(Rumour) Stars open to moving No. 3 pick

[oldnews]

1 hour ago, goblix said:

Murray is not worth the 3rd OA imo so the adds would have to be big which is my point.

 

im not a fan of eberle but he's a consistent 50+pt 20+ goal guy who is 27.

.

I don't think you have a very realistic idea of how good Murray is - nor how devalued Eberle is at this point.

The idea that Murray isn't worth a high pick but Eberle is... you're entitled to your opinion of course....but I think your assessment is way off.

 

[oldnews]

2 hours ago, S'all Good Man said:

the problem with CBJ trading for 3oa with Dallas is CBJ doesn't really have much leverage. As you say they have to expose some talent to Vegas in a number of areas but of course only 1 will be lost to expansion. I don't see Oleksiak and  depth forward being the kind of impact Tanev would have for them, but then again they're OK on the right side as well. Edler+ 33rd+eating bad goalie contract would be ideal for us, but when does that happen? Oh right, Burr for Dahlen. I guess it can happen sometimes. 

I've made a similar but different proposal a number of times on these boards in the past weeks - but that was before the gd Stars won the lottery. 

 

I'm surprised how many people here think Edler is going to be a realistic principle for the 3rd overall - I don't.  

 

Even with adding a high 2nd and eating a goalie contract, I think that it still may be wishful thinking - because it's a volume for the 3rd overall pick type deal.   Edler imo is worth a mid 1st, but not the 3rd overall.   A high 2nd is nice - and the value of taking Niemi is not insignificant - Dallas lacks leverage to move one of those bad goaltending contracts - but again, is that significant enough to encourage them to move the 3rd overall?    The sum of those parts may represent reasonable/realistic overall value - but I don't think that is a form Dallas accepts.   It's akin to why I wouldn't deal Tanev for 3 of Toronto's B/B+ prospects.  I want a primary need filled by a Tanev deal.   Edler may fit a primary need for Dallas, but I honestly think they could probably do better if they're dangling that pick, particularly in advance of the ED.

I think they'd simply prefer to take a hockey trade type higher end, younger asset as the principle (ie a Ryan Murray) - and then pay a lesser/divided price to move Niemi.

I've been beating the deal Edler drum for a while - and I like the proposal - I would just be very, very surprised if Edler as the principle got a deal like that done.  I'm not in the Edler sucks camp - I like Edler - but I'd be shocked if GMJB pulled that off.

 

[Nuck1991]

17 hours ago, Nicklas Bo Hunter said:

Tanev+ van 2nd for 3rd overall+ neimi.

 

Mittlestadt+ makar

possibly add granlund or bear to that 

heiskanen + glass

[BCNate]

I don't think that Dallas will get the value that they are going to be looking for at #3.  We do have a pretty good piece in Tanev that they may be looking for.  We also have the space to take cap dump from them as well.  I would look at something around:

 

To Dallas:

Tanev

 

To Van:

3rd Overall

Niemi or Lehtonen 

 

We may a small add, like the SJ 4th, but that may not be necessary.  Dallas gets  a top defenseman and $4-5 Million back in cap space. This deal seems to work for both teams.

 

NJ and Philly draft the top 2 in whatever order, we take Miro Heiskanen at 3, Colorado take one of Vilardi or Mittelstadt at 4, and we take the whichever is left at 5.  

[oldnews]

10 hours ago, cuporbust said:

Then we miss out on this 

 

I think that on a certain level, highlights like these should be tempered when you're assessing a player.

Look, for example, at the very first highlight in that package - the blueliner has absolutely horrible gap control - backs off and gives Makar way too much space - he's below the faceoff dot before he takes the first shot, and then turns his back to Makar on the rebound.

Second goal is a similar situation - endless amount of space given, defender is passive, does not close the gap, is frozen still, too late to even activate his stick....

And it's a common theme throughout - weak quality of competition.  It doesn't define how good Makar is, but at the same time, those are opportunities you're simply not going to have against better competition.   A lot of people go too far the other way imo - ie. wouldn't take a player because of the (lower) level he played at - I wouldn't go that far - but I do think it's a lot easier to look all-world in those highlights facing the kind of competition he was.

[aGENT]

3 minutes ago, oldnews said:

I've made a similar but different proposal a number of times on these boards in the past weeks - but that was before the gd Stars won the lottery. 

 

I'm surprised how many people here think Edler is going to be a realistic principle for the 3rd overall - I don't.  

 

Even with adding a high 2nd and eating a goalie contract, I think that it still may be wishful thinking - because it's a volume for the 3rd overall pick type deal.   Edler imo is worth a mid 1st, but not the 3rd overall.   A high 2nd is nice - and the value of taking Niemi is not insignificant - Dallas lacks leverage to move one of those bad goaltending contracts - but again, is that significant enough to encourage them to move the 3rd overall?    The sum of those parts may represent reasonable/realistic overall value - but I don't think that is a form Dallas accepts.   It's akin to why I wouldn't deal Tanev for 3 of Toronto's B/B+ prospects.  I want a primary need filled by a Tanev deal.   Edler may fit a primary need for Dallas, but I honestly think they could probably do better if they're dangling that pick, particularly in advance of the ED.

I think they'd simply prefer to take a hockey trade type higher end, younger asset as the principle (ie a Ryan Murray) - and then pay a lesser/divided price to move Niemi.

I've been beating the deal Edler drum for a while - and I like the proposal - I would just be very, very surprised if Edler as the principle got a deal like that done.  I'm not in the Edler sucks camp - I like Edler - but I'd be shocked if GMJB pulled that off.

 

 

I would tend to agree. Hence, yet again for the suggestion of Tanev (who hold more 1-1 value as you note). They could use help on both sides and either could represent fair value but Tanev (or Murray etc) would likely be preferable to DAL.  CBJ don't really have the capacity to take back a goalie as well though which I'm sure DAL is keen to do.

 

Edler-Kling would look good together though.

[BCNate]

10 hours ago, cuporbust said:

Then we miss out on this 

 

He does look great in this highlight reel, but it looks like he is playing against boys in many of the plays.  It really boils down to how well his game will translate at the NCAA level next year.  He is playing for one of the worst teams in the country next year, so you have to hope it doesn't stall his development.

[baumerman77]

15 hours ago, N7Nucks said:

I'd be more excited if I weren't so pessimistic. Dallas/Vancouver as trading partners seems unlikely. Although hopefully that's just media hooplah regsrding ownership. Tanev+ for 3rd + Niemi makes too much sense. 

 

1 hour ago, Hoosierdaddy said:

Of all the proposed Van-Dallas scenarios this makes the most sense to me. Given ownerships bad blood the only way Dallas deals with the Canucks is if they see it as a clear win. Moving Niemi and his contract would be a win. 

I agree. Dallas/Vancouver are unlikely,  but not impossible, trading partners because of the owners.

[oldnews]

8 minutes ago, J.R. said:

 

I would tend to agree. Hence, yet again for the suggestion of Tanev (who hold more 1-1 value as you note). They could use help on both sides and either could represent fair value but Tanev (or Murray etc) would likely be preferable to DAL.  CBJ don't really have the capacity to take back a goalie as well though which I'm sure DAL is keen to do.

 

Edler-Kling would look good together though.

If it weren't for expansion, I'd say go big both ways.

 

To Dallas:

Tanev

Edler

 

To Van:

3rd overall

Johns

Oleksiak

Niemi

 

Johns had a sophomore season - in and out of the lineup - he and Oleksiak as essentially 6/7/8 spot D last year.

We'd obviously be taking a serious step back, but imo Johns will be a legit NHL D, Oleksiak has a reasonable enough shot - and the 3rd overalll....well, we'd have both pretty solid prospect depth with the addition of the 3rd and 5th overall, and another pair of young D in the mix.

Dallas has a whack of middle/bottom pairing D - and some young puck movers, but a volume blueline that needs upgrades obviously.

 

This deal would give them

Tanev to play with Lindell

Edler to play with Klingberg

Hamhuis could remain with Honka (and they wouldn't have to play middle pairing minutes).

They'd still have Nemeth and Pateryn for depth.

 

However the ED....where they'd have Lindell and Klingberg to protect - and Tanev/Edler....

There is a way around that though, which would be for Dallas to get out front and work a deal with LV prior to ED - ie around someone like Eakin who they're rumoured to be shopping.  Dallas is in a postion to add a forward or two prior to the ED as well, so they may be opportune buyers up front as well.

[Pears]

How about this? Say we use Tanev or Edler and CBJ's 2nd to get the 3rd overall and either Lehtonen or Niemi, then if there's a player someone wants at 5 we move down to that pick while collecting additional assets. 

[nazzymx]

No thanks, no need to trade up in a weak draft.

[aGENT]

1 minute ago, oldnews said:

If it weren't for expansion, I'd say go big both ways.

 

To Dallas:

Tanev

Edler

 

To Van:

3rd overall

Johns

Oleksiak

Niemi

 

Johns had a sophomore season - in and out of the lineup - he and Oleksiak as essentially 6/7/8 spot D last year.

We'd obviously be taking a serious step back, but imo Johns will be a legit NHL D, Oleksiak has a reasonable enough shot - and the 3rd overalll....well, we'd have both pretty solid prospect depth with the addition of the 3rd and 5th overall, and another pair of young D in the mix.

Dallas has a whack of middle/bottom pairing D - and some young puck movers, but a volume blueline that needs upgrades obviously.

 

This deal would give them

Tanev to play with Lindell

Edler to play with Klingberg

Hamhuis could remain with Honka (and they wouldn't have to play middle pairing minutes).

They'd still have Nemeth and Pateryn for depth.

 

However the ED....where they'd have Lindell and Klingberg to protect - and Tanev/Edler....

There is a way around that though, which would be for Dallas to get out front and work a deal with LV prior to ED - ie around someone like Eakin who they're rumoured to be shopping.  Dallas is in a postion to add a forward or two prior to the ED as well, so they may be opportune buyers up front as well.

If we're shipping them both Tanev and Edler and taking their cap dump goalie back, I want more than 3rd OA and depth D's personally. ANA 1st too.

[Sugar baby watermelon]

Edler and 3rd rd pick for Dallas 3rd and Niemmi.  Edler is getting a good look at the worlds playing with Klingberg.

[oldnews]

Just now, J.R. said:

If we're shipping them both Tanev and Edler and taking their cap dump goalie back, I want more than 3rd OA and depth D's personally. ANA 1st too.

they're not simply that though J.R.

that's what they currently represent - and Dallas has a problem with the volume of D they have - and waivers at the start of the NHL season - but Johns imo is a decent bet to be a top 4 (last year was a bit of a tire fire in Dallas) - and Oleksiak is also a big, mobile, talented guy that could be a very solid two way D in short order.

I'm not valuing them a 'depth D' - they have more value than a typical 6/7/8 D imo - and this might be an opportunity to buy low on them as Dallas might lack leverage in more areas than one.  If you want to try to extract more value - good - but I'd consider that deal reasonable as-is - I'd deal Edler straight up for the pair of them.

[JM_]

36 minutes ago, oldnews said:

I've made a similar but different proposal a number of times on these boards in the past weeks - but that was before the gd Stars won the lottery. 

 

I'm surprised how many people here think Edler is going to be a realistic principle for the 3rd overall - I don't.  

 

Even with adding a high 2nd and eating a goalie contract, I think that it still may be wishful thinking - because it's a volume for the 3rd overall pick type deal.   Edler imo is worth a mid 1st, but not the 3rd overall.   A high 2nd is nice - and the value of taking Niemi is not insignificant - Dallas lacks leverage to move one of those bad goaltending contracts - but again, is that significant enough to encourage them to move the 3rd overall?    The sum of those parts may represent reasonable/realistic overall value - but I don't think that is a form Dallas accepts.   It's akin to why I wouldn't deal Tanev for 3 of Toronto's B/B+ prospects.  I want a primary need filled by a Tanev deal.   Edler may fit a primary need for Dallas, but I honestly think they could probably do better if they're dangling that pick, particularly in advance of the ED.

I think they'd simply prefer to take a hockey trade type higher end, younger asset as the principle (ie a Ryan Murray) - and then pay a lesser/divided price to move Niemi.

I've been beating the deal Edler drum for a while - and I like the proposal - I would just be very, very surprised if Edler as the principle got a deal like that done.  I'm not in the Edler sucks camp - I like Edler - but I'd be shocked if GMJB pulled that off.

 

One thing in Vancouver's favour is the free agent D market - Shattenkirk is probably too much term and $$ for them, and the next best imo is Alzner who's also going to be pricey. Edler as a #4 L-side D is decent value. 

 

Nil also stated publicly that he thinks anyone after #2 is equivalent for the next 10 players, so he clearly considers it equal to a mid-round pick given where his team is at. 

 

There's no question that we're going to have to overpay to get the #3 pick. Looking at future line options, IF (big IF) Goldy, Granlund and Jake make the lineup I think Baer is expendable as well, although it could backfire too. So a large deal of Edler, Baer, 33rd and taking back 5.9 mil in goalie salary? 

 

I agree tho, it would be a heck of a move by Jim. 

 

[goblix]

19 minutes ago, oldnews said:

This is the point of suggesting that Murray is a good fit there - and has enough value to command a 3rd overall pick imo (I think Goblix may be looking too much at production - in years where he's has injury setbacks - and not realizing how good this young top 4 is).

 

Jack Johnson was their 1D - he lead that team in ice-time.

He also had the lowest offensive zone starts on the team (27.9 / 40% relative to D).

22 of the CBJ's hardest minutes a night,  134 blocked shots, big, physical shutdown D, +23 with 21 5on5 points in those shutdown minutes.

 

The CBJ care about losing Johnson.  This is like suggesting that the Canucks wouldn't be concerned about losing Edler - except at this point, Johnson is probably the better defenseman. 

The CBJ stand to lose a VERY good defenseman in the ED - I think they'll be as motivated as anyone to either move one, or cut a deal with LV.

They have the additional problem/complication that they'll have to expose Korpisalo, but imo LV takes one of those defenseman over JK with other options like Grubauer and Raanta.

Eh we can disagree thats fine, I'm not saying that Murray is trash but I just don't think you can equate him to Tanev nor the 3rd OA pick. I disagree that he is a legit Top 4 right now. He's been average at best through his career. This year he was stuck behind Johnson and Werenski so it's tough to truly get a read on it.

 

And again... CBJ will be looking for roster players not a promising future player that is at least 3 years away.

 

I do agree with with the expansion talk. Johnson is probably geared towards an extension with CBJ and probably best suited to keep him around, definitely can't expose Savard though. So trading Murray makes sense but to who? the person your trading to has to be set for expansion as well.

Dallas has Lindberg - Klingberg - Hamhuis/Johns to protect They also need to add and to their defense rather than add one to lose one to expansion. Tanev makes sense for Dallas because we can protect him for the expansion and then trade him out.

We also have the luxury of taking on their goalie contract as a sweetener. CBJ does not have that option.

 

It's going to be next to impossible in trading a eligible player for any kind of exempt player unless that player is truly a legit top 4 player or top 6 forward because then I'm sure a team can stomach losing a player in that case but the value would have to be dropped to compensate for that.

And vise-versa any exempt roster player should have their value increased, Hutton and Stecher as examples.

 

[oldnews]

Just now, S'all Good Man said:

One thing in Vancouver's favour is the free agent D market - Shattenkirk is probably too much term and $$ for them, and the next best imo is Alzner who's also going to be pricey. Edler as a #4 L-side D is decent value. 

 

Nil also stated publicly that he thinks anyone after #2 is equivalent for the next 10 players, so he clearly considers it equal to a mid-round pick given where his team is at. 

 

There's no question that we're going to have to overpay to get the #3 pick. Looking at future line options, IF (big IF) Goldy, Granlund and Jake make the lineup I think Baer is expendable as well, although it could backfire too. So a large deal of Edler, Baer, 33rd and taking back 5.9 mil in goalie salary? 

 

I agree tho, it would be a heck of a move by Jim. 

 

That's a good point - the market for D is going to escalate fast and hard - so it might be foresight to get out ahead of it and I may be downplaying Edler's value - but I do think that if they're moving ahead of ED, a team like Columbus might be more opportune for them - the CBJ need to do something, and they arguably have more to offer.

[oldnews]

Just now, goblix said:

Eh we can disagree thats fine, I'm not saying that Murray is trash but I just don't think you can equate him to Tanev nor the 3rd OA pick. I disagree that he is a legit Top 4 right now. He's been average at best through his career. This year he was stuck behind Johnson and Werenski so it's tough to truly get a read on it.

 

And again... CBJ will be looking for roster players not a promising future player that is at least 3 years away.

 

I do agree with with the expansion talk. Johnson is probably geared towards an extension with CBJ and probably best suited to keep him around, definitely can't expose Savard though. So trading Murray makes sense but to who? the person your trading to has to be set for expansion as well.

Dallas has Lindberg - Klingberg - Hamhuis/Johns to protect They also need to add and to their defense rather than add one to lose one to expansion. Tanev makes sense for Dallas because we can protect him for the expansion and then trade him out.

We also have the luxury of taking on their goalie contract as a sweetener. CBJ does not have that option.

 

It's going to be next to impossible in trading a eligible player for any kind of exempt player unless that player is truly a legit top 4 player or top 6 forward because then I'm sure a team can stomach losing a player in that case but the value would have to be dropped to compensate for that.

And vise-versa any exempt roster player should have their value increased, Hutton and Stecher as examples.

 

I think you mean Lindell and Klingberg - I doubt they'd be too concerned about exposing Hamhuis - and I added a Oleksiak/Johns element to that previous proposal because it both mitigates the step back that the CBJ take, adding an NHL ready D that isn't as significant an ED loss to expose, and also reducing Dallas' exposure in the process.

Dallas also has space to add a guy like Karlsson and protect him, so there is actually a lot of mutual ground and potential for a deal between those two teams.

[oldnews]

17 minutes ago, S'all Good Man said:

One thing in Vancouver's favour is the free agent D market - Shattenkirk is probably too much term and $$ for them, and the next best imo is Alzner who's also going to be pricey. Edler as a #4 L-side D is decent value. 

 

Nil also stated publicly that he thinks anyone after #2 is equivalent for the next 10 players, so he clearly considers it equal to a mid-round pick given where his team is at. 

 

There's no question that we're going to have to overpay to get the #3 pick. Looking at future line options, IF (big IF) Goldy, Granlund and Jake make the lineup I think Baer is expendable as well, although it could backfire too. So a large deal of Edler, Baer, 33rd and taking back 5.9 mil in goalie salary? 

 

I agree tho, it would be a heck of a move by Jim. 

 

Was thinking about Baertschi as well.  He may be an interesting key to a deal.

Benn, Spezza, Seguin, Eakin, Roussel, Sharp, Faksa...

If they were to  move Eakin as has been rumoured, they'd have room for Baertschi - and he'd arguably be a good fit in that group with some of the veteran winger departures - he could play in behind Benn at 2LW.  We have Granny, Eriksson, Goldboin = enough options at LW and RWs like Boeser and Virtanen who could make guys like Granny and Eriksson moving to LW make more sense.

I wouldn't add the 2nd in that instance - I'd want a young D on the edge of their lineup added to a deal....

 

Edler

Baertschi

 

3rd

Johns/Oleksiak

Niemi.

[aGENT]

18 minutes ago, oldnews said:

they're not simply that though J.R.

that's what they currently represent - and Dallas has a problem with the volume of D they have - and waivers at the start of the NHL season - but Johns imo is a decent bet to be a top 4 (last year was a bit of a tire fire in Dallas) - and Oleksiak is also a big, mobile, talented guy that could be a very solid two way D in short order.

I'm not valuing them a 'depth D' - they have more value than a typical 6/7/8 D imo - and this might be an opportunity to buy low on them as Dallas might lack leverage in more areas than one.  If you want to try to extract more value - good - but I'd consider that deal reasonable as-is - I'd deal Edler straight up for the pair of them.

Fair enough on bolded but I think you're underselling both Edler and the pending market for current, top 4 D after the ED. I might be willing to throw in our CBJ 2nd in what I proposed or a lesser prospect on our end.