Well if he doesn’t Stamkos probably walks because Stamkos is not taking 4 million per season
I understand that. Truth is, Stamkos is not a priority for JBB or he would have signed him before he acquired McDonagh
Well if he doesn’t Stamkos probably walks because Stamkos is not taking 4 million per season
Not really. I have little doubt that JBB will line up trades for all three of Jeannot, Sheary, and Perbix before he chooses to jettison a player he committed 8 years to playing for him. They'll have 10.825 available after moving all three, which is more than enough for Stamkos at the speculated 5.5-6 range. If Lilleberg and Crozier take the 6 and 7 defensive spots, and Motte re-signs for another year at 900k, the team still 2.1-2.6 available for the last 2 spots. Goncalves or another Crunch promote gets one at 800k, and then JBB finds a ufa for 1.3-1.8. That's the most likely scenario. This offseason the blueline was addressed, and next offseason, if needed, they'll have enough space, provided the cap moves to ~92 million, to address the F group.Well if he doesn’t Stamkos probably walks because Stamkos is not taking 4 million per season
< 6 feels really low for Stamkos.Not really. I have little doubt that JBB will line up trades for all three of Jeannot, Sheary, and Perbix before he chooses to jettison a player he committed 8 years to playing for him. They'll have 10.825 available after moving all three, which is more than enough for Stamkos at the speculated 5.5-6 range. If Lilleberg and Crozier take the 6 and 7 defensive spots, and Motte re-signs for another year at 900k, the team still 2.1-2.6 available for the last 2 spots. Goncalves or another Crunch promote gets one at 800k, and then JBB finds a ufa for 1.3-1.8. That's the most likely scenario. This offseason the blueline was addressed, and next offseason, if needed, they'll have enough space, provided the cap moves to ~92 million, to address the F group.
What picks do you have to throw in to get rid of the mistakes JBB made on Sheary and jeannot ?Not really. I have little doubt that JBB will line up trades for all three of Jeannot, Sheary, and Perbix before he chooses to jettison a player he committed 8 years to playing for him. They'll have 10.825 available after moving all three, which is more than enough for Stamkos at the speculated 5.5-6 range. If Lilleberg and Crozier take the 6 and 7 defensive spots, and Motte re-signs for another year at 900k, the team still 2.1-2.6 available for the last 2 spots. Goncalves or another Crunch promote gets one at 800k, and then JBB finds a ufa for 1.3-1.8. That's the most likely scenario. This offseason the blueline was addressed, and next offseason, if needed, they'll have enough space, provided the cap moves to ~92 million, to address the F group.
They shouldn't have to throw in anything for Jeannot imo. They may not get much, if anything, but they shouldn't have to pay to move him. Sheary shouldn't take more than a 3rd+maybe something small. Until last year he was still a 30-40 point type player. His cap hit if burned is only 850k as well, so not a huge drain. He does have a 16 team ntc, so that could make things a little more difficult, but not impossible. JBB would certainly move a mid round/late round pick if needed.to make the cap work.What picks do you have to throw in to get rid of the mistakes JBB made on Sheary and jeannot ?
Currently we don’t have a 1st or 2nd in 2025 and in 2024 we don’t have a 1st , 2nd or 3rd
Yes, and Stamkos was projected at 6.1 in one model. Him taking 5.5 wouldn't be a huge surprise in terms of aav. Yes, I have factored in replacement costs. Perbix is replaced by Crozier and Lilleberg to reach 7 dmen, so there's no downgrade there. Jeannot and Sheary didn't exactly bring much, so replacing them with an 800k Crunch guy and a 1.5-2 million ufa isn't exactly some big loss either.< 6 feels really low for Stamkos.
And are you factoring replacement contracts in? If we are replacing those 3 with league min contracts, it's a step backward.
Jeannot and Sheary might not have brought much, but most league min players are going to be actual liabilities, rather than net neutral. We are going to need actual players.Yes, and Stamkos was projected at 6.1 in one model. Him taking 5.5 wouldn't be a huge surprise in terms of aav. Yes, I have factored in replacement costs. Perbix is replaced by Crozier and Lilleberg to reach 7 dmen, so there's no downgrade there. Jeannot and Sheary didn't exactly bring much, so replacing them with an 800k Crunch guy and a 1.5-2 million ufa isn't exactly some big loss either.
Neither Jeannot nor Sheary brought anything. They were both net negatives. Sheary was healthy scratched for the playoffs, and both missed significant time due to injury. I find it difficult, very difficult, to believe any player they replaced them with would be any worse.Jeannot and Sheary might not have brought much, but most league min players are going to be actual liabilities, rather than net neutral. We are going to need actual players.
I really don't think Stamkos is taking anything in the neighborhood of 6. We have a 3rd pairing D making 8.5.
Jeannot and Sheary might not have brought much, but most league min players are going to be actual liabilities, rather than net neutral. We are going to need actual players.
I really don't think Stamkos is taking anything in the neighborhood of 6. We have a 3rd pairing D making 8.5.
Seattle is going for that small market feel. No stars.I'd be looking at Seattle as a potential trading partner, they have capspace and would be interested in both Cirelli & Sergachev.
Gourde at 50% would look really juicy, same with Adam Larsson next to Hedman.
I don't really understand this logic of "we can keep all our guys if we just keep adding league minimum players!" the point is trying to be competitive right? You're not doing that icing 6-7 league minimum players just to keep bad value contracts. Most of these ideas are just calling for us to ice a bunch of rookies from Syracuse too. Point is to trim the fat not add on scraps.
This is the way. Gourde isn't a dog. He's a "f***ing dog" and constantly finds a way to be disruptive. And if he doesn't, he will purposely start something and be disruptive that way. A very, very poor man's Marchand but same idea. I'd take him in a heartbeat.I'd be looking at Seattle as a potential trading partner, they have capspace and would be interested in both Cirelli & Sergachev.
Gourde at 50% would look really juicy, same with Adam Larsson next to Hedman.
Seattle is going for that small market feel. No stars.
I'd be looking at Seattle as a potential trading partner, they have capspace and would be interested in both Cirelli & Sergachev.
Gourde at 50% would look really juicy, same with Adam Larsson next to Hedman.
Yeah I think either Sergachev of Cirelli would get legit returns. Sergachev would be a blockbuster. The way he's viewed around the league is not in line at all with his value to our team. Not saying he isnt valuable, but he's seen as a 1b defenseman. He could be a good offensive #1 defenseman on a bad team. But I think his trade value starts at a 2C.I like both of those guys but they are downgrades and are on the last year of their contracts. What else would we be getting back? If it's just cap space, we can do a lot better.
JBB knew he had around 11-12 million in cap space even before the season started because they had the salary cap projection and it was pretty much dead on .First off I agree with your point, but I do think Sheary and Jeannot is part of that fat that could be trimmed.
Chaffee:
View attachment 875929
Sheary:
View attachment 875930
Jeannot:
View attachment 875931
Having said that I think trading one of the "big 3" makes the most sense, I just don't see JBB doing it. I give it 60-40 he lets Stamkos walk.
Beniers is a low end star whose defensive prowess will outshine his offensive inconsistencies.Shane Wright and Matthew Beiners are gonna be stars
Quinn and a pick downgrades the team now that's in a win now position, but at least it's more fair(depending on the pick), than most offers on here. Quinn has also had some significant injury problems already in his young career, and the last thing the team needs is another player with injury problems. Also, don't tell me how I can think or post on a public forum full of opinions. Thanks!JT, cmon now. You have summarily dismissed every suggestion that includes trading Cirelli, insisting that there is no scenario that improves the team. Yet somehow, this guy who is so valuable is also not worth an unproven scoring winger like Jack Quinn. Huh? Maybe the Sabres wouldn’t do Peterka for Cirelli, but Quinn fits the bill as a guy with potential who’s on an ELC. If I’m JBB, I’m asking for Peterka and settling for Quinn and a pick. Buffalo fans might not like it but their GM oughta be interested. Cirelli is exactly the kind of proven playoff veteran that is needed by a talented team that can’t get into the playoffs. He sets a tone, physically and defensively and has two rings to prove it. They need to make a move like that and they’ve got plenty of scoring depth to do so.
Meanwhile, please stop naysaying everyone’s ideas for making the Lightning more competitive while you are also suggesting the Bolts should ice Hagel-Cirelli-Paul or Stamkos-Cirelli-Paul as a second line.
Seriously, trade Cirelli for an ascending young forward still on his ELC and use the extra $5M in cap savings to finish off the top6. This is my main point, and I think it might be the best way to improve the team while paying Stamkos between $5-6M. Either trade Cirelli for someone who can play center and sign a scoring wing or trade him for a scorer and sign someone who can play center.
This is the way. JBB did not sound like someone who just addressed his top4 dmen only to turn around and trade Sergachev or Cernak.
Seattle's got to have the star power of Columbus, Carolina, or Anaheim.Shane Wright and Matthew Beiners are gonna be stars
It's honestly reminiscent of the guy that defended Callahan at all costs, only to later find out Callahan was a personal client of his and then it all made sense.JT, cmon now. You have summarily dismissed every suggestion that includes trading Cirelli, insisting that there is no scenario that improves the team. Yet somehow, this guy who is so valuable is also not worth an unproven scoring winger like Jack Quinn. Huh? Maybe the Sabres wouldn’t do Peterka for Cirelli, but Quinn fits the bill as a guy with potential who’s on an ELC. If I’m JBB, I’m asking for Peterka and settling for Quinn and a pick. Buffalo fans might not like it but their GM oughta be interested. Cirelli is exactly the kind of proven playoff veteran that is needed by a talented team that can’t get into the playoffs. He sets a tone, physically and defensively and has two rings to prove it. They need to make a move like that and they’ve got plenty of scoring depth to do so.
Meanwhile, please stop naysaying everyone’s ideas for making the Lightning more competitive while you are also suggesting the Bolts should ice Hagel-Cirelli-Paul or Stamkos-Cirelli-Paul as a second line.
Seriously, trade Cirelli for an ascending young forward still on his ELC and use the extra $5M in cap savings to finish off the top6. This is my main point, and I think it might be the best way to improve the team while paying Stamkos between $5-6M. Either trade Cirelli for someone who can play center and sign a scoring wing or trade him for a scorer and sign someone who can play center.
This is the way. JBB did not sound like someone who just addressed his top4 dmen only to turn around and trade Sergachev or Cernak.
There's no legitimate finisher on the second line. It's all two way forwards that lack a playmaker unless Hagel takes that role and feeds elite sniper Anthony Cirelli. Cirelli and Stamkos are lousy. You admitted Paul and Stamkos are garbo together. So, if it's not precisely Stamkos that is the problem and you load up one scoring line because at least he's good enough to warrant putting there, where does the offense come from on the bottom nine? Lol. Not to mention now you're recommending someone from Syracuse to play in the top 6 or someone in the 1.5-2 million range that *you* repeatedly denied would be an improvement by any stretch over Cirelli. You said "no thanks" and "I doubt that would work" when I gave you 3-4M range guys. Lol. But now suddenly someone like Lafferty/Sheary is going to log +16mins a night and mesh? Those guys are 20-30pt guys and unproven commodities like "someone from Syracuse" that's suddenly going to jump into the NHL under the radar and play a top 6 role? Goncalves and Groshev were your picks, those two? Lol.Quinn and a pick downgrades the team now that's in a win now position, but at least it's more fair(depending on the pick), than most offers on here. Quinn has also had some significant injury problems already in his young career, and the last thing the team needs is another player with injury problems. Also, don't tell me how I can think or post on a public forum full of opinions. Thanks!
If the team wants to trade one of the big names, gain the most space and return, all while actually improving the team, it's clearly Serg that should be going. In the end, I don't see JBB moving any of them, though. The roster works fine with a top 6 of Stamkos-Point-Kuch and Hagel-Cirelli-Paul or keep Paul at 3C and either try someone from Syracuse with Hagel-Cirelli or a 1.5-2 million ufa up there. There's going to be at least one spot in the top 9 that's not as strong this season regardless, so be it. That's what happens when JBB overspend on the dman acquisition this offseason instead of the 4-5 he likely should have.
Even if the team moved all three of Jeannot, Sheary, and Cirelli, they'd have 15.935 available. Stamkos eats 6-7 based on most people's thinking, so now the team the team 8.9-9.9 left, the 7th dman takes another 870k, so now 8-9 for 4 forwards to reach a 22 player roster. If Motte is re-signed, or someone else in that range, there's another 900k-1 million, so now 7-8 million for 3 guys, They are now still missing two top 6 spots instead of one, and still need a 3rd line addition, or if Paul is on line 2, 1 top 6 and 2 3rd liners. If a prospect of some kind takes one of those spots(say from the supposed Cirelli trade), they now have low 6.x to low 7.x available(depending on the Stamkos aav). All they really "gain" from trading their current 2C is instead of Cirelli and a 1.5-2 million player plus an 800-900k prospect/additional ufa, is for w guys in the 3-3.5 range, one of which has to replace Cirelli. I don't see the upgrade as being worth losing Cirelli over, especially not long term when Cirelli is now entering his prime years and actually showed improvement to his offense this past season.