I don't understand dump. Why would we trade Moore for picks/prospects? Are we rebuilding and I missed it? I would be SHOCKED if we dealt away players on the current team/NHL roster, outside of Glass who nobody wants anyway, for picks or prospects. We are in it to win it, not to deal J. Moore (the co-6th dman) for picks and prospects. The only caveat I will add is if we make another deal that brings in players I could see it. Like we deal for a 3rd line forward and another dman, then we flip Moore for picks and prospects. But just a one off deal I don't see us giving up players for picks and prospects.
Because he's not playing regularly, they have a replacement in Allen who is NHL ready and they pretty much are going to deal him in the off-season anyhow. Skjei is pretty much a lock to take his spot if you listen to Sather and Gordon. They could get more for him now. Every team in the off-season thinks their defenseman prospects are good, can win a spot and their teams are OK. As every year we see most of the NHL teams have crap defenseman and their defenseman prospects turn out to be garbage. The smart move is to move a player not in your plans this and next year when you can get the most. That is now.
That's just it though. I have no issue moving Moore, but not for picks/prospects, I want him in a package for a player that can help us now. So my "disagreement" with you is not centered around dealing Moore, it is centered around the return. Deal him in a package for the top 9 foward we need. That is the smart play, not for picks and prospects. And that is how you started this thread saying package Moore...and I agreed 100%.
or how about we keep as many players who played in the Stanley Cup final together instead of the disbanding the team. Let's take a note from Boston and Detroit.
Wait...did I miss Detroit in the cup finals recently? Did I miss Boston winning all these cups? Maybe I did so I am asking. And dealing our 6th/7th dman in a package for a top 9 forward I don't think equals breaking up the core of the team.
Chuck don't be a jackazz, when those teams were making it to the finals they had pretty much the same team each year. Team Chemistry Remember that unstoppable Paille/Campbell/Thornton line? Yea, let me add LA Kings to the list.what did they have last year 21/23 guys on the roster who won in 2012?
Teams change. The Wings haven't done anything in years. The Bruins made the SCF's twice. Not sure how me calling that out is being a jackass. What about the Hawks? They have changed their team a lot and won two cups. The Kings added Carter when they won their first cup. Added Gabby when they won their 2nd cup. So I disagree with you. I think ideally you want to keep your core players, and we do that with Nash, and Step, and Brass, and McD, and Girardi, and Hank, and Zucc, and Staal. But fringe players change like Richards, and Boyle, and Stralman, and Pouliot, and maybe Moore. Change happens in the NHL because of the cap. It has to. We are no different. And we need another top 9 forward IMO, and holding onto our 6/7 dman Moore for "chemistry" is not what I would do if I could package him for that forward we need.
Moore is not part of the core and should be dealt in a package to get either a scoring forward or physical d-men.
If I am going to deal Moore I want to get a better player. Not simply package him with a prospect for essentially the same player on D. I don't really see the logic in that. If you are going to deal Moore you do it for a top 9 forward. Not for a dman who is actually smaller than Moore.
They are pretty much the same player sc. You want to tell me Petry is a little better, and would be the clear 6th dman and Moore is a coin flip with Hunwick for the 6th dman spot...okay, but honestly that trade would do almost nothing material for us and be a waste of Moore as a trade chip and a waste of a pick or prospect that goes with Moore. I just don't see us gaining much going from Hunwick/Moore to Petry as our 6th dman. Not worth it to me.
Moore by himself dosent have much or else you wouldn't be dealing him, plus you wouldn't have to give up a top 5 prospect, maybe a Tambellini type. Petry is underrated.
You'd have to package Moore to get a top 9 forward, I agree as mentioned. Just don't see Sather dealing Moore and a prospect for a little bit better dman, who is not big or physical. Not mugh logic to that I don't believe. Who knows what we'll do though.
Players always return more at the deadline. Even to rebuilding teams. All these GM's are morons and think their teams are good over the summer.
Right, and it's not life or death or anything but anywhere you can sure things up always helps. It would be nice if Moore could pan out being he's young and an RFA but for some reason he isn't.
Bruins interested in Petry, looks like we'll be missing out on that upgrade. That's ok, stick with Hunwick in the playoffs.
Yes...now you are getting it. No point in dealing Moore and picks/prospects to upgrade a little at D when we need a top 9 forward with size much more. If Petry was big and physical, sure, but he is not and is smaller than Moore, so no point to make that our one big move. Happy you finally see that.
He's not smaller they're the same measurables, and he's a more experienced, not too expensive player for a playoff run. It's a slight upgrade which wouldn't cost alot and would seal the D corps. I agree the forward is more pressing but i think they'd could find a way to get that even without Moore in that deal.
On a side note it really stinks Capgeek is no longer in service with the founder having health issues.
