Speculation: Armchair GM Thread

[Top 6 Spaling]

Yeah the scouting report on Svechkov seemed to always be a 3C type at best and I'm not sure he's really done much to change that assessment. I don't have super strong opinions about Cozens and the stat line this year is definitely a bit scary, but even if he were just a 20g-30a guy like he was last season I still think I'd be fine to give up Svechkov and one of our late 1sts for him.

I would agree with that price for a 50p guy *if he didn't have a terrible contract*. Unless Cozens becomes a 60 point players consistently, that contract has negative value. I would be very hesitant to trade a 1st for him without retention.

 

[herzausstein]

Kakko would be interesting. NyR has a fair bit of wing depth (Laf, panarin, smith, kreider, etc) so perhaps he is muscled out a bit. Not sure what the ask is but i feel like thats an organization that would enjoy themselves some Lauzon or L'Heureux type players

 

[Flgatorguy87]

I would agree with that price for a 50p guy *if he didn't have a terrible contract*. Unless Cozens becomes a 60 point players consistently, that contract has negative value. I would be very hesitant to trade a 1st for him without retention.

Alas, if he becomes a 60-point guy, he won't be traded...there is the dilemma. You have to be able to make the predictions based on the information we already have and what he becomes.

 

[Predsanddead24]

I would agree with that price for a 50p guy *if he didn't have a terrible contract*. Unless Cozens becomes a 60 point players consistently, that contract has negative value. I would be very hesitant to trade a 1st for him without retention.

I get the point but given our center situation I'd have no problem overpaying in terms of both assets and contract for a guy I knew was a guarantee 50 point center player for the duration of the contract. The concern to me is that he's not been a 50 point player this season and I have a hard time seeing Bruno as the guy to get him back on track.

 

[wmupreds]

I personally think Cozens has a higher ceiling than just about anyone in our prospect pool at forward. I would've said Kemell last year but he seems not to be taking a step forward. Whether that's worth losing ZLH or Svech kinda depends on Buffalo's willingness to retain. At a lower cap hit he could be a great gamble

 

[Top 6 Spaling]

I get the point but given our center situation I'd have no problem overpaying in terms of both assets and contract for a guy I knew was a guarantee 50 point center player for the duration of the contract. The concern to me is that he's not been a 50 point player this season and I have a hard time seeing Bruno as the guy to get him back on track.

Unless we unload a big contract back (ROR, Stamkos, March, Forsberg, etc), acquiring Cozens locks us in to having very little flexibility for the next 3-4 years. If someone that we think might be a 70-80 point player comes along, missing out on them for cap reasons would be tragic. Even lower stakes stuff like Broberg's offer sheet or the "Monahan and a 1st for nothing" style deals go away if we trade Novak+futures for Cozens unretained. I am not convinced he is the guy to give up flexibility for, especially if it also involves assets.

All of that changes if we are moving on from a big contract and/or we get significant retention. I like the idea of adding Cozens, I just hope we are trading older pieces vs futures and cap flexibility. ROR straight up or Novak+Carrier+?? would be my dream.

 

[ShagDaddy]

If I’m playing armchair GM, I’d go full blown Billy Bean on Brunette’s ass and trade away all the vets except Forsberg, Stamkos, Marchessault and O’Reilly (the first three due to contracts and O’Reilly because the team needs him). Then I’m telling Brunette he either gives the young guys plenty of ice time and puts them in critical roles and positions or I’ll find someone that will.

 

[weeze]

Since Trotz refuses to fire Burnette, Trotz has to go.

Yeah but Ownership looks like they have given BT the keys and checkbook for now. So that ain't happening.

 

[Predsanddead24]

Unless we unload a big contract back (ROR, Stamkos, March, Forsberg, etc), acquiring Cozens locks us in to having very little flexibility for the next 3-4 years. If someone that we think might be a 70-80 point player comes along, missing out on them for cap reasons would be tragic. Even lower stakes stuff like Broberg's offer sheet or the "Monahan and a 1st for nothing" style deals go away if we trade Novak+futures for Cozens unretained. I am not convinced he is the guy to give up flexibility for, especially if it also involves assets.

All of that changes if we are moving on from a big contract and/or we get significant retention.

It would definitely make us less flexible through next year but after that our cap situation isn't really that dire. I also think holding out for the mythical 70+ point center is just wishing for something that is never going to be available. We don't have the assets to get someone like that in a trade and no one like that is coming here in free agency. To me it's sort of a don't let perfect be the enemy of good situation.

 

[glenngineer]

I personally think Cozens has a higher ceiling than just about anyone in our prospect pool at forward. I would've said Kemell last year but he seems not to be taking a step forward. Whether that's worth losing ZLH or Svech kinda depends on Buffalo's willingness to retain. At a lower cap hit he could be a great gamble

I would not trade for a center with a low IQ and doesn’t play PK for a wing who can play all three situations with an edge to their game, especially if said forward has a long term contract that isn’t necessarily friendly.

I get serious Turris vibes from this.

 

[nine_inch_fang]

If I’m playing armchair GM, I’d go full blown Billy Bean on Brunette’s ass and trade away all the vets except Forsberg, Stamkos, Marchessault and O’Reilly (the first three due to contracts and O’Reilly because the team needs him). Then I’m telling Brunette he either gives the young guys plenty of ice time and puts them in critical roles and positions or I’ll find someone that will.

Exactly what I was saying. His hand will have to be forced.

 

[Roman Yoshi]

I would not trade for a center with a low IQ and doesn’t play PK for a wing who can play all three situations with an edge to their game, especially if said forward has a long term contract that isn’t necessarily friendly.

I get serious Turris vibes from this.

Johansen is a better comparison tbh

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

Kakko would be interesting. NyR has a fair bit of wing depth (Laf, panarin, smith, kreider, etc) so perhaps he is muscled out a bit. Not sure what the ask is but i feel like thats an organization that would enjoy themselves some Lauzon or L'Heureux type players

I like Kakko just as much as a player as Cozens tbh. But he has the added advantage in terms of contract flexibility.

I'd be all over trading them any Lauzon/Carrier/Sissons types and assorted chaff for Kakko. Not ZLH. But if it ever came down to like Lauzon+2nd or something like that, I'd take that over any of the Cozens proposals floated here. He's not a center, but then... Cozens probably isn't either.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

If I’m playing armchair GM, I’d go full blown Billy Bean on Brunette’s ass and trade away all the vets except Forsberg, Stamkos, Marchessault and O’Reilly (the first three due to contracts and O’Reilly because the team needs him). Then I’m telling Brunette he either gives the young guys plenty of ice time and puts them in critical roles and positions or I’ll find someone that will.

And Josi. Well, not that I'm against trading him either. But I don't see that ever happening, so might as well list him with the other UnMovables.

O'Reilly is an interesting case however.... he has no protections. His contract isn't actually dumb relative to what he provides. He would be very marketable. I know that Trotz would never trade him, nevertheless. But if there is one guy we might actually be able to cash in somewhat big on, it's probably O'Reilly.

 

[adsfan]

Haslam doesn’t take over as majority owner until July of 2025.

So Haslam just sits in a corner and remains silent like a ventriloquist's dummy?

I don't want a Jerry Jones, but I don't want the above either.

 

[Armourboy]

I'm not trading ZLH for Cozens, end of story. If we were talking a situation like Stone that would be different, but Cozens isn't anywhere near that. I'm willing to take a gamble, but the goal is to get better, and long term I don't see that trade really doing that. Buffalo wants to move Cozens, that alone means I'm not giving away top young prospects for him that I think are going to be good solid NHL players.

Kappo Kakko is kind of the same thing. If I can get him at a reasonable price, fine, but he hasn't shown me enough that I would give up anything of major value for. If they want roster players, fine you can have your pick of any above the age of 25, I don't care who it is.

So Haslam just sits in a corner and remains silent like a ventriloquist's dummy?

I don't want a Jerry Jones, but I don't want the above either.

From what have gather he is involved, but part of his agreement in the purchase plan was that he wouldn't rock the boat. My guess is until it is finalized and he has full majority ownership he's not going to do anything to risk screwing that up, if he even does then. We don't really know what kind of owner he will be once his hands are more or less untied.

 

[adsfan]

It's funny reading back through old threads about potential trades which obviously never actually happened, but still entertaining. Stone, Tkachuk, Debrincat, all were "too expensive, too small, not worth it, never going to sign a long-term deal, product of their environment, disgruntled". So many different warts, all of which might have been true at the time or even still. Maybe those guys never were a possibility, but what was the most interesting part was all types of names thrown around deemed to be "just as good" eventually or too valuable to the team. Trenin, Tomasino, Jeannot, Parsinnen, Askarov, etc. type names.


You managed to summarize most of my posts from the last 18 hours into 1 paragraph. Your like chatGPT for the preds board.

Sam Girard (508 NHL games, 215 pts, 5 with the Preds, 3 pts)
Kevin Fiala (499 NHL games, 446 pts, 204 games and 97 pts with the Preds). I think Fiala needed more time in Milwaukee before being a NHL player. He was rushed before he was ready.


Tanner Jeannot, (254 NHL games and 86 pts, 152 games and 62 pts with the Preds)
Yakov Trenin, (283 of his 328 NHL games, 79 of his 85 pts with Nashville)!
He seems to have fallen apart for the Avs and the Wild.

 

[ShagDaddy]

Sam Girard (508 NHL games, 215 pts, 5 with the Preds, 3 pts)
Kevin Fiala (499 NHL games, 446 pts, 204 games and 97 pts with the Preds). I think Fiala needed more time in Milwaukee before being a NHL player. He was rushed before he was ready.


Tanner Jeannot, (254 NHL games and 86 pts, 152 games and 62 pts with the Preds)
Yakov Trenin, (283 of his 328 NHL games, 79 of his 85 pts with Nashville)!
He seems to have fallen apart for the Avs and the Wild.

Be careful with comments like that, people may think you’re in the overcook them in the AHL camp.

 

[Armourboy]

Sam Girard (508 NHL games, 215 pts, 5 with the Preds, 3 pts)
Kevin Fiala (499 NHL games, 446 pts, 204 games and 97 pts with the Preds). I think Fiala needed more time in Milwaukee before being a NHL player. He was rushed before he was ready.


Tanner Jeannot, (254 NHL games and 86 pts, 152 games and 62 pts with the Preds)
Yakov Trenin, (283 of his 328 NHL games, 79 of his 85 pts with Nashville)!
He seems to have fallen apart for the Avs and the Wild.

Eh Fiala is what he was always going to be, Gretzky in his own mind, but not so much on the ice. Nothing about his game has changed no matter what team he has been on.

 

[Viqsi]

Cozens value should be closer to Dubois when traded to Washington value instead of what Buffalo fans are wanting which is Dubois traded to Columbus value. He already has 1.5 years of declining production and a fat contract.

1) Dubois was never traded to the Jackets; he was a CBJ draftee. Maybe you meant when he was traded from here to Winnipeg?
2) Dubois was considered a higher upside player, and was younger when he was traded.

On the other hand, Cozens hasn't done anything even remotely like The Shift. It's not a fair comparison in either direction.

 

[Viqsi]

It's definitely more like the Dubois situation IMO. A lot were pushing for us to take a chance on Dubois too.

I like to think I did my part in helping people realize what kind of a horror show that would have been.

 

[Viqsi]

Feels like Johansen/Turris redux (yes I know Johansen had some good seasons with us, but he was never the player we thought we were trading for). Reportedly struggling at the center position so may not even help us there.

At that salary and current level of production I don't want to give up young players that are showing signs of life (e.g. ZLH).

Normally that's what it costs. But also, normally a team in our situation has more than one or two of those guys and so can afford the risk.

 

[Armourboy]

Normally that's what it costs. But also, normally a team in our situation has more than one or two of those guys and so can afford the risk.

I just think some of the Buffalo fans are living in a dream world thinking Cozens is going to pull a better player as a main piece. Normally that might be the case, but part of that is usually the other team lowering their cap and in most cases they wouldn't even be doing that with Cozens.

 

[Viqsi]

I just think some of the Buffalo fans are living in a dream world thinking Cozens is going to pull a better player as a main piece.

The problem with this is that it presumes Cozens will be traded or has to be traded. Their responses are consistent with a situation in which there's no reason for them to trade him at this time,

 

[Armourboy]

The problem with this is that it presumes Cozens will be traded or has to be traded. Their responses are consistent with a situation in which there's no reason for them to trade him at this time,

Sure but we've seen that reasoning used around here for years as a way to justify a better return that never happens.