PerreaultForever

Except we traded a 3rd rounder (Bloom) for Stillman and then dumped Boosh for a 4th rounder. Boosh is better than Stillman so net result we downgraded our D and got a lower draft pick.

It's a question of style of play and what we need to compliment our 2 shiny first overall D men. Joker moves the puck better, but he's not a better D man. Boosh's stats are partly the result of the situations he was put in. He's a bottom pairing guy. See, I look at what we've done now and the D isn't all that different from what it was. I'm not convinced Johnson has anything left. If he does, great, then we have upgraded, but I need to see that before I believe it. Clifton is a slightly better version of Boosh but not all that different. So I think he can play with Power but by taking Boosh away your pairings are only slightly upgraded now. Joker/Johnson as my bottom pairing does not impress me.

This is dumbass. Second highest shot blocker on the team. He was far from perfect, but he should have stayed in the bottom pairing. Joker should have been moved ahead of him if you wanted to dump a body. Just dumbass.

This thread should be pinned to the top with a daily countdown. I really want hockey back this year for some reason more than other years.

See the trick with prospects as assets is evaluating them early and moving them (if you think they are duds) BEFORE other GMs also realize they are duds. If you hold them too long and they don't make it they become virtually worthless. Sometimes you have to gamble and follow your instincts. Keeping ALL your prospects and expecting most of them to become something is just wishful thinking and almost never works.

I'd do both of the first two but I voted Saros, although I don't think they'd make that deal that you offered. Not enough for them or what they'd want. I know people don't agree with this, but I'm still giving up 2 firsts (or Rosen or Östlund instead of a future first) for Hart. Hart AND Konecny for 2 firsts plus Rosen I'm doing that for sure. If they want to throw in DesLauriers or Hathaway for a second as well I'm adding that too. Basically I still think this team is a goalie, a gritty forward and possibly a defensive defenseman away from being a real contender. A PK/face off guy who can play shutdown wouldn't hurt either.

Well that is pretty sad and feels unexpected. "Multiple organ failures". I guess they kept that pretty quiet. Very sad.

Ya, chemistry can change things and we will see how that unfolds. I see Peterka as a better fit on what will eventually be a grittier 2 way 3rd line. Maybe that's just in my wish list though as it's the kind of line I'd like to see. Sabres may have different ideas. In any event I see Peterka being able to be dominant in 3rd line match ups but maybe not quite able to match up on a 1 or 2 line against good teams. I definitely see him as a consistent mid level contributor though.

I see Kulich as a second line winger but time will tell. Ultimately I see the second line as Quinn-Cozens-Kulich with Peterka anchoring the 3rd line eventually with Benson or Savoie or whoever excels.

While I agree with your general idea and I do think prospects need to be considered assets that can be traded to make you instantly better and not JUST future players for your team, you are being a fan here and offering up the less shiny ones, the ones you don't feel are part of the future. I don't see them as being all that desirable to other GMs. eg Hart. Philly might be willing to listen to offers, but there's no way they move him for Östlund AND Rosen, let alone just one. maybe you can find a mediocre b level goalie somewhere but if that's the case why bother? You have to give to get imo. Personally I think we have so many forward prospects we should look at moving one or two for instant success, but definitely not all of them.

Arizona. Then idk. Probably Winnipeg, Calgary, Edmonton. All that cold prairie stuff even though they have rabid fan bases. Right now it would be any of the bottom feeders like Anaheim and San Jose since they are years away from being good but that's temporary. I guess Columbus.

I don't think it's that simple. First off I think you look for friends on the rosters, then coaches you know, locations near relatives, big cities if you're young, and then you move on to their rosters and how do you fit in. I'm likely not choosing a team that has half a dozen prospects waiting at my position. My days could be numbered there. Chances of winning a cup also factor in but that's harder to judge. Tax laws as well of course. Different for everybody. All things being somewhat equal though, 1. Tampa 2. Florida 3. Vegas 4. L.A. 5. Probably an original six. Would have been Boston before, maybe Chicago now. Not Toronto or Montreal, too much pressure. Seattle, Dallas, Nashville, Colorado honourable mention.

Well that makes more sense than him going to Montreal.

I never worry about these things, it's up to him. If he's good enough to beat out Jost or Olofsson or ? then he makes the roster and that's great, we get better. If he's not good enough to beat one of them out, well then he's not good enough and good luck to him.

Kind of an underrated star in Boston in the shadow of Bergeron etc. Quietly went about his business and was pretty much their top playoff performer over the years. They won't fill that hole easily.

I'd agree with that. It was a long time ago, but with Bogo and Kane coming out of a Winnipeg culture, and both having issues they brought here, makes me wonder how long their internal problems have been going on for? Might be a long standing problem(s). So I guess GMs talking to Winnipeg are left with that problem. Is that guy (insert trade possible name) part of the problem or can you get him away from the problem. Safest course is to avoid the whole thing and everybody in it.

Ya, you see Dahlin won't sign so we're going to deal him in a blockbuster move................... Summer rumors on Petry make me chuckle. I think it more likely we kicked the tires on Kaarlson but decided one of them was flat.

as long as they're not Leafs fans.

I'd like him to turn into Brad Marchand. He won't. If he turns into a consistent 20 goal scorer who also irritates opponents a little I will be pretty happy. My feeling is this year he will feel more confident and comfortable and will assert his will in situations and not just be reacting to them as he tended to do last year.

I get that, but it still needs more detail to have real meaning. I mean is he implying they are party animals? rapists? gamblers? substance abusers? There's so many possibilities and they go from morally suspect to criminal so where on that spectrum are they and more importantly WHO are they?

This is the kind of internet comment that needs detailed elaboration though. What does "worst" mean? Worst off the ice? Worst on the ice ? Worst to journalists? Worst is a really broad and open ended term that can mean a lot of things. The "covering crime" part makes this seem a little attention grabbing and probably a little full of bs too. What exactly is the implication?

Okay, sure, it's summer and all. I'm changing the wording to "could" though. That makes more sense to me. They COULD be good because: 1. Levi will be an instant NHL capable goalie and UPL will develop just enough to be a competent back up so we will have good NHL goaltending finally 2. Power and Clifton will have instant chemistry and with 3 solidified pairing our D will actually became a strength rather than a weakness 3. Greenway will have a breakout year and become a true net front presence giving us a dominant PP. 4. Peterka will have a breakout year. 5. Several of our opposing teams will crumble while we continue to grow and gel. Offensive potential is the greatest strength. They COULD be bad because: 1. Levi will have good nights but he will also have big weaknesses and he will tire with the load. Goaltending will kill us again. 2. A string of injuries at the same time will expose our lack of depth and we will not recover from it. 3. Several forwards will have off years, especially Skinner who will have one of his slack dud drop offs. The top lines will scramble and fall apart as a result. 4. Granato will show himself to be incapable of teaching this team defense, and we will be a one dimensional and easy to defend against team. 5. The young leadership of this team won't be able to guide them over losing streaks and the older leadership will barely be able to crack the line up so they will fall apart under pressure. Goaltending and lack of depth is my biggest concern.

A-HL.

You know, Markstrom to Buffalo is an intriguing idea. Would he come here though? Does he have a NTC? Calgary would definitely like to move him out and moving him out might also make a Lindholm to Boston (for Ullmark) deal possible which is also something both of them might want. Hence I think they might let Markstrom go for next to nothing. Not that I think Markstrom's all that, but it would make me happy to get that veteran goalie on the roster. Hanifan also even better. Lindholm as well even better than that. Lindholm, Hanifan and Markstrom for picks/prospects and Jokiharju/Lybushkin or some other whatevers would rock the hockey world and turn us into this year's New Jersey.

That's all fine, and you're a clean slate guy, I get it. Adams day 1 and forward and forget the past. Perhaps a healthy approach. Myself, I can't separate any of it. I'm still waiting for the constant thrill and glory of the French Connection era that brought me to this team. I'm just hoping I get something like that before I die of old age.