Flames Must Make a Play For O'Reilly

Kent Wilson
February 13 2013 12:00AM

They probably have for at least a couple weeks now.

There is absolutely no negotiating going on anymore between Ryan O’Reilly and the Avalanche. While the Avs were optimistic right after the lockout ended that they could sign O’Reilly and my sources said he would not be traded, things have changed and it appears a virtual certainty O’Reilly will be traded now.

- Via Adrian Dater

Back when we discussed a potential ROR offer sheet, it was a suggestion made partially in jest since it seemed unlikely the Avalanche would allow this feud with arguably their best (or at least second best) young forward to go too far.

According to Dater and supported by Darren Dreger of TSN, it seems things have come to a head with O'Reilly and Colorado however. The rumor now is the team is looking for a roster player and high-end prospect in a trade for the 21-year old pivot.

Unfortunately for the Avs, they don't have a lot of leverage when it comes to making demands for a quality package. If their wish list outstrips what they would get in return for an offer sheet (a first and third round pick for anything around $5M/year) then the suitor can simply walk away and sign the kid instead.

This is an opportunity the Flames must seriously investigate. Not only do high-end, two-way centers rarely become available, they can almost never be had at an age where you can expect to lock them up long-term and enjoy their peak seasons. Not only that, the kid fills both the present and future needs of an org that is trying to compete with a center depth chart that currently reads Tanguay (winger), Stajan, Byron, Jones, (Horak, Street, Reinhart).

It's a no-brainer for Calgary to make a strong play for O'Reilly at this point. We'll soon see if Jay Featser agrees.

39d8109299a9795cb3b41a4e9b49d501
Former Nations Overlord. Current Fn contributor and curmudgeon For questions, complaints, criticisms, etc contact Kent @ kent.wilson@gmail. Follow him on Twitter here.
Avatar
#3 loudogYYC
February 13 2013, 12:44AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

You can't trade Backlund while he's on IR, and he's not a player you can really trade either. Ideally you have O'Reilly and him as 2 of your top 3 centers, there's still room for one more.

I don't know if this is possible, but I would trade Granlund, Nemisz, a 3rd and Cammalleri at a 50% cap hit for ROR and a 2nd. I'm not sure if the new CBA allows this or if Colorado would be interested in Cammy, but it would keep their spending at a minimum and that obviously is what they prefer.

If this is even possible, I think the Flames and Avalanche split the cap hit in Cammy's final year $3M each. Edwards can afford it, may as well flex some muscle.

Avatar
#4 Franko J
February 13 2013, 06:08AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

Great topic of debate and speculation Kent.

An intriguing dilemma for any team wanting to acquire O'Rielly's services at center. Especially when it comes to the Flames. A team desperate for quality young centers. While O' Rielly would solve some issues down the middle for the Flames I don't want to see Feaster give up another 1st round pick {assets}. Especially this season. Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel there are centers in this upcoming draft who are just as good if not better than O' Rielly.

Too many times the Flames in the past have given up assets to acquire that elusive #1 center with little or insignifigant return. See Stajan and Jokinen trades. I would sooner see this organization acquire further picks and prospects and develop them. Instead of trying to find the quick fix.

Avatar
#5 Ryan Pike
February 13 2013, 12:03AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Devil's advocate, Kent: what assets do the Flames have that would cajole the Avs into making a deal in-division?

Avatar
#6 Luc
February 13 2013, 12:19AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Backlund, granlund, 2nd?

Avatar
#7 Caleb
February 13 2013, 12:52AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I doubt they would be able to make a trade, limited prospects Colorado would want/Calgary would give up. As for a Roster player, again limited in a trade for ROR mostly because of no trade contracts.

like Kent said, make an offer, if refused go to the offer sheet route, I wouldn't waste much time with this now that it is apparent he is changing teams.

Avatar
#8 FireOnIce
February 13 2013, 12:55AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@loudogYYC

I quite like your suggestion there. Cammalleri could fill in at LW/C for the Avs and the price/term are both right. If he does well, Avs can re-sign him. Tricking them into thinking Granlund is a 'top prospect' might be an issue. If this actually happened, I'd be a happy person.

I don't understand why teams are bothering to even talk trade with the Avs. With an offer sheet, if you get O'Reilly and do well, then your picks end up being fairly low (14-30) anyways. Feaster is going to trade these picks anyways in order to horde more low-round ones, might as well use them on an offer sheet.

If you trade for O'Reilly, you lose a roster player, a 'top prospect', and possibly a pick (3-7th round). You gain a legit #2 centre, but it might not be worth what you give up (Backlund, Baertschi, 5th rounder, if Feaster makes the trade after being hit in the head with a stray puck). Somehow though, I doubt he gets traded within the Western Conference, let alone the NW Division. They don't want him burning them 6 times a year.

Just go ahead and send him an offer sheet. It's not like you're trading for Phil Kessel.

Avatar
#9 VK63
February 13 2013, 01:15AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Given the toxicity of this contract squabble I would be very wary of this player/agent. Presumably they want top dollar over max term. Who doesn't. However the team who knows him best and has drafted, developed and employed him has issues inking said deal. I realize they arent the most flush club in the league but they like to sell tickets and if this kid is "stud" as he apparently thinks he is. waddup with that? The disconnect disturbs me. As it should the buffoons who run the flames. However. If they (flames) are looking for a diversion from some other thing they have up their sleeve then this "gem" might be a window of opportunity for deflection of public outcry. I guess ROR is marketable as far as shut down guys who can notch a few go. Heck... horcoff got HUGE money as a serviceable two way center... why not ROR. ~what could possibly go wrong~?

Somehow... the formatting ability has broken. I am not madjam.... fwiw.. :-))

Avatar
#10 Clay
February 13 2013, 02:00AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Glencross + Granlund + Pick?

Glencross + B prospect + pick

Avatar
#11 exsanguinator
February 13 2013, 02:21AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@VK63

A lot of people were saying the same things about Justin Schultz but that situation seems to be working well for everyone. I think the risk of offer sheeting ROR is an acceptable one and it would go a long way to helping the Flames rebuild without having to blow everything up first if they could actually get him signed.

While I'm not crazy about them potentially giving up a 1st and a 3rd in this draft what they would get in return is the proven young capable two way center that most of the recent cup winning teams have had on their roster.

Avatar
#12 meat1
February 13 2013, 03:27AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

This absolutely has to be something Feaster is looking hard at. To me, he instantly becomes your first-line center, something we haven't had, well, in forever. I'm with Clay in offering Glencross (although I know he has a NMC) and what about Bill Arnold as well? I might be wrong but he seems to be, at best, another bottom six forward that we have many of. I might be wrong but...his value may never be higher than it is now, as he's toiling for a powerhouse NCAA program at Boston College.

Avatar
#13 Ed Ward
February 13 2013, 06:36AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Like Kent I've been the start to this season has left my feeling fairly optimistic. The underlying numbers have looked good in a way they haven't looked the past three years. Feaster's last two drafts have looked solid (though its probably two early to judge) and many of his other moves have been good, especially considering the mess he came into.

However, if the Flames don't make a serious push for O'Reilly then all my optimism will be out the window. The combination of the infrequency of the opportunity to acquire a young c in his prime sign him to a reasonable deal while giving up fair value in return makes and filling a HUGE roster hole makes it an absolute no brainer. A decision not to offer sheet/trade for O'Reilly will make a serious dent in my faith in this current Flames management team.

Avatar
#14 negrilcowboy
February 13 2013, 06:59AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

cammy and a second. throw in stajan and comeau as a measure of good faith for a 2nd or 3rd. cull the herd jay.

Avatar
#15 negrilcowboy
February 13 2013, 07:16AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

paging jay feaster, paging jay feaster.pick up the phone call armstrong in st louis regarding iggy or cammi in return for some of their incredible wealth of young prospects. ty rattie and jaden schwartz to name 2, call sherman in colorado offer the world for oreily,well maybe not the world,call chiarelli in beantown regarding spooner, call stevie y. you have tp shake things up. whatever the flames do do not pull a burke and trade a first, ever.

Avatar
#16 Ed Ward
February 13 2013, 07:16AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

As a side note, I understand those worried about giving up a 1st for O'Reilly, with Calgary's past record of trading away picks we are a little more sensitive than most fan bases about giving them up. However, trading our first is a risk worth taking. Its more likely than not that the Flames will be drafting in the mid teens again this year. Even though its a short season, that could lead to wacky results, the talent level means I don't see this team fully bottoming out.

With a pick in the teens, getting a guy of O'Reilly's caliber would be a big success. If Jankowski turns into a player of O'Reilly's quality we would all be pleased. The only drawback is that you miss out on three years of the cheap ELC, but that's assuming the guy break into the NHL right away and doesn't need some AHL seasoning. Giving up three years of ELC control for a guy who is know commodity and represents pretty near the ceiling of what you can expect from the guy you would draft anyways is really a no brainer to me.

Avatar
#17 Vowswithin
February 13 2013, 07:18AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Clay wrote:

Glencross + Granlund + Pick?

Glencross + B prospect + pick

Thats the roster player i was initially think of, bit forgot about his dreaded NMC. Aka the way Calgary gets FA to stay here.

Would love to dump cammy for this guy, but they also may be looking for some sort of center in this trade maybe Horak, or Reinhart or granlund or Arnold

Damn that would help us in getting rid of old players and shoring up our center position.

Do you have corsi numbers for ROR Kent?

Avatar
#18 clYDE
February 13 2013, 07:24AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

It is not looking at all like we will be drafting anywhere near the teens this year so an offer sheet is foolish. You may be trading Mckinnon or Jones. I do like the thought of trading though and a Glencross/Butler package or perhaps Cammy may get things going.

Avatar
#19 vowswithin
February 13 2013, 07:25AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

And just as some food for thought guy, giving ROR 5 pr very close to means you ate setting the bar for Backlund (and the rest of the league for that matter)

It sure would be ideal to get him signed to 4 million over 4 years instead, hoping the offense flourishes at some point .

Kent i know you had said he had some of the beat corsi And toughest minutes but i was just looking for some hard data :).

Avatar
#20 the-wolf
February 13 2013, 08:01AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I'm sure I'll get blitzed for this, but I would gladly give up Gaudreau for O'Reilly.

1) Gaudreau is probbaly 5 years away from making a true impact at the NHL level (note: I said "impact, "not getting to").

2)Wingers are a dime-a-dozen, first line centers are incredibly rare. That's assuming, of course, that the pro scouts truly believe that what O'Reilly did last season he'll continue to do again.

I'd trade a 1st too, but not this year.

Avatar
#21 don'ttradeourcore
February 13 2013, 08:02AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Although not positive, I believe part of the reason ROR isn't signed is because Colorado is trying to keep their salary structure in line. I don't think Colorado is a flush team and probably have a team salary cap that is lower than the leagues max. With that being said, it seems unlikely that they would want any kind of "old" money (Cammalleri, Tanguay, Iginla, Glencross etc) Feaster could send in their direction. Also, I would think the only prospects of ours they would have any interest in is Sven and Gaudreau. I don't see them being interested on Brodie as they have similar players in Tyson Barrie and Stefan Elliot. They rest of our prospects right now are at best "B" and we don't really have any good mid twenties roster players without no trade clauses. Given that situation, and the fact that I am loathe to move anyone from our core, it looks like an offer sheet might be the only way to accomplish this. I would have to double check what draft picks we would be giving at say Kents idea of 5mil/year, but I would think it's a first at least. So be it. with this group of players, there is no way it would end up like the Kessel fiasco. I have every confidence we would not be coughing up Seth Jones or Mackinnon. And I dont see any other centers in the top ten with size and skill and two way ability unless you want to count Monohan and Barkov. Nuts to waiting for a center to develop, bolster our core! This team is ready to win now!

Avatar
#22 the-wolf
February 13 2013, 08:03AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
loudogYYC wrote:

You can't trade Backlund while he's on IR, and he's not a player you can really trade either. Ideally you have O'Reilly and him as 2 of your top 3 centers, there's still room for one more.

I don't know if this is possible, but I would trade Granlund, Nemisz, a 3rd and Cammalleri at a 50% cap hit for ROR and a 2nd. I'm not sure if the new CBA allows this or if Colorado would be interested in Cammy, but it would keep their spending at a minimum and that obviously is what they prefer.

If this is even possible, I think the Flames and Avalanche split the cap hit in Cammy's final year $3M each. Edwards can afford it, may as well flex some muscle.

So our worst prospects and an overpaid has-been then? I don't think the Avs would go for that.

Avatar
#23 the-wolf
February 13 2013, 08:08AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
the-wolf wrote:

I'm sure I'll get blitzed for this, but I would gladly give up Gaudreau for O'Reilly.

1) Gaudreau is probbaly 5 years away from making a true impact at the NHL level (note: I said "impact, "not getting to").

2)Wingers are a dime-a-dozen, first line centers are incredibly rare. That's assuming, of course, that the pro scouts truly believe that what O'Reilly did last season he'll continue to do again.

I'd trade a 1st too, but not this year.

Let me clarify that: NOT Gaudreau and a 1st (2014) together, but one or the other.

Avatar
#24 backburner
February 13 2013, 08:14AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Kent Wilson wrote:

If the Flames go the trade route, my untouchable list is short - Backs, Brodie, Baertschi, Gaudreau.

If the Flames trade any of those mentioned by Kent, this move is pretty pointless...

Every other team has just as good if not better prospects as the above mentioned that they can afford to loose, so its doubtful that Calgary can compete with that..

The problem with the trade scenario is that Colorado won't want to take on any more cap than 3.5 mill, which is why they are loosing O'Reilly in the first place. Only Stajan fits the bill and... yeah. Maybe Stempniak... again, Flames are limited... The only thing of Value the Flames could possibly afford to part with is their First. You might be able to package it with a prospect but why bother?

Like @Kent Wilson said, make an offer... if it doesn't work, throw out the offer sheet and expect to pay about 5 for 5.

If the Flames can sign him now, there chances of making the playoffs improve dramatically, and they would be more of a threat. They can always move players at the deadline or the draft to make up some picks.

It is a no brainer. Feaster mentioned last week in regaurds to Irving "When door opens, you need to kick it in", well its time Feaster put his money where his mouth is!!

Avatar
#25 Greg
February 13 2013, 08:15AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I'd hate to see the flames offer sheet him. Our first round picks would be on my untouchables list until we are sure we aren't going to end up with a top 5 pick. kessel for seguin. Enough said.

I also can't see Colorado being willing to trade inter-division without the package including one of those untouchables Kent listed. Maybe they would settle for an Arnold + Granlund type combo, but would likely want more in terms of roster players then. The Cammy at 50% idea intrigues me, but really, we have to clear more cap space to make room for O'Reilly and Colorado isn't going to want just a collection of players we don't want.

Personally, I would think we would have to put bartschi or gadreau on the table. Sven is looking like glass, and Johnny still has risk due to size, and you are getting back a 21 year old 2 way center. Problem is neither of those guys are available to play for the avs right away. But perhaps with 1 of those guys you can then talk about warm bodies that clear the cap space we need.

Avatar
#26 Sincity1976
February 13 2013, 08:30AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I would love him, but I think Calgary is in the same situation we are always in. Our insistence on rebuilding on the fly seriously limits the assets we have available in trade.

I don't think an offer sheet works. I don't want to lose the first. But also, Colorado can simply match. One, that might give them the out they need to sign him (we were forced). Two, they can trade O'Reilly. Three, giving up a 1 + 3 to essentially give O'Reilly a UFA contract is poor asset management.

Hopefully the demand isn't there and we can get him for something like Tanguay + Granlund or something along those lines. But our prospect depth drops off dramatically after Baertschi, Brodie, and Gaudreau so it is going to be tough to make a deal if you don't trade one of them (which we won't).

Avatar
#27 NateBaldwin
February 13 2013, 08:34AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I would say Stempniak +granlund or Arnold

If not, offer sheet and recoup the picks by moving a player or two at the deadline.

Avatar
#28 Fats
February 13 2013, 08:47AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Irving + Nemiez + 3rd for O'Reilly + Pickard

Avatar
#29 backburner
February 13 2013, 08:49AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
NateBaldwin wrote:

I would say Stempniak +granlund or Arnold

If not, offer sheet and recoup the picks by moving a player or two at the deadline.

That's pretty much the only offer that would be close..

Maybe Stempniak + Wotherspoon or Sielloff?

Avatar
#30 backburner
February 13 2013, 08:53AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Fats wrote:

Irving + Nemiez + 3rd for O'Reilly + Pickard

If Colorado went for that.. I will run down 17th naked shouting "I now declare this as Jay Feaster Avenue!!!"

Avatar
#31 MakaVeli
February 13 2013, 09:02AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

According to a Dreger source the expected return for O'Reilly is a roster player and a top prospect and they are apparently only talking to Eastern Conference teams right now.

Avatar
#32 meat1
February 13 2013, 09:16AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Clyde and I are on the same page here. There is no way you give a first and third this year (we already don't have our second) when our first is almost certainly going to be a high pick. I want O'Reilly AND Mackinnon/Jones etc. My only untouchables are Backlund, Baertchi, Brodie, Gaudreau, and Jankowski. I think Glencross would make an excellent center-piece to this trade. He certainly wouldn't go against the Av's salary structure, is a legit top-six forward, etc. Come on Feaster, these opportunities don't come often. Leave the waiver wire alone for awhile and go get him.

Avatar
#33 T&A4Flames
February 13 2013, 09:31AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Why not offer a conditional 1st that we control + Granlund or Arnold & Butler. The 1st can be added this year or next.

We are likely to make a trade or 2 with in the next 2 years that could return a 1st. If we get a later pick this year, we give them that +. They seem to really need D so perhaps Butler, a younger...ish D may be attractive. Add in a B prospect with potential and it may work. I just don't want to lose any potential lottery picks.

Avatar
#35 Alt
February 13 2013, 09:35AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Landing O Reilly would put us 2 years ahead of where we.re at,and signifinetely change the retool process,I,d give up the first and a third in a heartbeat.Offer sheet follows like you suggest Kent

Avatar
#36 vowswithin
February 13 2013, 09:35AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
meat1 wrote:

Clyde and I are on the same page here. There is no way you give a first and third this year (we already don't have our second) when our first is almost certainly going to be a high pick. I want O'Reilly AND Mackinnon/Jones etc. My only untouchables are Backlund, Baertchi, Brodie, Gaudreau, and Jankowski. I think Glencross would make an excellent center-piece to this trade. He certainly wouldn't go against the Av's salary structure, is a legit top-six forward, etc. Come on Feaster, these opportunities don't come often. Leave the waiver wire alone for awhile and go get him.

We are also missing our 5th round pick and there is some conditional deal where we could either be giving up our 7th or getting a 7th round from Anaheim. Pretty bad year to not have 2nd, 5th, 7th....

Avatar
#37 vowswithin
February 13 2013, 09:44AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Alt wrote:

Landing O Reilly would put us 2 years ahead of where we.re at,and signifinetely change the retool process,I,d give up the first and a third in a heartbeat.Offer sheet follows like you suggest Kent

Assuming that is what happened, that means for us no 1,2,3,5,possibly 7

That means we are drafting 4th,6th and maybe 7th.

Just playing devils advocate here, I don't know if there is a right answer seeing as we are damned if we do and damned if we don't.....

Kent I could live with trading Cervenka + Buttler + a low prospect.

And if we did end up drafting a true #1 this year it would look pretty sexy (eventually)

#1 MacKinnon #2 ROR #3 Backs #4 Horak / Jones

With D looking pretty decent as it for top 4 and the possibility of Ramo coming over well we all know the story of how wingers are much easier to plug in then the rest.

Avatar
#38 MakaVeli
February 13 2013, 09:48AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Kent Wilson wrote:

AS for roster players, I think the only guys the Avs would be interested in are cheaper. Roman Cervanka probably fits for COL - his cap hit is actually much bigger than his true commitment given the bonus structure, he's in his mid-20's so could conceivably be retained and contribute for years and he's a pretty decent talent to boot.

Still, I doubt they willfully trade ROR to the Flames. Calgary has to at least raise the specter of an offer sheet to get Sherman on the phone.

I wonder if Feaster might hesitate to send an offer sheet because he doesn't want to limit his options in case he has to deal Iginla/Kipper/etc. given the 'gentleman's agreement' GM's seem to have regarding giving offer sheets to RFA's.

It may seem like a dumb idea for other GM's to lose out on possibly acquiring someone like Iginla because of Feaster sending an offer sheet to Colorado but the whole 'gentleman's agreement' is pretty dumb to begin with so who knows.

Avatar
#39 the-wolf
February 13 2013, 09:54AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Man, lots of people looking to get something for nothing. If you want a guy who you think a legit 1st line center, the team's top scorer and a possession juggernaut, than no amount of B prospects or has-beens is going to get it done.

You have to give to get.

O'Reilly vs. Bertschi - who would do it? Just curious, because realistically, the Avs aren't just going to give O'Reilly away.

Avatar
#40 SmellOfVictory
February 13 2013, 09:55AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Kent Wilson wrote:

AS for roster players, I think the only guys the Avs would be interested in are cheaper. Roman Cervanka probably fits for COL - his cap hit is actually much bigger than his true commitment given the bonus structure, he's in his mid-20's so could conceivably be retained and contribute for years and he's a pretty decent talent to boot.

Still, I doubt they willfully trade ROR to the Flames. Calgary has to at least raise the specter of an offer sheet to get Sherman on the phone.

There's always the potential to retain salary. Stempniak, Cammalleri, Stajan, Cervenka, and Butler are all candidates, I would think. Add one of the forwards to Butler, maybe include one of the mid-grade prospects, and that's about as far as I'd want to go.

I really don't feel like the Flames can afford to give up first round picks because this season it's looking like the hockey gods are relegating them to a top 10 pick, and in future there's a distinct possibility that they get worse before they get better.

Avatar
#41 Alt
February 13 2013, 09:55AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Land O Reilly and try to get back a first round pick back at the trade deadline,regardless ,Calgary becomes a much better team overnite

Avatar
#42 SmellOfVictory
February 13 2013, 09:57AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
the-wolf wrote:

Man, lots of people looking to get something for nothing. If you want a guy who you think a legit 1st line center, the team's top scorer and a possession juggernaut, than no amount of B prospects or has-beens is going to get it done.

You have to give to get.

O'Reilly vs. Bertschi - who would do it? Just curious, because realistically, the Avs aren't just going to give O'Reilly away.

If the Avs really valued him to the same extent that we do, they'd have signed him already.

Avatar
#43 Scary Gary
February 13 2013, 09:59AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Alt wrote:

Land O Reilly and try to get back a first round pick back at the trade deadline,regardless ,Calgary becomes a much better team overnite

I have a feeling our first pick is going to be a lot lower than others.

Avatar
#44 T&A4Flames
February 13 2013, 10:12AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

People are getting pretty excited about this guy. Admittedly, I don't know a whole lot about him. So, I have a few questions that maybe some people here can answer.

1) What's the status of his injury?

2) How was his production in the KHL?

3) I heard his #'s in junior were not particularly great. True?

4) Everyone is saying a 2nd line C. Are we really interested in giving up a potential MacKinnon/Jones draft pick for a 2nd C when we already have Backlund?

I would certainly look to move some pieces for ROR, but I wouldn't break the bank for him. I would go as far as to replace my *earlier offer of Butler + with JBo but that is it and that likely still puts in a lottery position.

*Butler + Granlund/Arnold + conditional 1st **Edit. if throwing in Jbo instead of Butler, we need to get at least a 2nd in return as well.

Avatar
#45 Jeff In Lethbridge
February 13 2013, 10:19AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
negrilcowboy wrote:

cammy and a second. throw in stajan and comeau as a measure of good faith for a 2nd or 3rd. cull the herd jay.

heck, why no throw in Anton Babchuk as well? Avs could use some scoring from the blue line, and we all know what an important role Babs can fill in this regard ;-)

Avatar
#46 Chillout
February 13 2013, 10:33AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

He's not worth what he wants. They guy had a decent year and wants crazy money. Was he playing with Landeskog? Why would we trade a guy like Cervenka who is 27? We are short on guys in that age range. I'm just pretty sure if we were to get this guy and give him the money he wants we would be hating it almost as bad as stajan's contract. I wouldn't give this kid more than 3.7 mill a year for 2 years to prove he's good then if he wants money go for it. I don't like moving prospects either. Unless it's a guy who needs a change of scenery then fine but none of our guys other than nemisz or maybe byron fit that bill. We can't afford to give up any draft picks at this draft it will just set us back again for the future. If a trade involving any of Glencross, stempniak, butler, byron or nemisz were to happen then sure but that's only if we signed this guy for less than 4mill a year and 2 years

Avatar
#47 meat1
February 13 2013, 10:39AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I'm really hesitant about letting go of Baertchi, Gaudreau, and/or our first and third picks. To me it is too much of a lateral move. I still think Glencross and Bill Arnold are are a strong start to a potential deal. If they demand more in the form of Sielhoff or Wotherspoon or Granlund, get BACK a second rounder either this year or next. That would be out of the ordinary....Calgary actually acquiring a second rounder, not giving it up.

Avatar
#48 FireOnIce
February 13 2013, 11:04AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Chillout

Landeskog, Jan Hejda, and Milan Hejduk. Those were O'Reilly's top linemates in 2011-2012. So yeah, Landeskog probably made him look pretty good.

Avatar
#50 chillout
February 13 2013, 11:22AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

so basically he's a defensive forward that got an offensive boost from playing with a guy like Landeskog. Worth all the prospects and money people want us to throw at him? I'm really not so sure we want to sell the farm for this kid.

Comments are closed for this article.