So if the Islanders are 3 points out of a top 4 seed or lets say the division because you never know and Moulson was putting up his usual 25 plus goals at the time of the deadline and was a key player on the PP like usual you would trade him for a pick because you don't won't to lose him for nothing? What playoff team unloads their top 6 forwards for picks at the deadline? Teams that are out of the playoff picture make those types of moves. Playoff teams lose guys to UFA every year, small price to pay for being in the playoffs.
- Vukota

No playoff team unloads a first line winger scoring 30 goals per season just becausr they're not signed to an extension. It seems like some people haven't let go of the mentality of selling whatever assets the team has at the deadline. Its force of habit to think thst way, but playoff teams dont sell assets just to prevent losing a guy for nothing in free agency.

Every player and deal are unique. If someone blew Snow away with an offer for Moulson, he'd have to consider it. For a draft pick? I'd keep Moulson if were in the playoff picture.

No playoff team unloads a first line winger scoring 30 goals per season just becausr they're not signed to an extension. It seems like some people haven't let go of the mentality of selling whatever assets the team has at the deadline. Its force of habit to think thst way, but playoff teams dont sell assets just to prevent losing a guy for nothing in free agency.

Every player and deal are unique. If someone blew Snow away with an offer for Moulson, he'd have to consider it. For a draft pick? I'd keep Moulson if were in the playoff picture.
- Jethro09

You're taking a logical way of thinking and stretching it to an extreme. If Moulson is producing at a level that we NEED to squeeze into the playoffs than you keep him. Again, Moulson is not going to be a make or break player for us IMO getting into or definitely while we are in. He did litle to nothing to help us get into the PO's last season in fact he may have been more of a detriment down the stretch? He is the exact opposite of kind of player that succeeds in the PO's. I don't think the way I do bcs I'm an Islander fan and I'm used to dumping players at the deadline. I think that way bcs I'm an Islander fan and we are rebuliding and it makes zero sense to let players walk away for nothing that are going to be borderline unsignable when they hit FA.

So what do we do with Moulson after he has a career year this upcoming season and pots 42 goals??
- Dedshark

sell high

sell high
- LetsGoIsles

If you're not going to be able to sign him then you trade him. We made it to the playoffs with little help from him. He was invisible down the stretch, in fact he was down right bad. Now if Moulson comes out in his contract year and plays his a$$ off then you have to reconsider. If not than i agree. If he shows the same play as he did the second half of last year and we have scoring coming from elsewhere trade him while he has value and before he asks for the moon and stars. Get something rather than nothing.

If you're not going to be able to sign him then you trade him. We made it to the playoffs with little help from him. He was invisible down the stretch, in fact he was down right bad. Now if Moulson comes out in his contract year and plays his a$$ off then you have to reconsider. If not than i agree. If he shows the same play as he did the second half of last year and we have scoring coming from elsewhere trade him while he has value and before he asks for the moon and stars. Get something rather than nothing.
- Cptmjl

Im not sure how the team will do in a full season. I still question the D and G for Isles to make playoffs, hopefully we do bc it will continue the experience needed. But also, Moulson is in a contract year and probably play his a$$ off for another payday. By the second half of the season, 1 of the kids will be primed to make the jump and if Moulson becomes streaky and Isles are hovering around the last PO spot, I would deal him and get assets....Snow could always try and bring him back.

The bigger question is hoping that the other players can be consistent enough on scoring to deal away Moulson, if it becomes that scenario..

Im not sure how the team will do in a full season. I still question the D and G for Isles to make playoffs, hopefully we do bc it will continue the experience needed. But also, Moulson is in a contract year and probably play his a$$ off for another payday. By the second half of the season, 1 of the kids will be primed to make the jump and if Moulson becomes streaky and Isles are hovering around the last PO spot, I would deal him and get assets....Snow could always try and bring him back.

The bigger question is hoping that the other players can be consistent enough on scoring to deal away Moulson, if it becomes that scenario..
- Ur Not Me

Exactly. IF we have scoring help coming from other players he becomes expendable.

Moulson is fine, as long as your guy on the other side is a two-way mucker with some talent. You can't have two of Moulson (fairly one dimensional players) on the Tavares line, which is what we had last year. That, in my opinion, was a lot of Matt's struggle- he had to do far too much in his own end, since Brad Boyes' Indian name is apparently "stands around on the ice and does nothing". That other winger, far more than JT, is the key to his success. If his ONLY responsibility is to load the net with rubber, he'll be worth every penny they'd have to pay him to stay here.

If you're not going to be able to sign him then you trade him. We made it to the playoffs with little help from him. He was invisible down the stretch, in fact he was down right bad. Now if Moulson comes out in his contract year and plays his a$$ off then you have to reconsider. If not than i agree. If he shows the same play as he did the second half of last year and we have scoring coming from elsewhere trade him while he has value and before he asks for the moon and stars. Get something rather than nothing.
- Cptmjl

I suppose the core of the question is, 'should we sign him?'.
I like Moulson a lot as he seems like one of the most perosnable players in the league and obviously scores goals (tap in's or not). The bigger issue is, how long do you want to commit to him as a top line player. I can't see him being of much use on a 2nd line and certainly would never put him in a 3rd or 4th line role. So if we're to say he's going to be resigned to occupy Tavares' left wing for the next 4-5 years, how do you feel about that? It's hard to argue with his statistical results, but what if we had someone line say Horton there (just as an example). How much better is that line? I realize folks will naturally say, well we're not getting a guy like that but again, in this case you have to essentially be resigned to the fact that we won't get a guy like that for another 5 years, to make Moulson's eventual contract sensible.
That's where I struggle with the Moulson issue. I'd offer him 2-3 years at best but I don't think he'll take that. Whether he likes playing with John and in NY or not, this is going to be his payday. Moulson is a smart kid and knows this is probably his one and only BIG contract, so he's likely to seek as much and for as long as possible. So are we prepared to call Moulson our top line LW for the next 4-5 years?


Xxkeaner17xX

Moulson is fine, as long as your guy on the other side is a two-way mucker with some talent. You can't have two of Moulson (fairly one dimensional players) on the Tavares line, which is what we had last year. That, in my opinion, was a lot of Matt's struggle- he had to do far too much in his own end, since Brad Boyes' Indian name is apparently "stands around on the ice and does nothing". That other winger, far more than JT, is the key to his success. If his ONLY responsibility is to load the net with rubber, he'll be worth every penny they'd have to pay him to stay here.
- dcb1

EXACTLY. And there in lies the problem. If you're going to stock our top line with one guy who can only stand around the net and do NOTHING else, and another guy who is more of a two way player, I'm not so sure it opens up any more space for JT than we've seen. In a perfect world, JT is complimented by one winger who can shoot and skate, and another who can bang and carry. Moulson's presence keeps us from approaching that dynamic. Unless we manage to find a true wing power forward who can do it all for the RW, that chemistry we lack. It's one of the reasons why needing to trade Nino was a step back IMO. I don't argue the idea that it needed to be done, but it left a gaping hole by removing a rare commodity.

Xxkeaner17xX

Im not sure how the team will do in a full season. I still question the D and G for Isles to make playoffs, hopefully we do bc it will continue the experience needed.
- Ur Not Me

Agreed...I'd put our forward lines up there with any in the league, except for maybe the second line center position....but with all those kids on the back end, and a goalie tandem of one slightly above average old guy, and two kids who at least at this point are question marks.....they are going to have to be REALLY disciplined in their own end of the ice, if they hope to repeat last year's success.

EXACTLY. And there in lies the problem. If you're going to stock our top line with one guy who can only stand around the net and do NOTHING else, and another guy who is more of a two way player, I'm not so sure it opens up any more space for JT than we've seen. In a perfect world, JT is complimented by one winger who can shoot and skate, and another who can bang and carry. Moulson's presence keeps us from approaching that dynamic. Unless we manage to find a true wing power forward who can do it all for the RW, that chemistry we lack. It's one of the reasons why needing to trade Nino was a step back IMO. I don't argue the idea that it needed to be done, but it left a gaping hole by removing a rare commodity.

Xxkeaner17xX
- keaner17

Agreed on this, too....he's really a complimentary (second line) player. A second line winger who pots 30 and doesn't do much else isn't a bad deal. On the first line, you want players who shine a bit more than that, especially considering what is in the middle. If Okposo truly finally blossoms this year, and Strome is ready for prime time as well, that's a far better first line option than having him out there.

I suppose the core of the question is, 'should we sign him?'.
I like Moulson a lot as he seems like one of the most perosnable players in the league and obviously scores goals (tap in's or not). The bigger issue is, how long do you want to commit to him as a top line player. I can't see him being of much use on a 2nd line and certainly would never put him in a 3rd or 4th line role. So if we're to say he's going to be resigned to occupy Tavares' left wing for the next 4-5 years, how do you feel about that? It's hard to argue with his statistical results, but what if we had someone line say Horton there (just as an example). How much better is that line? I realize folks will naturally say, well we're not getting a guy like that but again, in this case you have to essentially be resigned to the fact that we won't get a guy like that for another 5 years, to make Moulson's eventual contract sensible.
That's where I struggle with the Moulson issue. I'd offer him 2-3 years at best but I don't think he'll take that. Whether he likes playing with John and in NY or not, this is going to be his payday. Moulson is a smart kid and knows this is probably his one and only BIG contract, so he's likely to seek as much and for as long as possible. So are we prepared to call Moulson our top line LW for the next 4-5 years?


Xxkeaner17xX
- keaner17

I think bc of his relationship w/JT and the Isles organization giving him his opportunity, I do believe Moulson would consider a deal of 2 or 3yrs of $5.5 or $6M a year, which he kinda deserves...No matter how bad his defense is

I suppose the core of the question is, 'should we sign him?'.
I like Moulson a lot as he seems like one of the most perosnable players in the league and obviously scores goals (tap in's or not). The bigger issue is, how long do you want to commit to him as a top line player. I can't see him being of much use on a 2nd line and certainly would never put him in a 3rd or 4th line role. So if we're to say he's going to be resigned to occupy Tavares' left wing for the next 4-5 years, how do you feel about that? It's hard to argue with his statistical results, but what if we had someone line say Horton there (just as an example). How much better is that line? I realize folks will naturally say, well we're not getting a guy like that but again, in this case you have to essentially be resigned to the fact that we won't get a guy like that for another 5 years, to make Moulson's eventual contract sensible.
That's where I struggle with the Moulson issue. I'd offer him 2-3 years at best but I don't think he'll take that. Whether he likes playing with John and in NY or not, this is going to be his payday. Moulson is a smart kid and knows this is probably his one and only BIG contract, so he's likely to seek as much and for as long as possible. So are we prepared to call Moulson our top line LW for the next 4-5 years?


Xxkeaner17xX
- keaner17

Agreed. That is what I've been saying this whole thread. To me he is not someone I want on JT's wing for the next five years especially at the salary he'llbe commanding. He's just not worth it. He isn't taking a 2 or three yr contract nor should he. As far as us getting a guy like that(when referring to a player like Horton)what happened to the "when we move to Brooklyn players are going to be chomping at the bit to play here" mentality that 3/4's of this thread had?
I have a feeling this will become a mute point with the eventual promotion of Strome and or Nelson. If you have the depth you trade players like Moulson to get a good return to continue filling your prospect pool. If some team offered a mid first you jump all over it especially with this upcoming draft class.
Now I know someone will say from the Moulson camp on here he's not worth it but you can't have it both ways. Can't say how great he is and three time 30 goal scorer, irreplacable, etc than say he's not worth a mid first. What if Nonis offered Franson for Moulson straight up? Would you do it?

I think bc of his relationship w/JT and the Isles organization giving him his opportunity, I do believe Moulson would consider a deal of 2 or 3yrs of $5.5 or $6M a year, which he kinda deserves...No matter how bad his defense is
- Ur Not Me

I'm not sure about that. Moulson has a few very close friends on other teams as well. I have to figure at his age, he's going to be looking for a bit more security.


Xxkeaner17xX

Agreed on this, too....he's really a complimentary (second line) player. A second line winger who pots 30 and doesn't do much else isn't a bad deal. On the first line, you want players who shine a bit more than that, especially considering what is in the middle. If Okposo truly finally blossoms this year, and Strome is ready for prime time as well, that's a far better first line option than having him out there.
- dcb1

Problem is, I don't think he's a 30 goal scorer on the second line. Folks can say it's not all about JT all they want but even Moulson himself would have to admit he owes a fair amount of his productivity to JT. So if he were on a line with Frans instead for the last three years, how many goals is he scoring per season? I'd guess maybe 15-20 tops. So how do you feel about locking up a 15-20 goal scorer who can't play defense or carry the puck for your second line for 4-5 years. This is the problem with Moulson, unless he's prospering on JT's wing, he carries very little use.


Xxkeaner17xX

I don't mind resigning Moulson for a 3 year deal @ 4 to 4.5 million per year.

It's not like we don't have the cap room.

Plus if Strome end up on the first line with him and JT... all he has to do is pull an Andreychuk and sit in front of the net and bang in rebounds.

You're taking a logical way of thinking and stretching it to an extreme. If Moulson is producing at a level that we NEED to squeeze into the playoffs than you keep him. Again, Moulson is not going to be a make or break player for us IMO getting into or definitely while we are in. He did litle to nothing to help us get into the PO's last season in fact he may have been more of a detriment down the stretch? He is the exact opposite of kind of player that succeeds in the PO's. I don't think the way I do bcs I'm an Islander fan and I'm used to dumping players at the deadline. I think that way bcs I'm an Islander fan and we are rebuliding and it makes zero sense to let players walk away for nothing that are going to be borderline unsignable when they hit FA.
- Cptmjl

I don't know how anyone can say that a guy who is a perennial 30 + goal scorer and consistently the second leading scorer on the team does "little to nothing to help the team get into the playoffs". I certainly don't see how you can call that same player a "detriment" to the team making the playoffs.

You can't simply discount the value of the points Moulson puts up because you don't like his defense and skating and want to trade him for prospects/picks. The analysis has to be fair. Moulson's points count the same as JT's points do, as Bailey's points do, as KO's points do, etc.

Its a tough call. I like Moulson and would want him to stay put. But, I am opposed to paying him $5M+ per season on a long-term deal because I think there are players in the system that can replace him down the road. But, if this team is in the playoffs or on the cusp of getting in and the best they can do for Moulson in a trade at the deadline is a draft pick, I'm not inclined to trade him simply to be able to say "we got something for an asset". I place a value on getting to the playoffs and competing and don't necessarily have the viewpoint that its not worth getting to the playoffs just to be a bottom seed and get knocked out in the first round.

I don't know how anyone can say that a guy who is a perennial 30 + goal scorer and consistently the second leading scorer on the team does "little to nothing to help the team get into the playoffs". I certainly don't see how you can call that same player a "detriment" to the team making the playoffs.You can't simply discount the value of the points Moulson puts up because you don't like his defense and skating and want to trade him for prospects/picks. The analysis has to be fair. Moulson's points count the same as JT's points do, as Bailey's points do, as KO's points do, etc.

Its a tough call. I like Moulson and would want him to stay put. But, I am opposed to paying him $5M+ per season on a long-term deal because I think there are players in the system that can replace him down the road. But, if this team is in the playoffs or on the cusp of getting in and the best they can do for Moulson in a trade at the deadline is a draft pick, I'm not inclined to trade him simply to be able to say "we got something for an asset". I place a value on getting to the playoffs and competing and don't necessarily have the viewpoint that its not worth getting to the playoffs just to be a bottom seed and get knocked out in the first round.
- Jethro09

I would say he was a 'detriment' during a 20 game stretch last year when he scored 2 goals. In addition, he was the worst Islander on the ice during the playoff series. I'm not sure I'm ready to cast him off just yet, but I really did find his performance in that series a bit concerning. You always hear about players picking their game up when the playoff hits. Once those guys did that, it seemed to leave Moulson in the dust. Maybe it was just one playoff series, but when you reach that time of the year, the game becomes much more of a two-way game. It seemed to highlight Moulson's many shortcomings.


Xxkeaner17xX

I would say he was a 'detriment' during a 20 game stretch last year when he scored 2 goals. In addition, he was the worst Islander on the ice during the playoff series. I'm not sure I'm ready to cast him off just yet, but I really did find his performance in that series a bit concerning. You always hear about players picking their game up when the playoff hits. Once those guys did that, it seemed to leave Moulson in the dust. Maybe it was just one playoff series, but when you reach that time of the year, the game becomes much more of a two-way game. It seemed to highlight Moulson's many shortcomings.


Xxkeaner17xX
- keaner17

Moulson has been an Islander for four years now. This is the first time that anyone is suggesting that Moulson was a "detriment" for any period of time he's been with the team. You can cherry-pick a period of time during the season to try to make a point or you can look at the total body of work: 44 pts in 47 games, -3 overall, second on the team in scoring.

I'm not saying that Moulson is Patrick Kane or some other elite winger. But he has been and will likely continue to be an important contributor to the Isles' success. You can't take a position that "well, his points and goals don't mean s**t because he can't skate well" or that "he went through a dry spell for a bunch of games last year so he obviously isn't important to the team". Even JT goes through dry spells where he doesn't score goals.

Point being, if hypothetically you trade Moulson for picks/prospects now, the team takes a hit offensively this season. Could they still make the playoffs? Sure. However, its more likely that they make the playoffs with Moulson's contributions than without.

Moulson and a 1st was offered to Buffalo for Vanek
Our GM obviously said no

Vanek would prob net 50 playing with Tavares though, so if u guys can work out a deal for him.....

I think Miller should also be a target for you guys though
Nabokov isn't getting u past the 1st round

If Snow has the balls to trade some good enough prospects... Acquiring Miller AND Vanek puts u right up there IMO
But I doubt that happens

Moulson has been an Islander for four years now. This is the first time that anyone is suggesting that Moulson was a "detriment" for any period of time he's been with the team. You can cherry-pick a period of time during the season to try to make a point or you can look at the total body of work: 44 pts in 47 games, -3 overall, second on the team in scoring.

I'm not saying that Moulson is Patrick Kane or some other elite winger. But he has been and will likely continue to be an important contributor to the Isles' success. You can't take a position that "well, his points and goals don't mean s**t because he can't skate well" or that "he went through a dry spell for a bunch of games last year so he obviously isn't important to the team". Even JT goes through dry spells where he doesn't score goals.

Point being, if hypothetically you trade Moulson for picks/prospects now, the team takes a hit offensively this season. Could they still make the playoffs? Sure. However, its more likely that they make the playoffs with Moulson's contributions than without.
- Jethro09

I generally agree but as I said, I do worry that last years playoff performance may be a sign of just what type player a guy like Moulson is in intense games. Overwhelmed.
I'm not suggesting we deal him for picks at this point, though I'd happily consider trading him and a prospect for a top pairing dman (pipe dream, I know). In this situation you absolutely can cherry pick points and times because a guy like Matt brings one thing and one thing only to the team and if he's not doing that consistently, he's suddenly as bad as Reasoner, only worse because he's holding up our top line.

Moulson is a goal scorer, plain and simple. It's the ONLY reason he's still here. However, if he's looking for a long contract at a high dollar amount, I think we can maybe consider spending that money on a more complete top line forward.

It won't be an easy decision no matter what.


Xxkeaner17xX

Moulson and a 1st was offered to Buffalo for Vanek
Our GM obviously said no

Vanek would prob net 50 playing with Tavares though, so if u guys can work out a deal for him.....

I think Miller should also be a target for you guys though
Nabokov isn't getting u past the 1st round

If Snow has the balls to trade some good enough prospects... Acquiring Miller AND Vanek puts u right up there IMO
But I doubt that happens
- jdfitz77

I'd take Vanek in a second, though I'm not sure how legit that 'rumor' is.

As for Miller. The Isles have two very good young goalie prospects, one of which may be a franchise goalie. We' anticipate finding out more about that situation through this season so I don't see the need to deal for an older established guy at this time.

xxkeaner17Xx

I don't know how anyone can say that a guy who is a perennial 30 + goal scorer and consistently the second leading scorer on the team does "little to nothing to help the team get into the playoffs". I certainly don't see how you can call that same player a "detriment" to the team making the playoffs.You can't simply discount the value of the points Moulson puts up because you don't like his defense and skating and want to trade him for prospects/picks. The analysis has to be fair. Moulson's points count the same as JT's points do, as Bailey's points do, as KO's points do, etc.

Its a tough call. I like Moulson and would want him to stay put. But, I am opposed to paying him $5M+ per season on a long-term deal because I think there are players in the system that can replace him down the road. But, if this team is in the playoffs or on the cusp of getting in and the best they can do for Moulson in a trade at the deadline is a draft pick, I'm not inclined to trade him simply to be able to say "we got something for an asset". I place a value on getting to the playoffs and competing and don't necessarily have the viewpoint that its not worth getting to the playoffs just to be a bottom seed and get knocked out in the first round.
- Jethro09

I can when he does absolutely nothing else and he's not scoring. He doesn't hit in fact he avoids contact like every opposing player has the bubonic plague. He doesn't back check in any sense. How many times last season did we ALL see him just give up on a play that lead to an opposing team scoring opportunity? If he's not scoring he's worthless. He wasn't scoring leading up to the PO's which was the point of my post. I don't think Moulson helped getting us into the PO's down the stretch but in fact was a "detriment" to the very cause bcs of his one dimensional game and him not scoring. He was hard to watch which just about every poster on this thread was b!tching about and screaming to dump him. How soon everyone forgets. Of course his points count and are very important but when they're not coming what purpose does he serve(referring to leading up to the PO's which you guys keep bringing up, that we couldn't have done it without him which to me isn't true)? Also, if those points are coming from other areas we weren't getting them from bfr he becomes expendable.
Example, what if Strome or Nelson or both put up 40-50 points each or more for that matter? Clutterbuck puts up 10 to 15 points more than Acoin? PMB adds 40-50 points? What purpose does Moulson serve at that point at(I'm guessing)5 years at 5.5(which he's getting unless he has a disastorous season)? He's not worth that with his deficiencies and if you think he is we will just agree to disagree i can't keep writing the same shat over and over again it gets tiring after a while.

Moulson has been an Islander for four years now. This is the first time that anyone is suggesting that Moulson was a "detriment" for any period of time he's been with the team. You can cherry-pick a period of time during the season to try to make a point or you can look at the total body of work: 44 pts in 47 games, -3 overall, second on the team in scoring.

I'm not saying that Moulson is Patrick Kane or some other elite winger. But he has been and will likely continue to be an important contributor to the Isles' success. You can't take a position that "well, his points and goals don't mean s**t because he can't skate well" or that "he went through a dry spell for a bunch of games last year so he obviously isn't important to the team". Even JT goes through dry spells where he doesn't score goals.

Point being, if hypothetically you trade Moulson for picks/prospects now, the team takes a hit offensively this season. Could they still make the playoffs? Sure. However, its more likely that they make the playoffs with Moulson's contributions than without.
- Jethro09

Not true. I'd say the majority of this board at that time was saying he was a negative. You're missing the point of my post and your reply which was something along the lines of what team trying to get in the PO's trades a 30 goal scorer. My reply was my team if that guys not scoring he's not helping you get in the PO's. If said player is one dimensional and not scoring(which he wasn't when we needed him too btw)he serves no purpose. Especially when the rest of his game is terrible. Which was my original point of not thinking he was the make or break player as far as getting us in. He wasn't, not by a long shot.

No playoff team unloads a first line winger scoring 30 goals per season just becausr they're not signed to an extension. It seems like some people haven't let go of the mentality of selling whatever assets the team has at the deadline. Its force of habit to think thst way, but playoff teams dont sell assets just to prevent losing a guy for nothing in free agency.

Every player and deal are unique. If someone blew Snow away with an offer for Moulson, he'd have to consider it. For a draft pick? I'd keep Moulson if were in the playoff picture.
- Jethro09

Thank You