Toews Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 You're crazy. They're desperate, but not that desperate. Hedman and Connolly are both valued key pieces for their future, they wouldn't trade them both away for Luongo or Schneider. Besides, if they wanted a goalie they would go after Schneider, who is considerably younger. Chances are, if trade with them, it'll be Schneider (along with other pieces) for Hedman+1st (DET) or Connolly+1st (TB). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marleau_12 Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 Luongo has a huge contract, and i really have a feeling that he'd choke this year, as much as I dont want him to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stark Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 You can't call his trade crazy while posting a couple of ridiculous trades yourself. There is no way Tampa is giving up that much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Bang Boogie Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 Uhh, Stevie Y would take Luongo alone for Hedman and Connolly. Do you know how badly they need a goalie?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toews Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 We meet again. Apparently you still don't know how to read. I've never posted a single trade proposal on this forum, and what I suggested here was much less than what the guy suggested. To reiterate and simplify just for you: He suggested: Luongo, Raymond, Sauve, 1st FOR Hedman and Connolly. Then, the other guy stated that Tampa would take Luongo himself for Hedman and Connolly. I stated that Tampa would never trade both of those players, and it would be EITHER Schneider (plus others) for Hedman + 1st (DET) OR Connolly + 1st (TB). It's realistic, and we'd be getting much less than what he originally stated. So when you said that there is no way Tampa is giving up that much, you're right but perhaps you should re-read what I wrote because clearly you don't seem to understand something so simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versace Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 Landeskog is within the division so no. Skinner is too beastly and they need him more than a goalie because they have Ward in Carolina so no. Hedman is the only realistic one, but Tampa is not going to let him go easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stark Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 What don't I understand? Both those proposals which you call "realistic" are ridiculous overpayment by Tampa. Hedman is already a promising defenseman who has a rare combination of size and skating ability. If I were Tampa he would be near untouchable especially with their defense so weak. There is no way in hell will Tampa even consider the first "realistic" deal that you mentioned. Now lets talk about the second one. Connolly was drafted 6th overall and Tampa should end up with a top 10 pick. Are you seriously saying that they are going to trade both assets for Schneider because that is absolutely ridiculous. No one in their right mind would make such a deal. Put yourself in their shoes, would you do that deal? Check out in the past few years the number of top 10 picks that teams have traded away. And then on top of that you want to Connolly as well? Take off the homer goggles, maybe you should go ask some Lightning fans whether they would consider doing either of those two deals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toews Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 Because you said "you can't call him crazy", yet his proposal was much more ridiculous than mine. And if since you state that I've posted "a few ridiculous proposals" myself, provide me with a few examples? Tampa is desperate for a proven franchise goalie, and Schneider fits that role perfectly. Much better than other young goalies that will be on the market (Bernier, Harding, etc.). They're probably willing to overpay, considering there will be many teams fighting for Schneids, and have the right pieces to do so. You still fail to realize that I'm not suggesting we trade Schneider straight up in any of the two deals, I did say that we'd have to add other pieces in order for TB to consider. In the Hedman proposal, we'd obviously have to offer a defenseman in return, I'm well aware of their weakness on the blueline. They did, however, address this issue to some extent at the deadline, but if we threw in Sauve along with some other pieces/picks, I'd think they'd consider. The deal has been proposed several times on other trade threads, and there seems to be a general consensus that this deal could possibly fall through. Same goes with the Connolly trade. We'd obviously be offering more than just Schneider. That's what you fail to understand. It's not about homer goggles, I don't overvalue our players like some of the other posters. Let me just say it again, just so you get it. We'd be offering MORE than just Schneider, but the trades are obviously revolving around him, thus my reasoning for putting "Schneider + other pieces". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stark Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 What "other pieces" are you going to throw in that will possibly make that proposal more attractive? Vancouver already has a diminished prospect pool, guys like Yann Sauve are not going to make or break deals. Imo you guys have set your sights too high on Schneider. The guy is a RFA soon to be UFA, a team that is trading for him is going to be reluctant to trade young assets for a guy that may just end up being a rental.This is why teams don't trade top 10 picks, because they get to scout, draft and develop a guy that they will have team control over for 8-9 years before he loses RFA status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tangerines Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 How about Luongo and Ballard for Hedman, a first, and a decent prospect? Provided Lu waives his NMC.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toews Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 At least I'm not proposing Connolly AND Hedman for Schneider. I honestly think that a deal could fall through revolving around those players, and Schneider is likely to be headed to TB or CBJ next year. Not just Sauve, but we have Schroeder, Tanev, Connauton, etc. that can all be thrown into a deal. Like I said, they'll be willing to overpay for him, and if I'm not mistaken, they can sign him to a contract after they trade for him (correct me if I'm wrong though). A player like Schneids doesn't come by very often, we spent years developing him and he has proven himself to be a young, starting goalie. Teams like TB are desperate for one, esp. one as good as him, thus their reasoning to overpay. What would be more realistic then, in your opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 How about Luongo and Ballard for Hedman, a first, and a decent prospect? Provided Lu waives his NMC.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fakename70 Posted April 7, 2012 Share Posted April 7, 2012 OK, I might as well go public with what's been in my head the last several weeks. Keep in mind I haven't crunched the numbers at Cap Geek and I don't get too involved with throwing in draft picks and/or players at the AHL level. That said... Jeff Skinner isn't going anywhere and neither is Landeskog. The 'Nucks don't necessarily need anymore lefties or LW's anyway. How about MG sends Corey Crawford (acquired with Brent Seabrook from Chicago for Keith Ballard and Cory Schneider) and Marc-Andre Gragnani to TB for Hedman? If Yzerman is still looking for a goalie then, maybe he's willing to part with Hedman to get one and a young puck-moving defenceman in return? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted April 8, 2012 Share Posted April 8, 2012 How about MG sends Corey Crawford (acquired with Brent Seabrook from Chicago for Keith Ballard and Cory Schneider) and Marc-Andre Gragnani to TB for Hedman? If Yzerman is still looking for a goalie then, maybe he's willing to part with Hedman to get one and a young puck-moving defenceman in return? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toews Posted April 8, 2012 Share Posted April 8, 2012 OK, I might as well go public with what's been in my head the last several weeks. Keep in mind I haven't crunched the numbers at Cap Geek and I don't get too involved with throwing in draft picks and/or players at the AHL level. That said... Jeff Skinner isn't going anywhere and neither is Landeskog. The 'Nucks don't necessarily need anymore lefties or LW's anyway. How about MG sends Corey Crawford (acquired with Brent Seabrook from Chicago for Keith Ballard and Cory Schneider) and Marc-Andre Gragnani to TB for Hedman? If Yzerman is still looking for a goalie then, maybe he's willing to part with Hedman to get one and a young puck-moving defenceman in return? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fakename70 Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 I don't see these trades happening, chum. 1.) You're bringing in just under $7.5 million in cap hit with the first trade, and then the second trade falls apart, then the cap structure for the team could be badly screwed. And if the second trade did occur, you'd be adding another $1 million in cap hit to the initial amount. These deals eat up over $8 million of Vancouver's free cap space for next season. 2.) I suspect that the Hawks would view Crawford and Seabrook as being worth more than Schneider. Seabrook has a NTC starting next season so this would be the window to trade him, assuming Chicago wanted to move him. 3.) TB would likely be able to get another goalie for much less, who is still quite good (see LA Kings). regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fakename70 Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 No way we trade Seabrook and especially not for that return. Also not ready to give up on Crawford so soon. Hedman is worth more than Crawford + Gragnani anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toews Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 Hey, it wouldn't hurt to at least make the offer. I don't think Crawford is all that compared to Schneider if he can't even keep Ray Emery on the bench. No disrespect to Emery. I don't think we've seen enough of Bernier to label him as "quite good" to the point where he's more desirable than Crawford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fakename70 Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 Which begs the question, why did Bowman sign Emery to an extension? I think even taking giving a chance to Salak might have been worth trying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.