(Proposal) A couple/three moves to consider

[Father Ryan]

4 minutes ago, Crabcakes said:

1. He can play
2. Because of his age, he may be able to be signed short term.  
3. Money is not the issue.  Term is.

I completely get where you're coming from. We just have a philosophical difference of opinion. I agree with all three of your points. I just don't want to see any more on-their-way-down-vets being brought in. We finally have a halfway decent core developing; I'd rather go with it and any players acquiring would be to fit in with them. Veteran leadership? Um, let's see. We have Sutter, Markie, Edler, Tanev (and Eriksson, ugh) as "tenured" vets, to go with the fairly obvious leadership skills of Bo. Don't see the need to add to that group. Only reason I would do the move, well two reasons, are: to acquire a draft pick at the TDL and to center Petersson until then.

[Crabcakes]

2 minutes ago, Father Ryan said:

I completely get where you're coming from. We just have a philosophical difference of opinion. I agree with all three of your points. I just don't want to see any more on-their-way-down-vets being brought in. We finally have a halfway decent core developing; I'd rather go with it and any players acquiring would be to fit in with them. Veteran leadership? Um, let's see. We have Sutter, Markie, Edler, Tanev (and Eriksson, ugh) as "tenured" vets, to go with the fairly obvious leadership skills of Bo. Don't see the need to add to that group. Only reason I would do the move, well two reasons, are: to acquire a draft pick at the TDL and to center Petersson until then.

I'm not married to the idea.  It was just a thought.

 

Filling that 2C hole is not an easy find.  The alternative is what?  Gagner or Granlund?  Or else, give the Sutter shutdown line, 2nd minutes.  I guess they could make do but not without growing pains.  Maybe Gaudette grows into it (but that's wishful thinking).  The downside of moving on from the old guard.

 

Keeping in mind, in 1 or 2 years, we want Pettersson to slot in the middle.

[DollarAndADream]

I'm not 100% sure that the Islanders would want Nilsson. They had him earlier in his career and got rid of him.

[mll]

5 hours ago, Father Ryan said:

Since I really don't know about the Montreal market, I'll answer this part. From what I see about the Rangers, Hayes is viewed as either: 1) a fairly important piece to build around (Blueshirt Banter) or 2) a valuable trade piece (Elite Sports NY). And even the Blueshirt piece discussed his trade value. He may be more valuable than just Baer and Hutton; it looks more like it would take both of them and maybe one of our better prospects. Given the ceiling that they are projecting, it might take adding Gadjovich or even Lind to the package. NYR appears to be deep at the center position, not so much elsewhere.

Since we are beginning to accumulate a pretty deep talent pool at wing, I could see parting with some younger and with potential depth, in order to acquire Hayes to fill in the gap at center.

 

They want to go young and these two are older than Hayes.  It doesn't really fit with the approach they laid out.  If they trade Hayes it's for draft picks and prospects.  

 

Also they are rebuilding because they feel their team is not good enough.  If Hayes is worth at least Baer and Hutton - its downgrading for them into two lesser assets and giving up one better asset. 

I don't see teams being interested in taking two lesser assets (and not draft picks/prospects where there is unknown potential) for one better asset - especially when the 2 lesser assets cost more combined than that one asset they are giving up. 

 

[IBatch]

23 hours ago, kloubek said:

Move 1: I don't know about Cole.  As a shutdown guy I think he is ok but he would simply be a Tanev replacement - bigger, but without the true elite shutdown abilities. I appreciate that we need another shutdown guy if we do move Tanev, but not sure this is the answer.  Aren't we trying to get younger and faster?

Move 2: I like Hayes and am fine with the value overall, but I just ask what the purpose is of acquiring him?  He's a center, so are you intending Bo to be the #1 and Hayes to be the #2 for the next few years?  Personally, I'm not certain that is enough scoring punch for our first line unless Horvat improves a fair amount more.

Move 3: Sure, why not.  Contingent on having a backup plan to at least somewhat replace Tanev's defensive prowess.

 

 

Cole would immediately move ahead of everyone but Edler and Tanev on the depth chart, and he's mobile if not actually fast.

 

Hayes would allow Pettersson to play on the wing with him to start, giving us two scoring lines and options down the road when Sutter is done and or depending on how good Gaudette becomes or if Pettersson moves up or switches to the middle.  

 

Not that we have to do any of these deals but they do make sense for the team right now, and next season,   it all depends what we have to give back though for Hayes. 

[kloubek]

25 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Cole would immediately move ahead of everyone but Edler and Tanev on the depth chart, and he's mobile if not actually fast.
 

Hayes would allow Pettersson to play on the wing with him to start, giving us two scoring lines and options down the road when Sutter is done and or depending on how good Gaudette becomes or if Pettersson moves up or switches to the middle.  

 

Not that we have to do any of these deals but they do make sense for the team right now, and next season,   it all depends what we have to give back though for Hayes. 

Depends what you mean by position on the depth chart.  I think MDZ has more offensive ability, so I'd place Cole 4th on the chart myself.  He's more a defensive player, as far as I know.  Like I said, if he was a Tanev replacement then I guess I can get behind the idea but as a simple addition to the core, he's not what we need.  We already have a glut; what we NEED is a true #1 pmd, imo.  Not another mid level player.

 

Ok, so in this scenario, Hayes is our 2nd line center (a role for which he would be properly suited, albiet not at an elite level), and Horvat would be our #1 again.  While this would be ok, I am still not convinced Horvat is a true #1 center.  To me, it is the start of what amounts to two second lines and that's not good enough if we want to compete for the cup.  Given that Hayes is a RFA, we would have to sign him to a true contract which means these would be our centers going forward for years and that doesn't make sense to me. 

I also feel that we might be best served playing Pettersson at center from the start, if that's where we want him to end up. (And I DO think that's where we want him to end up.  I think he has the capacity to be our #1 center in a couple of years).  If we have both Horvat and Hayes signed long term, he won't get that opportunity for some 4-5 years.

 

If we are solely looking at *right now*, then I am fine with these ideas.  I'm more thinking that they handcuff us for the ideal lineup scenario going forward though.  Additionally, I'm not sure if paying for a guy like Hayes makes sense when there are so many 2nd line guys out there available in UFA, and they come with a higher chance of signing a short contract to cover our short-term needs.