PDA

View Full Version : Rangers have to make a big decision on Clowe



SLY WILLIAMS
06-10-2013, 08:02 AM
The Rangers’ staff is convening this week at GM Glen Sather’s Western White House in La Quinta, Calif., for the organizational meetings that will focus on the coaching vacancy and personnel decisions, the most immediate of which involve the Brad Richards’ amnesty buyout and Ryane Clowe’s pending unrestricted free agency.

The cost of re-upping Clowe, the 30-year-old winger who is believed to have sustained a pair of concussions in a matter of 16 days bridging the season and the playoffs (and is suspected to have suffered an earlier concussion while with San Jose before coming to the Blueshirts prior to the deadline), will be more than the dollars on the contract.

For if the Rangers re-sign Clowe, the big-bodied winger who had trouble keeping up with the pace before going down in Game 47 at Carolina, the club will be obligated to send a second-round pick to the Sharks in 2014 (instead of a No. 5) in addition to the second and third in 2013 already sent San Jose’s way.

Way too costly, by any measure.http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/more_sports/fired_up_reF8AjV9HXqj8j5rQV0WHN

nyr2002nyr
06-10-2013, 08:26 AM
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/more_sports/fired_up_reF8AjV9HXqj8j5rQV0WHN


This is an easy decision. You have to let him walk

runnermjr1296
06-10-2013, 08:29 AM
The shame is a healthy Ryan Clowe is EXACTLY what the doctor ordered. I realize every team has their share of injuries,but i think we missed him big time in the play offs

SLY WILLIAMS
06-10-2013, 08:53 AM
I thought the trade was pretty risky from the minute it happened so I have a bias. I can see why the team thought he would be a great addition but I could see the risky downside as well. If it was a injury free Clowe in his prime then the trade would have made 100% sense but I do not believe that was the case. I think we rolled the dice and took a chance which I'm okay with but sadly (in part because of injuries) it does not appear to have worked out.

nyr2002nyr
06-10-2013, 09:14 AM
I thought the trade was pretty risky from the minute it happened so I have a bias. I can see why the team thought he would be a great addition but I could see the risky downside as well. If it was a injury free Clowe in his prime then the trade would have made 100% sense but I do not believe that was the case. I think we rolled the dice and took a chance which I'm okay with but sadly (in part because of injuries) it does not appear to have worked out.

I think we both felt the same way about this one

NYSPORTS98
06-10-2013, 10:02 AM
The Rangers planned on losing that 2nd round pick when made the trade. They either resign Clowe and lose the pick or don't resign Clowe and trade the pick in a package for some much needed upgrades.

Looking into the future, a max contract for the goalie for 8 years would be insane considering his current age.

SLY WILLIAMS
06-10-2013, 12:01 PM
We could also decide to keep the 2nd pick for ourselves.

We have had some success with 2nd round picks (Stepan, Nieves, Anisimov, Sauer, Tyutin).

J4KOP99
06-10-2013, 01:41 PM
DO NOT re-sign him.

metswon69
06-10-2013, 01:48 PM
Yeah i think it's pretty much a consensus we can't re-sign him with the concussion issues. We had that problem with guys like Lindros and more recently Sauer.

It's just a bad idea.

puckhead54
06-10-2013, 02:19 PM
The Rangers planned on losing that 2nd round pick when made the trade. They either resign Clowe and lose the pick or don't resign Clowe and trade the pick in a package for some much needed upgrades.

Looking into the future, a max contract for the goalie for 8 years would be insane considering his current age.

Why would signing Lundqvist to an 8 year contract be insane in eight years Lundqvist will be 39 y/o. There were/are 14 that played into their 40's Brodeur,Belfour,Plante,Hasek,Joseph,Sawchuk,Esposi to,Worsley,Hainsworth,Johnston,Kahabibulin,Burke,&Roloson,
There were/are 3 that played until 39 y/o Hall,Cheevers,Hedberg
There were 6 that played unitil 38 y/o Smith,Vernon,Osgood,Giacomin,Beezer,Kolzig
There 4 were that played until 37 Fuhr,Moog,Barrasso,Broda

These are not no name goaltenders by any stretch these are HOF's and future HOF's. To say Lundquvist will not surpass a majority of them if not all of them statistically is jumping the gun. He has no injury history, he is playing great regardless of the lack of scoring and sometimes iffy defense. He is a very focused, healthy, & committed individual he wants nothing more than to win. So to say signing him to an 8 Year contract is insane I for one say you are wrong.

nyr2002nyr
06-10-2013, 03:37 PM
Why would signing Lundqvist to an 8 year contract be insane in eight years Lundqvist will be 39 y/o. There were/are 14 that played into their 40's Brodeur,Belfour,Plante,Hasek,Joseph,Sawchuk,Esposi to,Worsley,Hainsworth,Johnston,Kahabibulin,Burke,&Roloson,
There were/are 3 that played until 39 y/o Hall,Cheevers,Hedberg
There were 6 that played unitil 38 y/o Smith,Vernon,Osgood,Giacomin,Beezer,Kolzig
There 4 were that played until 37 Fuhr,Moog,Barrasso,Broda

These are not no name goaltenders by any stretch these are HOF's and future HOF's. To say Lundquvist will not surpass a majority of them if not all of them statistically is jumping the gun. He has no injury history, he is playing great regardless of the lack of scoring and sometimes iffy defense. He is a very focused, healthy, & committed individual he wants nothing more than to win. So to say signing him to an 8 Year contract is insane I for one say you are wrong.


14 out of how many played into thier 40's. Odds are against him being good at that point and it would be a mistake

fingerbang
06-10-2013, 03:40 PM
An 8 year contract for Lundqvist at a hefty cap hit = Arod 2.0. On the flip side, you probably need to pay that price to keep him in a Rangers uniform.

I wouldn't object to seeing what his trade value is.

nyr2002nyr
06-10-2013, 03:49 PM
An 8 year contract for Lundqvist at a hefty cap hit = Arod 2.0. On the flip side, you probably need to pay that price to keep him in a Rangers uniform.

I wouldn't object to seeing what his trade value is.

Sucks to say but they have to at least explore it

metswon69
06-10-2013, 03:55 PM
I think Lundqvist could be effective into his middle to late 30s, maybe 36 or 37. That still gives you 5-6 of him being a solid goaltender.

In no circumstances would i deal him unless it was just an unbelievable package. We can't worry about cap space 5-6 years from now as who knows who is even still on the roster at that point.

NYSPORTS98
06-10-2013, 04:48 PM
I think Lundqvist could be effective into his middle to late 30s, maybe 36 or 37. That still gives you 5-6 of him being a solid goaltender.

In no circumstances would i deal him unless it was just an unbelievable package. We can't worry about cap space 5-6 years from now as who knows who is even still on the roster at that point.

We can't worry about cap space for 5-6 years? They have to buyout Richards so they don't lose 3 players this offseason b/c of the cap. Other contracts will soon be on the horizon. You have to worry about the cap almost every season and looking at Sather's track record of wasting money, I wouldn't bet on any goalie playing at a high level come 35+ with possibly four years left at a max. No guarantees in this economy the cap rises too high going forward.

Budget responsibly.

metswon69
06-10-2013, 04:57 PM
We can't worry about cap space for 5-6 years? They have to buyout Richards so they don't lose 3 players this offseason b/c of the cap. Other contracts will soon be on the horizon. You have to worry about the cap almost every season and looking at Sather's track record of wasting money, I wouldn't bet on any goalie playing at a high level come 35+ with possibly four years left at a max. No guarantees in this economy the cap rises too high going forward.

Budget responsibly.

You can't worry about cap space because you don't even know who's going to be on this team 5-6 years from now. Richards will probably be gone this offseason. Are Girardi, Staal, Del Zotto, Boyle, Hagelin, etc etc gonna be here? Who knows? Nor do we do know what the salary cap limit will be in that time. I certainly don't see it going down 5-6 years from now or leveling off for that matter.

Overpayment is part of all sports and Lundqvist is still an integral piece to this team. Those type of goalies just don't grow on trees.

puckhead54
06-10-2013, 05:06 PM
14 out of how many played into thier 40's. Odds are against him being good at that point and it would be a mistake

There are 60 goaltenders in the league and 3 are over 40 but when you consider the average 40 year old player has played in the NHL between 15 & 20 Years That's a long time. Lundqvist has been in the league for only 8 years. Do you honestly think that with all the goaltenders out there that signing Lundqvist to an 8 year contract is not a good idea. What do you do if you trade him? Ok so you get Malkin or Crosby for him but WHO replaces him in goal? What are the odds of coming across another goaltender like Lundqvist a lot higher than signing him for 8 more years. We are lucky to have him he's a franchise goalie and when you have such a person you keep him. Goaltenders are not easily found in the draft or traded for. Unless we draft an 18 year old goaltender and he blossoms within 4 years then it's a different story but what are those odds probably a lot higher than Lundqvist playing until he's 40. When you have what many consider the best goaltender in the world you give whatever it takes to keep him. Who would you rather sign to an 8 year contract Lunquvist or Richards. Keeping Lundqvist makes a lot of sense the cap will more than likely keep going up and to lock him up for the rest of his career makes sense. Remember without him we go from a sixth place cup contender missing a couple a couple of pieces to one with a gaping hole that probably can't be filled and the bottom of the league.

NYSPORTS98
06-10-2013, 05:07 PM
You can't worry about cap space because you don't even know who's going to be on this team 5-6 years from now. Richards will probably be gone this offseason. Are Girardi, Staal, Del Zotto, Boyle, Hagelin, etc etc gonna be here? Who knows? Nor do we do know what the salary cap limit will be in that time. I certainly don't see it going down 5-6 years from now or leveling off for that matter.

Overpayment is part of all sports and Lundqvist is still an integral piece to this team. Those type of goalies just don't grow on trees.

If Lundy asks for $10 million and Sather gives it to him, who is going to be off the roster within 2 years? Cap space doesn't grow on trees either and I'm not breaking the bank for anybody north of 32 years if I'm the Rangers. They're history proves they stink at the game.

metswon69
06-10-2013, 05:14 PM
If Lundy asks for $10 million and Sather gives it to him, who is going to be off the roster within 2 years? Cap space doesn't grow on trees either and I'm not breaking the bank for anybody north of 32 years if I'm the Rangers. They're history proves they stink at the game.

When you have arguably the best goaltender in the league you make an exception. There's been no drop off in his game yet and presumably he can keep this up for another 2-3 years before he starts to show decline.

I think he can productive longer than most. Look at guys like Broduer, Vokoun, Nabakov, etc, they are still very productive goalies at their age and Lundqvist is better than the latter 2. This guy is a future HOF, not some player who had a career year and is looking to cash in.

Even look at Tim Thomas up until last year and Lundqvist is better than he is as well.

I don't even think about dealing Henrik unless the Rangers get absolutely floored with an offer.

nyr2002nyr
06-10-2013, 05:17 PM
You can't worry about cap space because you don't even know who's going to be on this team 5-6 years from now. Richards will probably be gone this offseason. Are Girardi, Staal, Del Zotto, Boyle, Hagelin, etc etc gonna be here? Who knows? Nor do we do know what the salary cap limit will be in that time. I certainly don't see it going down 5-6 years from now or leveling off for that matter.

Overpayment is part of all sports and Lundqvist is still an integral piece to this team. Those type of goalies just don't grow on trees.

You can't worry about cap space? That is an instant classic

metswon69
06-10-2013, 05:42 PM
You can't worry about cap space? That is an instant classic

Does anyone know who is going to be on the roster 5-6 years from now or what the cap structure is going to look like?

This is the best goaltender in the NHL imo, you don't trade that when you are looking to compete in the short term.

SLY WILLIAMS
06-10-2013, 06:11 PM
We missed the playoffs for 7 years in large part because we had below average goaltending. I'm not Lundys biggest fan but I understand it is very important to keep him. We should not overpay or under pay. We should give him a fair offer based on the market and his standing in the league. Lets hope that is enough to make a deal.

NYSPORTS98
06-10-2013, 06:18 PM
The Rangers missed the playoffs 7 years in a row b/c they signed players on the back nine for huge contracts, drafted horribly and traded any worthwhile youth away.

metalbest
06-10-2013, 06:28 PM
Reading this thread there are two sides that are so far apart its amazing. one side is talking trade, the other is talking max cap hit. Neither is good for the organization. I honestly don't believe Hank will handicap the team with a max contract. This is not baseball were you can spend unlimited amounts and just pay a tax, there is a solid cap floor and ceiling. As long as Hank is happy with the organization I believe he will take his share but a smaller one then he deserves so that the Rangers can be a cup team.

If he wants 8 million a year then he is handcuffing this organization and sending a lot of his teammates packing because we won't be able to afford them. My favorite player is Hank, but if he wants the limit then we have to let him go. Trading him then becomes the next best thing, as that return would probably turn us from a defensive minded goaltender dependent team into an offensive powerhouse.

Point being, if Hank takes his share but leaves a big enough piece of the pie we can grow into a team that can be offensively strong with a hell of a tender. If he wants too much we become a cap crippled team that will never be better then a Conference Finals loser (if that).

bsi
06-10-2013, 06:37 PM
Trade Clowe's rights to somewhere for a conditional pick if we aren't planning on signing him much like Ottawa did with Gonchar(that contract is mind boggling). I also have no problem with signing Hank to a 8 year contract at all, as long as he's willing to not look for the max dollars, most successful teams now are going with young low contract goalies. I love Hank but he's gotta take a discount to stay here for the good of the team. What he does will impact who goes and who stays and it changes what we're able to do as a franchise.

SLY WILLIAMS
06-11-2013, 08:53 AM
Trade Clowe's rights to somewhere for a conditional pick if we aren't planning on signing him much like Ottawa did with Gonchar(that contract is mind boggling). I also have no problem with signing Hank to a 8 year contract at all, as long as he's willing to not look for the max dollars, most successful teams now are going with young low contract goalies. I love Hank but he's gotta take a discount to stay here for the good of the team. What he does will impact who goes and who stays and it changes what we're able to do as a franchise.

If we could get one 2nd, 3rd, or 4th round draft pick back for his rights I think that would be a great move.

Griz
06-11-2013, 01:14 PM
Well the cap minimum is fixed for the length of the CBA so you don’t have to worry about it falling below the $64.3 million mark. Basically you’re back to the 2011-2012 budget constraints, Since it’s average yearly salary backloading is not a cap factor going forward.
Most of the top teams are going to have to deal with cap issues especially in our division.. Richards is gone he has to be our compliance buyout we only have one that’s a no brainer. Everything else has to be done with trades.. We really need Clowe’s ability on the PP and faceoffs. I don’t see concussions as a problem since anything over 10 days is a long-term injury which gives you cap relief.
If the new coach is going to open things up, an absolute if your comparing it to Torts scheme, you need a stopper like Lundqvist. Most of what he lets in are shots he never sees or redirections most of the leagues keepers don’t have a chance on. He’s #1 among active Goalies in shootouts. If you want to win a cup anytime soon signing Lundqvist is a must regardless. If your more concerned with 6 years down the road than you are the next 5 by all means let him get away.

beast023
06-12-2013, 03:12 PM
For what it's worth, Pekka Rinne, who I consider to be the most comparable goaltender to hank, signed a 7 year $49 million deal with the preds last summer, when he was 29 years of age I believe. He and hank are 8 months apart almost to the day. So that should be about as close to market value as it gets.

beast023
06-12-2013, 03:23 PM
Does anyone think Dustin penner or Chris Stewart could be comparable replacements for clowe? Also I remember hearing on Espn rumor central that Alex burmistrov didn't wanna play for Winnipeg anymore (I realize the validity of Espn when it comes to NHL news/rumors is suspect but...) assuming there is something to it what do u guys think about him? Don't really know much about him other than he was a highly touted prospect before he was drafted a couple years ago.

bsi
06-13-2013, 10:51 AM
Does anyone think Dustin penner or Chris Stewart could be comparable replacements for clowe? Also I remember hearing on Espn rumor central that Alex burmistrov didn't wanna play for Winnipeg anymore (I realize the validity of Espn when it comes to NHL news/rumors is suspect but...) assuming there is something to it what do u guys think about him? Don't really know much about him other than he was a highly touted prospect before he was drafted a couple years ago.

Burmistrov definately wants out of Winnipeg, it's a fact. However I doubt Winnipeg is giving him away for free. I've heard that maybe Winnipeg and the Islanders might work a deal sending Ninoreiter for Burmistrov since neither wants to play where they're at, just a rumor though. Having said that he'd be a good pickup in the skill sense but I've become kinda gun shy on players who blame the team they're on for their lack of playing time or ability to get to the NHL on a consistant basis. It's also telling that this became public news, sometimes for me I'll take the guy that doesn't want to leave over the sook who does. I look at a guy like John Taveres who could have easily packed his bags on a bad Isles team but instead embraced it and is a big part of the reason for their turnaround, Burmistrov would have left there too. If he were cheap I'd take him but I'd assume they'd want a pretty good prospect for him.

itsmillertime
06-28-2013, 08:59 AM
You don't give up a seond and third to rent a guy for a few games. They need to sign him. He's worth the risk.

nyr2002nyr
06-28-2013, 10:19 AM
You don't give up a seond and third to rent a guy for a few games. They need to sign him. He's worth the risk.

He is asking way to much

SLY WILLIAMS
06-28-2013, 11:03 AM
In the financial world mistakes are made often and can be overcome but what puts people out of business is doubling down on a mistake by throwing good money after bad. This trade was a risk. If he was the Clowe of old it was a good risk but I have reservations about giving 4-5 mill on a multiyear contract to a player who could be out again with a hit to the head plus an additional 2nd round pick to go along with the 2nd and 3rd round pick we already paid for the 14 games. If he gets injured again we would be stuck with that cap hit.

Is he worth 4-5 mill a season based on last seasons production?

Is he worth another 2nd round pick?

Will he be able to stay concussion free when a large part of his effectiveness is based on hitting (and fights)?

bsi
06-28-2013, 08:21 PM
In the financial world mistakes are made often and can be overcome but what puts people out of business is doubling down on a mistake by throwing good money after bad. This trade was a risk. If he was the Clowe of old it was a good risk but I have reservations about giving 4-5 mill on a multiyear contract to a player who could be out again with a hit to the head plus an additional 2nd round pick to go along with the 2nd and 3rd round pick we already paid for the 14 games. If he gets injured again we would be stuck with that cap hit.

Is he worth 4-5 mill a season based on last seasons production?

Is he worth another 2nd round pick?

Will he be able to stay concussion free when a large part of his effectiveness is based on hitting (and fights)?

He was cleared by the medical staff yesterday, not that that means anything but atleast he's not in the same place Sauer was in. I see everyone talking about him asking for too much, I haven't seen anywhere an actual figure he asked for, and to be honest I don't even think the Rangers have even started negotiating according to Clowe himself who said he really wanted to stay in NY. So maybe these figures of 4-5 million are exaggerated? I realize a 2nd round pick can turn into a good player but it can also turn into a dud as well, and usually does more times than it produces a top 6 player. For me, he's worth the pick if he's healthy, but I guess that's the million dollar question, can he continue to play the way he's most effective with this latest concussion. If he can he's worth that pick, but that's something the staff will have to evaluate. Everyone is all concussion nervous these days and probably for good reason but realistically most players in the NHL have had some sort of concussion in their careers, with some they are lucky to not get jarred hard again until they recover, others like Lindros aren't so lucky, but fact is most have had one in their career but it's just not publicised until they miss some games in the NHL. When someone "gets their bell rung" that's just a fancy way of saying he's had a concussion but he's going to play anyway.

SLY WILLIAMS
06-28-2013, 09:19 PM
The decision to keep Brads contract this season makes this Clowe decision even more risky.

2nd round picks are not locks but we have had some success with 2nd round picks. Stepan-Duby-AA-Sauer-Tyutin-Cristoval Nieves (maybe a flat out steal) come to mind in recent history.

I have not made a firm decision on Clowe but I am wary of all the downside risk.

bsi
06-30-2013, 07:12 AM
The decision to keep Brads contract this season makes this Clowe decision even more risky.

2nd round picks are not locks but we have had some success with 2nd round picks. Stepan-Duby-AA-Sauer-Tyutin-Cristoval Nieves (maybe a flat out steal) come to mind in recent history.

I have not made a firm decision on Clowe but I am wary of all the downside risk.

For sure but risk is included with any player really as I said before probably 90 percent of these guys have had concussions coming up. I'm ok without Clowe, I think we're better with a healthy Clowe in the lineup but if he's not gonna be healthy I'm fine with letting him go. The big thing is that he's been cleared as healthy already and has the whole summer to rest so that's in his favour but really he's gotta realize that if NY is to keep him he's gonna have to come cheaper than speculated but on the flipside he's probably wanting as big of a contract as he can get since he has already been concussed so the odds are we'll be letting him go anyway. Hearing Seguin is in play, I'd really like to make some sort of run at him, not sure what it would take but we could use a skilled LW. If we still had our first round pick we'd probably be able to make a solid offer but without it we'd probably be out of it.

bsi
06-30-2013, 09:54 AM
Pierre LeBrun "Chatted with Ryane Clowe, UFA July 5. Says he's unsure at this point what's going to happen. Loves New York. Rangers with little cap room."

NYSPORTS98
06-30-2013, 10:43 AM
Sather arrogance? Not sure is these NHL agents have the same teeth as the other major sports but I'm wondering why it's a foregone conclusion the Rangers will be able to sign their own free agents. All somebody has to do is mention Richards compensation and ask for dollars just short of his.

Not feeling too secure with Sather this afternoon or beyond.

SLY WILLIAMS
06-30-2013, 10:44 AM
For sure but risk is included with any player really as I said before probably 90 percent of these guys have had concussions coming up. I'm ok without Clowe, I think we're better with a healthy Clowe in the lineup but if he's not gonna be healthy I'm fine with letting him go. The big thing is that he's been cleared as healthy already and has the whole summer to rest so that's in his favour but really he's gotta realize that if NY is to keep him he's gonna have to come cheaper than speculated but on the flipside he's probably wanting as big of a contract as he can get since he has already been concussed so the odds are we'll be letting him go anyway. Hearing Seguin is in play, I'd really like to make some sort of run at him, not sure what it would take but we could use a skilled LW. If we still had our first round pick we'd probably be able to make a solid offer but without it we'd probably be out of it.

I'm with you on Seguin. I think we need to inject more skill and youth in to this lineup so if we can swing a deal that benefits us that is the direction I would look instead of resigning Clowe.

NYSPORTS98
06-30-2013, 10:48 AM
I'm with you on Seguin. I think we need to inject more skill and youth in to this lineup so if we can swing a deal that benefits us that is the direction I would look instead of resigning Clowe.

lol - the Rangers could swing a deal in a second if they weren't handicapped by Richards. They can't afford much of anything now.

SLY WILLIAMS
06-30-2013, 11:24 AM
lol - the Rangers could swing a deal in a second if they weren't handicapped by Richards. They can't afford much of anything now.

Has a deadline passed where they can not change their mind on the Richards contract?

NYSPORTS98
06-30-2013, 11:29 AM
Has a deadline passed where they can not change their mind on the Richards contract?


Would you hold your breath on that happening?

SLY WILLIAMS
06-30-2013, 11:37 AM
Would you hold your breath on that happening?

I vaguely remember it happening in a pro sport in the last year or two but I can not remember the exact circumstances. The team said they would keep a player but changed their minds after another player became available. It may have been the NFL. I think Brad will definitely be bought out no matter what next off season so if a great opportunity presented itself I could see the Rangers changing their mind and doing it this offseason if the deadline has not passed.

NYSPORTS98
06-30-2013, 12:05 PM
Wouldn't mind seeing Staal moved. Concussion and this eye injury isn't too appealing. Better safe than sorry.

bsi
06-30-2013, 12:52 PM
lol - the Rangers could swing a deal in a second if they weren't handicapped by Richards. They can't afford much of anything now.

Has zero to do with Richards more to do with a lack of a first pick, Boston wants a first in this years draft.

NYSPORTS98
06-30-2013, 12:54 PM
Has zero to do with Richards more to do with a lack of a first pick, Boston wants a first in this years draft.

The money attached to Richards has everything to do with it.

bsi
06-30-2013, 12:59 PM
The money attached to Richards has everything to do with it.

No it doesn't there's players we could trade to offset the money. It won't happen cus we don't have what they want.

bsi
06-30-2013, 01:01 PM
I still think Slats will trade Clowe's rights today.

SLY WILLIAMS
06-30-2013, 01:06 PM
I still think Slats will trade Clowe's rights today.

If we could get back part of we invested in him that would be smart thinking on Slats part. Do you think other teams would be willing to trade a 3rd round pick?

bsi
06-30-2013, 01:21 PM
If we could get back part of we invested in him that would be smart thinking on Slats part. Do you think other teams would be willing to trade a 3rd round pick?

I'd say it's a possibility, maybe we can send them back a 3rd and get a 2nd? Even if we get a 3rd or 4th it's better than letting him walk away for nothing.

SLY WILLIAMS
06-30-2013, 01:39 PM
I'd say it's a possibility, maybe we can send them back a 3rd and get a 2nd? Even if we get a 3rd or 4th it's better than letting him walk away for nothing.

I'd be very happy with that. We have some 3rd rounders to trade. Historically we have good success in the 2nd round and almost no success in the 3rd round. If we could trade Clowes rights with a 3rd pick to get a 2nd I'm definitely on board. That lowers our Clowe investment to two 3rd rounders and a 5th round instead of a 2nd, a 3rd, and a 5th