|
Post by lalalaprise on May 30, 2010 14:29:04 GMT -4
Its a double edged sword though...after his performance down the stretch last year do you think youd get much more than a 1st rd pick anyway??
If he plays in the Q as a 20 you owe CHI a 1st in 2011...that could be a top 5 pick, and a top 10 quite easily...
I cant see you getting that sort of return back for Lagace if you traded him on the open market.
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on May 30, 2010 14:50:01 GMT -4
Lagace is worth a first round pick. It might not be 1st overall but he is worth atleast a 1st rounder. He was still a ppg player in CB, he didn't score like he did with CHI but no matter which way you look at it he will be one of the top 20's in the league next year if he returns.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on May 30, 2010 14:57:08 GMT -4
Why would Lagace NOT sign with Buffalo? With the year he had he should be happy he even got an offer.
|
|
|
Post by lalalaprise on May 30, 2010 14:58:26 GMT -4
Lagace is worth a first round pick. It might not be 1st overall but he is worth atleast a 1st rounder. He was still a ppg player in CB, he didn't score like he did with CHI but no matter which way you look at it he will be one of the top 20's in the league next year if he returns. Is he worth a 5th overall pick?? Because thats what youre giving up if shows up in the Fall... A contender would probably give you their 1st in 2011 plus a decent young player...but their 1st in 2011 would most likely be anywhere from 12th-18th considering it would be contenders going after Lagace... I guess its too early to speculate, but it would be hard to make any sort of large gain when youre giving up a top 5 pick if he shows up.
|
|
|
Post by hal on May 30, 2010 14:58:58 GMT -4
He's not gonna be playing with Nicholas Deschamps for a 1/2 a season here so I don't know for sure if his value would be higher at X-Mas time . One thing we do know is.................... Mario will screw it up somehow .
|
|
|
Post by reality on May 30, 2010 15:30:42 GMT -4
Isn't it funny how Mario skips right over the cost of an extra draft pick if Lagace comes back and talks instead of only gaining the benefits of a draft pick and young player if he comes back and is traded.
It's also laughable when he talks about having a lot of returning 20's as if it is a strength of some kind.
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on May 30, 2010 16:16:37 GMT -4
Its pretty bad when you have Bernard and Paul even considered for a spot on the team next season.
|
|
|
Post by Hat Trick Swayze's on May 30, 2010 16:50:33 GMT -4
Its pretty bad when you have Bernard and Paul even considered for a spot on the team next season. That could be the comment of the off season.......as its Sad but True ...... Kudos for that one
|
|
|
Post by Deer on May 30, 2010 21:10:01 GMT -4
After his play down the stretch - 5 goals in 35 games and pretty unable to play in traffic - I'm quite surprised he's gotten an NHL offer and think he should take it and run. Aside from his strong penalty killing, Lagace in his time as an Eagle looked like the stereotypical "Q player that doesn't make the pros despite high stats in junior". Small, not at all multi-dimensional, and had trouble with the physical play. And if he does return to the Q, absolutely he should be traded for assets towards 2012........ I'm not sure he would even want to come back here after the miserable 2nd half he had.
|
|
|
Post by Deer on May 30, 2010 21:14:00 GMT -4
Its pretty bad when you have Bernard and Paul even considered for a spot on the team next season. In fairness, their being mentioned in the article doesn't necessarily mean they're being considered...... just means they're still on the roster as eligible overagers.
|
|
|
Post by caperguy on May 31, 2010 7:53:38 GMT -4
The article also assumes we wouldn't trade for a 3rd 20yo. Rumor mill has possibility of Holden coming back to work with Veronneau depending on what the draft or FA turn up. Doesn't have to be one of the three named in the article. Plus, that's the first I heard of anyone 'confirming' who 2 of the 20s are.
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on May 31, 2010 8:30:59 GMT -4
The article also assumes we wouldn't trade for a 3rd 20yo. Rumor mill has possibility of Holden coming back to work with Veronneau depending on what the draft or FA turn up. Doesn't have to be one of the three named in the article. Plus, that's the first I heard of anyone 'confirming' who 2 of the 20s are. Trading for another OA player would be counter-productive to Durocher's focus of the 2011-12 season.
|
|
|
Post by caperguy on May 31, 2010 9:56:18 GMT -4
The article also assumes we wouldn't trade for a 3rd 20yo. Rumor mill has possibility of Holden coming back to work with Veronneau depending on what the draft or FA turn up. Doesn't have to be one of the three named in the article. Plus, that's the first I heard of anyone 'confirming' who 2 of the 20s are. Trading for another OA player would be counter-productive to Durocher's focus of the 2011-12 season. Didn't stop him from making overambitious trades last season
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on May 31, 2010 10:02:15 GMT -4
The article also assumes we wouldn't trade for a 3rd 20yo. Rumor mill has possibility of Holden coming back to work with Veronneau depending on what the draft or FA turn up. Doesn't have to be one of the three named in the article. Plus, that's the first I heard of anyone 'confirming' who 2 of the 20s are. Trading for another OA player would be counter-productive to Durocher's focus of the 2011-12 season. Every acquisition over the last 12 months except for maybe Dion and Woodworth has been counter-productive for 2012 .
|
|
|
Post by Jack Bauer on May 31, 2010 10:21:07 GMT -4
The article also assumes we wouldn't trade for a 3rd 20yo. Rumor mill has possibility of Holden coming back to work with Veronneau depending on what the draft or FA turn up. Doesn't have to be one of the three named in the article. Plus, that's the first I heard of anyone 'confirming' who 2 of the 20s are. That's a horrible idea. There's a reason Holden was sent to Jr. A....and now he's going to mentor someone and take up a 20yo spot? Can't see it.
|
|