Id try to move him for an exempt D, but I would also do 7/3
- YuenglingJagr

If they can't move him and go 7/3, he's the most likely player LV will take, injuries aside. If that's the case, wouldn't any asset (a few 4ths, for instance) be better than nothing?

The last thing I want to see is a trade for a defenseman. Unless the trade is literally they send Player X to us for say a 4th round pick, and at the entry draft we send the Player back to them for a 2nd round pick.
- youarewrong

I would only want them to trade for a dman if Manning was going back the other way.

Manning + 4th for TVR would be an upgrade for us, and he's a righty. It's not ideal to have only one RHD out of the top 7. The benefit for Chicago is that they get a pick for TVR instead of losing him to Vegas for nothing, and they get Manning for their AHL team.

I would only want them to trade for a dman if Manning was going back the other way.

Manning + 4th for TVR would be an upgrade for us, and he's a righty. It's not ideal to have only one RHD out of the top 7. The benefit for Chicago is that they get a pick for TVR instead of losing him to Vegas for nothing, and they get Manning for their AHL team.
- Feanor

I would definitely do this trade.

I would only want them to trade for a dman if Manning was going back the other way.

Manning + 4th for TVR would be an upgrade for us, and he's a righty. It's not ideal to have only one RHD out of the top 7. The benefit for Chicago is that they get a pick for TVR instead of losing him to Vegas for nothing, and they get Manning for their AHL team.
- Feanor

This deal works for me

so if a quality dman falls in yoru lap you pass because you want to see what the kids have?
- rinaldo

What are you defining as quality? If the defenseman is good the team will protect him. So the only guys available are 3rd-4th dmen or young guys that haven't quite lived up to potential. And if the defenseman is so good that it merits clogging up another roster spot that can be used to continue developing our youth, then you better believe there will be a bidding war for him.

So to answer your question, yes I will pass. Or I will look to teams like Winnipeg and get a quality pick out of them to use one of our protection slots.

This deal works for me

- BiggE

Anything that replaces Manning with an actual NHL defenseman on a fairly cheap deal that doesn't involve us giving up more than a 4th/B- prospect works for me.

And they had worse before them to, but man, the entire group from 92-94 was just flat out awful.
- BiggE

it was bad no doubt. also bad up front. average in goal. it was a crap show all around.

it was bad no doubt. also bad up front. average in goal. it was a crap show all around.
- rinaldo

They were the 14/15 Flyers defense when they were without Timonen. A lot of guys who were very one-dimensional and no one who could really be trusted to play top minutes. Getting Desjardins in addition to Svoboda ((frank) Marc Bureau), Dykhuis, and Therien actually hitting was a full 180 in 94/95.

What are you defining as quality? If the defenseman is good the team will protect him. So the only guys available are 3rd-4th dmen or young guys that haven't quite lived up to potential. And if the defenseman is so good that it merits clogging up another roster spot that can be used to continue developing our youth, then you better believe there will be a bidding war for him.

So to answer your question, yes I will pass. Or I will look to teams like Winnipeg and get a quality pick out of them to use one of our protection slots.
- youarewrong

so the dman bill has mentioned or potential others from those same teams.

teams cant protect everyone, some will lose real good proven nhl players. that's a fact. most of those guys available would be a solid #2 on this team

it was bad no doubt. also bad up front. average in goal. it was a crap show all around.
- rinaldo

Yup, it was basically Lindros, Brind'amour, Renberg, Recchi, Dineen, Galley and a glorified AHL team.

Yup, it was basically Lindros, Brind'amour, Renberg, Recchi, Dineen, Galley and a glorified AHL team.
- BiggE

Um....CARKNER!?!?

I would only want them to trade for a dman if Manning was going back the other way.

Manning + 4th for TVR would be an upgrade for us, and he's a righty. It's not ideal to have only one RHD out of the top 7. The benefit for Chicago is that they get a pick for TVR instead of losing him to Vegas for nothing, and they get Manning for their AHL team.
- Feanor

Again, I go for the draft pick. Does Chicago want to keep TVR? Ok maybe we give up pick 44 and trade him pack for # 26 and move up in the draft. Hextall can get creative with this protection slot without having to clog a roster spot.

They were the 14/15 Flyers defense when they were without Timonen. A lot of guys who were very one-dimensional and no one who could really be trusted to play top minutes.
- jmatchett383

Galley, in his prime was a legit 2/3 guy who could play on a top pairing with the right partner. But after that, it was a bunch of 3rd pair guys, and AHLers

If they can't move him and go 7/3, he's the most likely player LV will take, injuries aside. If that's the case, wouldn't any asset (a few 4ths, for instance) be better than nothing?
- jmatchett383

Maybe...vegas still has to take someone and they could convince them not to take Myers

They were the 14/15 Flyers defense when they were without Timonen. A lot of guys who were very one-dimensional and no one who could really be trusted to play top minutes. Getting Desjardins in addition to Svoboda ((frank) Marc Bureau), Dykhuis, and Therien actually hitting was a full 180 in 94/95.
- jmatchett383

actually looking at 92/93 wasn't as bad as I thought individually. bad as unit

Again, I go for the draft pick. Does Chicago want to keep TVR? Ok maybe we give up pick 44 and trade him pack for # 26 and move up in the draft. Hextall can get creative with this protection slot without having to clog a roster spot.
- youarewrong

Yes, but the point remains that the only reason you could land a guy live TvR is because we have an open slot and other teams don't. So before you could flip him for a pick, you'd need to trade for him.

Um....CARKNER!?!?
- jmatchett383

Carkner played well at times, mainly early in his career. By 93-94 though, his game was a mess.

But, like Rinaldo mentioned, having no depth at forward and woefully inconsistent goaltending didn't help either. Nor did replacing Bill Dineen, who seemed to have a pretty good rapport with the team, with Terry Simpson help much either.

I would only want them to trade for a dman if Manning was going back the other way.

Manning + 4th for TVR would be an upgrade for us, and he's a righty. It's not ideal to have only one RHD out of the top 7. The benefit for Chicago is that they get a pick for TVR instead of losing him to Vegas for nothing, and they get Manning for their AHL team.
- Feanor

Yeah but then they're stuck with Kruger

This deal works for me

- BiggE

I wonder if Laughton or Raffl, who might not be protected, could be used to say a guy like Alex Petrovic from Florida who they don't seem to be able to protect. He's a guy that could be an upgrade over Manning but also someone you could get more from if you do get a chance to move MacDonald.

I think there will be a lot of moves with teams trying to adjust rosters for this expansion draft coming up.

actually looking at 92/93 wasn't as bad as I thought individually. bad as unit
- rinaldo

Much like the 14/15 Flyers. Streit and MDZ were able to contribute offensively, Schenn and Grossmann were able to handle the physical role, and then there was the rest. But as a unit, didn't work.

Galley, in his prime was a legit 2/3 guy who could play on a top pairing with the right partner. But after that, it was a bunch of 3rd pair guys, and AHLers
- BiggE

was just looking. yuskevich, carkner.

who can forgte Cronin the barbarian.

brian benning was an interesting one. came here played very well after trade. never heard from again. Bill what happened with him?

actually looking at 92/93 wasn't as bad as I thought individually. bad as unit
- rinaldo

Yeah, it was better than 93-94, but still had too many one dimensional guys. Galley was a good offensive Dman and capable in his own end, and Dimitry played well as a rookie, but after that it was one dimensional players, retreads and minor leaguers all around. Again, as you pointed out, they lacked depth and talent at every position and got spotty goaltending at best. It was bad all the way around, but, at least with Lindros in the fold, you knew it was going to get better.

So Ek is reporting that LA is offering their 1st round pick, 11th overall, to LV just to unload Dustin Brown.

I'm calling bullpoop on ya, EK. Why would a franchise that needs to get younger and faster give up a high 1st rounder just to lose a bad contract? I don't think any team is moving a first just to unload a contract. Stop making crap up.
- BiggE

whoa!!!

Yeah but then they're stuck with Kruger
- YuenglingJagr

Kruger for Bellemare?

This may be a silly question, but will there be a roster freeze after the protection lists are announced? Las Vegas needs to construct a team, and if unprotected players start changing left and right, they'll have to start over from scratch.