JCon Posted February 23, 2017 Report Share Posted February 23, 2017 2 hours ago, Atomic said: Every time you move out someone, you lose someone else in the expansion draft. Say, you trade Perreault and get a pick and a prospect. Now you lose Armia/Lowry instead. Net Gain = Add pick and prospect, lose Perreault and Armia/Lowry. If you don't move Perreault, Net Gain = lose Perreault. Is one necessarily better than the other? Perreault has more value, so you could actually get something and steer the Vegas to a lower value player. Also, then you can protect Lowry. I'd rather lose Armia for nothing over Perreault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atomic Posted February 23, 2017 Report Share Posted February 23, 2017 10 minutes ago, JCon said: Perreault has more value, so you could actually get something and steer the Vegas to a lower value player. Also, then you can protect Lowry. I'd rather lose Armia for nothing over Perreault. You're losing both if you trade one away. I'd rather lose one for nothing than both and get back a prospect and/or pick who may or may not ever be NHL players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCon Posted February 23, 2017 Report Share Posted February 23, 2017 Just now, Atomic said: You're losing both if you trade one away. I'd rather lose one for nothing than both and get back a prospect and/or pick who may or may not ever be NHL players. But you're not losing anything in a trade. There's no reason you can't get a NHL ready prospect back in return (that's expansion draft protected). And, there's no reason you can't flip those assets into another piece this summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atomic Posted February 23, 2017 Report Share Posted February 23, 2017 7 minutes ago, JCon said: But you're not losing anything in a trade. There's no reason you can't get a NHL ready prospect back in return (that's expansion draft protected). And, there's no reason you can't flip those assets into another piece this summer. What do you mean you're not losing anything? You're losing the player you traded away. An "NHL-ready prospect".... what is that? How do you know they are NHL ready? Are you getting a prospect that can replace Perreault's 40 points next year? The year after? 2 years? When? Are you getting a Lowry/Armia type of guy back? So you trade away Perreault for a Lowry/Armia type and then lose Lowry/Armia in the draft? Logically it just makes no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCon Posted February 23, 2017 Report Share Posted February 23, 2017 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Atomic said: What do you mean you're not losing anything? You're losing the player you traded away. An "NHL-ready prospect".... what is that? How do you know they are NHL ready? Are you getting a prospect that can replace Perreault's 40 points next year? The year after? 2 years? When? Are you getting a Lowry/Armia type of guy back? So you trade away Perreault for a Lowry/Armia type and then lose Lowry/Armia in the draft? Logically it just makes no sense. Losing something suggests not getting something in exchange. It's a trade. And, you need to make room for some of the youth coming through anyhow. No, I'm not suggesting we get a Lowry/Armia in exchange. And, by your logic, why would we give away Perreault's 40 points a season for nothing? Edited February 23, 2017 by JCon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goalie Posted February 23, 2017 Report Share Posted February 23, 2017 (edited) Perreault is a victim of being paid 2 much. They probably see Connor in that 2nd line LW spot. 4.125 Is a lot for a 3rd line winger and the savings can go to little trouba ehlers Morrissey Laine etc cuz they ain't gonna be cheap Edited February 23, 2017 by Goalie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atomic Posted February 23, 2017 Report Share Posted February 23, 2017 27 minutes ago, JCon said: Losing something suggests not getting something in exchange. It's a trade. And, you need to make room for some of the youth coming through anyhow. No, I'm not suggesting we get a Lowry/Armia in exchange. And, by your logic, why would we give away Perreault's 40 points a season for nothing? Losing something suggests losing something. An asset that is no longer with the team. And that is going to happen either way due to the expansion draft. Make room for youth? What?? Who?? We have room. We have close to the youngest team already. Do we really need to get even younger? Let Connor and Roslovic fight for a spot next year and if they can't earn one they will be brought up eventually as injury-replacements. No need to ship out good players to "make room." Then what are you suggesting we get? A kid that has never played in the NHL? There is no way to know if that kid is NHL-ready then. That's a gamble. I wouldn't give away Perreault, I would protect him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atomic Posted February 23, 2017 Report Share Posted February 23, 2017 21 minutes ago, Goalie said: Perreault is a victim of being paid 2 much. They probably see Connor in that 2nd line LW spot. 4.125 Is a lot for a 3rd line winger and the savings can go to little trouba ehlers Morrissey Laine etc cuz they ain't gonna be cheap Sure has looked good on the top line with Scheif and Laine. We're bumping Perreault to the third line now for a guy who got demoted to the AHL after being totally ineffective in the NHL? Maybe Connor will develop into a top-six guy but it's not guaranteed. Pump the brakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goalie Posted February 23, 2017 Report Share Posted February 23, 2017 Once you realize the future is scheif Laine ehlers Connor and the young guys it will make moving on from Perreault who isn't a part of any core group a lot easier FrostyWinnipeg, Jimmy Pop, JCon and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atomic Posted February 23, 2017 Report Share Posted February 23, 2017 17 minutes ago, Goalie said: Once you realize the future is scheif Laine ehlers Connor and the young guys it will make moving on from Perreault who isn't a part of any core group a lot easier He's a part of the core group right now and for the next 3 years. Connor? Why Connor? Why not whoever we pick in the top 10 this year? Give it a few years and you'll be bitching about those guys you call the core group and saying we should move on to younger players. And so the team never improves. But hey they're young!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bustamente Posted February 23, 2017 Report Share Posted February 23, 2017 33 minutes ago, Goalie said: Once you realize the future is scheif Laine ehlers Connor and the young guys it will make moving on from Perreault who isn't a part of any core group a lot easier Add Roslovic, Gennaro, maybe Harkins, Lemieux, and Spacek and more veterans will be cut loose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atomic Posted February 24, 2017 Report Share Posted February 24, 2017 29 minutes ago, bustamente said: Add Roslovic, Gennaro, maybe Harkins, Lemieux, and Spacek and more veterans will be cut loose. LOL now we're cutting quality veterans to make room for a 7th round draft pick. How ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bustamente Posted February 24, 2017 Report Share Posted February 24, 2017 7 minutes ago, Atomic said: LOL now we're cutting quality veterans to make room for a 7th round draft pick. How ridiculous. Down the road not tomorrow, these guys are a long way off but in time decisions will have to be made just like they did with Ladd. Goalie 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goalie Posted February 24, 2017 Report Share Posted February 24, 2017 1 hour ago, Atomic said: He's a part of the core group right now and for the next 3 years. Connor? Why Connor? Why not whoever we pick in the top 10 this year? Give it a few years and you'll be bitching about those guys you call the core group and saying we should move on to younger players. And so the team never improves. But hey they're young!! This team will start competing more when the reigns are handed over to the younger players. You'd think being swept in 4 a couple years back would show you its time to move on from some vets and transition to a younger team with a brighter future. Perreault Is NOT part of the core. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted February 24, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 24, 2017 Right now, Connor isn't better than Perreault and certainly isn't able to fill the holes Perreault can as a centre. Id rather keep perreault and make Connor steal his job. Atomic and sweep the leg 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atomic Posted February 24, 2017 Report Share Posted February 24, 2017 57 minutes ago, Goalie said: This team will start competing more when the reigns are handed over to the younger players. You'd think being swept in 4 a couple years back would show you its time to move on from some vets and transition to a younger team with a brighter future. Perreault Is NOT part of the core. Yes, Perreault is part of the core, right now and for the next 3 years. Younger does not necessarily mean better. I don't know why you don't understand this basic, simple concept. 2 years back we got swept, now we're younger and going to miss the playoffs. God I'm just so happy at how great the team is now. Oh wait, I already know, it's the coaches' fault, the veterans, everyone other than your precious, perfect kids with bright futures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atomic Posted February 24, 2017 Report Share Posted February 24, 2017 1 hour ago, bustamente said: Down the road not tomorrow, these guys are a long way off but in time decisions will have to be made just like they did with Ladd. Let them earn their spots. Shipping out Ladd made sense because he was done.... but if we hadn't drafted Laine we would be up **** creek right now in last in the conference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bustamente Posted February 24, 2017 Report Share Posted February 24, 2017 I agree spots should be earned doesn't always go that way, but next year Little will probably ask for a 6x6 contract and the year after Wheeler will ask for 7x7, guess what they won't get that from the Jets, especially if Trouba decides he wants to stay long term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted February 24, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 24, 2017 Little and Wheeler will get fairness offers based on age and production. And if they want to juice their offers by going to free agency like Ladd, then they will be traded for solid assets. bustamente 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bustamente Posted February 24, 2017 Report Share Posted February 24, 2017 Just now, The Unknown Poster said: Little and Wheeler will get fairness offers based on age and production. And if they want to juice their offers by going to free agency like Ladd, then they will be traded for solid assets. I think Little may settle for 5.5 x 6 and personally I would give him that, but I want no part of Wheeler on a big money /term contract. The Unknown Poster 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCon Posted February 24, 2017 Report Share Posted February 24, 2017 5 hours ago, Atomic said: Losing something suggests losing something. An asset that is no longer with the team. And that is going to happen either way due to the expansion draft. Make room for youth? What?? Who?? We have room. We have close to the youngest team already. Do we really need to get even younger? Let Connor and Roslovic fight for a spot next year and if they can't earn one they will be brought up eventually as injury-replacements. No need to ship out good players to "make room." Then what are you suggesting we get? A kid that has never played in the NHL? There is no way to know if that kid is NHL-ready then. That's a gamble. I wouldn't give away Perreault, I would protect him. You're not losing anything. When I trade money for a product, I'm not losing money. Protect Perreault and let Lowry get taken? That would be crazy. What a waste of an asset. That's just losing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted February 24, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 24, 2017 No points for Matthews tonight. Leafs with three games in hand on Jets now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrostyWinnipeg Posted February 24, 2017 Report Share Posted February 24, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said: Right now, Connor isn't better than Perreault and certainly isn't able to fill the holes Perreault can as a centre. Id rather keep perreault and make Connor steal his job. Perreault has not been center much the last 2 years Edited February 24, 2017 by FrostyWinnipeg Goalie 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted February 24, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 24, 2017 11 minutes ago, FrostyWinnipeg said: Perreault has not been center much the last 2 years True. But he has experience at center. He can play all forward positions. Good player to have on your team. He hasn't looked out of place top six and he can play gritty. I'd keep him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bustamente Posted February 24, 2017 Report Share Posted February 24, 2017 Nashville and Calgary both win tonight, 4 points from a wildcard spot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts