Sens Deadline Talk
Taking off from the sellers idea in an earlier post, I wanted to look at the team now and compare it with what might be a post-sell roster.
As it stands, we've got 4 legit top 6 forwards (7,9,11,19) and two players producing like top-6 forwards that are better suited to 3rd (scoring) line roles on a contender, rounding out the top two lines (14, 71). Our current 3rd line is producing well; 15 and 22 being young enough to hold on to through the deadline, while 25 is valuable in his role but has been asked to expand that role (to the detriment of the team Imo i.e. 1st unit PP time on a regular basis). The 4th line is simply not what you find on contending teams.
On D, 65 and 2 are hopefully here for the next decade and both are still raw enough to expect significant growth over the next few years; 4 is probably here for a while and if given the right partner, he can be a significant asset to this team; 55 is having a bounce back year but I don't think anyone can debate that his foot speed and game sense is on a significant decline; 17's value is likely higher than it was 3 years ago but he's been one of our most consistent performers; 39 is cheap and would be adequate as a 6-7 but not on a contender.
In the crease, the 1 is getting worked pretty hard, but he's played well and made some big saves at important times; BBAA isn't exactly getting many chances to prove he's a capable backup, but he seems comfortable in the role he's been given. If he can be moved for a reasonable asset, you look into it.
The key pieces on this team for this years playoff run are 14-19-9, x-7-11, 22-15-25; 2-65, x-4, Neo
Everything else should be in play. That means 71, 23, 28, 16, 17, 55, 39, 5, BBAA are all movable assets, along with all of our picks. Organizational needs moving forward (i.e. beyond this year) are 2 top-6 wingers, 2 top-4 D (one of each type preferably) and 4th line +3rd pairing (which can be filled relatively easily, either via FA or from within).
Realistically, most of those pieces will remain property of the Senators at this deadline, however several are FAs. Package-pieces include 71, 16 (who still holds value despite the sophomore slump), 17, 55, and 5; while 23, 28, 39, and BBAA are unlikely to net anything to make moving them worthwhile. Also those 4 are key character guys and important pieces to the locker room vibe... That being said, I`d still look into a change at those positions.
This is the way I'd like to see it happen:
I'm leery of FA's performing well in contract years. Kuba has good value and the market for top-4 D is pretty thin. He could probably fetch a late 1st or a 2nd and a mid-level prospect that could help Bingo. The mistake of 3 years ago should not be repeated and Kuba should be dealt.
Gonchar is not impressing me lately (as in the last 2 months). I defended this guy ad nauseum in the first 2 months, but his act has worn thin. His foot speed results in him being out of position on a regular basis which requires his partner(s) and forwards to compensate, leaving them out of position, resulting in goals against. He also isn't doing anything impressive on the PP, which is why he was brought here in the first place. He could probably return the same as Kuba. If one is moved, the other probably shouldn't be, but I wouldn't be against moving both. There isn`t one player on the team that I would rather move than Gonchar.
If it's possible to package any of Foligno, Butler, Lee with our 1st, 3rd (or the return from a Kuba/Gonchar trade) for a young top-4 D or a young top-6 winger with significant upside, then it should be done. I don't expect it, but it would fit with the rebuild and should really be the goal of this deadline, anyways.
If a deal comes along for one the others (Daug, Konopka, Carkner, Auld) that nets slightly more than their value or opens up a roster spot for a top performer in Bingo, then it should be looked into.
Some of you will say that we'll be looking for a player like Kuba or Gonchar as soon as they're moved, and you'd be right... but neither of them is a peak performer that can't be replaced... We aren't a Cup contender with this D-corps... Winning asap is important, but the long term plan should take precedence. If we get rid of both contracts, those cap dollars will have to be filled in the off-season just to get us to the floor, so we'll be buying on July 1 anyways.
One idea I really like is getting a guy like Zidlicky for something like a 4th and Wideman, then sending either Gonchar or Kuba to a western contender for their late 1st or 2nd and/or a prospect. Zid's been stiffled in that sytem and he plays a more dynamic game than either of our guys, while being a little weaker in his own zone. Ideally Gonchar would be the one moved with Zids replacing Kuba as the secondary guy leading the late minute charge that seems oh so common for this team.
I`m assuming the potential to get an upgrade on the wing (left primarily) in the form of a young top-6er is slim, as is getting a young top-4 defender with two way ability and offensive potential. So I`ll avoid the homerun fantasy and assume the Foligno`s and Butler`s of the team will remain with us. In the long run, they may prove to have higher offensive upside than 25-25 (which is certainly acceptable for a 2nd liner on an average playoff team). Having watched them both for the past two years though (longer with regard to Foligno) it`s unlikely they exceed those numbers. If it takes our 1st rounder and one of them to significantly upgrade our current situation on LW, it should be done. I assume it won`t happen, though.
The 4th line and 3rd pairing should be improved whenever possible. With inconsistent scoring prowess in the top-6, we really need more offensive skill in the bottom 6 to compensate. I would suggest that a 4th line of Hoffman-Da Costa-Petersson would benefit this team more than the current one, despite the fact that it wouldn`t fit the classical playing style of 4th lines. If they could produce 1-2 goal(s) every 3 games, they would help take a significant amount of pressure off the top-9, while the top-9 has enough crash and bang to handle those duties.
On D, Boro`s the only option in the system that can reasonably receive a promotion---Boro-Lee is a decent 3rd pairing, or Lee and Phillips, Boro-Kuba, Cowen-Karlsson (best option given what we have to work with Imo) would be an improvement over the current construct.
.....
Nothing really new here...just my take. Felt like writing, so I did. Let me know what you think. :)
This FanPost was written by a member of the Silver Seven community, and does not necessarily reflect the beliefs or opinions of the site managers, editors, or Sports Blogs Nation, Inc.
7 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Cool post. Here's the thing...
Nick Foligno is a top-six forward with a significant upside. So packaging him up with other assets for a top-six forward with a significant upside wouldn’t make much sense. If you’re packaging Foligno up, you’re likely looking to acquire a top-three forward, a top-two defenceman, or a really good-looking prospect.
Also, even if Zidlicky is on his way out, the return won’t be as little as a fourth-round pick and a low-percentage college player. He’s still got value on the market, so if the Senators acquire him, they’ll have to give something up to do so. But I think it’s a move that might be worth making.
As for Borowiecki, I think he might have a spot on this team in the future, but I don’t think it’s there for him just yet. I think if we’re calling someone up to play out the season, it should be Gryba or Wiercioch.
Finally, even though I agree that you can’t bank on prospects making the jump, Ottawa’s got quite a few good offensive ones who should be jumping into the lineup next season. Da Costa, Zibanejad, Silfverberg, Petersson, and maybe even one of the other first rounders from 2011 (plus a potential first-rounder from 2012) should be competitive in camp. That will be a hell of a contest. If we can add in a really strong prospect or player, we should, but if it’s just more of the same, we might as well wait until we see what we’ve got already.
Silver Seven | Twitter | Facebook | E-mail | eBay
by Peter Raaymakers on Feb 5, 2012 8:48 PM EST reply actions
Foligno’s upside isn’t as high as Evander Kane, for instance. If you can get a Bobby Ryan or a Zach Parise for Foligno plus other prime assets (Michalek, 1st, A-level prospect) then you do it… I agree though, if its a virtually identical prospect.
Zidlicky may cost more, but I doubt its much more.
Agreed on Boro, not sure on the other two being ahead of him on the pecking order.
It really depends on the player coming back and where they fit on the current and future roster. The hockey world is littered with failed and underperforming offensive prospects. Waiting for guys who are a season or more away from playing, letting alone being impact players, shouldn’t limit the team from bringing in players who are young and proven.
by 80 on Feb 5, 2012 9:56 PM EST up reply actions
I’d question whether Foligno’s upside isn’t as high as Evander Kane, to be honest—he may simply have been further along in his development at a younger age. Time will tell, I suppose, but there’s no denying Kane’s skill (although perceived personality issues could pose a problem). But with Ryan or Parise, you’re absolutely right that packaging Foligno up to acquire one would make sense, because you’re using an easily-replaceable player with one who is much less common around the league.
Silver Seven | Twitter | Facebook | E-mail | eBay
by Peter Raaymakers on Feb 6, 2012 8:44 AM EST up reply actions
That’s the problem with the “keep foligno” argument: there are players of that calibre all over the league.
I’ll admit I like the evolution of his game but there are times when he’s a blackhole in the offensive zone… if we can get another asset for him, like a young top4 d, we can easily fill his role from within.
by 80 on Feb 6, 2012 11:49 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
If we can fill the top 6 without Foligno, I’m all for keeping him. But he isn’t the top 6 guy we need. If enough of our prospects are able to jump him on the depth chart, I really love him on the 3rd line. I mean, COULD he be a top 6 guy? Sure. But I don’t want 6 guys who are good enough to be top 6, I want a team with good solid depth everywhere. I want 6 great top 6 guys, and a third line full of guys who could be on the top 6 of a weaker team, and a fourth line full of guys who could be on the 3rd line of a weaker team. Maybe I was spoiled by back in the day when we could split the offensive magic accross 3 lines with Hossa, Alfie, and Havlat each carrying their own line.
Sometimes when we talk about depth at centre, and people start saying Zibanejad should move to wing because “Zack Smith shouldn’t move to the fourth line; he’d be the best 4th line centreman in the league” I just get confused. I’d LOVE to have the best 4th line centreman in the league. I’d love to have the best 4th line in the league, the best 3rd line in the league, and a solid top 2.
But now I’m just ranting. Don’t mind me. ;)
by spez_dispenser on Feb 6, 2012 11:31 PM EST up reply actions
Rebuilding the defence
Yes, well said Peter.
The offence will be OK next year with the inner additions Peter talked about.
The bottom three defence needs to be revamped. We should have moved Gonchar out for a draft pick when he peaked a month ago. Our building blocks for the defence should be Karlsson and Cowen for the long term and Kuba for the very short term.
Can we move Phillips with his contract and his NMC? Surely between the prospects we have and the upcoming draft and dealing we can do before TC next year, we could build a strong defence.
The fast teams made minced meat of our defence the last little while… and it’s time to stop kidding ourselves about where we are at defensively.
Maybe we should just let them score like the pats so we can get the puck back. Trade anderson and play 6 on 5 full time…
by 80 on Feb 6, 2012 11:45 AM EST via mobile up reply actions

by 




















