LGR4GM Posted June 20, 2017 Report Share Posted June 20, 2017 (edited) It is, I was just curious of your opinion. Edited June 20, 2017 by LGR4GM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted June 20, 2017 Report Share Posted June 20, 2017 Would you give up that to get rid of Moulson and protect Ullmark/Carrier? The theory is we are sacrificing Carrier for Ullmark. So I guess the question is would you rather have Moulson and a 2nd or Carrier? I guess that depends on what the next move is, what we would use the Moulson cap space for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted June 20, 2017 Report Share Posted June 20, 2017 I think we need #38 which I know won't be a common view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted June 20, 2017 Report Share Posted June 20, 2017 What about this: it's not Ullmark that McPhee covets, it's Carrier. We exposed him so they will trade us Scandella for Moulson and #38? That's the kinda deal I'm hoping for. Re: Carrier vs Bailey: I see Bailey as a boom or bust. Murray and Bylsma were trying to make him into a two-way middle-six guy, but I don't think that's his game. I think he's either a 20-goal second-liner or a career AHLer. Carrier has a lower ceiling but is a safer pick. He will be a useful bottom-six NHLer, like Foligno. His speed and forecheck is the way the game is going. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted June 20, 2017 Report Share Posted June 20, 2017 (edited) If we get a defender using #38 in a package I'm happy. Scandella doesn't do a ton for me but we need defense help. Edited June 20, 2017 by LGR4GM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted June 20, 2017 Report Share Posted June 20, 2017 What about this: it's not Ullmark that McPhee covets, it's Carrier. We exposed him so they will trade us Scandella for Moulson and #38? That's the kinda deal I'm hoping for. Re: Carrier vs Bailey: I see Bailey as a boom or bust. Murray and Bylsma were trying to make him into a two-way middle-six guy, but I don't think that's his game. I think he's either a 20-goal second-liner or a career AHLer. Carrier has a lower ceiling but is a safer pick. He will be a useful bottom-six NHLer, like Foligno. His speed and forecheck is the way the game is going. That's the thought process I was alluding to. It makes way more sense than having exposed Ullmark who was already partially protected w/ the 1 way contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabel79 Posted June 20, 2017 Report Share Posted June 20, 2017 Carrier has "guy playing a line above where he should be on an expansion team" written all over him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samson's Flow Posted June 20, 2017 Report Share Posted June 20, 2017 To make Freeman happy, I wrote this is the expansion speculation thread. Bottomline: Who cares who they take, we won't notice they are missing. Sure we all pray we can get some cap relief, but what are you willing to give up to get it? How about they take Moulson and we trade them Carrier for a 6th rd pick. Good analysis GA, and this is where I am at this point. None of the players that we are exposing really move the needle at all, especially given we are a bottom tier team last year I don't think Vegas is salivating at our list compared to some of the other genuine talents that were exposed by other teams. Our team core is in the young entry level and RFA players that were automatically protected, not the post-tank scraps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 20, 2017 Report Share Posted June 20, 2017 I don't get the Carrier love either. The guy has 28 goals in 168 pro games, mostly in the AHL. 3/4 line grinders like Carrier are easily replaced. To compare in the AHL Carrier 127gm 23g 33a 56pts Foligno 93gm 26g 40a 66pts Bailey 122gm 43g 38a 81pts Baptiste 121gm 38g 31a 69pts If we can use Carrier to get rid of Moulson then I'm all for it. Regardless if we lose Carrier no big deal. There is a million UFAs just like him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Flagg Posted June 20, 2017 Report Share Posted June 20, 2017 (edited) I would like to firmly state that there is absolutely not a "concept of Carrier" and that the three of us who have made a point to point out that in a vacuum, an incorrect decision was made on the list, are objectively correct. The several posters holding this opinion, myself included, aren't even holding it against the GM yet until we see what kinds of side deals were made available. We're patiently waiting. But in a vacuum, even without considering the contracts of Ennis and Carrier AND Ennis's injury history and the fact that he's a breath away from retirement because of his concussions, their recent play combined with age makes Will the clear choice. Adding in one cap hit that is more than four times the other, and giving that guy a perilous path going forward due to injuries, it is a catastrophic failure of pro personnel evaluation to choose Ennis over Carrier, in a vacuum. I won't yell at Jason for it until tomorrow, though.And Bailey played far more of his minutes with top 6 players than Carrier did, and put up half the points in one fewer game than Will, with a CF% a full seven points below Will's, while doing the exact opposite and making the players on his line worse than they are without him (Carrier made nearly everyone across the board better). He has a higher ceiling potential, but his worse hockey sense combined with thte fact that his head and hands couldn't keep up with his feet made a few nice plays that Will couldn't do, but ultimately made him hurt the team while he was out there. Will has been the best performer of the Rochester four (Carrier, Bailey, Baptiste, Fasching) and while I think his ceiling is the lowest, I don't think it can be debated that to this point he's shown the most in his NHL appearances. And Ennis f*cking blowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwws. A player concept is when people think that Zack Kassian is going to be a first line power forward for years to come. Our measured criticism of leaving Carrier exposed is anything but that. It's not an irrational love for a mediocre player. It's pointing out, correctly, that something isn't right here, and still has a chance to be explained tomorrow. I apologize for sounding snooty. I'll also stress that there are like THREE of us. If anything, there's a "concept of there being a concept that people irrationally love Will Carrier". Edited June 20, 2017 by Randall Flagg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted June 20, 2017 Report Share Posted June 20, 2017 Exactly GA. Carrier is currently replaceable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Flagg Posted June 20, 2017 Report Share Posted June 20, 2017 *pulls hair out* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted June 20, 2017 Report Share Posted June 20, 2017 Carrier played 41 games. Bailey played 32. But Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Flagg Posted June 20, 2017 Report Share Posted June 20, 2017 Carrier played 41 games. Bailey played 32. But My bad, I looked at the "career total" line just below for that, which was 40. but 4 points in 32 games is worse than 8 in 41. And again, we've repeatedly emphasized that the problem isn't the loss of Carrier - it would mean that a group of people who had a horrid thought process that came to this conclusion will be continuing to make moves that shape this team going forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgia Blizzard Posted June 20, 2017 Report Share Posted June 20, 2017 Wishful thinking, but, I believe the deal in place is for BOGO and the only reason Carrier was left unprotected was to signal confidence to Ennis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted June 20, 2017 Report Share Posted June 20, 2017 It isn't a horrid thought process. Healthy Ennis is better then healthy Carrier. It's a gamble if anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 20, 2017 Report Share Posted June 20, 2017 I wrote months ago that Carrier should be protected over Ennis and at the time over Kane (who had 1 goal). I wanted as many over valued contracts exposed and Flagg, I agree with all your comments on Ennis. And I agree that Jbot likely exposed Carrier for a reason. 1. One possible reason is that he has a deal in place to protect Ullmark or lose Moulson and Carrier is the price. 2. He exposed Carrier to protect Ullmark without a deal in place. His goal being after looking at the potential exposed players in thr league that LV will need young forwards and we can afford to lose one but we don't want to lose a goalie. Carrier is the carrot essentially. FYI I think Baptiste has been the best of the 4 in his limited NHL time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted June 20, 2017 Report Share Posted June 20, 2017 I think we've developed the concept of Carrier at this point Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Flagg Posted June 20, 2017 Report Share Posted June 20, 2017 It isn't a horrid thought process. Healthy Ennis is better then healthy Carrier. It's a gamble if anything. It's been two full seasons of wincing every time Ennis has gotten hit, while noting his agility and hands have absolutely deteriorated, leaving his utter lack of hockey sense exposed and rendering him completely useless. Jack Eichel wasn't on this team the last time he was any good, and he's one bad hit from being completely done. Which isn't good for him, because he has a penchant for getting absolutely rocked every third game due to his lack of awareness/hockey sense. Ennis's contract is one that we would have bowed down to kiss Vegas' feet had they taken. It is a horrendous miscalculation in pro personnel evaluation by anyone who has seen Ennis play at any point in the last 2 years. I wrote months ago that Carrier should be protected over Ennis and at the time over Kane (who had 1 goal). I wanted as many over valued contracts exposed and Flagg, I agree with all your comments on Ennis. And I agree that Jbot likely exposed Carrier for a reason. 1. One possible reason is that he has a deal in place to protect Ullmark or lose Moulson and Carrier is the price. 2. He exposed Carrier to protect Ullmark without a deal in place. His goal being after looking at the potential exposed players in thr league that LV will need young forwards and we can afford to lose one but we don't want to lose a goalie. Carrier is the carrot essentially. FYI I think Baptiste has been the best of the 4 in his limited NHL time. If 1. and 2. are the case, I'm not even going to be mad, which is why I've beeen placing asterisks and explanations of that fact in every post I've made on the subject, and that is why this: I think we've developed the concept of Carrier at this point is 100% incorrect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted June 20, 2017 Report Share Posted June 20, 2017 I disagree and think Injuries and Bylsmas were major factors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Flagg Posted June 20, 2017 Report Share Posted June 20, 2017 (edited) I disagree and think Injuries and Bylsmas ###### were major factors. Charity bet on Ennis's point production assuming he stays and gets to play? The injuries are never going to end. They will not be a part of his past. Edited June 20, 2017 by Randall Flagg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabel79 Posted June 20, 2017 Report Share Posted June 20, 2017 Charity bet on Ennis's point production assuming he stays and gets to play? The injuries are never going to end. They will not be a part of his past. None of this makes Carrier any better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Flagg Posted June 20, 2017 Report Share Posted June 20, 2017 None of this makes Carrier any better. And point out to me where I or anyone else has said anything more than "Carrier scored 8 in 40, but played better than Ennis and the other AHL wingers". Because those can be backed up with all the facts, stats, and charts that you could ever ask for, and nobody has said anything different. I've even said I think his ceiling is lower than each and every one of the other AHL forwards in discussion. So show me where this concept of Carrier as an all powerful top 6 winger is coming from, I'd love to read it and laugh at it too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfreeman Posted June 20, 2017 Author Report Share Posted June 20, 2017 What about this: it's not Ullmark that McPhee covets, it's Carrier. We exposed him so they will trade us Scandella for Moulson and #38? That's the kinda deal I'm hoping for. Re: Carrier vs Bailey: I see Bailey as a boom or bust. Murray and Bylsma were trying to make him into a two-way middle-six guy, but I don't think that's his game. I think he's either a 20-goal second-liner or a career AHLer. Carrier has a lower ceiling but is a safer pick. He will be a useful bottom-six NHLer, like Foligno. His speed and forecheck is the way the game is going. This trade would be great but it seems pretty optimistic to think that we'd get a defenseman AND dump Moulson for exposing Carrier plus a #2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Flagg Posted June 20, 2017 Report Share Posted June 20, 2017 This trade would be great but it seems pretty optimistic to think that we'd get a defenseman AND dump Moulson for exposing Carrier plus a #2. For Scandella and picking Moulson I'd almost be tempted to give 8 overall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.