NHL Trade Rumors Member Posts

 

Xcing's Profile

Current Avatar:
No Avatar image uploaded

Current Profile Picture:
Click to view larger image
Xcing's Profile Picture

Team:


Where from:


Favourite player:


Best team moment:


Interests:


Timezone:




Xcing's Posts and Other Poster's Replies To Xcing's Posts

 

 

To Xcing's last 5 rumours posts

 

To Xcing's last 5 talk posts

 

To Xcing's last 5 rumour replies

 

To Xcing's last 5 talk replies

 

Xcing's rumours posts with other poster's replies to Xcing's rumours posts

 

21 Feb 2018 21:20:20
M. Hoffman + F. Chlapik for N. Hanifin + 5th 2018

Carolina bolsters their offence to help them get into the playoffs while taking away from a position of strength.

Ottawa gets a defenseman that they can build around if Karlsson leaves but he is also a price that could help entice Karlsson to stay (I'm not saying he'd want to leave but this could help if he's on the fence)

Who adds and how much?


1.) 22 Feb 2018 01:06:58
I wouldn't if I was Carolina.


2.) 22 Feb 2018 01:33:15
Hanifan is really starting to be a top tier Dman. He's the last one i'd trade on that back end. he's looking like he will be an All-star Dman for next 10 years or so. however, Canes have many other D to entice a team to trade a scoring winger.


3.) 22 Feb 2018 01:38:17
Carolina shouldn't do it since they are contenders.


4.) 22 Feb 2018 01:56:40
Nah from Carolina.

Hanifin is the prized piece of the Canes blueline. If they trade him, itll be for a stud centre, not a winger.


5.) 22 Feb 2018 02:48:22
Hoff is good but no.


6.) 22 Feb 2018 03:38:54
Lolll a future elite for a top 6 no
Slavin would be a fit tho.


7.) 22 Feb 2018 09:33:34
Id say carolina adds a bit


8.) 22 Feb 2018 16:02:02
I think this trade looks good and is realistic.

Good post!


 

 

17 Feb 2018 14:25:36
Max Domi + 2nd 2019 for Jon Gillies + Adam Fox + Conditional 3rd 2019
*Condition: If Domi gets 40+ points in the 2018-19 then ARZ gets a 3rd otherwise a 5th in 2019 is transferred

Similar to post earlier, I exchanged Fox for Andersson because I feel like ARZ would be really interested in him, they can afford to take a gamble on Fox who could pay off really well.


 

 

08 Feb 2018 16:56:58
N. Meloche + 3rd 2019 for E. Gudbranson

N. Zadorov + 1st 2018 + A. Greer for R. McDonagh

Colorado has a deadly defense in a couple years to pair with their budding offensive stars.
Vancouver gets a decent defense prospect and a decent pick for Gudbranson, probably one of the better packages they'll get offered.
Rangers get some great peices to retool. Zadorov is already a top 4 d man and Greer is showing top 9 potential. The pick is in a stacked draft. McDonagh is a borderline elite defenseman but I don't see them getting a much better package than this


1.) 08 Feb 2018 22:36:12
No from Colorado IMO.


 

 

26 Jan 2018 15:11:27
2018 1st (COL) + S. Girard + C. Morrisson for R. McDonagh

Pretty out there idea but I could see the Rangers entertaining an offer like this. Colorado would do this to get their staple on defense. In order for them to be a championship contender they need someone to play against top lines and right now I wouldn't trust anyone except maybe Johnson to be able to consistently play against top lines. They have enough young peices to afford to lose these ones


1.) 26 Jan 2018 15:42:11
Way too much, tbh.


2.) 26 Jan 2018 16:24:56
Girard has been hugeness for the Avs so he'll no from Colorado.


3.) 26 Jan 2018 18:11:39
Ok but is the idea ok? Maybe replace Girard with Zadorov?


 

 

24 Jan 2018 14:40:51
Oliver Kylington + Matt Stajan + 4th 2019 for Rick Nash

Nash will probably move on from the NYR organization this offseason and it's better to get something for him than nothing. I would say they should keep him from the playoffs but reportedly they have made McDonagh and Kreider avialable so I don't think they are planning on making a cup run.

Calgary gets their middle six winger with lots of playoff experience and only have his terrible contract for half a season. They can then resign him if they want.

This was a similar return to what Detroit got for a rental Vanek last year.


1.) 24 Jan 2018 15:33:06
Don’t see how that helps NYR in a tight division. If that’s the return, I assume they will use Nash like their own rental and negotiate to keep him after if they want.


2.) 24 Jan 2018 15:42:58
Not enough for Nash. Stajen basically has negative value.


3.) 24 Jan 2018 15:56:01
Right now Nash doesn’t have a ton of value at 7.8 million so if they trade him the have to take cap back. Stajan isn’t that much. NYR save 4.8 mil and lost Stajan day the end of the year. Also this deal would only take place if the Rangers are truly not trying to compete this year. I just thought of this with all the reports of them exploring trade options for their current stars.


4.) 24 Jan 2018 20:22:29
Flames take it. I wish the Rangers would.


 

 

 

Xcing's talk posts with other poster's replies to Xcing's talk posts

 

12 Feb 2018 02:57:54
Who would you rather have: Marner or Tkachuk

I believe I proposed this same question a year ago but I'd like to see how people feel now.

In favour of Marner: Undoubtly his offensive ceiling is higher than Tkachuks. He also has show that he can run his own line and lead the offence for his line, Tkachuk has be less consistent when playing with lesser skilled players. Skills wise I'd say marner has the edge. Much more disciplined than Tkachuk.

In favour of Tkachuk: Tkachuk is more physical and has a great ability to draw penalties. He is also a good defender, better than Marner at shutting down top lines. He does has a good offensive upside just not quite as good as Marner.

Personally for me it'd depend on who is surrounding the player. If there already is an elite scorer then I'd take Tkachuk but if you lack a offensive stud then I'd take Marner


1.) 12 Feb 2018 11:31:23
I don't watch Tkachuk enough, and I for one love Marner's play style, so I'm going to have to say Marner.

Its a good debate though. Tkachuk is indeed becoming like Corey Perry/ Brad Marchand: aggrivating, but with enough finesse, and a good defensive player. Marner, his offensive ceiling is higher of course, but from the many leafs games I've watched, he can make little stupid mistakes - one that I simply think Tkachuk wouldn't take.

Imo, if your team is lacking that sort of gritty, hard nosed, skilled player (Marchand, Perry, even Kadri) then you'd probably take Tkachuk (teams like STL probably, or like Chicago) . However, teams lacking firepower (Arizona, Carolina) would probably take Marner.


2.) 12 Feb 2018 19:44:07
It's a hard one to answer forsure.
As of this moment, I will base my decision on last year's playoffs. I don't really remember Tkachuk performance, but I remember Marners. I thought he looked like a a little boy amongst men. (which by age he was). so maybe that is not fair.

At this stage in their careers, I'll go with Tkachuk. who is very similar to his father. he had a pretty good run. however, I think Marner has more potential. I just want to see more of him in the playoffs. can he play with the big boys when it counts? There is no denying his ability. just what I seen last playoff concerned me, but this was also a 19 year old kid in his first playoff. so, to early to tell.


3.) 12 Feb 2018 22:31:10
After last season TSN had Marner in the top 50 NHL players list and didn't have back to back Stanley cup champ Phil Kessel on it. Let that sink in. Now Kessel is a current top three scorer.


4.) 13 Feb 2018 11:27:21
Yup what’s your point just pointing out leafs Bias? ill take Marner on a Eastern Conference team and Tkachuk on a Western although Marner would be the perfect RW on the top Line on Calgary.


5.) 13 Feb 2018 18:27:45
Both really good. I think I would prefer tkachuk just to be a bit harder to play against. I see him as being a 60 point player that hits, fights and agitates. He can compete with the big boys when games get tougher. I can see marner being a 70+ point player, maybe 80 even, but clearly gives up a lot in size and strength. Marner had mono down the stretch and in the playoffs last year which is not the only reason he was pushed around, but definitely didn’t help.

I don’t think you can go wrong either way, just depends on the make of the team you’re putting them on. Leafs have tons of skill in the top 6 and lots of toughness and grinders, but it’s clearly not in a legit top line player. That combination makes me lean towards tkachuk

Much like my Simmonds over pacioretty stance that HABBY attacked calling it habs hating, I’ll take the slight drop off in points for the more physical guy that affects the game in more ways. Now call me a leafs hater lol.


6.) 13 Feb 2018 19:10:08
Hey. Jim, didn't realize he was battling Mono for playoffs. thanks for that info.


7.) 13 Feb 2018 21:49:44
Yeah @sosa that’s what Babcock said after they were eliminated. Had a shoulder injury and missed 5-6 games and then never really got his rythym back and battled mono. Like I said, not the only reason he got pushed around. He was a 5’11 170 pound kid in his first playoff action. At full health he’s never going to be a physical force, but I would bet on him being much better this year down the stretch and in the playoffs.


 

 

02 Feb 2018 01:39:35
One thing I've noticed is that the value of Simmonds and Pacioretty on here seems to be quite different, Simmonds being the more valuable one. But to me this just doesn't make sense when I look at the facts. Both are 29, wingers, good contracts both at 1.5 years left (Simmonds is .5 mil cheaper), similar offensive output (Pacioretty has one more point), have leadership qualities and play similar amount of minutes per night.

I know not everything can be measured in stats and Simmonds brings a more physical and energy side to the game but for what it's worth Pacioretty also has a physical side (has more hits). Is their value really that different?


1.) 02 Feb 2018 04:35:24
No it's just most people on here don't like the habs lol.


2.) 02 Feb 2018 12:52:42
You’re both right. I would take Simmonds over Pacioretty in a heart beat only because power forwards are hard to come by. Otherwise, they both bring a lot to the table. I judge a player by their skill and not by what team they play for. In saying that, I’d take Simmonds over JVR in a heart beat as well.


3.) 02 Feb 2018 13:23:31
Leafs17 stop it c'mon buddy. Your think the world of JVR and you base all your comments towards your team on you inflated biased. let's get real nig.


4.) 02 Feb 2018 17:38:35
I have seen both those players play a ton and I would value Simmonds higher because I feel like patches can score with the best of them, but when he isn’t scoring, a lot of the time he isn’t doing much else. You can’t have that from one of your best players (leafs went through that with kessel) . Watching Simmonds, if he’s struggling to put the puck in the net for a period of time, he contributes in so many other ways. Patches is a big strong guy too, so I don’t know if it’s that he’s not capable or just not willing to do what Simmonds does. But for that reason, I’d take him over pacioretty if the asking price was the same.


5.) 02 Feb 2018 18:03:29
I like simmonds a lot. but I'd be interested to see paciorettys stats if he was on a line with giroux and vorachek.


6.) 02 Feb 2018 18:51:28
And colt, I don’t see an inflated bias of leaf players when his comment is “I’d take Simmonds in a heart beat over JVR” lol lost me there man. i'd say all three of those players are close in value (if they all had the same term left, JVR as Ufa is obviously much less. ) but Simmonds is the highest, then patches and then JVR.


7.) 02 Feb 2018 19:53:37
Please back that up Colt. You do know you can look into peoples past posts and replies right? Please find somewhere that I am being bias or even one comment about JVR. Looking forward to hearing back from you.


8.) 02 Feb 2018 20:20:05
I’ll take patches over Simmonds for sure.


9.) 02 Feb 2018 20:25:09
Also if patches got to play with much more skilled players, it’s not a guarantee his numbers are better. Sometimes the opposite. You have to work hard, not just be talented to play with star players. Which is why guys like Crosby has his best success with guys like Kunitz, Sheary, honqvist rather than Neal, kessel etc. Superstars don’t need/ want other really skilled players doing too much on their line, they like to control that. they just want a guy that will work hard and always plays consistently. That’s why I think Simmonds has had success with those guys and patches won’t necessarily have the same or more success.


10.) 02 Feb 2018 20:48:23
It's almost guaranteed he would post better numbers with giroux then say desharnais.


11.) 02 Feb 2018 21:01:21
Would guys agree that the players are in different roles with their teams?
Patches is considered their top, primary scoring player.
Simmonds has Giroux, Vorochek and even Coutrerier before him making him secondary support scoring.
They are relied on for different things I think.
Take that for whatever you want for your argument.
I like Simmonds out of the three myself.


12.) 02 Feb 2018 21:04:44
@Habby, It’s possible, but not guaranteed. I’ve said it before in here. We as leaf fans saw kessel get 35-38 goals 4-5 straight years and I assumed he would bury 50 in Pittsburgh because he would get to play with Crosby, malkin or both. It didn’t work out. Chemistry isn’t a sure thing. Kessel has had I believe mid 20s in goals both years there, not playing with those 2 all the time because the chemistry wasn’t there, but has had better centres than bozak, and yet that’s when he was his best.


13.) 03 Feb 2018 03:02:20
Jim no matter what is said about anything you can always bring up the exception to the rule. that's a gift man. But in actuality players put up better numbers when they play with good players by a very large percentage.


14.) 03 Feb 2018 04:17:52
Ppl thought Lucic was going to put up big numbers getting to ride shot gun with mcdavid. Didn’t work, very little chemistry and less skilled maroon thrived in that spot.

It’s not one exception to the rule lol if you really need me to give you more examples I can.

Patches is a good player. But if he’s your best player, that’s a problem in this league. That’s why I would take Simmonds. He knows his role, he’s very comfortable in it. Not everyone can adjust from being ‘the guy’ to being ‘one of the guys’. Look around the league and almost every single teams best player is better than patches. Many teams have 3-4 players better. It’s not picking on him, it’s true.


15.) 03 Feb 2018 05:46:01
That has nothing to do with it. The same can be said about simmonds. your essentially saying you would take a lesser player because he's more comfortable in his role. I'd sooner go with the more skilled guy. I guess this is where we differ.


16.) 03 Feb 2018 16:13:48
Hes saying he wants the guy who will be more successful in the role they will be put in. that's likely Simmonds. Patches doesn't do the secondary things you need out of secondary players and on a competitive, cup contending team he likely isn't the go to guy. Simmonds is proven to be comfortable and capable in a secondary role.


17.) 03 Feb 2018 16:19:56
In saying they have a different role sorta speak, is not the same as saying they have different skill. They could have the same skill set still, but different role.


18.) 03 Feb 2018 17:48:45
And @jbs that’s exactly what I meant. Thanks. Patches has been the best player (outside of price of course) on that team for a long time. But he won’t be that on just about any team in the league and certainly not on one that’s going to add him to try to win. His 35 goals are impressive, but he’s been the guy that everyone has been told to give the puck to. If he gets on a team with 3-4 star players, he’s getting the puck 10-20% of the time instead of 50%. Simmonds has been putting up those numbers while knowing Giroux, voracek and more recently coutourier Are options 1-3.


19.) 03 Feb 2018 20:51:56
You can twist anything around to put a certain player down or make him look like less then he is. you can do this with any player. Put it this way if simmonds was playing on a garbage line with desharnais as his center for years and had a career high 35 points would you still take him over pacioretty. Cause I mean if he can only get 50 or 60 a year playing with giroux and vorachek then he'd never get more then 35 playing with desharnais. See what I did there?


20.) 03 Feb 2018 22:48:07
Gabby I like u bro. I think we'll get along fine.


21.) 04 Feb 2018 01:07:38
I was hoping you were going to have something to back your mouth up Colt. I'll keep waiting.


22.) 04 Feb 2018 10:01:49
I’m saying there’s no guarantee taking a 35 goal scorer to a different situation makes him a 45 goal scorer. Some guys are just 35 goal scorers no matter what, and that’s really really good.

However I would much rather have a 30 goal scorer, who will hit, fight, block a shot, stand in front of the net, get in a goalies face, fire up a crowd than a 35 goal scorer who flanks the Wing with a really good release and has been known to be a bit invisible when the pucks not going in for him. But that’s me.

Again, I’m not picking on patches, kessel was my favourite player for years, he was very similar. But if I’m building a team, I would sacrifice 4 or 5 goals over 82 games for a guy that shows up and does his job for 82 games rather than a patches/ kessel. The question was ‘why do people on this site value Simmonds more than pacioretty? ” I’m a person on this site and those are my reasons lol deal with it.


23.) 04 Feb 2018 10:02:58
A 35 goal scorer going to a different situation with better players doesn’t mean he’s going to be a 45 goal scorer. Some guys are just 35 goal scorers and that’s really really good. But I’d rather have a 30 goal scorer who can hit and fight, block a shot, go to the net, get in a goalies face, fire up a crowd over a 35 goal scorer who flanks the wing with a really good release but has been known to be invisible at times when the pucks not going in for him.

Kessel was my favourite player for a long time and he’s very similar. But If I am building a team I would give up 4 or 5 goals over 82 games for a guy that shows up and does something to make an impact every night over patches/ kessel. The question was “why do people on this site value Simmonds higher than pacioretty? ” I’m a person on this site and those are my reasons lol deal with it.


24.) 04 Feb 2018 10:05:44
We were asked why people on this site value Simmonds more than patches. I just gave my reasons why I do lol if you don’t like it, you don’t have to. I have nothing personal against paccioretty, but it’s my belief that a player that does more things is more valuable than a one dimensional player. I’m with leafs17 in saying that he’s far more valuable than JVR also, because JVR is one of the best in tight around the net, but doesn’t do much else. I’ll take a guy at similar age, similar cap hit, similar (although slightly lower) numbers that shows up 82 games and 200feet.


25.) 04 Feb 2018 10:06:43
I’m saying if Simmonds got to be the guy that all the offense went through like pacioretty has been, he may even have more goals. Again, not a guarantee but a possibility. Rick Nash in CBJ was another. Had pretty good numbers but people always thought if he could get out of there (where he was by far the best player) he would be great. 6 years in New York and only once did he top his worst seasons point total from Columbus. Why?! He wasn’t getting the puck ALL THE TIME. I know you will say that’s the only exception to the rule AGAIN, but that argument starts to wears thin.


26.) 04 Feb 2018 15:37:10
That's fine jim. But pacioretty has more hits and plays a 200 foot game at least as we'll as simmonds IMO even better. I agree simmonds is the better fighter but who even fights these days? I guess by the logic your using you would rather have laine over Matthews too right?


27.) 05 Feb 2018 16:07:20
No lol that’s a terrible comparison. Matthews is a top centre. Laine is great winger.

Pacioretty and Simmonds are both wingers who score.

I, and just about anyone who has ever seen a championship team built, would take a #1 centre over a winger.

Good thinking. Way to make my point. You aren’t making this logical at all. You’re making it a team bias thing. Which is why you won’t let my opinion that Simmonds is better than a hab stand, and why you make it about Matthews lol.


28.) 05 Feb 2018 17:10:26
Sorry I think I hit a nerve there. ok we'll try this one. By your logic eichel is better then Matthews? .


29.) 06 Feb 2018 23:14:27
Why is Eichel better than Matthews by my logic? I’m really confused now. Is Eichel a physical player? Does he go to the dirty areas more than Matthews? Watch the YouTube video of Matthews 44 goals from last season and see how many are within 5 feet of the crease. A lot are. Or banging in greasy rebounds.

I don’t get what you’re trying to show me here. I like Simmonds over patches because of the physical style he plays, the parts of the ice he goes to, and that he does all the secondary things.

Are you saying Eichel does more of those things than Matthews? I really don’t see where this is going.


30.) 06 Feb 2018 23:15:56
We were asked why we value Simmonds over paccioretty and while I said my reasons and logic, your first response was ‘people don’t like the habs’

All that tells me is that it didn’t matter what anyone said or how much sense they make, you were just going to make it that people are picking on your team.

Now trying to flip it to be about Matthews shows that you’re just a small minded habs fan that thinks the world is out to be mean to you.


31.) 06 Feb 2018 23:31:03
I don’t get how that’s using my logic. Matthews is a 200 foot player. Is Jack Eichel tough and I didn’t know it? Lol does he play a far more physical game than Matthews? Lol does Matthews not show up every night and Eichel does? Does Matthews not go to the net? (Watch the YouTube video of Matthews 44 goals last year and see how many are banging in greasy rebounds or deflections a cpl feet out from the crease) a lot. Don’t get what you’re trying to say there.

When we were asked why we value Simmonds higher, I gave my reasons, you just said “because people hate the habs”

All that tells me is that no matter what logic was used or what sense was made, you were just going to play the victim and say the world picks on you.


32.) 06 Feb 2018 23:33:44
Lol no.


 

 

25 Jan 2018 15:24:36
Calgary clearly has a lack of scoring. Our defense and goaltending has been lights out only letting in 3 goals or less in the past 19 games. Of those games we've only won 11. And of the remaining 8 losses, 5 have come in OT or SO. We need an extra offensive kick that'll help ensure our spot in the playoffs. Who should the Flames target? Kane, Vanek, Nyquist, other?


1.) 25 Jan 2018 18:57:13
I’m not a Habs fan, but I am a price fan and I think it’s unfair to throw him under the bus. He clearly hasn’t been the same as was the past couple years, but it starts with the team in front of him. glaring holes on defence, lack of a top center and patches not scoring and in my opinion he’s shouldn’t be the captain. They just don’t play like a team and their defense or lack there of, is catching up them. If you can’t defend you should at least score slot and they don’t have the fire power that even mediocre teams have.


2.) 25 Jan 2018 23:19:32
My bad, that reply was to the post above. Don’t know what happened there.


3.) 26 Jan 2018 00:20:48
All good Mertle. I'm the King of posting in wrong area.
I do agree with you on most points., I'm not throwing Price under the bus. he has had a bad season, and there have been health issues to go along with your points u made about the team as well. Don't get me wrong. I'm probabaly the biggest Price supporter in here. and Montreal has done nothing to help him. (Vefgevin)


 

 

16 Jan 2018 02:46:53
B. Point + S. Koekkoek for J. Faulk + V. Rask

Canes get a #1 center for now and the future. Tampa Bay gets a top pairing d man to play with Hedman and they already have great center depth. Other peices can be added from with side but this is a base


1.) 16 Jan 2018 04:16:58
Not sure Tampa is looking to trade Point. His production for cheap and controllability is too valuable for them. Maybe theyd move Johnson in a deal like this but he obviously doesn't have the same value. Could see Koekkoek Johnson Stephens and a pick or something dunno if Carolina would take that though.


2.) 16 Jan 2018 05:30:57
Not sure why Bolts would even consider this. Point is a really good player, young. and cheap.


3.) 16 Jan 2018 14:19:34
Point is cheap for now but looking a year ahead they have to sign him and Sergachev each of which (it they continue their current growth) are easily worth 6+ mil. No way they can afford this. Anyways they already have a great center core but when looking at their defense it isn’t fantastic, they could definately use another puck moving d man and Faulk is right handed, something they lack. Also Faulk is signed for under 5 mil.


4.) 16 Jan 2018 16:30:58
Point is after next season. Sergachev the year after that. Doubt either gets 6+ in rfa honestly. Kuch Johnson Hedman Palat etc. All didn't in their second contract. Callahan is off books by the time Sergachev needs a contract. Girardi Coburn Stralman in time for Point. Tampa is in a much better cap spot than people are giving them credit for especially if the cap goes up. If they trade a center itll probably be the guy Point replaces (Johnson) not Point himself. Johnson struggled at center this year as well their center depth exists but they don't have a bunch of sure fire top 6 guys.


5.) 16 Jan 2018 17:58:08
jbs you're really good at this, I agree with everything you said. Also, there's Killorn who'd def go before Point does.


6.) 16 Jan 2018 23:02:49
Jbs, I agree with you but if Sergacheb continues to dominate he will be asking for 7+ million even as a rfa. he's just that good.


7.) 17 Jan 2018 00:28:29
No he won’t look at his TOI + his useage in his own end is limited.


8.) 17 Jan 2018 00:59:56
3 points in his las 12 games on a team as easy to get points on as tampa isn't really dominating.


9.) 17 Jan 2018 02:40:38
Sergachev has been great but he's got a lot of learning to do still especially in D end. People said Kuch was going to get 7+ on his last deal and he got 4.5. If he gets 7 something might have to be done but i still think that's Johnson/ Killorn before Point. If cap increases like Bettman says i still think itll be ok.


10.) 17 Jan 2018 02:50:31
Gabby ypur just mad that we traded him for Drouin lol.


 

 

14 Jan 2018 05:24:00
Just an idea but I think it's be cool if the NHL created an All-NHL team at the end of each season. Exactly the same as the NBA (they have 3 All-NBA teams). This would recognize the true best players that season and wouldn't be a fan vote like the All-Star game is because let's face it the All-Star is a popularity contest.


1.) 14 Jan 2018 06:22:56
Umm. we have the 1st All star team
And the 2nd. since like the 50s or something. Even an all rookie team.


 

 

 

Xcing's rumour replies

 

Click To View This Thread

19 Feb 2018 17:30:59
Detroit only wants a 3rd for him so definately yes from them but I’d assume Philly would rather give up a 3rd straight up.


 

 

Click To View This Thread

18 Feb 2018 18:45:49
Considering Rangers are looking for a 1st round + I’d say they don’t even consider this.


 

 

Click To View This Thread

18 Feb 2018 04:35:53
Easy no from Calgary.


 

 

Click To View This Thread

18 Feb 2018 04:35:13
I don’t think calgary has that much cap space lol.


 

 

Click To View This Thread

17 Feb 2018 08:58:43
Like McJesus said definately no from Calgary in the second one but the first is interesting. I could see ARZ being interested in Gilles and Andersson but I think Calgary would need to give up a bit more.


 

 

 

Xcing's talk replies