All Purpose Trade/Roster Building Thread XII - The UFA frenzy aftermath

[MinJaBen]

Petry is better than Klingberg. Petry doesn’t have the offensive game that Klingberg does but is far superior defensively.

Edit: Petry not Petty. Tom was a better musician than Klingberg tho and Richard a superior racer.

If we acquire Petry, given his age, lets hope he lets the two Pettys out do him in Breakdowns as well.

 

[Brock Anton]

I think we’re definitely in on Weegar if Florida are taking offers on him

That would be vomit inducing. We already have one Brady Skjei, we don’t need another.

Weegar is not good. Analytics love him, but all you see is him making stupid mistake after stupid mistake. Also unlike Burns, we’d have to give up something valuable to acquire him.

 

[Sigurd]

So what if they are?

I think you know the answer to that question, but disagree. If you don't know (which would be a surprise):

Less value because we'd have to wait years longer for players that may or may not even play for us, and probably most importantly, it'd likely be outside of our cup window if it's 3 years from now when we drafted them; never mind when they'd be ready to play (barring some smart roster changes that extends the window).

 

[WreckingCrew]

That would be vomit inducing. We already have one Brady Skjei, we don’t need another.

Weegar is not good. Analytics love him, but all you see is him making stupid mistake after stupid mistake. Also unlike Burns, we’d have to give up something valuable to acquire him.

But according to one of the experts, he's like Slavin-lite...but ranked higher...

 

[ndp]

I have to think they're going to try their damnedest to add a RD to play with Slavin. Trading Necas for Petry would be a mistake imo, but if they're looking at acquiring a top scoring winger someone up front is going to have to go. It's either Necas or Turbo right? Trading the guy who finished 3rd in points, plays all situations, doesn't really make much sense. So I figure it would have to be a pretty significant upgrade to justify moving Turbo. Trading away Necas potential sucks as well though. Another Lindholm situation and the front office starts looking not quite as galaxy brained as some people think they are.

After doing my late night half drunken/stoned video analysis, I think Bear is more cheap insurance for Gardiner. They'll likely have to pay someone to take Gardiner and I could see Rod advocating strongly to give him a shot in camp at least, he's a big softie when it comes to vets who no skate good.

Bear at his QO should be easily movable with or without a little retention. Finding a solid stay at home LD to play with Bear on the bottom pair shouldn't be that hard and saves the team some money depending on what it costs to dump Gardiner. Mark Staal come on down?

Posted again because I don't think it was viewable the first time I posted it:

How bad does Ethan Bear suck?

 

[Sigurd]

I have to think they're going to try their damnedest to add a RD to play with Slavin. Trading Necas for Petry would be a mistake imo, but if they're looking at acquiring a top scoring winger someone up front is going to have to go. It's either Necas or Turbo right? Trading the guy who finished 3rd in points, plays all situations, doesn't really make much sense. So I figure it would have to be a pretty significant upgrade to justify moving Turbo. Trading away Necas potential sucks as well though. Another Lindholm situation and the front office starts looking not quite as galaxy brained as some people think they are.

After doing my late night half drunken/stoned video analysis, I think Bear is more cheap insurance for Gardiner. They'll likely have to pay someone to take Gardiner and I could see Rod advocating strongly to give him a shot in camp at least, he's a big softie when it comes to vets who no skate good.

Bear at his QO should be easily movable with or without a little retention. Finding a solid stay at home LD to play with Bear on the bottom pair shouldn't be that hard and saves the team some money depending on what it costs to dump Gardiner. Mark Staal come on down?

Posted again because I don't think it was viewable the first time I posted it:

How bad does Ethan Bear suck?

For a second, I thought someone named "How bad does Ethan Bear suck" liked your post. Lol.

 

[MinJaBen]

This is all classic Borg. Every move. This is about squeezing value out of our situation from every possible angle.

Let's say we get Burns. Let's say San Jose pays us a 2nd and a 3rd to take him at 50% retained (I have no idea what the actual trade would be, hence "let's say"). Well, now, instead of re-signing TDA, we have Burns in the lineup (a slight downtick or uptick in on-ice value depending on your opinion), but now we have 2 extra 2nds, 2 extra 3rds, and an extra 4th compared to simply signing TDA. Boom, value.

The Borg does things very differently in a lot of ways, but one of the things they have a firmer grasp on than most of the league is the notion that in the NHL, a player's value is inextricably tied to his cap hit and contract situation, in more ways than one. And they use that fact to move on from good players, bring in certain players, take advantage of teams who get themselves into trouble by not having as firm a grasp on that fact (e.g. Marleau, KK), etc. Now, if they are kicking the tires on Burns, it's probably because they believe he's a good player still (their opinion on how well he'll age, who knows). But you can't say it makes no sense to move on from TDA to Burns if the asset price is right, assuming they believe Burns can still be a player.

I have a hard time believing that if we get Burns at 50%, so a 50+ point defenseman last year at $4M per, that we are also getting a bunch of picks as well. He is not a distressed asset at that price point.

 

[TheReelChuckFletcher]

I have to think they're going to try their damnedest to add a RD to play with Slavin. Trading Necas for Petry would be a mistake imo, but if they're looking at acquiring a top scoring winger someone up front is going to have to go. It's either Necas or Turbo right? Trading the guy who finished 3rd in points, plays all situations, doesn't really make much sense. So I figure it would have to be a pretty significant upgrade to justify moving Turbo. Trading away Necas potential sucks as well though. Another Lindholm situation and the front office starts looking not quite as galaxy brained as some people think they are.

After doing my late night half drunken/stoned video analysis, I think Bear is more cheap insurance for Gardiner. They'll likely have to pay someone to take Gardiner and I could see Rod advocating strongly to give him a shot in camp at least, he's a big softie when it comes to vets who no skate good.

Bear at his QO should be easily movable with or without a little retention. Finding a solid stay at home LD to play with Bear on the bottom pair shouldn't be that hard and saves the team some money depending on what it costs to dump Gardiner. Mark Staal come on down?

Posted again because I don't think it was viewable the first time I posted it:

How bad does Ethan Bear suck?

They're not going to trade Necas for Petry LMFAO! At the most, his contract may cost us a pick or two. If Gardiner waives his NTC, maybe the pick sent to Montreal is a little bit higher. Because of Petry's high cap hit and risky term (relative to age), he shouldn't cost much to acquire at all.

 

[cptjeff]

I think you know the answer to that question, but disagree. If you don't know (which would be a surprise):

Less value because we'd have to wait years longer for players that may or may not even play for us, and probably most importantly, it'd likely be outside of our cup window if it's 3 years from now when we drafted them; never mind when they'd be ready to play (barring some smart roster changes that extends the window).

The Borg have been very clear that they're trying to build sustained long term success, not chase short term cup windows by selling the future. Having more picks long term is what helps us find the next Aho or Slavin and sets us up to extend that cup window or start a new generation of the core.

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

I have a hard time believing that if we get Burns at 50%, so a 50+ point defenseman last year at $4M per, that we are also getting a bunch of picks as well. He is not a distressed asset at that price point.

Yeah, like I said in the post, I have no idea what the price point would be or what's being discussed as far as retention so I threw a hypothetical out there. If you don't like the hypothetical you can make it whatever you want, the point still stands (as long as we're not paying anywhere close to a 2nd, a 3rd, and a 4th for him). We once got a 1st for a guy with only 1 year left on his deal though... regardless, the market is often what determines these prices and this is a weird market that's hard to pin down, so your point is taken.

 

[Big Daddy Cane]

Unless it's been reported as such, Petry getting his signing bonus tomorrow is an assumption, not a fact.

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

I think you know the answer to that question, but disagree. If you don't know (which would be a surprise):

Less value because we'd have to wait years longer for players that may or may not even play for us, and probably most importantly, it'd likely be outside of our cup window if it's 3 years from now when we drafted them; never mind when they'd be ready to play (barring some smart roster changes that extends the window).

Well, I'd rather 3 2nds over the next 3 than a 2nd, a 3rd, and a 4th in the same draft. I think we'd all assume that the increased/decreased value is taken into account when actually trading these picks. Hence the "who cares", within reason (I highly doubt we'll see any 2027 draft picks in play, but you never know).

 

[cptjeff]

Unless it's been reported as such, Petry getting his signing bonus tomorrow is an assumption, not a fact.

I've never heard of a player getting their bonus on a day other than UFA day. Yes, that is allowed, but I've never heard of anyone actually doing it.

So while technically an assumption, it's one that can be relied on almost as if it was fact.

 

[Sigurd]

The Borg have been very clear that they're trying to build sustained long term success, not chase short term cup windows by selling the future. Having more picks long term is what helps us find the next Aho or Slavin and sets us up to extend that cup window or start a new generation of the core.

Okay? I'm not arguing against extending the cup window. If they get even more extra draft picks just within the next year or even two, that would help. It's not like getting extra draft picks 3 years from now to extend the window is the only way when getting extra draft picks within the next year or two would do the same thing with quicker results. I don't think we disagree on the merit of draft picks; so I'm not sure what there is to argue?

Well, I'd rather 3 2nds over the next 3 than a 2nd, a 3rd, and a 4th in the same draft. I think we'd all assume that the increased/decreased value is taken into account when actually trading these picks. Hence the "who cares", within reason (I highly doubt we'll see any 2027 draft picks in play, but you never know).

Agreed. That's my preference as well. Doubt we could get that though, and especially for Burns with retention.

 

[MinJaBen]

I've never heard of a player getting their bonus on a day other than UFA day. Yes, that is allowed, but I've never heard of anyone actually doing it.

So while technically an assumption, it's one that can be relied on almost as if it was fact.

Wasn't Marleau's bonus paid in September that year that we had him?

 

[DaveG]

I was confused this past year. The season prior, habs fans were talking about him being a potential Norris candidate. I know they’re stupid, but he must have been playing pretty damn good. Curious what happened.

From what I recall reading he had some real issues with his family being stuck on the other side of the border during the covid restrictions. That plus coaching issues in Montreal all add up to a bad time.

 

[Lempo]

Wasn't Marleau's bonus paid in September that year that we had him?

And some guy's was in May. I don't know it is't the May before the season starts (and is that even allowed), or the May at the end of the season, and/or can you word the pay date to be comditional, i.e. the 15th of the month following the month of the team's elimination.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

I think you know the answer to that question, but disagree. If you don't know (which would be a surprise):

Less value because we'd have to wait years longer for players that may or may not even play for us, and probably most importantly, it'd likely be outside of our cup window if it's 3 years from now when we drafted them; never mind when they'd be ready to play (barring some smart roster changes that extends the window).

Depending on what one views as a "cup window" Anyone we drafted even this year in the 2nd or 3rd or 4th round, isn't likely to be a main contributor in the current window. Guys like Aho are very unique.
Drury was drafted 5 drafts ago and is likely just now going to start having some impact on the Canes.
Ned was drafted in 2014 and last year finally made an impact.
Slavin was drafted in 2012 and became a full time NHLr in 2015.
etc...

My view of the current window is 2-3 years because that's when Aho, TT, Pesce, Skjei and Slavin's contracts are all up. Nobody we drafted this year is likely to have any significant impact on that window.

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

Depending on what one views as a "cup window" Anyone we drafted even this year in the 2nd or 3rd or 4th round, isn't likely to be a main contributor in the current window. Guys like Aho are very unique.
Drury was drafted 5 drafts ago and is likely just now going to start having some impact on the Canes.
Ned was drafted in 2014 and last year finally made an impact.
Slavin was drafted in 2012 and became a full time NHLr in 2015.
etc...

My view of the current window is 2-3 years because that's when Aho, TT, Pesce, Skjei and Slavin's contracts are all up. Nobody we drafted this year is likely to have any significant impact on that window.

Yep, and not to mention if you're thinking about draft capital as a way to tool up a Cup contender, whether at the deadline or in the offseason, well... those "future" picks are just as tradable (heck, someone traded them to you!)

 

[DaveG]

Let's just hope that in such a theoretical trade, the draft picks we get aren't spread apart over 3 years.

I mean, if we're getting a first yeah absolutely I want the first to be this years. With how San Jose is there's a very non-zero chance that's Bedard/Michkov.

Second or third doesn't matter as much, in fact it's probably not a bad thing to spread those around a bit as I think you can only have so many on the reserve list at any given time.

 

[Big Daddy Cane]

I've never heard of a player getting their bonus on a day other than UFA day. Yes, that is allowed, but I've never heard of anyone actually doing it.

So while technically an assumption, it's one that can be relied on almost as if it was fact.

I remembered Bobby Ryan getting his on May 15th a few years ago (Link). A poster on the trade board added a Derrick Brassard trade being delayed past a July 15th bonus date.

Even if the typical bonus is July 1st, that date has already passed. In 2020, prior to the restart, the players eligible for July 1st 2020 bonuses received them on that date (Link). UFA day was several months later.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong that the bonus date is not tied to free agency day.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Yep, and not to mention if you're thinking about draft capital as a way to tool up a Cup contender, whether at the deadline or in the offseason, well... those "future" picks are just as tradable (heck, someone traded them to you!)

Yes, and as TRPF has said often, the Borg is not likely looking at a cup window of 2-3 years, but using moves like this to try and continue the pipeline of assets (either prospects/picks/or trade assets as you mentioned) so that the window is extended. No idea if that will be successful or not.

 

[whiskers]

ohh my god dont get petry , especially if we gotta give something , the only way i would take him is if we had a Marleau deal , where |MTL would give us some picks and eat some of his salary , i was thinking how much does goudreau want? , if its 9 or 10 im fine letting tro and nino go to have him play with us , i rather have Barrie than Petry especially for 3 more season , im willing to go as what we got this year if we dont make the playoffs we have a chance to get something good , next Staal will get a new contract has to be more friendly , Andersen Gardiner are off the books we can go hard on UFA's 2023 has great UFA names

 

[chaz4hockey]

A good read (sorry, for Athletic members) re: valuing positions--

How much should NHL top-line forwards and defensemen be worth towards a team's salary cap?

The easy way of figuring this out would be to look around every NHL lineup and simply average the cap hits for each position. We tried it!

theathletic.com

 

[moses malone 12]

Agree with most of that.

Have we? other than in fans minds or in the way Carolina "kicks the tires on everyone"?

I don't recall any legitimate sources realistically linking us to Forsberg. Or even Tarasenko. Yes, it makes sense as we need more scoring, but that's about all I recall. Plus, those players weren't/aren't even really available, so there's no way to go get one.

I'm commenting based on what I have seen/read. Sources are hockey writers/reporters such as Friedman, Seravelli, Dreger. At times, these guys have legit insider knowledge of conversations. It's not always conjecture.