travel_dude

Both the rumors and suggested returns are pipe dreams. Tank? Tank and Kyrou? No thanks. Friday? You mean in July, after the expansion draft? You sounded like you were going to lose sleep tomorrow night.

Sounds undervalued to me. TBH, he should have as much value as Savard, who got a 1st. Mind you, we would need to retain salary if it was a cap team.

If I wasn't clear, I would offer nothing more than a 3rd (Oilers pick) to protect him. I think that was Cross's suggestion, but I'm not even happy doing that. I would then trade him this TDL for hopefully a better return. It was a little different last TDL, since he had a full year remaining, and those only work if a team will build with said player. I think it's acceptable risk exposing Gio. Worse case, we have to replace him with a younger D in FA. We have to do that sooner than later anyway. Could we not get a capable top 4 D-man for less than $6.75m?

If it unfolds that way, absolutely. On the other hand if Seattle selects Gio and trades him for a 1st, we have gotten nothing.

Probably should have said it differently. The trades you suggest don't work for one of the teams involved. The power is not with Buffalo. They lose Eichel if they can;t make him happy. They can't just ask BT to hand over Gaudreau for a pick. If they want him, they have to pay since we don't need to trade with them. Let me sum it up. Buffalo needs star power to keep Eichel. If they lose him, no good going after Gaudreau. If they keep him by going after Gaudreau, they have to outbid about 15 teams with something other tha Eichel.

That should have made the most sense, right? Did he have a season that raised eyebrows? Top pair strugggled a lot this season. Worth 6.75m prorated to any team? Maybe Tampa, but BT would have ended up sending a 1st and Gio for a 4th. Never have seen him do a complicated trade like that.

I mean they have some choices, right? Gio. Lucic, Simon, Kylington, Phillips, Gawdin, Ryan, Leivo, Parsons, Stone. Leivo, Ryan, Phillips and Gawdin are probably the players that still have years left. Ryan makes the most sense, followed by Leivo Philips and Gawdin. Gio is a short term player that makes sense but you are building a team, not going for the cup.

That's wither high praise for Coronato or low value for a player entering his prime. Yes, I said it. Entering his prime. Argue the point based on overall league metrics but he just started hitting his stride. That for a player that may be a Gaudreau or a Baertschi. Some times it makes sense to take that risk. The bottom line here is that you suggesting trades that don't exist. Mangiapane for a 20th overall? Why does CGY do that? Gaudreau for 1st overall? Why does Buffalo do that unless it's to get Eichel back in the fold. If that's the case why does CGY settle for just a 1st? The power is with us and the star power. Gio may get you a 1st next year, at TDL. Teams loading up, when cap space is cheaper to add to. A 25th from WAS? Maybe. What could we have added to Bennett to get a better return? A better player and end up with a marginally better return? Maybe.

I think we have more needs than the next 2 drafts will solve. But I don't know how you can rate any D in this draft to be can't miss. Maybe a couple are at this level...maybe. Juolevi, Valimaki had pretty darn good numbers, yet have not yet lived up to the hype. Not every player is a Hughes or Makar. A lot of Sandin and Liljegrin. I don't mind calculated risks, but it has to be a faller to get me interested.

Here's the problem and it goes back years. We sign players to deals that are probably (at the time) reasonable. We get down to the time when you can move said player for a first. Except we don't have said player because they sucked in the first place. Or we extend the year of final season, and never have a chance to move said player. Or we don't sign those players in the first place. I've got no problem with moving role players for high picks (or is it low?) like 1st or 2nd round. I have a slight problem doing that for a top player. Certainly not a 20-32 picks. This was a year to trade for picks. Except we didn't have anyone other than Gio, Bennett and Ryan that would even get you anything. Maybe Nordstrom or Stone or Ritchie or Leivo wouldn't get more than a 5th, but we moved none of them. I'm relatively happy we got a 2nd for Bennett, considering we would lose him for nothing. What I am alluding to is that regardless of what we do this year, we sign guys to one year deals. Players that actually have value. It doesn't help this year, but at least we try again next year. We get a gem, we re-sign during the season. We get a valuable player, we trade if we are just barely on the cusp of playoffs.

Not really saying Monahan or Tkachuk is a big problem, just that bringing in more that struggle should be a concern. TBH, it's been some time since Monahan had healthy hips, so I don't know how much of it is overblown. There is no reason why Tkachuk couldn't become a better skater. Not 50 kmh fast, but faster. Considering the lack of a normal draft year, I don't think you can really compare forwards to other years that easily. Maybe no McDavid's or MacKinnon's, but perhaps a Panaren lurking in the weeds. Compare Gaudreau and Coronato in the USHL. Can you really be that certain he isn't a 40 goal scorer in the NHL?

I do hope they sign Mange to a long term deal. The track record seems to be no longer than 6, and while that is fine, I don't see the big risk in going longer. Gove him 8 years and watch him reward the team with continued solid play.

Considering they paid with a top C capable player, it doubtful they would trade to us at a cost that takes the risk into account. With that risk, is he even worth a Monahan? Would we really want to deploy a potential $7m+ player on the 3rd line? I could see him fitting with Gaudreau and Lindholm, but I would question what our depth looks like after the trade.

He had two good coaches that he didn't seem to want to follow. You can't just be one dimensional and expect teams to accept that. I would not trade Tkachuk for him, but if we wanted a PP specialist and sniper and didn't worry about defense, it would be fine.

I have a concern about drafting players with skating issues. We complain about Monahan and Tkachuk, so are we looking to build a slow team that can shoot?

No, I'm not recommending dradting a F. I'm simply saying that the best D will be gone and you have "risky" picks on D. Not that they are not going to be good player, just risky.

I think what I was saying was that I want to avoid picking up a bottom pairing D ceiling player. Having them on the 3rd pairing in the appropriate number of years is not the issue. I find it hard to judge what other teams will take. I doubt Wallstedt makes it to 12. The best available D will go before then too. Is that 2, 4, or 6? Opinions vary. I guess what makes this even more interesting is that there is maybe one player that could play next year. As such, I think you see a lot less GM's looking for a quick fix.

I know you are unbelievingly high...on the D and G in this draft. Cossa may be a great pick, in the latter 10 of the 1st round. Coronato may just be the guy that we go for, considering how the forwards will otherwise place. I doubt Wallstedt makes it to 12. I think we will (should) be happy with the selection, as long as it's based on evidence and not viewing in some high school. If we go for a D, I hope we are targeting a RD, as the LD tend to actually be available in trade. By the time a RD panned out, he would be succession for Tanev. Yes, we need another RD to round out the 6, but I hope to not just get a bottom pairing D in this draft.

Maybe, but Gio has control over his future. He can limit the trade options from Seattle. He can choose to sign as a UFA after one year if they haven't been able to trade him. For all the reasons it makes sense to claim him, there are as many reasons not to. Don't get me wrong, that would solve a problem for us and also create a hole.

Your premise is that the 12th is used to protect Gio. There are many more uses of it that would make us better, so I don't buy into the concept. Personally, I think the only person that thinks this is a discussion point is Gio. Edit - The premise is based on Francis who will no doubt hold teams ransom. Some may fall for this, as we saw last time. I think most have learned that this approach doesn't work out well.

I mean, let's face it, BT knows about asset management. He traded Bennett over losing him for nothing. He may not make the right choices at times, but he's not about to sacrifice things for a feel good story. Exposing Gio s a pretty simple decision. You pay to keep him for a year and lose someone else as well as the trade loss. Or, you let Seattle decide if they need $6.75m for possibly just one year. Maybe the get an Engelland type that is the face of the team. Extend him over value. Or they get a guy not happy and retires.

The fools are the ones that believe losing a single player is worse than trading to take someone else. We have nobody that I would value over a 1st. We talk about trading franchise level players for a 1st, yet there is any discussion about trading a 1st for a 38 year old D-man? Just insane. I wouldn't even consider Gio over Tanev for protecting.

I would be more comfortable in trading Hanifin if Valimaki had taken a step this season. I think he's poised to do that, but it being held back by Dutter. We need to move on from Gio sooner than later. Signing JO now would make that much smoother. We could make the Gio trade during the season if he's not claimed. Might actually get some decent value back, even if we had to retain a bit.

JO is one that I would target as well. He's nothing special, but he checks some boxes we need. Big and tough. Defensive. Tanev is one of the few guys that doesn't get overpowered by big forwards. I like Ras, but that's not his game. Gio has struggled to contain players and will only be here a bit longer. We need to accept that and start to move on.

I was a little disappointed with Huska. I don't know if it was his system or the personnel. Then again, my view doesn't 100% match the results we achieved. And the defense is not the only reason. We kept in place a pair that was struggling and only used Hanifin-Tanev to make up for it. The 3rd pair was a mixed bag and I don't think it was well managed. It's hard to pinpoint the reason for the improvement. With Sutter, we still lost a ton of games. Some of it was related to lack of scoring. But if you can't transition from defending to offense, you aren't scoring. Also, I would submit that we won games that didn't matter. If Seattle is going to hire Tocchet, it will happen soon. He's having a 3rd interview, so I think it's close to done.