Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 43
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Central NJ
    Posts
    2,884
    vCash
    1500
    Hate to say it but I think Homer needs to look at Voracek/Simmonds/Read/Schenn/Laughton and pick who he wants long term. Too many forwards that aren't snipers, which in the West Conference wouldnt be an issue, but when you are in a division with the Penguins, its a problem.

    Just saying because I think for Anaheim to budge, any Bobby Ryan trade will have to start off with one of those names.
    (just as an example, say you trade Simmonds, a 1st and a prospect or 2)
    Voracek - Giroux - Ryan
    Hartnell - Briere - Schenn
    Laughton - Couts - Read
    Fedo - Talbot - Rinaldo

    just sit back, look at it, and imagine how good that would be. Or pick another guy instead of Simmonds and swap them out.


  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    3,492
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Randall Stevens View Post
    Hate to say it but I think Homer needs to look at Voracek/Simmonds/Read/Schenn/Laughton and pick who he wants long term. Too many forwards that aren't snipers, which in the West Conference wouldnt be an issue, but when you are in a division with the Penguins, its a problem.

    Just saying because I think for Anaheim to budge, any Bobby Ryan trade will have to start off with one of those names.
    (just as an example, say you trade Simmonds, a 1st and a prospect or 2)
    Voracek - Giroux - Ryan
    Hartnell - Briere - Schenn
    Laughton - Couts - Read
    Fedo - Talbot - Rinaldo

    just sit back, look at it, and imagine how good that would be. Or pick another guy instead of Simmonds and swap them out.
    I think if we're going to move one piece, it should be Read. If we could package Read + Prospects + 1st Rounder + Another pick or 2 --> Subban/Ryan, I'm interested. If not, we'll see what we have in Schenn #1, Schenn #2, Laughton, Voracek, and Simmonds.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    3,492
    vCash
    1500
    The other person I'd like to look at more would be Kadri from TOR. He's got that "it" factor -- you can almost tell by watching him that he has all of the tools to be something special.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    39,516
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Ace23 View Post
    I think if we're going to move one piece, it should be Read. If we could package Read + Prospects + 1st Rounder + Another pick or 2 --> Subban/Ryan, I'm interested. If not, we'll see what we have in Schenn #1, Schenn #2, Laughton, Voracek, and Simmonds.
    That's just not going to be enough. Matt Read is the easiest player to part with because he's the least valuable. Of course we'd like to trade him but....well....he's not a headliner piece. On top of that....we have almost no prospects. Tye "I Scored 18 points in the ****ing AHL last year" is like, one of our 10 best AHL players right now.

    Flat out....it's going to be a Schenn or a Couturier to headline a deal.
    #WhyNot?

    People ask me, "Why here? Why Kentucky?", I said "Why not"? It can be done here. It will be done here. Lay the foundation. Recruit and develop. Prepare to win. Day by day. Play by play. A new era of high performance. Why Kentucky? Why not? -Mark Stoops

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    South Jersey
    Posts
    9,408
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by 1908_Cubs View Post
    That's just not going to be enough. Matt Read is the easiest player to part with because he's the least valuable. Of course we'd like to trade him but....well....he's not a headliner piece. On top of that....we have almost no prospects. Tye "I Scored 18 points in the ****ing AHL last year" is like, one of our 10 best AHL players right now.

    Flat out....it's going to be a Schenn or a Couturier to headline a deal.

    yeah, but see....it's not.

    if they weren't gonna part with either of them for Shea Weber, they aren't going to part with them.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    39,516
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by phillyeaglesman View Post
    yeah, but see....it's not.

    if they weren't gonna part with either of them for Shea Weber, they aren't going to part with them.


    I understand that. All I was saying was that IF (big if), they were to make a trade for Subban or Ryan, it's going to be those guys headlining a deal, not Matt Reed. Reed's a secondary piece in any trade, not a headliner.
    #WhyNot?

    People ask me, "Why here? Why Kentucky?", I said "Why not"? It can be done here. It will be done here. Lay the foundation. Recruit and develop. Prepare to win. Day by day. Play by play. A new era of high performance. Why Kentucky? Why not? -Mark Stoops

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    South Jersey
    Posts
    9,408
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by 1908_Cubs View Post


    I understand that. All I was saying was that IF (big if), they were to make a trade for Subban or Ryan, it's going to be those guys headlining a deal, not Matt Reed. Reed's a secondary piece in any trade, not a headliner.

    i disagree. i understand your point on Read, but my point remains. they aren't trading Couts or Schenn for anyone. that means anyone.


    if they are gonna make a deal for PK or Ryan, they'll attempt to do so without Couts or Schenn, and if they can't get it done, they won't. simple as that.


    saying it will TAKE Couts or Schenn is one thing; saying "it's going to be those guys headlining a deal" just isn't correct.



    semantics, i know, but it's true.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    39,516
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by phillyeaglesman View Post
    i disagree. i understand your point on Read, but my point remains. they aren't trading Couts or Schenn for anyone. that means anyone.


    if they are gonna make a deal for PK or Ryan, they'll attempt to do so without Couts or Schenn, and if they can't get it done, they won't. simple as that.


    saying it will TAKE Couts or Schenn is one thing; saying "it's going to be those guys headlining a deal" just isn't correct.



    semantics, i know, but it's true.
    EDIT: Nevermind.
    #WhyNot?

    People ask me, "Why here? Why Kentucky?", I said "Why not"? It can be done here. It will be done here. Lay the foundation. Recruit and develop. Prepare to win. Day by day. Play by play. A new era of high performance. Why Kentucky? Why not? -Mark Stoops

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    230
    vCash
    1500
    My God that's a beautiful list of UFA's.

    I agree with everybody on acquiring Bobby Ryan either at the deadline or in the offseason, but if not, I say we throw an offer at Michael Ryder.

    Also if Boston opts to not re-sign Andrew Ference, which I highly doubt they let him walk, he'd be a major upgrade on the defense.

    The only thing is both Ryder and Ference, along with a ton of other players I'm entertaining in my head, will most likely be re-signed by their respective clubs. They'd be crazy not to.
    Last edited by Ernie Hudson; 01-24-2013 at 10:53 PM.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    3,492
    vCash
    1500
    Mark Streit is an enticing name...won't get nearly as much play as guys like Ian White, but he can be a great bargain (relatively speaking) signing.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South Jersey
    Posts
    986
    vCash
    1500
    Also gotta figure some other big names will emerge as teams utilize the amnesty clauses. List right now looks like slop...but you gotta assume some other big names will be cut for cap purposes.


    “Too many people go through life complaining about their problems. I've always believed that if you took one tenth of the energy you put into complaining and applied it to solving the problem, you'd be surprised by how well things can work out.”
    ― Randy Pausch, The Last Lecture

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    39,516
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Randall Stevens View Post
    Hate to say it but I think Homer needs to look at Voracek/Simmonds/Read/Schenn/Laughton and pick who he wants long term. Too many forwards that aren't snipers, which in the West Conference wouldnt be an issue, but when you are in a division with the Penguins, its a problem.

    Just saying because I think for Anaheim to budge, any Bobby Ryan trade will have to start off with one of those names.
    (just as an example, say you trade Simmonds, a 1st and a prospect or 2)
    Voracek - Giroux - Ryan
    Hartnell - Briere - Schenn
    Laughton - Couts - Read
    Fedo - Talbot - Rinaldo

    just sit back, look at it, and imagine how good that would be. Or pick another guy instead of Simmonds and swap them out.
    I think this is exactly what the team needs to do, although a little more specifically - they need to look at their young center corp between Giroux/Schenn/Couturier/Laughton and decide who they want to keep, and who they don't. When you add in Briere (who's just not going to be going anywhere, I don't think), you've got 5 guys who are pure centers and really don't play on the wing well, and realistically, only 3 positions to fill (1st, 2nd and 3rd line center). This also doesn't even include someone like Max Talbot who could easily be the sixth center on this team. There's too much redundancy with those guys (outside of Giroux) in the sense that they're all 2 way guys, none of them are really "goal scorers" or even purely offensive players. What it comes down to, and I'm not saying throw him away, but Sean Couturier or Brayden Schenn are "expendable".

    "But 1908 we didn't trade them for Shea Weber, thus we can never trade them!". Well, first, I think they kind of messed up there, but they gambled and lost. I think they were under the impression Nashville wasn't going to match that offer sheet and they'd get their cake (Weber) and eat it too (by keeping all of their players). From what it sounded like, the team never entertained the idea of dealing them, and I think part of that was because they didn't want to trade them if they thought they could keep them. Secondly, I think it's becoming clear this year we're a one trick pony offensively: throw it at the net and rebound, rebound, rebound. Giroux and Briere are really the only "outside" scoring threats on the team (Read somewhat). There's nothing on the point, there's nothing on the wings.

    I don't want to give those guys up, but I think it's becoming painfully obvious we need to "reshuffle" some of our talent. We need some shooters, some playmakers. What happens when Briere gets old? We cannot survive with a whole bunch of centers and no scorers. We've got a lot of one good thing and none of a few good things. It's....redundant. And I don't even think someone like Wayne Simmonds gets it done. The upside is just, too limited. We're getting a 30-40 goal sniper in Bobby Ryan - they don't come cheaply. Would I love to trade, say, a Couturier for Ryan? No....not really. But I also think that on value as a hockey player, Ryan is about the ceiling of value I'd expect Couturier to reach (not in the same way, as in, Couts wont be a 40 goal winger, but in terms of overall value when you consider offense+defense). And It'd be Couts, and lets say, a 2nd round pick (maybe start them off a 3rd and see if they bite) and a fringe prospect. You can still keep:

    Hartnell - Giroux - Ryan
    Simmonds - Briere - Schenn
    Read - Laughton - Voracek
    Sestito - Talbot - Fedatenko

    You're losing some in terms of the today value from Laughton to Couturier, and I won't disagree there, but I think it's a center who needs to go and not a winger like Simmonds or Voracek. You still keep in check three young centers with big upside in Giroux/Schenn/Laughton all under the age of 25, two under the age of 21 for the long term. You don't give up a single winger, which we're somewhat lacking. I think that team's pretty ****ing good.
    Last edited by 1908_Cubs; 01-25-2013 at 08:38 AM.
    #WhyNot?

    People ask me, "Why here? Why Kentucky?", I said "Why not"? It can be done here. It will be done here. Lay the foundation. Recruit and develop. Prepare to win. Day by day. Play by play. A new era of high performance. Why Kentucky? Why not? -Mark Stoops

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Southern NJ
    Posts
    3,451
    vCash
    1500
    I am just going to put this out there. It is a hunch. It is probably wrong.

    That being said I think Matt Read is Patrick Sharp 2.0. I do not mean that he’ll be better than Sharp but I seem him developing in a similar fashion. He finds himself the odd man out for whatever reason, gets traded, and develops into a nice consistent goal scorer.

    You heard it here first.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    39,516
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by elate View Post
    I am just going to put this out there. It is a hunch. It is probably wrong.

    That being said I think Matt Read is Patrick Sharp 2.0. I do not mean that he’ll be better than Sharp but I seem him developing in a similar fashion. He finds himself the odd man out for whatever reason, gets traded, and develops into a nice consistent goal scorer.

    You heard it here first.
    I think Matt Read is a really nice tertiary piece. I actually really like him. He's a fantastic 3rd line goal scorer and I could see some upward mobility where he could be a real 2nd line asset.

    And I agree, he seems to be the "odd man out" and I don't know why. He seems to be the guy fans are most "okay" with losing when it comes to him, Schenn and Couturier, but out of the 3, I actually think he's more valuable tot his team than either of them currently because he actually adds something different: pure shooting ability. Couts and Schenn, while fantastic, and with huge upsides, kind of bring "more of the same". Not saying Read's better, just maybe more valuable today.
    #WhyNot?

    People ask me, "Why here? Why Kentucky?", I said "Why not"? It can be done here. It will be done here. Lay the foundation. Recruit and develop. Prepare to win. Day by day. Play by play. A new era of high performance. Why Kentucky? Why not? -Mark Stoops

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,488
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by elate View Post
    I am just going to put this out there. It is a hunch. It is probably wrong.

    That being said I think Matt Read is Patrick Sharp 2.0. I do not mean that he’ll be better than Sharp but I seem him developing in a similar fashion. He finds himself the odd man out for whatever reason, gets traded, and develops into a nice consistent goal scorer.

    You heard it here first.

    Matt Read is the type of wing that is necessary to win a cup ... he was the best player on the ice for several of his shifts against buffalo and NJ ... a little quiet in the NYR game, but Matt Read is critical to us having that 3rd line that can score, defend and compete

    i dont see as good as patrick sharp, but i see why you made the comparison ... he will be good where-ever he goes because of his skill and how he sees the ice

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •