Let me put it this way.

If we trade Giroux the only realistic option is a full scale rebuild. Which means all of the time and resources put into retooling the current roster was pretty much for nothing. It just doesn't make sense right now. Especially after signing G and Jake to those deals.
- Mordecai

agreed. I think the time to trade Giroux would have been couple seasons ago to further speed the retooling of current roster even further. Then our team would have been a bottom feeder for the the past two draft classes. But I'd never want to actually trade Giroux.

Of course they do. The GM makes, and owns, the final decision, but to think that his staff doesn't influence the decision is naive.
- Scoob

I don't think anyone on here stated that Holmgren ran the GM post like a dictator and discarded all thoughts of everyone else, which is how some people are interpreting certain posts on here.

um, first, are you new here? Second, he's right.
- Scoob

I'm saying the argument in general; not his side of the argument

agreed. I think the time to trade Giroux would have been couple seasons ago to further speed the retooling of current roster even further. Then our team would have been a bottom feeder for the the past two draft classes. But I'd never want to actually trade Giroux.
- arichardson22

I don't think so necessarily.

Depends on what you got back. What if it was Giroux for Gaudreau? Is it still a full rebuild?

I don't want to do it but everything depends on return.

I just want to know if this scenario is possible:

Holmgren: "So, I'm thinking of giving Andrew a 6-year, $30M extension after discussing things with his agent. I think he's earned it, what are you thoughts?"

Hextall: "I don't know Paul, I don't think I'd commit that much money to him for that long. However, I'm not totally against and, and I'll support you in whatever you do."

Holmgren: "I understand your reservations, and appreciate your input, but I feel that he can help us win now and in the future."

I don't think so necessarily.

Depends on what you got back. What if it was Giroux for Gaudreau? Is it still a full rebuild?

I don't want to do it but everything depends on return.
- J35Bacher

Or maybe Edmonton wants to give us McDavid and 7 1st round picks for him.

You're likely not going to get a return in that ballpark. You're most likely going to get draft picks and supplementary players for him.

I just want to know if this scenario is possible:

Holmgren: "So, I'm thinking of giving Andrew a 6-year, $30M extension after discussing things with his agent. I think he's earned it, what are you thoughts?"

Hextall: "I don't know Paul, I don't think I'd commit that much money to him for that long. However, I'm not totally against and, and I'll support you in whatever you do."

Holmgren: "I understand your reservations, and appreciate your input, but I feel that he can help us win now and in the future."
- jmatchett383

I think pretty much everybody agrees this is possible.

Then...how was there no one else in the room?
- jmatchett383

I inferred from your conversation that RH and PH were in the room discussing it.

Two people in the room.

No one else in the room to be able to disclose information.

But that's beside the point. My post was a cultural reference that was obviously missed.

I don't think so necessarily.

Depends on what you got back. What if it was Giroux for Gaudreau? Is it still a full rebuild?

I don't want to do it but everything depends on return.
- J35Bacher

I just don't think we'd get a return that could replace Giroux or make up for an already weak position at center. Gaudreau would be great to add to any team, but I'd rather see him next to G on a line

Or Edmonton wants to give us McDavid and 7 1st round picks for him.
- jmatchett383

I am just saying it all depends on return.

Just like LA could say I am never trading Drew Doughty but if Edmonton wanted to offer you McDavid would you do it?

Everything depends on return

I think pretty much everybody agrees this is possible.
- BulliesPhan87

Curious, some people are interpreting things as if people are saying the GM doesn't value anyone else's views.

I just want to know if this scenario is possible:

Holmgren: "So, I'm thinking of giving Andrew a 6-year, $30M extension after discussing things with his agent. I think he's earned it, what are you thoughts?"

Hextall: "I don't know Paul, I don't think I'd commit that much money to him for that long. However, I'm not totally against and, and I'll support you in whatever you do."

Holmgren: "I understand your reservations, and appreciate your input, but I feel that he can help us win now and in the future."
- jmatchett383

no

I am just saying it all depends on return.

Just like LA could say I am never trading Drew Doughty but if Edmonton wanted to offer you McDavid would you do it?

Everything depends on return
- J35Bacher

Yes, every player besides Sidney Crosby and Connor McDavid is available to be traded for the right return. The likelihood of having a team offer that return is extremely slim.

I'm saying the argument in general; not his side of the argument
- PhillySportsGuy

got it. In that case you may be right. lol

I inferred from your conversation that RH and PH were in the room discussing it.

Two people in the room.

No one else in the room to be able to disclose information.

But that's beside the point. My post was a cultural reference that was obviously missed.
- Scoob

Then wouldn't both Hextall and Holmgren qualify as "someone who was in the room?"

If it was a Seinfeld reference, youarewrong.

I just want to know if this scenario is possible:

Holmgren: "So, I'm thinking of giving Andrew a 6-year, $30M extension after discussing things with his agent. I think he's earned it, what are you thoughts?"

Hextall: "I don't know Paul, I don't think I'd commit that much money to him for that long. However, I'm not totally against and, and I'll support you in whatever you do."

Holmgren: "I understand your reservations, and appreciate your input, but I feel that he can help us win now and in the future."
- jmatchett383

Yes, that is within the realm of the literally innumerable possible scenarios.

Of all the arguments in here, this might be the dumbest
- PhillySportsGuy

Of all the comments made today, the above is definitely the dumbest.

Then wouldn't both Hextall and Holmgren qualify as "someone who was in the room?"
- jmatchett383

Sure, but no one else was in the room. This shouldn't be that difficult a concept to grasp.

If it was a Seinfeld reference, youarewrong.

It wasn't.

Yes, every player besides Sidney Crosby and Connor McDavid is available to be traded for the right return. The likelihood of having a team offer that return is extremely slim.
- jmatchett383

Oh I know the likelihood.

But I never really thought I would see Carter and Richards traded in the same week.

On this team I don't think Giroux is the best trade chip. I actually think Simmonds, based on contract and what he brings, would probably bring you the best value in a trade.

Sure, but no one else was in the room. This shouldn't be that difficult a concept to grasp.



It wasn't.
- Scoob

It wasn't difficult to grasp. So yes, 2 people were in the room, and therefore could disclose certain conversations and views if they choose to do so.

Of all the comments made today, the above is definitely the dumbest.
- MJL

Give it time. Landesberg hasn't posted yet

It wasn't difficult to grasp. So yes, 2 people were in the room, and therefore could disclose certain conversations and views if they choose to do so.
- jmatchett383

But we know that neither of them will do that. As there were no others in the room, we will never know how it went down.

But we know that neither of them will do that. As there were no others in the room, we will never know how it went down.
- Scoob

That was exactly my point. All we can do is speculate, no one can say that speculation either way is right or wrong.

Furthermore, since no one in here has worked in an NHL front office, I don't think any of us can say for a fact how an NHL front office (much less on specific one) is run.

Oh I know the likelihood.

But I never really thought I would see Carter and Richards traded in the same week.

On this team I don't think Giroux is the best trade chip. I actually think Simmonds, based on contract and what he brings, would probably bring you the best value in a trade.
- J35Bacher

Giroux also isn't a leading power play goal scorer in the league. Nor has he scored 30 goals. For half the cost of G, he def is best trade chip.

Oh I know the likelihood.

But I never really thought I would see Carter and Richards traded in the same week.

On this team I don't think Giroux is the best trade chip. I actually think Simmonds, based on contract and what he brings, would probably bring you the best value in a trade.
- J35Bacher

I think it depends on circumstance. If you're just looking for a player for assets trade, then Simmons may be the best bet because almost every team will be able to afford him at the deadline.

If you're trading Giroux, then you're obviously committing to a lengthy rebuild, which means you'd be more willing to take back some ugly salary in order for the opposing team to take on Giroux's cap hit. In that instance, Giroux would likely garner more in return.