theo5789

I suspect Schenn has more suitors than Mikkola and is almost league minimum salary. Should at least get a 2nd for him. If not, then don't bother moving him.

Maybe they've been kicking the tires on Patrick Kane and CHI have initially said they wanted the higher of the two picks already if Kane agrees to be moved. Thus the importance of keeping the higher of the two? Might be dumb, might also be a real reason to it. Either way, also better to have the higher of the picks so even if they don't move that pick, they get the player they want at the higher spot rather than potentially losing the player to a team they traded a higher pick for. Also trading down from say 25 to 28 at the draft would net you another pick most likely, which is added value (I'd call that a little more than microscopic value IMO).

Maybe microscopic, but still more value nonetheless. If they do make another trade involving a 1st, then it'll be a conditional also in that it'll be the higher of the two 1sts.

Or they see the higher pick potentially having more value to make another trade before the TDL.

I wonder if it also set the market in that teams are starting to panic. NYR sees NYI make a splash and they win two in a row. So NYR makes this trade now to try and keep pace. They must have some concern about missing the playoffs with the condition on the 4th set as it is.

I honestly hope so, but he's a UFA, he's not tied down to only listening to the Canucks. All it takes is some team to throw him wild money or term and I don't think he's invested enough in Vancouver that he would take less to re-join. I hope our Russian contingency convinces him though. Sounds like Mikheyev played a part in getting Kuzmenko to sign here, so hopefully more of the same this time around.

Does that make JT Miller "Mark Messier"?

Vancouver is shopping Tobias Bjornfot

As much as I would love to have Tryamkin back, he's set himself out to test the market and will chase after the biggest contract he can get no matter who offers it.

So I guess the question would be, say we have the 7th overall pick, do we select Reinbacher if his stock is skyrocketing and seemingly won't be available by our next pick?

And to think that some already believe we have bad asset management because we lost a dime a dozen Pederson to waivers.

Loui Eriksson to be next Abby coach confirmed.

That was almost the deal-breaker there, it was a must have request!

No I agree that the system likely affect the offensive output, but I guess I was commenting more about Bo's strengths as alluded to where I think his strengths would actually fit that system better to make them a better team overall. But being their go-to offensive guy would help keep his production from falling off a cliff, just maybe a bit of a downtick and I think it'll be more affected by the unsustainable shooting percentage rather than because of the team play.

He's going to be one of their go-to offensive guys especially on the PP. And for their system, possession is important and he is their strongest faceoff guy. So I see a good fit there and he's still playing for that next big contract. I agree that his offensive production may dip a little simply because his shooting percentage is probably not sustainable, but I think he should make NYI a better team overall. Will it be enough for a playoff surge? Who knows, but if they go on a run and enter the playoffs hit, they might surprise in the playoffs as well.

I think the Canucks weren't concerned if he was taken or not which is why we risked him on waivers in the first place. It was simply a decision to get him some time down in Abby hopefully. At the end of the day, he's a bubble NHL player that isn't going to be in any long term plans anyway. Minor asset at best. He's a dime a dozen type player. Let's remember that Carolina essentially "threw him away" when they trade him along with Bear for a 5th (I suspect that Bear was the main reason for the pick, not Pederson). I don't think we were intentionally trying to free up a contract spot, but there are some that want to see the bright side of things which means now we have the space needed if we were to add via trade or signings. Waiting until the end of the season for UFAs to expire doesn't help if we are looking at NCAA signings at the end of their seasons that want to burn a year of their contract earlier. We have seen some 25-27 year old guys lighting up the AHL, eg Kiefer Sherwood in Nashville and Anthony Richard in Montreal, who have gotten a taste at the NHL level and haven't really stuck. They are nice players to have if you have them, but they also are nothing really to worry about. 3 spots. Maybe 1 or 2 NCAA prospects to sign. Maybe we add a body or two in those trades moving out those guys (hell maybe we add a couple 25 year AHL tweener types with limited potential also on those deals). Better to have the spots than to not, no? At the end of the day, I'm surprised this is even a discussion on either side. It's such a mean nothing thing short term and long term really. I don't see any mistake here, nor any savvy move here.

I think he's a bubble depth NHL call up and not a regular which is why we probably expected him to clear. He probably will be waived again at some point and I doubt we will claim him back unless we need a warm body in the lineup. However I expect we likely give some of the young guys tryouts to close the season.

I still believe we were hoping he would clear to go to Abby for the week break and our intention was to bring him back up after. I don't think the Raty acquisition had anything to do with this.

I mean our guy did get claimed on waivers as opposed to the several that have cleared. So perhaps that is a sign of decent pro scouting. Remember we only acquired him for a 5th and we got Ethan Bear as well who we still have.

Vancouver is listening to offers for Anthony Cirelli

Then we win the trade massively by getting a 1st, Raty and Beauvillier from NYI while they have Bo for a couple months and maybe some playoffs (even better if they miss the playoffs and we get their 2024 1st in this case). Then it cripples the Oilers by having yet another high cost forward tying up their cap to improve their defense. So this would be fine with me.

He knows his audience that pays his bills

He's more than one apparently!

Which is understandable, but then again, they could've made it simple and just had it a lottery protected pick this year if Bedard was their only concern. If anything, I'd assume it would be more related to if they can re-sign Bo. Without Bo for them next year, they could be a team in big trouble.

Doesn't make too much sense, why didn't they just make it lottery protected then and keep it simple?