Well, the jokes on Smyth for demanding a trade to Edmonton the year before LA won the Cup.
- S Kaspar Rollins

Point is, it's not a "terrible" deal. It could back fire yes, but it's certainly worth pondering if you're Murray.
- MnGump

and backfiring would be "terrible" for the ducks, wouldn't it?

Let's look at the order of preferences:
1) Winning the cup without Vanek and MacDonald
2) Winning the cup with Vanek and MacDonald
3) Not winning the cup, without Vanek and MacDonald
4) Not winning the cup, with Vanek and MacDonald

That's where I'm coming from on this one.

I'm thinking he's worth a lot because he's a decent second line center that can produce.and his cap hit isn't incredibly high.
- Alexzanki

Not a huge cap hit but it has some term and it's not easy to trade a contract like that in season.

Plus, apparently what's driving his value down is his off season this year, teams can't decide if he's a 2nd or 3rd liner.

In any case if the bulk of the deal is Clifford and futures I don't see how this trade can favor the Oilers.

Please explain why this is a terrible deal for Anaheim? The goal is to win the Stanley Cup, is it not? This deal immediately adds a top-line winger to their already great offensive team, and you add the leading shotblocker in the league to their second-pairing.

You have to give up some to get, and I think that both teams get what they need out of this kind of deal. With Andersen, Fasth, and Hiller, why wouldn't they be willing to give up Gibson?
- [email protected]

I think take out Gibson and add Fasth and ANA 1st instead of OTT and the prospect &2nd.

and backfiring would be "terrible" for the ducks, wouldn't it?

Let's look at the order of preferences:
1) Winning the cup without Vanek and MacDonald
2) Winning the cup with Vanek and MacDonald
3) Not winning the cup, without Vanek and MacDonald
4) Not winning the cup, with Vanek and MacDonald

That's where I'm coming from on this one.
- Morris

#2

Moulson?

Wasn't it your current GM though that let him walk for nothing? If that's correct, he'll have to swallow some pride for giving him away and then paying through a decent trade to get him back!
- nikel

Yeah I think in that case it wasn't a trade, and it's very 'KINGS LIKE" to bring back players we already had so that and the buzz they keep saying they want him back because he is banging Quick's sister, or Quick is banging his sister is the reasons I wouldn't rule him out even if we do get Gagner. All I know he (Moulson) is another player in a long line that didn't play well here and then became a freaking all-star for another team...

I just don't get the trade, if it happens, on why the Kings are even going for him when he is a C (I think plays RW also?) and need a goal scorer.
- Bojangle

I agree with this too. Slightly disappointed too since I thought LA would be a potential spot for Cammy (though I was always a bit skeptical because of how bad it ended there for him).

The guy has never even had a 50pt season. How does he help?
- TandA4Flames

and yet his career PPG is .612 playing on a poopty team, obvious troll is obvious.

The guy has never even had a 50pt season. How does he help?
- TandA4Flames

He had 38 in 48 games last year. That equates to a 65 point year.

Devils aren't cup contenders so why would they waste assets, that they really need, for a rental who will NOT stay there after this season?

I would hate to see ANA get him though because that is a great team now and can afford to get Vanek as just a rental with a chance to try and convince him to stay (even though he will end up in Min).

I then see Min dumping Heatley to make room for Vanek and then Heatley going to ANA and turning his career around.
- Bojangle

Because (frank) logic, that's why.

MacDonald has not stated he wants to test free agency, the Isles just did not want to meet his demands. For a team like Anaheim, I am sure MacDonald would listen if they offer him the proper contract that he is seeking.
- [email protected]

So he would accept 3 mill for 3 yrs from Anaheim?

and backfiring would be "terrible" for the ducks, wouldn't it?

Let's look at the order of preferences:
1) Winning the cup without Vanek and MacDonald
2) Winning the cup with Vanek and MacDonald
3) Not winning the cup, without Vanek and MacDonald
4) Not winning the cup, with Vanek and MacDonald

That's where I'm coming from on this one.
- Morris

Yep, I see exactly where you're coming from. Where I'm coming from is, too much parity in the NHL to merely assume a team will automatically be right back in the running year after year. Lest ye forget Anaheim is only a litte over a season removed from one of their worst seasons since they last won the cup.

Obviously nothing is ever guaranteed, but I think if you're already this close to making a run, why not consider adding another top talent to one of the top offensive teams in the league to ensure improving your odds?

If you're a fringe playoff team, that's another story, but the Ducks are built to win right now. Next season and beyond could go much differently for them even if they don't make a move like this.

Plus, Selanne's last shot.

Not in the case of Amac. MacDonald has stated he 'wants to remain with the Isles' however he wants $5 million per season. For those of us who watch Amac on a regular basis, the guy is barely worth $3 million. Offering him 4 years @ $16mil is insanity...demanding $5 mil is laughable.
- keaner17

Precisely.

Devils aren't cup contenders so why would they waste assets, that they really need, for a rental who will NOT stay there after this season?

I would hate to see ANA get him though because that is a great team now and can afford to get Vanek as just a rental with a chance to try and convince him to stay (even though he will end up in Min).

I then see Min dumping Heatley to make room for Vanek and then Heatley going to ANA and turning his career around.
- Bojangle

Heatley is in the last year of his contract. He's gone regardless.

Because (frank) logic, that's why.
- SpoiledByOil

The other thing going against NJ as players for any high value player - they have no first this year

.............. Kulikov. *RUNS AWAY*
- Panthers88

I'll take him

Gagner trade now official. Clifford and a 2nd the return - http://kings.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=703996

Gagner trade now official. Clifford and a 2nd the return - http://kings.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=703996
- S Kaspar Rollins

I'll take him
- MaximumBone

For your beer league team???

For your beer league team???
- Iggysbff

I know you already disagree with me

Gagner trade now official. Clifford and a 2nd the return - http://kings.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=703996
- S Kaspar Rollins

That was Richardish.

I know you already disagree with me
- MaximumBone

I'd take him if he was in a contract. I believe he will not be in the NHL next season.

I'd take him if he was in a contract. I believe he will not be in the NHL next season.
- Iggysbff

Yeah, that could be an issue.

I'd take him if he was in a contract. I believe he will not be in the NHL next season.
- Iggysbff

Could make a deal conditional on an extension. Eg a 3rd becomes a 2nd if he re-signs.

Anaheim should target Legwand.