Rocksterh8 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 If you cannot get at least a 1st for him in this poor draft, then keep him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harvey Spector Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 Hansen to Washington for a second and Madison Bowey... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erkayloomeh Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 With the logic that by trading Hansen it enables us to protect one of granlund or bear I'm wondering if it matters. We are going to lose one good player no matter what anyway sbisa granny or bear. So what's the difference. Why sell low on Hansen when we are going to lose one of the three anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucklehead80 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 30 minutes ago, DontMessMe said: Hansen will not fetch a 1st. Prob a 2nd Although I tend to agree with you, a team at the top of the standings going all in could throw a 1st our way, as a late 1st could be looked at as a 2nd round pick in what is considered a draft that has fewer guarantees and where due diligence in scouting will be the difference this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sapper Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 47 minutes ago, Nicklas Bo Hunter said: Hansen is the player i could see van getting a 1st for. Chicago maybe? He would do real well there. I like the guy as well ..... but we will NOT get a first for him. It would take Hansen + to get a first Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 14 minutes ago, Dral said: I'd rather get a real gud prospect then a pick Depends on the prospect, a 21+ reclamation project, no thanks. A 19/20 year old looking great I might be interested. Greenway, Benson, DeBrincat, Bracco, Mascherin types and I'm listening. I'd even add to get a higher ranked prospect like Steel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 3 minutes ago, oldnews said: agreed. Dealing Hansen to a contender means a late 1st at best - which comes with odds that don't make Hansen worth dealing - i.e. a late 1st is in the 30% range odds of being a decent NHLer. I think if a team wants Hansen, they need to pony up, at the very least, an NHL ready or near ready player who's development indicates a solid future NHLer. A player like Alex Tuch (as Minnesota is rumoured in the market for a RW), Vlad Kamenev, etc. McKenzie made it clear during the Chicago vs Wild game that the Wild are not even thinking about using prospects like Tuch, Greenway, Eriksson Ek, Kunin as currency. He says it's those guys that will allow them to stay under the cap without losing a step down the road. He didn't know what they were looking for but said that the Wild only want a rental without giving up a prospect or a roster player. Yesterday it's Russo that suggested that they are looking for a RW with Coyle moving to C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckylager Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 I must be crazy- Sometimes I sit here thinking "you guys are nuts, you overvalue our players" and now that we're talking about Hansen (one of my favorites because of his impeccable work ethic), I'm sitting here thinking he's worth a good prospect and a contender's late first, or a great prospect and a second. Call me crazy. I bet AV would love to get Hansen with the Rags.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 1 minute ago, mll said: McKenzie made it clear during the Chicago vs Wild game that the Wild are not even thinking about using prospects like Tuch, Greenway, Eriksson Ek, Kunin as currency. He says it's those guys that will allow them to stay under the cap without losing a step down the road. He didn't know what they were looking for but said that the Wild only want a rental without giving up a prospect or a roster player. Yesterday it's Russo that suggested that they are looking for a RW with Coyle moving to C. I'm not really proposing Tuch as much as I'm illustrating a point in agreement with another poster of what type of return we should look for. If the Wild's particular cap reality (and their lack of flexibility with their forward depth precludes this type of move for them, I wouldn't argue that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 19 minutes ago, erkayloomeh said: With the logic that by trading Hansen it enables us to protect one of granlund or bear I'm wondering if it matters. We are going to lose one good player no matter what anyway sbisa granny or bear. So what's the difference. Why sell low on Hansen when we are going to lose one of the three anyway. I think people, including some NHL GMs, are mostly misplaying this whole expansion draft idea and you are right... you don't trade away all your depth (especially as discounted prices) out of fear that one will be lost for nothing. If we had one really good player that needed protecting, fine... but as you say, we have several relatively equivalent players and one will go. I would actually rather have a better forward exposed which increases the chance we keep all our D. Those D will be worth a mint after the expansion draft because many teams will have lost a top 4 guy and need replacements. I have said for a while that our best bet would actually be to load up on some of those assets teams are worried about losing. If a player who would normally be worth a 2nd, is trading for a 4th round pick...get him. Trade away all of our 3rd round and below picks for solid young 3rd liners and 2nd pairing D for all I care. We lose one of the acquisitions and that also protects our own exposed guys. We are then in the driver's seat because all of those assets we gained are worth twice as much the day after expansion when teams are trying to fill holes again. I don't think our brass has the creativity to do that, but some smart GM will I bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odd. Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 I wonder if CBJ's calling in about Hansen . Him and Torts are gonna have a fun time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
logic Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 If Paul Gaustad gets a first Hansen could to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 Just now, luckylager said: I must be crazy- Sometimes I sit here thinking "you guys are nuts, you overvalue our players" and now that we're talking about Hansen (one of my favorites because of his impeccable work ethic), I'm sitting here thinking he's worth a good prospect and a contender's late first, or a great prospect and a second. Call me crazy. I bet AV would love to get Hansen with the Rags.... Hansen has another year of term remaining, and imo is a better asset than Russell, who was rented for a better return than people are speculating about here. Russell is a defenseman - true - but I'd value Hansen over him regardless - and lesser forwards imo have been dealt for more than we're speculating here at the trade deadline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucklehead80 Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 34 minutes ago, Down by the River said: In other words, the 'value' of a non-rental player might not be as high this year as in the past. If teams are "all in" and picking up non-rentals whom they do not plan on protecting this summer, they'll just be considered rentals with the possibility they could not be chosen by Vegas. If a team is "all in", upcoming UFA vs term remaining doesn't really matter when it's a "win now" mentality. We should all be aware of how quickly the window to challenge for the Stanley Cup can slam shut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the harry Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 6 minutes ago, mll said: McKenzie made it clear during the Chicago vs Wild game that the Wild are not even thinking about using prospects like Tuch, Greenway, Eriksson Ek, Kunin as currency. He says it's those guys that will allow them to stay under the cap without losing a step down the road. He didn't know what they were looking for but said that the Wild only want a rental without giving up a prospect or a roster player. Yesterday it's Russo that suggested that they are looking for a RW with Coyle moving to C. I can see the Wild making a run for the cup, they are in a great position. Just ask for their first round pick for Hansen, nothing less. The same with Montreal and Burrows. Give us your first and we can talk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
falcon45ca Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 38 minutes ago, Dral said: I'd rather get a real gud prospect then a pick Why not both? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerrDrFunk Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 31 minutes ago, erkayloomeh said: Mark my words we can get a first for honey badger. Think about it. If we get a second that would be a 50 -60 the overall. I'd rather keep him . Maybe a second and a prospect and jb can pillage someone with some talent that he sees but others don't. I have enough faith in Benning's drafting ability to think he can find us a good player whether it's with the 31st pick or 60th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 1 minute ago, oldnews said: I'm not really proposing Tuch as much as I'm illustrating a point in agreement with another poster of what type of return we should look for. If the Wild's particular cap reality (and their lack of flexibility with their forward depth precludes this type of move for them, I wouldn't argue that. I though that comment by McKenzie was interesting because in the past Fletcher was lamenting that they had traded away so many 2nd and 3rd round picks. It sounds like this year they are more willing to move picks - re weak draft. Just read a quote by a GM saying (I'm guessing he was semi-joking) that Vegas could end up with 5 first round picks to not select certain players re expansion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 8 minutes ago, the harry said: I can see the Wild making a run for the cup, they are in a great position. Just ask for their first round pick for Hansen, nothing less. The same with Montreal and Burrows. Give us your first and we can talk. Greenway and a 2nd for Hansen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwijibo Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 8 minutes ago, the harry said: I can see the Wild making a run for the cup, they are in a great position. Just ask for their first round pick for Hansen, nothing less. The same with Montreal and Burrows. Give us your first and we can talk. If you're expecting a 1st for Burrows you're going to be seriously disappointed. I could see Hansen getting a 1st in the right circumstance though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.