Ben Shelley: Losing Nick Leddy to Seattle would leave hole on Islanders' blue line

Can we give up picks and dead weight same as with Vegas? Didn't we send a 1st to take Grabovski's contract.

Can we give up picks and dead weight same as with Vegas? Didn't we send a 1st to take Grabovski's contract.
- ziggy_skalica

The Islanders could, but ditching Grabovski cost Snow a 1st, a 2nd and a defensive prospect.

What would getting rid of Ladd cost?

The Islanders could, but ditching Grabovski cost Snow a 1st, a 2nd and a defensive prospect.

What would getting rid of Ladd cost?
- Wildschwein

Hopefully Snow's eternal soul, which is a price I'm willing to pay.

From the last thread....courtesy of 7:

If Leddy is dealt, then you are losing someone else for nothing in the expansion draft. So if you are trading Leddy it better be a trade that can make up for losing 2 pieces of the current roster.
I'm thinking Lou wants to lose no one, if possible from this current roster's core let alone 2. Having Seattle take Ladd by throwing a sweetener like maybe Bellows and a pick their way is probably the best way to reduce our salary, keep the current roster together and not lose anyone significant to the teams success in the expansion draft. Just my opinion off course which is typically wrong.

You're right that you'll lose someone else for nothing. But Leddy IMO has significant value, and the next guy is probably worth less. So losing someone else for nothing is preferable to losing Leddy for nothing.

On the other hand, that would be great if Lou can convince Seattle to take Ladd for Bellows and a pick. It kills 2 birds with one stone: you keep the team intact and you gain cap space.

Hopefully Snow's eternal soul, which is a price I'm willing to pay.
- JimmyP

Me too.

From the last thread....courtesy of 7:

If Leddy is dealt, then you are losing someone else for nothing in the expansion draft. So if you are trading Leddy it better be a trade that can make up for losing 2 pieces of the current roster.
I'm thinking Lou wants to lose no one, if possible from this current roster's core let alone 2. Having Seattle take Ladd by throwing a sweetener like maybe Bellows and a pick their way is probably the best way to reduce our salary, keep the current roster together and not lose anyone significant to the teams success in the expansion draft. Just my opinion off course which is typically wrong.

You're right that you'll lose someone else for nothing. But Leddy IMO has significant value, and the next guy is probably worth less. So losing someone else for nothing is preferable to losing Leddy for nothing.

On the other hand, that would be great if Lou can convince Seattle to take Ladd for Bellows and a pick. It kills 2 birds with one stone: you keep the team intact and you gain cap space.
- JohnScammo

My only complaint is that moving Ladd would certainly require moving the 2022 1st. Ordinarily no big deal, but that’ll be 3 consecutive 1st round picks the Islanders have surrendered.

My only complaint is that moving Ladd would certainly require moving the 2022 1st. Ordinarily no big deal, but that’ll be 3 consecutive 1st round picks the Islanders have surrendered.
- Wildschwein

Yeah, losing another 1st round pick would not be good. I suppose if Seattle values Bellows highly enough, and figures out a useful role for Ladd (2-time Cup winner's veteran presence?), maybe they'd take a 2nd??? One small consolation is that an Islander 1st rounder these days isn't worth what it used to be, assuming they keep competing for the Cup.

Lou is in win-now mode, so I think he does that deal if he can.

If you lose Leddy, I hear that Yandle is available!
He is very dependable, as far as always being ready to play, and he will play hurt, or play even when you would rather see him in the pressbox!

From the last thread....courtesy of 7:

If Leddy is dealt, then you are losing someone else for nothing in the expansion draft. So if you are trading Leddy it better be a trade that can make up for losing 2 pieces of the current roster.
I'm thinking Lou wants to lose no one, if possible from this current roster's core let alone 2. Having Seattle take Ladd by throwing a sweetener like maybe Bellows and a pick their way is probably the best way to reduce our salary, keep the current roster together and not lose anyone significant to the teams success in the expansion draft. Just my opinion off course which is typically wrong.

You're right that you'll lose someone else for nothing. But Leddy IMO has significant value, and the next guy is probably worth less. So losing someone else for nothing is preferable to losing Leddy for nothing.

On the other hand, that would be great if Lou can convince Seattle to take Ladd for Bellows and a pick. It kills 2 birds with one stone: you keep the team intact and you gain cap space.
- JohnScammo

Describe significant value

John Tonelli for HOF

Describe significant value
- Cptmjl

Worth picks and/or prospects despite his cap hit.

Worth picks and/or prospects despite his cap hit.
- JohnScammo

His cap hit is not an issue considering he's a top 4 dman and Leddy does have value bc of that. Isles should protect 4 dmen & 4 F's

His cap hit is not an issue considering he's a top 4 dman and Leddy does have value bc of that. Isles should protect 4 dmen & 4 F's
- Hell_Bent

Which 4 forwards would you protect?

Which 4 forwards would you protect?
- JohnScammo

Its not popular opinion but the 3 C's Barzy, Nelson, JGP & Beau

centers are tough to find and team has 3 of them that are good & 2 of them good on FO's

Worth picks and/or prospects despite his cap hit.
- JohnScammo

Yeah I get that of course we’re not taking back salary that’s not exactly describing what you consider substantial

Substantial gives the impression of a big return.

In Lou We Trust!

Its not popular opinion but the 3 C's Barzy, Nelson, JGP & Beau

centers are tough to find and team has 3 of them that are good & 2 of them good on FO's
- Hell_Bent

So you wouldn't protect the Identity Line? Our captain, Lee? Bailey? Eberle? OK, I do see some rationale for your approach, but I think some of those forwards are even more important to the team than Leddy.

Hopefully, as 7 said, Lou will convince Seattle to pick Ladd.

Yeah I get that of course we’re not taking back salary that’s not exactly describing what you consider substantial

Substantial gives the impression of a big return.
- Cptmjl

I said "significant" not "substantial".

So you wouldn't protect the Identity Line? Our captain, Lee? Bailey? Eberle? OK, I do see some rationale for your approach, but I think some of those forwards are even more important to the team than Leddy.

Hopefully, as 7 said, Lou will convince Seattle to pick Ladd.
- JohnScammo

No on all only bc they are getting older and have salary that could be used to sign our own guys or even be replaced by better ones imo.

Plus I also dont think those guys have more value then the 4 dmen bc dmen is what most teams covet and Isles have a group that fits into Trotz system.
I'd prefer an upgrade of players in positions bc I feel that's what needed

I said "significant" not "substantial".
- JohnScammo

Sorry you are correct. Describe significant.

I still can't respond to quotes on first page of comments...

Lee has to be protected b/c of his NTC. Same with JGP.. so if you are only protecting 4 forwards u get 2 more out of Brock, Barzal, Bailey, Ebs, Beau, Bellows, MDC, speecial K, Leo, Cal, Martin, etc. So that would be insanity..

Leddy should have some value but with only 1 year left on his contract and getting 5.5 mill... can't imagine they get much for him.. Maybe a Second? But I do think it makes sense to get something for him instead of nothing at Expansion draft. Trick is finding a team that only has 2 D-men they want to protect.. not going to be easy.


If Lou manages to move him it will be interesting to see if we protect Eberle on the 21stt or Belllows. My guess is we do Protect Ebs despite what everyone thinks.

I still can't respond to quotes on first page of comments...

Lee has to be protected b/c of his NTC. Same with JGP.. so if you are only protecting 4 forwards u get 2 more out of Brock, Barzal, Bailey, Ebs, Beau, Bellows, MDC, speecial K, Leo, Cal, Martin, etc. So that would be insanity..

Leddy should have some value but with only 1 year left on his contract and getting 5.5 mill... can't imagine they get much for him.. Maybe a Second? But I do think it makes sense to get something for him instead of nothing at Expansion draft. Trick is finding a team that only has 2 D-men they want to protect.. not going to be easy.


If Lou manages to move him it will be interesting to see if we protect Eberle on the 21stt or Belllows. My guess is we do Protect Ebs despite what everyone thinks.
- niteislander

These expansion drafts are a god damn joke.

I still can't respond to quotes on first page of comments...

Lee has to be protected b/c of his NTC. Same with JGP.. so if you are only protecting 4 forwards u get 2 more out of Brock, Barzal, Bailey, Ebs, Beau, Bellows, MDC, speecial K, Leo, Cal, Martin, etc. So that would be insanity..

Leddy should have some value but with only 1 year left on his contract and getting 5.5 mill... can't imagine they get much for him.. Maybe a Second? But I do think it makes sense to get something for him instead of nothing at Expansion draft. Trick is finding a team that only has 2 D-men they want to protect.. not going to be easy.


If Lou manages to move him it will be interesting to see if we protect Eberle on the 21stt or Belllows. My guess is we do Protect Ebs despite what everyone thinks.
- niteislander

You are only required to protect guys with no movement clauses, not no trade clauses. I'm sure they intend on protecting Lee/JGP anyway, but you are not required to protect anyone that only has a NTC.

The Islanders are almost certainly going the 7-3-1 route, not the 4-4-1 like the last time around. They'll protect 7 forwards plus Pelech/Pulock/Mayfield or Leddy (and it certainly seems like Mayfield will be the guy right now)

I think the protection list should be relatively obvious, as the roster looks right now anyway. It should likely be:

Barzal
Lee
Nelson
Bailey
Eberle
Beau
Pageau

Pelech
Pulock
Mayfield

Varly

You are only required to protect guys with no movement clauses, not no trade clauses. I'm sure they intend on protecting Lee/JGP anyway, but you are not required to protect anyone that only has a NTC.

The Islanders are almost certainly going the 7-3-1 route, not the 4-4-1 like the last time around. They'll protect 7 forwards plus Pelech/Pulock/Mayfield or Leddy (and it certainly seems like Mayfield will be the guy right now)

I think the protection list should be relatively obvious, as the roster looks right now anyway. It should likely be:

Barzal
Lee
Nelson
Bailey
Eberle
Beau
Pageau

Pelech
Pulock
Mayfield

Varly
- eichiefs9

I agree just wish it wasnt