As opposed to acquiring 1 expensive bumhole and 1 cheap bumholes, this team should acquire like 4-5 versatile bumholes. It's better use of our money.
- Morris

Either way, we need a$$holes.

The problem is, we are still stuck with a whack of non versatile bumholes's contracts. Eager, Belanger, Jones... I agree with you but we need to get feaster to take these guys off our hands or we will have too many contracts.

Great, update after I quote you.

I think we screwed ourselves on Barkov but look at the highlight reals. I really do think that if you do, you might agree that Monahan is the better player.
- bsteinley

We can send Jones along with a muffin basket unless he wants to be on the 4th line.

Eager and Belanger can be assigned in OKC to start the next year if we want. Else trade them for whatever we can get. It's harsh, but we do what we have to do.

Either way, we need a$$holes.
- laughs2907

agreed. And I respect your desire to get some newfie content in there. At this point i'll take 3-4 Clearys over one Clowe, but I'm not saying I'd be disappointed if we got Clowe.

I am also not a fan of clowe. Horton sure but clowe... I can't agree.
- bsteinley

Clowe fills a bunch of needs.

~ Offensively capable
~ Big and physical
~ Asshole

Hemsky for Nikita Nikitin. Two players that need a change of scenery and could overachieve in their new locales. Each have a year left on their deal.

Not a move that necessarily improves our team at all, but a fair move that gets rid of Hemmer's 5mil.

Clowe fills a bunch of needs.

~ Offensively capable
~ Big and physical
~ Asshole
- laughs2907

Yep but his age and contract demands scare me. Didn't he just get injured too. By no means is he old but he will be looking for security aka a 5 or 6 year deal. Do we want a 35 or 36 year clowe making 5 mill? I don't. A 30 to 32 clowe, hell yes. But he won't sign short term I think. Unless we give him like 7 per.

Hemsky for Nikita Nikitin. Two players that need a change of scenery and could overachieve in their new locales. Each have a year left on their deal.

Not a move that necessarily improves our team at all, but a fair move that gets rid of Hemmer's 5mil.
- Morris

Absolutely I do that deal.

Depends who the player is... I doubt many teams would move one of their top 6 for him though.

Say if we pick at #7... I wonder what Hemsky plus our 7th overall would land us? In terms of draft position or an already established player in the NHL.
- laughs2907

As for trading up, I don't think there is a team above us that would take Hemsky and pick. However, Columbus could part with one of their 3 picks for Hemsky and maybe a prospect if we need. Using our trade able players, prospects we aren't using, our 2 first round picks and our two second round picks, some combination should be able to move us up. With the exception of the top 2, IMO I would be really tempted if a team offered me the 7th pick and 2 second rounds for the third. Especially when you know that team isn't taking mackinnon.

This is a deep draft with 3 decent goalie prospects ranked to go in the second round. If I was a team that needed more than just one prospect, that would be my way of doing it.

However Hemsky and the 7th might land you someone good. Maybe a dman from Van who has too much money spent on defense. Or the same with PHO who lost almost all their forwards.

Clowe fills a bunch of needs.

~ Offensively capable
~ Big and physical
~ Asshole
- laughs2907

I like clowe on line 3. Not on line 2. I don't think he can keep up with the players we have in the top 6.

I do like him. I just think he is going to go for money that would be better spent on Horton or Clarkson.

As for trading up, I don't think there is a team above us that would take Hemsky and pick. However, Columbus could part with one of their 3 picks for Hemsky and maybe a prospect if we need. Using our trade able players, prospects we aren't using, our 2 first round picks and our two second round picks, some combination should be able to move us up. With the exception of the top 2, IMO I would be really tempted if a team offered me the 7th pick and 2 second rounds for the third. Especially when you know that team isn't taking mackinnon.

This is a deep draft with 3 decent goalie prospects ranked to go in the second round. If I was a team that needed more than just one prospect, that would be my way of doing it.

However Hemsky and the 7th might land you someone good. Maybe a dman from Van who has too much money spent on defense. Or the same with PHO who lost almost all their forwards.
- bsteinley

Gotta feel like anyone should take MacKinnon at 3 and no one should take Barkov at 3. If a team doesn't like MacKinnon, they should get out of the 3rd spot.

Hemsky for Nikita Nikitin. Two players that need a change of scenery and could overachieve in their new locales. Each have a year left on their deal.

Not a move that necessarily improves our team at all, but a fair move that gets rid of Hemmer's 5mil.
- Morris

That works, but we would have a hole in our second line. We need mact to work magic with the UFAs. If he can grab us 2 or 3 at fair prices, we then have the ability to work with our other problems.

As for our excess players. One GM was dumb enough to give a 4th round for smithson and another traded for Redden. We should be able to get future considerations for a couple of them. Belanger might even get us a 6 or a 7 round pick. Jones I think might have value upwards of a 5 or 6 round pick if people believe he can return to how he was last year.

As for trading up, I don't think there is a team above us that would take Hemsky and pick. However, Columbus could part with one of their 3 picks for Hemsky and maybe a prospect if we need. Using our trade able players, prospects we aren't using, our 2 first round picks and our two second round picks, some combination should be able to move us up. With the exception of the top 2, IMO I would be really tempted if a team offered me the 7th pick and 2 second rounds for the third. Especially when you know that team isn't taking mackinnon.

This is a deep draft with 3 decent goalie prospects ranked to go in the second round. If I was a team that needed more than just one prospect, that would be my way of doing it.

However Hemsky and the 7th might land you someone good. Maybe a dman from Van who has too much money spent on defense. Or the same with PHO who lost almost all their forwards.
- bsteinley

If I were picking #3 this year, there's no way I'd do that deal.

That works, but we would have a hole in our second line. We need mact to work magic with the UFAs. If he can grab us 2 or 3 at fair prices, we then have the ability to work with our other problems.

As for our excess players. One GM was dumb enough to give a 4th round for smithson and another traded for Redden. We should be able to get future considerations for a couple of them. Belanger might even get us a 6 or a 7 round pick. Jones I think might have value upwards of a 5 or 6 round pick if people believe he can return to how he was last year.
- bsteinley

Jones is a UFA so I don't see us getting anything for his rights.

As for the holes in our lines,

XXXX-Nuge-Ebs
Hall-Gagner/Horcoff-Yakupov
Paajarvi-Gagner/Horcoff-XXXX

I see our holes being 1LW, 3RW and the 4th line. We'll need an incoming guy to replace Hemsky, but I don't see it as a hole in our roster per se.

This might be off topic but I was looking at highlight reals for players ranked 4-10. I REALLY like Monahan. He is big, he hits, he fights and he scores. I don't know why people like Barkov so much. His goals seem fed to him.

All in all the reals could be not accurate of their skill but Monahan looks faster and seems to have more talent with the puck. In terms of control, release and accuracy. Check them out if you get a chance. I think we might have lucked ourselves into the right player for us.
- bsteinley

Calgary will take him if he's still there.

Gotta feel like anyone should take MacKinnon at 3 and no one should take Barkov at 3. If a team doesn't like MacKinnon, they should get out of the 3rd spot.
- Morris

Definitely. I'd be blown away if MacKinnon isn't taken in the top 3.

As for trading up, I don't think there is a team above us that would take Hemsky and pick. However, Columbus could part with one of their 3 picks for Hemsky and maybe a prospect if we need. Using our trade able players, prospects we aren't using, our 2 first round picks and our two second round picks, some combination should be able to move us up. With the exception of the top 2, IMO I would be really tempted if a team offered me the 7th pick and 2 second rounds for the third. Especially when you know that team isn't taking mackinnon.

This is a deep draft with 3 decent goalie prospects ranked to go in the second round. If I was a team that needed more than just one prospect, that would be my way of doing it.

However Hemsky and the 7th might land you someone good. Maybe a dman from Van who has too much money spent on defense. Or the same with PHO who lost almost all their forwards.
- bsteinley

Dude are you drinking?

Gotta feel like anyone should take MacKinnon at 3 and no one should take Barkov at 3. If a team doesn't like MacKinnon, they should get out of the 3rd spot.
- Morris

Agreed, but I think the best fit for the Oil, outside top 3, is Monahan. I think Mackinnon is just another of the same. Although someone did suggest that there might be interest in pulling a sedin move and trying to acquire 2 and 3 picks. That would be interesting to see. Drouin and Mackinnon on the same line. I don't see it but maybe.

I have a question for you guys. What do we do in net? Unless there is a player named backup that I haven't heard of.

Hemsky for Nikita Nikitin. Two players that need a change of scenery and could overachieve in their new locales. Each have a year left on their deal.

Not a move that necessarily improves our team at all, but a fair move that gets rid of Hemmer's 5mil.
- Morris

I'd love that deal.

Gotta feel like anyone should take MacKinnon at 3 and no one should take Barkov at 3. If a team doesn't like MacKinnon, they should get out of the 3rd spot.
- Morris

He may even go 2nd.

If I were picking #3 this year, there's no way I'd do that deal.
- laughs2907

If your Edmonton, you don't want third. There has to be other teams that see Mackinnon as a guy that started strong and didn't finish well. He is small, talented yes but so is Petan ranked in the high 20s. I think the Oilers, if they were in a rebuild might move down for picks. It might take more than just that. Prospects might need to be involved but we can't be the only team that doesn't want Mackinnon.

If your Edmonton, you don't want third. There has to be other teams that see Mackinnon as a guy that started strong and didn't finish well. He is small, talented yes but so is Petan ranked in the high 20s. I think the Oilers, if they were in a rebuild might move down for picks. It might take more than just that. Prospects might need to be involved but we can't be the only team that doesn't want Mackinnon.
- bsteinley

Dude! Who the fck wouldn't want MacKinnon?

Jones is a UFA so I don't see us getting anything for his rights.

As for the holes in our lines,

XXXX-Nuge-Ebs
Hall-Gagner/Horcoff-Yakupov
Paajarvi-Gagner/Horcoff-XXXX

I see our holes being 1LW, 3RW and the 4th line. We'll need an incoming guy to replace Hemsky, but I don't see it as a hole in our roster per se.
- Morris

Forget jones, I forgot that.

As for Hemsky, you actually have him put in as a hole in our roster. We need a top line LW. Hartnell is my pick but we would never get him. Stewart would be ideal. Horton could fit in. However XXXX has to someday be a player that can keep up with Nuge and Ebs.

Calgary will take him if he's still there.
- whipper334

You sure. You still have Feaster. I see you guys taking Nurse.

He may even go 2nd.
- whipper334

If Drouin drops, I think there might be a lot of trade offers going to the team in third.

You sure. You still have Feaster. I see you guys taking Nurse.
- bsteinley

You guys need Nurse a hell of a lot more than you need Monahan. Either way they're both very good players.