That was exactly the question asked and like usual it goes off in another direction

- Vukota

It doesn't go in another direction I answered that one directly numerous times. If he's playing and contributing at a level that we can't live without to get in the playoffs than you keep him. My point is I haven't seen that player yet. He certainly wasn't that player last season. His two goals those last 20 or 25 games didn't propel us into the playoffs. In fact as I said before the guy was more of a liability than anything those last games. He was at times awful, especially on the PP. That's why he was taken off the first line.

Yes. If he doesn't sign an extension then he's probably asking for too much. Take what you can get for him. Moulson will get some GM to over pay him in the off season. The Isles will at least get something in return. Win/win.
- JimmyP

So, you're of the opinion that its okay to risk missing the playoffs by trading away a 30-goal man, the second leading scorer on the team and first line left wing, for a pick or a prospect as long as it means that the Isles didn't let Moulson walk for nothing? We'll agree to disagree.

Yes. If he doesn't sign an extension then he's probably asking for too much. Take what you can get for him. Moulson will get some GM to over pay him in the off season. The Isles will at least get something in return. Win/win.
- JimmyP

If Clowe and Clarkson got what they got this FA period you can bet every dime you have with a clear conscience that Matt Moulson no matter what I think of him will get somewhere north of 5.5 per over 5 years. If you're on board(not you)with that than we'll agree to disagree and no matter what anyone says on here my opinion won't change so there!

So, you're of the opinion that its okay to risk missing the playoffs by trading away a 30-goal man, the second leading scorer on the team and first line left wing, for a pick or a prospect as long as it means that the Isles didn't let Moulson walk for nothing? We'll agree to disagree.
- Jethro09

Do you think we would've missed the playoffs last year if we traded Moulson at the deadline?

It doesn't go in another direction I answered that one directly numerous times. If he's playing and contributing at a level that we can't live without to get in the playoffs than you keep him. My point is I haven't seen that player yet. He certainly wasn't that player last season. His two goals those last 20 or 25 games didn't propel us into the playoffs. In fact as I said before the guy was more of a liability than anything those last games. He was at times awful, especially on the PP. That's why he was taken off the first line.
- Cptmjl

He was taken off the 1st line because Boyes was useless without JT where as Moulson can still produce a little without JT not much but still a little. You keep saying how bad he was last year, yet he was on pace for career highs in Points & Assists while potting his usual 25-30 goals. Yeah in a perfect world he would hit, play better D and whatever else you guys complain that he doesn't do but the reality is he scores and they don't have many other guys who put the puck in the net as much as he does, regardless of who he plays with. In time some these kids should be able to replace him but right now there is nobody else who will score like he does no matter how bad you want others to step up.

Do you think we would've missed the playoffs last year if we traded Moulson at the deadline?
- Cptmjl

Probably not but he sure helped them get there. Tell me right now who on this current roster replaces his production?

He was taken off the 1st line because Boyes was useless without JT where as Moulson can still produce a little without JT not much but still a little. You keep saying how bad he was last year, yet he was on pace for career highs in Points & Assists while potting his usual 25-30 goals. Yeah in a perfect world he would hit, play better D and whatever else you guys complain that he doesn't do but the reality is he scores and they don't have many other guys who put the puck in the net as much as he does, regardless of who he plays with. In time some these kids should be able to replace him but right now there is nobody else who will score like he does no matter how bad you want others to step up.
- Vukota

First off Boyes sucks it's no secret how i feel about him but to say Moulson was put on another line because he can produce at least a little is ridiculous. The guy did next to nothing. If next to nothing is your definition of "a little" than cool but it's not the best analogy. Moulson was at times just as bad as Boyes if not worse. You keep saying he was on pace for 25-30 goals. He had a good start to the season and scored 2 goals in his last 25. For all we know he could've scored one in his last 20 in fact if I were a betting man I would've taken those odds. He looked far worse than good.
Playing better D is not his only problem and you have enough hockey acumen to know that. He sucks in every facet besides scoring and at times that's streaky. Sucks, not even he is OK he plain old sucks on D, hitting, anything besides scoring and he didn't do that when it mattered down the stretch and to an extent in the PO's.
As far as when the kids are replacing him this goes back to the original point which is do you want to be stuck with Moulson for at the very least for the next 5 years at a ridiculous amount playing with JT bcs he's beyond worthless anywhere else? If you don't think he's getting atleast 5 yrs at 5 or more per you're fooling yourself.

First off Boyes sucks it's no secret how i feel about him but to say Moulson was put on another line because he can produce at least a little is ridiculous. The guy did next to nothing. If next to nothing is your definition of "a little" than cool but it's not the best analogy. Moulson was at times just as bad as Boyes if not worse. You keep saying he was on pace for 25-30 goals. He had a good start to the season and scored 2 goals in his last 25. For all we know he could've scored one in his last 20 in fact if I were a betting man I would've taken those odds. He looked far worse than good.
Playing better D is not his only problem and you have enough hockey acumen to know that. He sucks in every facet besides scoring and at times that's streaky. Sucks, not even he is OK he plain old sucks on D, hitting, anything besides scoring and he didn't do that when it mattered down the stretch and to an extent in the PO's.
As far as when the kids are replacing him this goes back to the original point which is do you want to be stuck with Moulson for at the very least for the next 5 years at a ridiculous amount playing with JT bcs he's beyond worthless anywhere else? If you don't think he's getting atleast 5 yrs at 5 or more per you're fooling yourself.
- Cptmjl

I never said anything about a 5 yr contract. I'm talking about right now. You're out of your facking mind if you think Boyes was kept in the 1st line because he was a better option then Moulson. You keep telling me how bad Moulson is but yet you can't give me a name on the current roster who will put up the numbers he has with JT and that's my point. Until somebody pushes him out the door he is the best option right now whether you care to admit it or not. I can sit here and pick apart everybody's game, but like I said the other day I'll give moulson the benefit of the doubt because I'll judge him on his entire body of work not just the last two months. I still love ya bud

Probably not but he sure helped them get there. Tell me right now who on this current roster replaces his production?
- Vukota

We have PMB coming on who is supposedly a ready made first line player. One of or two of Strome or Nelson. Again the subtraction of Acoin and addition of Clutterbuck adds some points to the cause. I've touched on this numerous times as well and have repeated it may times since. That's like saying who replaces Streit's points from the blueline? We are in a wait and see mode with this team in every area of our line up. Promoting Bailey to the first line(which was already done btw) and inserting Strome or Nelson(who from every indication that we know seems to be ready) in a second or third line role would be a good plan IMO. You HAVE TO factor him being in his contract year and his demands for said contract.
Saying who NOW replaces his points is being obtuse to make a point. We have no idea what some of these players have to offer as of yet in a literal sense but whatever it is I'm sure it's more than 2 goals in 25 games that truly mattered especially if they are playing on the first line with JT. It's not as easy as who replaces him now? There are so many variables that should go into the thought process of whether you keep Moulson or not?

So, you're of the opinion that its okay to risk missing the playoffs by trading away a 30-goal man, the second leading scorer on the team and first line left wing, for a pick or a prospect as long as it means that the Isles didn't let Moulson walk for nothing? We'll agree to disagree.
- Jethro09

Yes. The odds are slim that Isles will win the Cup this year. It's doubtful that the Isles' offer will compete with some of the offers Moulson will receive as an UFA. To me keeping him under those circumstances isn't worth it. Get whatever you can.

If the Isles playoff run comes down to Moulson then they are in trouble anyway. I'm not sure of the trade deadline this year, but the Isles will play 75% of their games (61 games) before March 1st. If Moulson is a 30 goal scorer that would average out to be about 8 goals in the last 25% (21 games). If 8 goals over 21 games will squeak them into the 8th seed then they are going to get bounced in the first round.

I would prefer they extend his contract and keep him. I'm not sure that's going to happen. As has been said on this thread, this is Moulson's chance at a big contract. I wouldn't blame him for milking it for all he can.

We have PMB coming on who is supposedly a ready made first line player. One of or two of Strome or Nelson. Again the subtraction of Acoin and addition of Clutterbuck adds some points to the cause. I've touched on this numerous times as well and have repeated it may times since. That's like saying who replaces Streit's points from the blueline? We are in a wait and see mode with this team in every area of our line up. Promoting Bailey to the first line(which was already done btw) and inserting Strome or Nelson(who from every indication that we know seems to be ready) in a second or third line role would be a good plan IMO. You HAVE TO factor him being in his contract year and his demands for said contract.
Saying who NOW replaces his points is being obtuse to make a point. We have no idea what some of these players have to offer as of yet in a literal sense but whatever it is I'm sure it's more than 2 goals in 25 games that truly mattered especially if they are playing on the first line with JT. It's not as easy as who replaces him now? There are so many variables that should go into the thought process of whether you keep Moulson or not?
- Cptmjl

Ok, I'll stay with the proven scorer and you can keep your fingers crossed that somebody pans out. How is asking who is going to replace Moulson now being obtuse?? I want to see them make the playoffs this year and win a round or two. Right now as it stands they need Moulson to help them do that. What happens in the off season is a different subject for another time.

I never said anything about a 5 yr contract. I'm talking about right now. You're out of your facking mind if you think Boyes was kept in the 1st line because he was a better option then Moulson. You keep telling me how bad Moulson is but yet you can't give me a name on the current roster who will put up the numbers he has with JT and that's my point. Until somebody pushes him out the door he is the best option right now whether you care to admit it or not. I can sit here and pick apart everybody's game, but like I said the other day I'll give moulson the benefit of the doubt because I'll judge him on his entire body of work not just the last two months. I still love ya bud
- Vukota

I answered this in my last post and many more behind that one. I facking hate repeating myself. Right now, nobody in a literal sense. PMB, Strome, Nelson, Bailey, all maybes one of which i think would be an immediate better option on the first line. As far as Boyes is concerned they were both horrible on that line. I'm pretty sure you yourself was b!tching about his play the last 25 games? He was facking terrible before he was demoted. If you think he was demoted because of Boyes you're out of your facking mind. He was just as bad if not worse at times. I thought Boyes would've went to another line honestly but wasn't blown away when Moulson did. He was that bad.
His entire body of work is a good way to judge him agreed but you have to factor in games that matter which we only saw last year which he didn't show up for. He was invisible and when you did notice him he was terrible. I said before in posts discussing this with you if the guy is playing lights out in the begining of the season you consider resigning him(not happening) but if we see what we saw last season in the last 25 or so games you rade him for an asset. Both you and Jethro stated you don't trade your 30 goal scorer when you're making a playoff push. What exactly did Matt Moulson do for us during the only playoff push this team made since he's been here. You have both made points and then reverted back to this same one(who replaces points now). I have answered every facking time God damn it!!!!!
You have to factor everything in when discussing Moulson. You can't just say who replaces his points now especially when that answer may become very obvious pretty early on. We have to see what we have and by that point we may get nothing for a guy we probably don't need to make the playoffs. See what i did there? . Love you too man even though you're wrong

We have PMB coming on who is supposedly a ready made first line player. One of or two of Strome or Nelson. Again the subtraction of Acoin and addition of Clutterbuck adds some points to the cause. I've touched on this numerous times as well and have repeated it may times since. That's like saying who replaces Streit's points from the blueline? We are in a wait and see mode with this team in every area of our line up. Promoting Bailey to the first line(which was already done btw) and inserting Strome or Nelson(who from every indication that we know seems to be ready) in a second or third line role would be a good plan IMO. You HAVE TO factor him being in his contract year and his demands for said contract.
Saying who NOW replaces his points is being obtuse to make a point. We have no idea what some of these players have to offer as of yet in a literal sense but whatever it is I'm sure it's more than 2 goals in 25 games that truly mattered especially if they are playing on the first line with JT. It's not as easy as who replaces him now? There are so many variables that should go into the thought process of whether you keep Moulson or not?
- Cptmjl

You act like he is the only player on the roster to go through a scoring drought. The guy produces for 3 plus years since he has been here and he has a bad couple of months and he is garbage Yet there are plenty of guys on the current roster who have disappeared for long stretches too who don't come anywhere near Moulson's production and they are fine

Ok, I'll stay with the proven scorer and you can keep your fingers crossed that somebody pans out. How is asking who is going to replace Moulson now being obtuse?? I want to see them make the playoffs this year and win a round or two. Right now as it stands they need Moulson to help them do that. What happens in the off season is a different subject for another time.
- Vukota

It's being obtuse because we have one of or both of Strome or nelson probably making the line up and we signed PMB to play in a scoring role. As far as Moulson helping us get to the playoffs or doing some damage in the playoffs I haven't seen that player yet? Are we talking about the same guy?

You act like he is the only player on the roster to go through a scoring drought. The guy produces for 3 plus years since he has been here and he has a bad couple of months and he is garbage Yet there are plenty of guys on the current roster who have disappeared for long stretches too who don't come anywhere near Moulson's production and they are fine
- Vukota

They are not one dimensional players. Well Okposo i can't say that for but he seems to have rounded his game out(hopefully). Both of you guys have said numerous times that you don't trade your 30 goal scorer when you're making a push for the playoffs. He didn't help that push and in a contract year if he's not helping again and he's not signed yet you trade him for an asset. Common sense. I'll never agree with you on this

I answered this in my last post and many more behind that one. I facking hate repeating myself. Right now, nobody in a literal sense. PMB, Strome, Nelson, Bailey, all maybes one of which i think would be an immediate better option on the first line. As far as Boyes is concerned they were both horrible on that line. I'm pretty sure you yourself was b!tching about his play the last 25 games? He was facking terrible before he was demoted. If you think he was demoted because of Boyes you're out of your facking mind. He was just as bad if not worse at times. I thought Boyes would've went to another line honestly but wasn't blown away when Moulson did. He was that bad.
His entire body of work is a good way to judge him agreed but you have to factor in games that matter which we only saw last year which he didn't show up for. He was invisible and when you did notice him he was terrible. I said before in posts discussing this with you if the guy is playing lights out in the begining of the season you consider resigning him(not happening) but if we see what we saw last season in the last 25 or so games you rade him for an asset. Both you and Jethro stated you don't trade your 30 goal scorer when you're making a playoff push. What exactly did Matt Moulson do for us during the only playoff push this team made since he's been here. You have both made points and then reverted back to this same one(who replaces points now). I have answered every facking time God damn it!!!!!
You have to factor everything in when discussing Moulson. You can't just say who replaces his points now especially when that answer may become very obvious pretty early on. We have to see what we have and by that point we may get nothing for a guy we probably don't need to make the playoffs. See what i did there? . Love you too man even know you're wrong
- Cptmjl

My argument is based on the assumption he returns to his form off the last 3 years or so. If he continues the downward spiral then all bets are off.

They are not one dimensional players. Well Okposo i can't say that for but he seems to have rounded his game out(hopefully). Both of you guys have said numerous times that you don't trade your 30 goal scorer when you're making a push for the playoffs. He didn't help that push and in a contract year if he's not helping again and he's not signed yet you trade him for an asset. Common sense. I'll never agree with you on this
- Cptmjl

How can you say he didn't help that push?? He averaged nearly a point a game. You think the Isles would have made the playoffs with Okposo or Bailey playing the 1st line all year and Moulson not on the team?

It's being obtuse because we have one of or both of Strome or nelson probably making the line up and we signed PMB to play in a scoring role. As far as Moulson helping us get to the playoffs or doing some damage in the playoffs I haven't seen that player yet? Are we talking about the same guy?
- Cptmjl

So you're expecting a rookie to step in and score 30 goals a year?? Good luck with that

My argument is based on the assumption he returns to his form off the last 3 years or so. If he continues the downward spiral then all bets are off.
- Vukota

That's when you have to factor in his contract and what it'll be. You have too. Even if he plays decent do you hold onto him even if he's not needed to make the playoffs or be competitive in them? Do you watch him walk for nothing or sign him to a ludicrous contract(he's getting one if he wants it and he'd be stupid not too)and cement him to JT's wing for far too long. These are all things that come with Matt Moulson along with his possible 30 goals.

How can you say he didn't help that push?? He averaged nearly a point a game. You think the Isles would have made the playoffs with Okposo or Bailey playing the 1st line all year and Moulson not on the team?
- Vukota

He had a good start and a bad second half. The team was palying like absolute dog shat during that time period. When the team started playing well(really well) he was a glaring defensive liability and was invisible the rest of the time when the points really mattered. You can make an argument that his earlier goals helped make up points for the team and it'd be valid in a literal sense but looking at the player we needed when it mattered he was an absentee.

My argument is based on the assumption he returns to his form off the last 3 years or so. If he continues the downward spiral then all bets are off.
- Vukota

Assuming he does return to form, what do you think would be a fair contract?

That's when you have to factor in his contract and what it'll be. You have too. Even if he plays decent do you hold onto him even if he's not needed to make the playoffs or be competitive in them? Do you watch him walk for nothing or sign him to a ludicrous contract(he's getting one if he wants it and he'd be stupid not too)and cement him to JT's wing for far too long. These are all things that come with Matt Moulson along with his possible 30 goals.
- Cptmjl

Take the same approach that they took with Streit. If you're in a playoff position you keep him , unless you are offered a trade you can't refuse. Like I said teams lose guys to UFA every year, part of the business. I'd rather keep him for the playoffs then get a pick for him. It's a gamble for sure but its a gamble I would be willing to take. Plus if Moulson is as bad as you think he will be then you won't get anything for him at the deadline regardless

So you're expecting a rookie to step in and score 30 goals a year?? Good luck with that
- Vukota

Now you're pissing me off . If you're really interested in my point go back and read my ealrier posts some in response to you. It's an overall increase in POSSIBLE point production. Yes it's POSSIBLE. None of us know for 100% certainty. Do you KNOW Moulson is going to score 30 goals especially after what we saw for 25 games last year? I would'nt make that bet. I'm not saying the kids are going to score 30 goals I'm saying they COULD help make up for it along with help from Clutterbuck potting a few more than Acoin and the addition of PMB may help over Boyes. The subtraction of Boyes and Acoin with the addition of the players we got is an increase in point production. Bailey being on the first line provided he plays like he did last year and the addition of a kid to the third or second line could and should increase point production. Don't take one thing I said and turn it into my main point. Jesus facking Christ!!

Assuming he does return to form, what do you think would be a fair contract?
- JimmyP

I don't know man. Contracts are out of hand. I would have no problem if they gave him a little more cash up front for a shorter term this way he doesn't block the prospects coming up. This is based on him scoring 30 goals again of course

Assuming he does return to form, what do you think would be a fair contract?
- JimmyP

Don't ask that