Why not Edmonton?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from seobrien. Show seobrien's posts

    Why not Edmonton?

    Just watching the Oilers and the Embers and thinking that the Oil are the perfect dance partners. Give up your picks and whatever the farm (or big league) wil bear for a Gagner or Paajarvi  (obviously Gagner would be preferred) and Whitney. It might take a lot but looks Like Edmonton is going to miss the playoffs YET again and they'll need to pay both of these guys after next year. Just a pipe dream for sure, but better than some of the other shenanigans I've seen floated. 

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from tremha77. Show tremha77's posts

    Re: Why not Edmonton?

    In response to seobrien's comment:

    Just watching the Oilers and the Embers and thinking that the Oil are the perfect dance partners. Give up your picks and whatever the farm (or big league) wil bear for a Gagner or Paajarvi  (obviously Gagner would be preferred) and Whitney. It might take a lot but looks Like Edmonton is going to miss the playoffs YET again and they'll need to pay both of these guys after next year. Just a pipe dream for sure, but better than some of the other shenanigans I've seen floated. 




    Would be interesting to see what kind of package is needed to get Gagner and Whitney.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Why not Edmonton?

    They think they're still fighting for a playoff spot and with a few wins, they could be.  They're in a tough spot -- not going anywhere special this year, but also not in a good position to dump talent while they hover a few points out of 8th.  Not sure what they'll do.

    I agree they would be good trade partners...

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: Why not Edmonton?

    Gagner me thinks would cost a lucic.  Gagner has been edmontons best player this year.  

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Why not Edmonton?

    I can't see PC trading anyone significant off the Bruins roster to acquire a player. He wants to add pieces at this point. But not at the expense of deleting.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Crowls2424. Show Crowls2424's posts

    Re: Why not Edmonton?

    Hard to imagine that Edm coverts more picks and prospects at this point.  What the Bruins have that the Oilers may find of value is a roster full of guys with their name on the Cup. 

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from MeanE. Show MeanE's posts

    Re: Why not Edmonton?

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:

    I can't see PC trading anyone significant off the Bruins roster to acquire a player. He wants to add pieces at this point. But not at the expense of deleting.



    And the key word is significant.  One's definition of significant on the Bruins may differ from another's.  I think all can agree that Johnson, Pandolfo, and MacDermid are not significant.  Others may argue Caron, Thornton, Peverley, Paille, Campbell, Ference, McQuaid, and even Horton are not significant or could become insignificant if the right players came back the other way.   For example, Ference has been a significant member of the team, but with an expiring contract and playing horribly this year (looks like Wideman his last season with B's), he may be a pawn to acquire someone like Boyle from San Jose.  The Sharks may think that Andrew, although not having a good year and not the caliber of Boyle, can provide leadership for the current year playoff push, they have a chance to resign him at a favorable contract compared to Boyles $6.6, and acquire draft picks and/or young talent.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Why not Edmonton?

    In response to MeanE's comment:

     

    And the key word is significant.  One's definition of significant on the Bruins may differ from another's.  I think all can agree that Johnson, Pandolfo, and MacDermid are not significant.  Others may argue Caron, Thornton, Peverley, Paille, Campbell, Ference, McQuaid, and even Horton are not significant or could become insignificant if the right players came back the other way.   For example, Ference has been a significant member of the team, but with an expiring contract and playing horribly this year (looks like Wideman his last season with B's), he may be a pawn to acquire someone like Boyle from San Jose.  The Sharks may think that Andrew, although not having a good year and not the caliber of Boyle, can provide leadership for the current year playoff push, they have a chance to resign him at a favorable contract compared to Boyles $6.6, and acquire draft picks and/or young talent.

     

     



    And that's why I used it. A Lucic for Gagner deal would be a lateral move. 

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from stinkman. Show stinkman's posts

    Re: Why not Edmonton?

    In response to MeanE's comment:

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:

     

    I can't see PC trading anyone significant off the Bruins roster to acquire a player. He wants to add pieces at this point. But not at the expense of deleting.

     



    And the key word is significant.  One's definition of significant on the Bruins may differ from another's.  I think all can agree that Johnson, Pandolfo, and MacDermid are not significant.  Others may argue Caron, Thornton, Peverley, Paille, Campbell, Ference, McQuaid, and even Horton are not significant or could become insignificant if the right players came back the other way.   For example, Ference has been a significant member of the team, but with an expiring contract and playing horribly this year (looks like Wideman his last season with B's), he may be a pawn to acquire someone like Boyle from San Jose.  The Sharks may think that Andrew, although not having a good year and not the caliber of Boyle, can provide leadership for the current year playoff push, they have a chance to resign him at a favorable contract compared to Boyles $6.6, and acquire draft picks and/or young talent.

     



    San Jose would clear Boyle's 6.6 off the books but I am thinking  they would want more then Ference you have to throw in your best prospects to. And maybe a first rounder. But yes I rather have Boyle then Whitney who they are after as well.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from MeanE. Show MeanE's posts

    Re: Why not Edmonton?

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:

     


    And that's why I used it. A Lucic for Gagner deal would be a lateral move. 

     



    I know that is why you used it.  I was simply stating that your definition of significant on the Bruins may differ from mine or others.  Lucic is definitely sginificant for me and I would expect more than Gagner in return.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from seobrien. Show seobrien's posts

    Re: Why not Edmonton?

    Agreed, I understand they are trying to make the push to make the playoffs. I know Gagner is probably just a wild dream, but what about a lesser winger like Paajarvi? He's RFA next year and they have a lot of other forwards. Maybe another forward that they could have under control for a few years out (Koko) and a pick? I'm just tired of hearing about Calgary's fire sale and was looking at teams currently south of the western playoff line.

    So few sellers.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from stinkman. Show stinkman's posts

    Re: Why not Edmonton?

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:

    In response to MeanE's comment:

     

    And the key word is significant.  One's definition of significant on the Bruins may differ from another's.  I think all can agree that Johnson, Pandolfo, and MacDermid are not significant.  Others may argue Caron, Thornton, Peverley, Paille, Campbell, Ference, McQuaid, and even Horton are not significant or could become insignificant if the right players came back the other way.   For example, Ference has been a significant member of the team, but with an expiring contract and playing horribly this year (looks like Wideman his last season with B's), he may be a pawn to acquire someone like Boyle from San Jose.  The Sharks may think that Andrew, although not having a good year and not the caliber of Boyle, can provide leadership for the current year playoff push, they have a chance to resign him at a favorable contract compared to Boyles $6.6, and acquire draft picks and/or young talent.

     

     



    And that's why I used it. A Lucic for Gagner deal would be a lateral move. 

     



    Chowda I agree with you. I can't see the bruins picking up a player that is real good without giving up a player on there roster, prospects and draft picks isn't going to cut it. I don't know if I trade Lucic for Gagner but it is intriguing. That's what you would have to do to get a player like that.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from jmwalters. Show jmwalters's posts

    Re: Why not Edmonton?

    I heard last night that Tambellini was convinced they had turned a corner, to the point of entertaining the possibility of re-signing Khabibulin and other vets.

    They just spent 3 years trying to get rid of this guy and riding out his contract, now they may want to re-sign him....

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: Why not Edmonton?

    In response to MeanE's comment:

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:

     

     


    And that's why I used it. A Lucic for Gagner deal would be a lateral move. 

     

     



    I know that is why you used it.  I was simply stating that your definition of significant on the Bruins may differ from mine or others.  Lucic is definitely sginificant for me and I would expect more than Gagner in return.

     



    Hes significant for me as well. But gagner is significant to the oilers. He has been steady eddy for them.  I really dont see the oilers as a good trading partner.  They have a list of guys they wont deal.  Their bottom 6 is in a word "bad".   I would take whitney for a bottom pairing for sure. 

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: Why not Edmonton?

    In response to jmwalters' comment:

    I heard last night that Tambellini was convinced they had turned a corner, to the point of entertaining the possibility of re-signing Khabibulin and other vets.

    They just spent 3 years trying to get rid of this guy and riding out his contract, now they may want to re-sign him....



    He got his license back.  He can drive himself to the rink.  

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from jmwalters. Show jmwalters's posts

    Re: Why not Edmonton?

    In response to shuperman's comment:



    He got his license back.  He can drive himself to the rink.  

     



    He finally put on his big boy pants......lol.

    But seriously, if Tambellini looks at his present lineup and says to himself "good enough" he should be fired on the spot.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from stinkman. Show stinkman's posts

    Re: Why not Edmonton?

    PC approach is to conservative for me. Now the flip side is their are no sellers well it didn't stop     St. Louis from upgrading. I would make a trade for Boyle from SJ or go after Glencross from Calgary.That makes sense to me. Not big on Clowe or Jagr. It's time to show stones. 

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from jmwalters. Show jmwalters's posts

    Re: Why not Edmonton?

    In response to stinkman's comment:

    PC approach is to conservative for me. Now the flip side is their are no sellers well it didn't stop     St. Louis from upgrading. I would make a trade for Boyle from SJ or go after Glencross from Calgary.That makes sense to me. Not big on Clowe or Jagr. It's time to show stones. 




    I do agree with you.

    But, the counter argument is that his passive approach has been very good in keeping the core of this team together.

    For this season, though, he has the cap space to load up for one run...right now. Do it.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from stinkman. Show stinkman's posts

    Re: Why not Edmonton?

    I also like when these GM's that see their team lets say 5 -7 points out of the 8 th seed knowing there team is average at best but say oh we can't deal because we still have a shot. It's all baloney. If your team has a chance for the cup you add on if not you sell. The problem when you toe the line nothing ever gets done.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from stinkman. Show stinkman's posts

    Re: Why not Edmonton?

    In response to jmwalters' comment:

    In response to stinkman's comment:

     

    PC approach is to conservative for me. Now the flip side is their are no sellers well it didn't stop     St. Louis from upgrading. I would make a trade for Boyle from SJ or go after Glencross from Calgary.That makes sense to me. Not big on Clowe or Jagr. It's time to show stones. 

     




    I do agree with you.

     

    But, the counter argument is that his passive approach has been very good in keeping the core of this team together.

    For this season, though, he has the cap space to load up for one run...right now. Do it.



    Yes with Kelley, Peverley, Ryder, Mcquaid, yes. Not with Pandolfo, Caron, ect. You can't be passive now. Still you can keep the core together but move some prospects. Look it I am not talking get Bobby Ryan or Yandle or Thomas Vanek, but their is a market.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from jmwalters. Show jmwalters's posts

    Re: Why not Edmonton?

    In response to stinkman's comment:

     

     Yes with Kelley, Peverley, Ryder, Mcquaid, yes. Not with Pandolfo, Caron, ect. You can't be passive now. Still you can keep the core together but move some prospects. Look it I am not talking get Bobby Ryan or Yandle or Thomas Vanek, but their is a market.

     




    I agree.

    The optimists on these boards will say that if there really is a market then PC will find it.

    I personally am still a little miffed at his collection of junk at last season's deadline, however.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: Why not Edmonton?

    In response to jmwalters' comment:

    In response to shuperman's comment:

     



    He got his license back.  He can drive himself to the rink.  

     

     



    He finally put on his big boy pants......lol.

     

    But seriously, if Tambellini looks at his present lineup and says to himself "good enough" he should be fired on the spot.



    No leadership.  No muscle(outside of brown).  Im not a big skating clown guy.  But their 4th line should have 2 of them that an play a liitle.   Boulton and Brown would be a nice combo.  they really need a clowe type as well.  On the back end they are super soft.  No fear going into their end at all.  

    They are a lot of moves away from being a serious threat.  I love smyth but he and horcoff arent helping them move fwd.  

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from jmwalters. Show jmwalters's posts

    Re: Why not Edmonton?

    In response to shuperman's comment:

     

     

    No leadership.  No muscle(outside of brown). 

     

     




    The muscle is an especially pressing need. I have seen more Oiler games this season than I care to admit and the youngsters are really targeted for abuse. Brown is no heavywieght but does his best.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Klaas. Show Klaas's posts

    Re: Why not Edmonton?

    If the Bruins were to trade Koko to the Oilers, get somebody good, and Koko has a good career, maybe playing with Yakupov ... that would really be sticking it to the Flames.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Why not Edmonton?

    Yeah, the muscle is a definite need in Edmonton, and not a goon like Brown or Eager.  Edmonton needs a Lucic, Clarkson, or Troy Brouwer type power forward to compliment all of the skill guys.  I don't think the Bruins can part with Lucic, but Edmonton might be just as interested in Horton.

    Gagner may have been one of their best players this year, but I still think he makes sense for a trade because of all of the young talent and the contract Gagner is going to be asking for very soon.  If they need to keep Hall, Eberle, Yakupov, and RNH signed in the coming years, Gagner is likely to be sacrificed for cap space, I would think.

    Horton, Bartkowski and a pick for Gagner, Whitney, and Jones....  I doubt it, but maybe something like that would work.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share