rumor/report: Oilers Working to Trade Milan Lucic by "Sweetening the Pot"

[Giacomin]

Well, they did move Hall for McD type player who at that time had more upside.

You think they learned from their mistakes..

 

Oh, they would take Hayes and Chytil (who can play wing too) to fill the opening at C and keep RNH on the line with McDavid. They worked well together at year's end.

 

The important thing is what 31 said. He is not available. We'd have to absolutely overwhelm them. Something like:

 

9th, Skjei, Chytil, Hayes and then either a RHD of their choice or winger, not named Kreider. We'd have to take Lucic too. Just not worth it.

 

Chiarelli does need to win now. He and a few other GMs are in this position and we should take advantage. However, even Chiarelli knows McDavid and Draisaitl will be there much longer then he is.

[Giacomin]

Edm needs speed on the wing to play with McDavid, hence the Skinner rumor. They could use a 3C. They want a RHD. They want to dump Lucic. They have more smaller wants and needs.

 

If they can't solve these through other deals, we should stay close to Chiarelli. Under the premise that Edm needs to win now and has drafted high often, we should pry #10 away plus any other pieces that could help.

Names, Spooner, 28, 70?

 

There are a ton of possibilities and permutations. I'd focus on one of Calgary's 20-21 y/o Dmen and Zadina first. But Chiarelli should always be a focus while he is still making decisions.

[Pete]

I mean no one here can really claim to know what Chiarelli is thinking or what he wants.

[Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc]

I mean no one here can really claim to know what Chiarelli is thinking or what he wants.

 

No one does that, just pointing out what EDM needs.

 

On topic: The Lucic deal is terrible, but I'd consider taking it if the deal is right. I dont know how bad they want him gone, but if they do something like Lucic (retain. 1.5m) and #10 for Names/Spooner/Vesey and #48 I think I do it. He's just 30 so there's no reason for him not to "bounce back" and be a 45-55 point player. He can play 3rd/4th line without problem and in worst case scenario we buy him out if we need the cap in his last 1-3 years. Four 1st rounders and two in the top 10 - woof. We could even trade into top 3 and still keep 9/10th pick.

[fletch]

No one does that, just pointing out what EDM needs.

 

On topic: The Lucic deal is terrible, but I'd consider taking it if the deal is right. I dont know how bad they want him gone, but if they do something like Lucic (retain. 1.5m) and #10 for Names/Spooner/Vesey and #48 I think I do it. He's just 30 so there's no reason for him not to "bounce back" and be a 45-55 point player. He can play 3rd/4th line without problem and in worst case scenario we buy him out if we need the cap in his last 1-3 years. Four 1st rounders and two in the top 10 - woof. We could even trade into top 3 and still keep 9/10th pick.

 

Change Lucic's last name to "Callahan" and ask Tampa about that player with diminishing hockey skills stuck on the third/fourth line because of salary. Why add an aging issue to our roster?

[Giacomin]

No one does that, just pointing out what EDM needs.

 

On topic: The Lucic deal is terrible, but I'd consider taking it if the deal is right. I dont know how bad they want him gone, but if they do something like Lucic (retain. 1.5m) and #10 for Names/Spooner/Vesey and #48 I think I do it. He's just 30 so there's no reason for him not to "bounce back" and be a 45-55 point player. He can play 3rd/4th line without problem and in worst case scenario we buy him out if we need the cap in his last 1-3 years. Four 1st rounders and two in the top 10 - woof. We could even trade into top 3 and still keep 9/10th pick.

 

Everyone on XMradio, the last few days have been talking about it the idea that it will take giving away their best tradeable asset (pick #10) to dump Lucic. Therefore, anything else they get out of it is a bonus on the value chart. Something to pay for some retention and something to make Chiarelli not admit total failure. A player you mentioned and the 70th pick instead of 48. :cool:

 

Ok, if they retain 1.75, I'll do the deal I proposed. If Lucic has an attitude issue with the coach we waive him and send him down if unclaimed. New CBA and amnesty him.

[Albatrosss]

another hypothetical: lets say we trade for lucic and Edmonton's 10th overall pick. would you package rangers' 9th and 10th for 2nd overall or would u keep them and possible draft two good NHLers?

[josh]

Everyone on XMradio, the last few days have been talking about it the idea that it will take giving away their best tradeable asset (pick #10) to dump Lucic. Therefore, anything else they get out of it is a bonus on the value chart. Something to pay for some retention and something to make Chiarelli not admit total failure. A player you mentioned and the 70th pick instead of 48. :cool:

 

Ok, if they retain 1.75, I'll do the deal I proposed. If Lucic has an attitude issue with the coach we waive him and send him down if unclaimed. New CBA and amnesty him.

When does the current CBA expire?

I imagine they hand out another contract or 2 before then, probably with more years.

[Phil]

another hypothetical: lets say we trade for lucic and Edmonton's 10th overall pick. would you package rangers' 9th and 10th for 2nd overall or would u keep them and possible draft two good NHLers?

 

I need more information. What did they give up for the 10th? Lucic is bad, so I don't really consider adding him a positive benefit except to get good assets out of Edmonton for taking his shitty contract on.

[Albatrosss]

I need more information. What did they give up for the 10th? Lucic is bad, so I don't really consider adding him a positive benefit except to get good assets out of Edmonton for taking his shitty contract on.

 

it doesn't matter who u traded for lucic and 10th. the point is that you now have 9th and 10th. would u trade up for 2nd overall or even 1st overall, or would you draft two players at 9th and 10th?

[Phil]

It does matter. Did they move a ton of prospects in the process, or just picks? Who off the roster?

 

In a vacuum, yes, I'd move 9/10 for 2 any day of the week, but I doubt Edmonton would. There's no incentive there. The Rangers would need to add. And Buffalo isn't trading 1, period. They're just not. It's not even worth entertaining.

[Albatrosss]

u're no fun

[josh]

It does matter. Did they move a ton of prospects in the process, or just picks? Who off the roster?

 

In a vacuum, yes, I'd move 9/10 for 2 any day of the week, but I doubt Edmonton would. There's no incentive there. The Rangers would need to add. And Buffalo isn't trading 1, period. They're just not. It's not even worth entertaining.

 

I havent seen many proposals out there (twitter, CF, blogs) and the ones I have seen that include the 10th pick, are asking for very little.

If you are talking a Zucc/Spooner/Vesey + 2nd/3rd for Lucic + 10th (some retention helps), I'm in.

[Phil]

u're no fun

 

Yes, I'd trade 9 and 10 for 2. All day long.

 

Better?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

[Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc]

Change Lucic's last name to "Callahan" and ask Tampa about that player with diminishing hockey skills stuck on the third/fourth line because of salary. Why add an aging issue to our roster?

 

They're supposed to be competetive now so its not the same. We are going to suck the years Lucic will be here anyway, so its no problem to burry him and his cap on the 4th line (or in Hartford) for some years while we rebuild this team. If having him some years gives us the 10th OA pick, Im down.

[Phil]

They're supposed to be competetive now so its not the same. We are going to suck the years Lucic will be here anyway, so its no problem to burry him and his cap on the 4th line (or in Hartford) for some years while we rebuild this team. If having him some years gives us the 10th OA pick, Im down.

 

He has FIVE years left, dude. Five.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

[Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc]

He has FIVE years left, dude. Five.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

 

Yeah, its a long time, but the player we pick at #10 could be a big part of the core in the next 15 years.

 

He's just 30 years, there is no reason he can't be productive till he's 35 (or atleast serviceble) and if the cap rises as much as lately 5m a year is not THAT much in 3-4 years. Can buyout out his last 1-2 years aswell.

[Giacomin]

Yeah, its a long time, but the player we pick at #10 could be a big part of the core in the next 15 years.

 

He's just 30 years, there is no reason he can't be productive till he's 35 (or atleast serviceble) and if the cap rises as much as lately 5m a year is not THAT much in 3-4 years. Can buyout out his last 1-2 years aswell.

 

Can't stand Lucic, but if it only cost us a 3rd rounder to reduce his cap hit down 1.75 mil. Or say they take back Bellesky and 1.2 retention. It's too tempting.

 

Assuming Kot is taken, having two of Wahlstrom, Bouchard, Boqvist or Dobson plus 26, 28, 39, 48 completes the load up. Not to mention next year's 1 and two 2's. Next we could offer attractive picks and/or players for an emerging Dman like Calgary's unsigned Fox or Andersson.

 

He'd be a motivated effective 4th liner or we bury him in the minors. He could choose to retire eventually. We could buy him out in a couple of years. The CBA will likely produce another amnesty on a cap contract. Their may be options. It comes with some pain, but we aren't getting a prospect like that w/o some kind of pain.

[fletch]

I just can't believe after finally getting rid of Richards, Girardi, etc contracts and potentially buying out Marc Staal we would willingly take on the Lucic albatross of a contract. How many bad contracts does this team need?

[Phil]

Right now, bad short-term deals are a vehicle to acquiring more picks. That's a good thing. But there's a limit to the term of said bad contacts. Anything more than two years needs serious work to make work.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

[Giacomin]

I just can't believe after finally getting rid of Richards, Girardi, etc contracts and potentially buying out Marc Staal we would willingly take on the Lucic albatross of a contract. How many bad contracts does this team need?

 

Makes sense and you're right. Would be nice to move Staal's contract out in 2019-20. We have Bellesky, G's buyout and maybe Smith as more wasted space.

 

Shatty's salary (given his troubles defensively and that we have other offensive RHDs who struggle with D) is something we'd benefit from shedding.

 

That said, there is an allure of drafting back-to-back (top-line, top-pair) 18 y/o prospects. That doesn't happen everyday for us.

 

I resisted the idea till seeing all the interest in Kotkaniemi in the top 8. And then hearing the pundits say that basically Edm will have to send their #10 to get someone to take Lucic. Instead of a big ticket FA we do something like this with the space. We add something for some decent retention. Send him down if he isn't a team player and effective 4th liner.

[siddious]

I would absolutely take Lucic if the deal is right. rangers have 30 mil in cap space next season and if they?re going younger , cap space won?t be an issue for a little while anyway.

 

Depending on how much salary Edmonton retains, and what else they offer I would be very interested.

 

lucic has been in decline there?s no doubt but he still ads an element of toughness which this team lacks and another veteran presence can help a younger team (assuming we move others this off season).

 

lucic, 10th over all, half of his salary and another pick + prospect I think is do-able. Not sure what would go back the other way but 4 first rounders his year would be an awesome start to a rebuild.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk