vrbata before they acquired ladd. I consider ladd and vrbata a wash but I have no proof of that.

Oglethorpe wrote:

Ev wrote:Claesson isn't making the team next year IMO. Not sure why that would be likely

The only guy knocking Claesson off the roster is Chabot, and that would be stupid.  Another year in the Q should be the plan.  

q is too weak. I'd start him for nine games at least. He could potentially play with phaneuf if all things went well

Michallica wrote:

Ev wrote:Ladd to Chicago.

Bad move for them. They're not contenders IMO

It's really tough to understand you these days....are you ok?

And I don't see how it's a bad move.  They're in win-mode right now as much as you can.  Next up, Dan Hamhuis I bet.  

I don't think adding a rental ever works and it's extremely unlikely they'll win the cup in back to back years. They have a weak forward corps after their top two lines and a had this pair.

Is easily take kings, blues, or caps ahead of them right now

Ev wrote:

Michallica wrote:

Ev wrote:Ladd to Chicago.

Bad move for them. They're not contenders IMO

It's really tough to understand you these days....are you ok?

And I don't see how it's a bad move.  They're in win-mode right now as much as you can.  Next up, Dan Hamhuis I bet.  

I don't think adding a rental ever works and it's extremely unlikely they'll win the cup in back to back years. They have a weak forward corps after their top two lines and a had this pair.

Is easily take kings, blues, or caps ahead of them right now

I really think it's Washington's year, but anything can happen.