Speculation: 2024-25 - Free Agency/Trade Thread

[ohcomeonref]

View attachment 929426

I feel for the guy. Too early to say we won the trade? Cutter isn't lighting the world on fire but he certainly hasn't been bad.

 

[MMC]

That's fair, wasn't sure if you had a problem with the player specifically or just with adding a lower quality asset in the broader sense.

Don't have a problem with Fabbro and wouldn't have been upset if they had put in a claim I just question why anyone would really feel like it was a missed opportunity when I don't think he's really a fit for our current roster for all the reasons I outlined. "He's a free asset" isn't a good enough of a reason for me, what the team would have to do to make a spot for him has to be factored in. It's a different conversation if this team is in a playoff spot and multiple D are going down with injuries and the team has the cap room to add some proven depth but elects to pass

 

[tomd]

Saw that Drysdale was put on IR with an UBI.

 

[Sniperberg]

Sometimes you guys make it really hard to take this board seriously

I agree. This board consistently overrates our d-prospects.

Getting someone like Fabbro to play the tougher minutes and matchups as he has done in Nashville so that we can send some of the underperforming juniors down to the AHL or give them easier minutes would do wonders for their developement.

 

[robbieboy3686]

I feel for the guy. Too early to say we won the trade? Cutter isn't lighting the world on fire but he certainly hasn't been bad.

No,not to early to say that we definitely won the trade and it isn’t close.

 

[Firequacker]

I agree. This board consistently overrates our d-prospects.

Getting someone like Fabbro to play the tougher minutes and matchups as he has done in Nashville so that we can send some of the underperforming juniors down to the AHL or give them easier minutes would do wonders for their developement.

This assumes that actually would have happened.

Last year Verbeek signed Hägg and team media talked him up as a veteran defensive presence, only for Verbeek to send him to San Diego and let LaCombe get caved in on the top pairing night after night while Cronin was self-admittedly too hard on him. (For that matter, when it wasn't LaCombe it was every other rookie not named Mintyukov getting thrown into first pairing duties. IIRC there was a post somewhere else last season about Zellweger having the highest quality of competition rating of anyone on the team.)
People clowned on Hägg for asking why we bothered signing him, but considering LaCombe apparently had to do a whole offseason "having to learn to regain his confidence" journey or something, maybe he did have a point (just not in the way he thinks he did).

This year Verbeek re-signed Vaakanainen, who handled tough minutes pretty well last year (and not just with Gudas, he looked fine with Fowler in the second stint when Fowler was playing on the right). This year he spent the early part of the season sitting in the press box with whichever kid was out of the lineup because nobody was in San Diego, the dumbest possible way to handle that situation. Now that Luneau has gone down and Vaaks is playing, he's getting the fewest defensive minutes on the team and it's not even close. He played eleven minutes against CBJ. They were not the tough minutes.

If your intention is to shelter the kids from the tough minutes, you use those guys. And then, sure, maybe you pick up Fabbro. But that clearly isn't the development path Verbeek is pursuing here, lip service about overcooking prospects aside.

 

[Hey234]

This assumes that actually would have happened.

Last year Verbeek signed Hägg and team media talked him up as a veteran defensive presence, only for Verbeek to send him to San Diego and let LaCombe get caved in on the top pairing night after night while Cronin was self-admittedly too hard on him. (For that matter, when it wasn't LaCombe it was every other rookie not named Mintyukov getting thrown into first pairing duties. IIRC there was a post somewhere else last season about Zellweger having the highest quality of competition rating of anyone on the team.)
People clowned on Hägg for asking why we bothered signing him, but considering LaCombe apparently had to do a whole offseason "having to learn to regain his confidence" journey or something, maybe he did have a point (just not in the way he thinks he did).

This year Verbeek re-signed Vaakanainen, who handled tough minutes pretty well last year (and not just with Gudas, he looked fine with Fowler in the second stint when Fowler was playing on the right). This year he spent the early part of the season sitting in the press box with whichever kid was out of the lineup because nobody was in San Diego, the dumbest possible way to handle that situation. Now that Luneau has gone down and Vaaks is playing, he's getting the fewest defensive minutes on the team and it's not even close. He played eleven minutes against CBJ. They were not the tough minutes.

If your intention is to shelter the kids from the tough minutes, you use those guys. And then, sure, maybe you pick up Fabbro. But that clearly isn't the development path Verbeek is pursuing here, lip service about overcooking prospects aside.

Agreed. It feels like Cronin and PV are on the same page with how they want to do things. The issue is that it seems to go against logic and best practices.

Why play LaCombe in such tough situations last season when you could have found someone else to help shelter his minutes? It wouldn't lead to more wins, but better development. But to also be so hard on him is just being bad a your job. You're putting him in positions to fail and then being hard when he does. It's awful coaching and just not being a good person.

It's tough to see Verbeek's vision for the organization top to bottom because his words and actions seem often opposite. This is compounded by the fact that many of his decisions haven't panned out so far.

 

[MMC]

I feel for the guy. Too early to say we won the trade? Cutter isn't lighting the world on fire but he certainly hasn't been bad.

I'd already say Gauthier is a better player than Drysdale, and that's before taking into account that their developments are trending in opposite directions

 

[Hamilton Bulldogs]

It’s kinda difficult to compare a d-man and a forward. Even more so when one has been hampered by injuries and the other is a forward with 15 games played.

 

[robbieboy3686]

It’s kinda difficult to compare a d-man and a forward. Even more so when one has been hampered by injuries and the other is a forward with 15 games played.

Well unfortunately for Jamie drysdale being injured has been a theme, so you absolutely can put that at the forefront of comparison and a huge red flag

 

[Leonardo87]

I'd already say Gauthier is a better player than Drysdale, and that's before taking into account that their developments are trending in opposite directions

I think Cutter has been more than fine. Should have a few goals now. Would be around Leo or Mac in points.

Point production is very hard to come from
This team and outside fans are too ignorant and don’t realize that.

He’s still adjusting to the NHL and it’s only been 14 games.

I’m really paying attention to these next 5-6 games will then be at the quarter mark and see where the team and everyone is doing so far. 20 games is a decent sample size, imo

 

[Rybread86]

Cutter is doing everything he can to score and is following the direction of "shoot more". You can tell he listens to the coaching hes getting. Hes snake bit right now, but everything we are seeing is positive. Not to mention hes staying in the lineup.

Drysdale would not make this team better. Cutter can, especially when those shots start finding their home.

Is it too early to really grade the trade? Sure, I mean anything can happen. Drysdale could stop getting injured, Cutter could end up not having a NHL shot and be a 4th liner or go the way of Comtois and Jones. In all likelihood, we won this trade by a large margin.

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

This assumes that actually would have happened.

Last year Verbeek signed Hägg and team media talked him up as a veteran defensive presence, only for Verbeek to send him to San Diego and let LaCombe get caved in on the top pairing night after night while Cronin was self-admittedly too hard on him. (For that matter, when it wasn't LaCombe it was every other rookie not named Mintyukov getting thrown into first pairing duties. IIRC there was a post somewhere else last season about Zellweger having the highest quality of competition rating of anyone on the team.)
People clowned on Hägg for asking why we bothered signing him, but considering LaCombe apparently had to do a whole offseason "having to learn to regain his confidence" journey or something, maybe he did have a point (just not in the way he thinks he did).

This year Verbeek re-signed Vaakanainen, who handled tough minutes pretty well last year (and not just with Gudas, he looked fine with Fowler in the second stint when Fowler was playing on the right). This year he spent the early part of the season sitting in the press box with whichever kid was out of the lineup because nobody was in San Diego, the dumbest possible way to handle that situation. Now that Luneau has gone down and Vaaks is playing, he's getting the fewest defensive minutes on the team and it's not even close. He played eleven minutes against CBJ. They were not the tough minutes.

If your intention is to shelter the kids from the tough minutes, you use those guys. And then, sure, maybe you pick up Fabbro. But that clearly isn't the development path Verbeek is pursuing here, lip service about overcooking prospects aside.

This is absolutely spot on. Now if only Stevens had the balls to ask Verbeek how this squares with the “over marinate” bullshit we were fed early on. But we all know that will never happen.

 

[The Midnight Burrito]

This is absolutely spot on. Now if only Stevens had the balls to ask Verbeek how this squares with the “over marinate” bullshit we were fed early on. But we all know that will never happen.

Based on comments he’s made since then, my synthesis is that over marinating is just a preference, all things being equal, like having actual NHL depth. But we don't, so the kids get called up and just have to work through it at this level.

Basically he’s willing to sacrifice his preferred method of development to keep the tank alive which seems kind of self-perpetuating to me. But what do I know, I’ve never worked with Steve Yzerman and I don’t even have a crew cut.

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

Based on comments he’s made since then, my synthesis is that over marinating is just a preference, all things being equal, like having actual NHL depth. But we don't, so the kids get called up and just have to work through it at this level.

Basically he’s willing to sacrifice his preferred method of development to keep the tank alive which seems kind of self-perpetuating to me. But what do I know, I’ve never worked with Steve Yzerman and I don’t even have a crew cut.

I don't claim to have a clue as to what he's really thinking but it would seem as though intentionally continuing the tank is self defeating since your kids are continually not becoming what you need them to be. It's truly baffling to try and understand what's going on here.

 

[mightyquack]

Based on comments he’s made since then, my synthesis is that over marinating is just a preference, all things being equal, like having actual NHL depth. But we don't, so the kids get called up and just have to work through it at this level.

Basically he’s willing to sacrifice his preferred method of development to keep the tank alive which seems kind of self-perpetuating to me. But what do I know, I’ve never worked with Steve Yzerman and I don’t even have a crew cut.

I bet you have a mullet instead