maas_art

Admin
  • Content count

    14,467
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About maas_art

  • Rank
    Administrator
  • Birthday October 2

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

4,146 profile views
  1. Yeah i think in almost every case UFAs are all about adding that "final piece" so if you're a top 5-8 team maybe that one guy gets you over the hump. Similarly, if you're looking for a specific position (ie if you are the leafs & you could have added Karlsson) then it makes some sense. But for most signings? Not so much. Plenty of good mid-tier signings make sense but the top guys... i mean Duchene will likely be great for the first 2- 3 years in nashville but in the last few I think he's going to be an anchor.
  2. Sanheim is 23. Ghost is 26. Laine is 21. So I dont think any are really "short term" solutions. Certainly Sanheim or Laine would be expected to be here for some time. I agree our talent pool is growing by the year and many pundits ranks us at the very top of the league in terms of prospects but not all of those will work out & if it means moving some players to get a guy who is youngish and has already shown he can play in the NHL? Id do it. I think you could build trades for Laine around Drouin + and Sanheim or Ghost for Mete + Obviously the most important thing here is "what is the +" If its a first and a mid-tier prospect? Done. If its a top prospect like Suzuki or Poehling or Brook? That would be tough. But if we already have lots of great centre depth, can we not afford to move one of those guys to shore up at LD? Im still not convinced we have a true #1LD in our system (I think Romanov will be very very good & there are guys like Harris or Norlinder, or Struble who may make the leap but if you have the opportunity to add someone now who's pretty much there already and is still young, i think you have to do it. Any of our top LD prospects are still probably a couple of years away (at best) from being a top pairing guy (if they ever will be).
  3. Agree, Sanheim is like, the dream - but then thats probably why its unlikely. I will say one thing for Eklund - in the past anyway - he has had good intel from the Pennsylvania based teams. He's often called things for both the flyers and the pens that no one else did & he was right so lets hope this is a case where he actually knows something because imho either (but especially Sanheim) would be a great addition. As for Laine, the worry i have is that he really is not a "Claude Julien" type player. Its clear Claude wants 200 ft players & while i think Laine may be one of the top 5 best pure goal scorers in the NHl, as you mentioned the rest of his game - at least to this point in his career - leaves a lot to be desired. Last year he had 30 goals. He was a BEAST in November, scoring 18 of them. The rest of the year he scored a total of 12 and was, as you said, often in the dog house.
  4. Its Eklund so, you know, grain (or even pound) of salt but since there's not many rumours out there: I feel like there's probably some truth to the fact we've talked about Laine (although I dont think MB would offersheet him). As for Sanheim - obviously id be ecstatic, but i just dont see Philly trading him. Ghost maybe but sanheim? Cant see it.
  5. There's actually a log-jam on both sides. On the right we have our two best dmen (currently) and 3 of our top 4 defensive prospects as well as some decent depth guys. We're super solid at RD. On the left we have probably 6-7 guys who could make the nhl roster on most teams. Unfortunately the majority of them would be the 3rd pair on most teams. We have a couple of guys who can be second pair players - especially when matched with a guy like Petry - and then we have a whole bunch of nothing when it comes to #1D So we're definitely log-jammed at both sides of the defense, but with a huge hole right at the top of LD. We have lots of quantity - and some decent quality - at LD but missing that most important piece. I think the hope right now is that Mete will take another step forward or that a guy like Leskinen will surprise, but i sure would prefer going into the season with more than a hope.
  6. Fleury, Juulsen and Brook are all RHD.
  7. Check the date of the posts you quoted. They were the day before free agency
  8. The problem with a back injury - if it is indeed ongoing - is that its usually 20 games here, 10 games there etc. So its really messes up the roster, which is fine if you're a third pairing guy but if you're expected to play top pairing minutes, thats problematic. Yes, overall he has had a good injury history. I think its the nature of this particular back injury that is scaring some teams off - at least in terms of long term deals.
  9. His back. Apparently back injuries concern teams nearly as much as knee injuries. I think its one of those things that its really tough for a doctor to inspect and say "oh yeah he's fully healed"
  10. The problem is term. It sounds like he really wants 4+ years and no one is willing to give him more than 2. According to Engels (or LeBrun, cant remember?) we have actually made an offer to him for 2 years. So the question is: does he budge or does someone offer him more. If we know definitively no one will give him more than 2 then maybe you offer him a 3rd but I can see the hesitation offering 4 or 5 or more years on a deal.
  11. The real key with any sort of "defensive" defensman is positioning. Weber is elite positionally - he reads plays very well and understands where he needs to be. When he messes that up, he's in big trouble - unlike say, Mete, who can get to where he should be if he read the play wrong. I have not watched Chiarot enough to have an opinion on his positioning but Im certainly willing to watch him with an open mind. That will be the key to his success here imho.
  12. I am squarely in the middle in that I think he's a lot better than the stats indicate but I dont think he's the right fit for this team. So in a vacuum the deal is fine and fair (less term than winnipeg offered him even) but for this team it doesnt make a lot of sense. I would have rather traded for an older band-aid solution instead of signing another #4-6 dman tbh. So while i feel he will be a totally useable dman, I think he is not what we needed. But, as ive said a few times, perhaps there's a trade in the works that includes a guy like Mete or Kulak to get us that true #1 and then this signing makes more sense.
  13. It will probably be a couple of millon lower than that simply because you cant bury everyone in the minors. There's a limit on how many veterans you can have on your AHL team so i think at least a guy or two will be press-boxed (or hopefully picked up on waivers). Still, I think we safely have over $6m to play with. That could mean MB circles back to Gardiner but it also means we have a lot more flexibility in a trade. Perhaps we can get a top pairing LD for one or two lesser players if we take back a bad 1 year contract. There's options. I dont think MB is done. But i also wouldnt be shocked if this was opening night's roster either.
  14. me?
  15. Yeah I believe that was the big issue from Hudon's camp - the team wanted a 2 way deal, he wanted 1, which, if they really had any plans for him, they would have done. It has no impact on the cap, just means if he's sent to Laval he doesnt make a comparatively tiny salary. Its sad because I feel like he's still a potentially good NHL player. He isnt going to ever be an impact player but a mid-tier guy? Why not. Just dont understand what happened between the 2017-18 and 2018-19 seasons that made them sour on him so much.