Rayzor32 Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 Evidently we're talking trade with Calgary -- we've got a surplus of forwards, they've got a surplus of blueliners...and the Flames are one team not afraid of dealing with Darcy (i.e. Drury and Lydman)...other than Roman Hamrlik's $3.5MM, which we'd never pay, Rhett's salary is the next highest at $1.9 MM -- low enough for us to absorb, and high enough for Calgary to want to dump -- they've got several good young cheap defenders. I could see this as an attemp to a) appease fans who were pissed that we traded him, and b) show some love to McKee -- we may lowball you with our offer, but you'll get to stay in Buffalo and skate with your buddy again.. As long as we didn't give up a major cog, I'd be all for it -- perhaps for Kotalik or Pyatt? Rhett was a +7 this season with 3 g and 3 a, so it looks like he adapted to the new rules well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fushetti Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 Evidently we're talking trade with Calgary -- we've got a surplus of forwards, they've got a surplus of blueliners...and the Flames are one team not afraid of dealing with Darcy (i.e. Drury and Lydman)...other than Roman Hamrlik's $3.5MM, which we'd never pay, Rhett's salary is the next highest at $1.9 MM -- low enough for us to absorb, and high enough for Calgary to want to dump -- they've got several good young cheap defenders. I could see this as an attemp to a) appease fans who were pissed that we traded him, and b) show some love to McKee -- we may lowball you with our offer, but you'll get to stay in Buffalo and skate with your buddy again.. As long as we didn't give up a major cog, I'd be all for it -- perhaps for Kotalik or Pyatt? Rhett was a +7 this season with 3 g and 3 a, so it looks like he adapted to the new rules well... Where are we evidently talking trade with Calgary? Is there a link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 I would think it would be a contingency plan for McKee's departure. If we somehow bring in Warrener AND keep McKee, I assume they are banking on Teppo not being back. Then I guess the D-pairings would shake out like this: Tallinder-Lydman, McKee-Warrener, Campbell-Kalinin. I assume Janik and/or Paetsch would be the no. 7 in that scenario. Am I fogetting someone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 Too injury prone for me. I'd pass on Warrener. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 I would think it would be a contingency plan for McKee's departure. If we somehow bring in Warrener AND keep McKee, I assume they are banking on Teppo not being back. Then I guess the D-pairings would shake out like this: Tallinder-Lydman, McKee-Warrener, Campbell-Kalinin. I assume Janik and/or Paetsch would be the no. 7 in that scenario. Am I fogetting someone? Don't count Funk out yet. He's young, but has an outside shot. http://hockeysfuture.com/prospect/michael_funk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange Seats Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 Where are we evidently talking trade with Calgary? Is there a link? I'm with Fushetti on this one. I'm not believing anything about this team until it is done, has been in the press for several days, and then I see it on the ice. Hell, when they do the new jerseys I won't even believe it until I see it on the ice. I was on too much of an emotional rollercoaster during the playoffs with all of the injury reports/misinformation/speculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayzor32 Posted June 21, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 For the record, it was reported by Paul Hamilton on WGR (so it's not a fictitious Eklund rumor) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 So it's a fictitious Hamilton rumor? Who's his source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHAAAUGHT!!! Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 I would think it would be a contingency plan for McKee's departure. If we somehow bring in Warrener AND keep McKee, I assume they are banking on Teppo not being back. Then I guess the D-pairings would shake out like this: Tallinder-Lydman, McKee-Warrener, Campbell-Kalinin. I assume Janik and/or Paetsch would be the no. 7 in that scenario. Am I fogetting someone? Jeff Jillison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayzor32 Posted June 21, 2006 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 Just to clarify -- Hamilton reported that we're talking trade w/Calgary...the Rhett deal is a conclusion that I drew from it..just some food for thought that seems to make sense on the surface Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 Jeff Jillison Nope - didn't forget him. ;) Actually I don't think he is in the team's long-range plans. Maybe he plays as the no. 7 for a year until Paetsch/Janik are ready for more time with the big club, but after that, I don't think he stays with the organ-eye-zation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.