Blues Trade Proposals 2021-2022 Part 3

[Moose and Squirrel]

I just want this entire Tkachuk thing to be over with. If it involves trading a large part of our farm, Kyrou, Tarasenko, and picks for Tkachuk I'd rather they just didn't do it.

just think what it'd be like if he DOESN'T end up in STL lol

this board will explode hahaha

then again, the upside to all this is the Chychrun nonsense isn't getting talked about anymore.. which is nice

 

[PocketNines]

It's a good thing that the arbitration is three weeks away. A lot of this situation is just the internal momentum of fans wanting to See A Major Thing Happen. These are dangerous moments because that's when long term crippling mistakes can be made. Look up this thread and you can see the pure "Just Something Happen Already" energy being hard to hold continuously in the body for this long. Multiple people are commenting on the value of what should be traded with an internal reference to their own patience. It's a very, very bad energy for designing thoughtfully, and anything that harms the energy like a delay is good.

 

[Davimir Tarablad]

January, I believe.

It'd certainly be a risky proposition, but if a team could get a verbal agreement to an extension with Tkachuk, Calgary retaining 50% on that one year deal would be a pretty decent amount of value. Definitely a complicated and unlikely outcome though.

 

[Majorityof1]

When would Tkachuk be eligible to sign an extension if he ends up on the one year arbitration deal?

January, I believe.

Indeed, it is January 1st when you can sign a player who just signed a one year contract to an extension.

 

[Xerloris]

I'm more concerned about the cost of an extension than the cost to trade for MT. I don't think Armstrong will trade Kyrou or Neighbors or Krug for that matter. I accept that Tarasenko will probably go to make this work and while I love Vladdy I'm ok with this.

 

[PJJJP]

I have noticed a pattern. We acquired Schenn in the summer of 2017 and then ROR in the summer of 18. Then we didn't do anything for 2019 and 2020 summers. Then in 2021 we acquired Buch. Therefore from this logic it means than we will acquire another big name this summer. Then for the next two years there will be no big trades. And the cycle will continue

 

[illinidave]

If Army doesn't get this MK deal done soon, then hope the Cards get Juan Soto or this city will go batty...

 

[ValHaller]

Can someone make a cogent argument as to why the Blues would be benefitted more from acquiring MT this offseason versus for free next offseason?

 

[Joelhead]

Can someone make a cogent argument as to why the Blues would be benefitted more from acquiring MT this offseason versus for free next offseason?

**Crickets**

 

[Majorityof1]

Can someone make a cogent argument as to why the Blues would be benefitted more from acquiring MT this offseason versus for free next offseason?

Primarily because we run the risk of not getting him by waiting. He could be traded somewhere else, and be willing to sign there.

Secondly, we would get this year out of him. We do not know if O'Rei will re-sign. So it may be the only chance to have O'Rei + Tkachuk. Assuming Tkachuk is better than what we lose to acquire him, its just another year of adding him to the team. If we get worse by adding Tkachuk (trade Kyrou for him and trade Tarasenko for salary) then it makes far less sense. But if we only have to move Tarasenko and futures, then we are a better team this year as well as the next 7 or however many we re-sign Tkachuk.

 

[ValHaller]

Primarily because we run the risk of not getting him by waiting. He could be traded somewhere else, and be willing to sign there.

Secondly, we would get this year out of him. We do not know if O'Rei will re-sign. So it may be the only chance to have O'Rei + Tkachuk. Assuming Tkachuk is better than what we lose to acquire him, its just another year of adding him to the team. If we get worse by adding Tkachuk (trade Kyrou for him and trade Tarasenko for salary) then it makes far less sense. But if we only have to move Tarasenko and futures, then we are a better team this year as well as the next 7 or however many we re-sign Tkachuk.

There are a lot of ifs there and my understanding was that the general feeling around last season's team was that they were a top LD and a healthy goaltender away from competing. I just don't see the point in trying to acquire a forward who put up career points with a 105.4 PDO and OISH% 14.0 playing with Johnny in a career/contract year.

You wait til next offseason and MT's next contract value goes down. I'd bet the farm on that. No way he puts up those numbers again.

 

[Brian39]

It'd certainly be a risky proposition, but if a team could get a verbal agreement to an extension with Tkachuk, Calgary retaining 50% on that one year deal would be a pretty decent amount of value. Definitely a complicated and unlikely outcome though.

This is one of the things that hurts Calgary's ability to get the type of value you would want to get for a player of his caliber. Any team giving up the assets associated with an extension are going to want more than a verbal agreement, which means that the arbitration hearing sets a pretty hard deadline.

He can sign an 8 year extension today and any day leading up to an arbitration award. Calgary is obviously actively shopping him and should be giving any suitor who presents a half-decent offer permission to talk to Tkachuk about an extension. If he gets to arbitration without agreeing to terms with any of these suitors, there is zero reason to believe that he would then make a verbal agreement (that he would definitely honor) for a 1/1/23 extension.

It is kind of like the ROR situation for Buffalo where the entire league knows that Calgary pretty much has to take the best offer on the table by a specific date. But instead of teams all making offers on a fairly team-friendly medium-to-long term deal with no trade protection, the player has the ability to set his asking price and even tell potential suitors that he isn't interested in a long term deal.

Matthew Tkachuk is in near full control. If he wants to test UFA, he is going to play 1 year on a contract worth around $10M and then hit UFA. If he has 1 destination in mind then he can give that team a reasonable price and tell all 31 other teams that he isn't interested in going long term with them. If he wants to get the most total dollars this summer and doesn't care about the location, then he now has a few weeks to see what kind of offers come in and negotiate to see who becomes the highest bidder.

This might be the best work Newport Sports has done and they are a fantastic agency. This is the culmination of a multi-year process to help a top young talent maximize his earnings and options in his mid-20s. I feel terrible for Calgary fans, especially since this is coming right on the heels of Gaudreau leaving in UFA.

 

[Majorityof1]

There are a lot of ifs there and my understanding was that the general feeling around last season's team was that they were a top LD and a healthy goaltender away from competing. I just don't see the point in trying to acquire a forward who put up career points with a 105.4 PDO and OISH% 14.0 playing with Johnny in a career/contract year.

You wait til next offseason and MT's next contract value goes down. I'd bet the farm on that. No way he puts up those numbers again.

There are a lot of "ifs" on whether we trade for Tkachuk this season or not. If the price in trade isn't right, we don't trade. If the extension isn't right, we don't trade. If we don't trade for Tkcachuk, what top LD is available?

Another big if, We can go without Tkachuk IF we have a healthy goalie who stands on his head. I disagree we were a healthy goalie away. We were a healthy goalie standing on his head away. There is no guarantee Binnington would have continued to play at that level had he not been hurt, and FAR, FAR less guarantee he will do so if we face Colorado again. Its quite possible we will have to rely on Griess as we did Husso if Binnington reverts bak to regular season form.

You do the best you can to get better with what's available. If there are no game breaking LD and you can upgrade Tarasenko for Tkachuk, you do it. You are a better team. Team defense and offense gets better. There is no PDO or on ice shooting percentage or linemate argument that you can make that Tkachuk is a worse player than Tarasenko (and I love Tarasenko).

As for career year, we jusy gave Thomas an $8M+ contract based on a career year. Young players get better. Tkachuk scored point per game pace his last full season as well. He dipped a bit in the covid shortened years but so did many. Even if he regresses to merely ppg, with his defense and edge he is worth a $9m deal going forward as the cap will eventually rise. Its a gamble you have to take if you can to acquire a potential superstar. If he wants much more than that salary or Calgary wants Kyrou, you walk away. But ruling out trading for him because he might want more or cost too much in trade is a lot of "ifs" as well.

 

[ValHaller]

[...]

I didn't say they were a LD OR a goaltender away, I said they needed both. If you have to ship out assets for a player you could conceivably get for free next offseason, that's just poor asset management, especially when it's all but guaranteed the asking price will be lower if you simply wait. I don't consider Tkachuk a superstar, nor do I think he'll become one. He's an elite winger for sure, but he's no Kucherov and never will be able to have that kind of effect on the game or impose his will like that.

Comparing Tkachuk to Tarasenko and saying Tkachuk is better is a non sequitur and a strawman. Who would argue against that at this point in their respective careers? If all it took was Tarasenko to acquire him then sure I'd be all for it, but we know that's not what the Flames want.

I think this whole thing is Shiny New Toy syndrome. Tkachuk doesn't address a team need.

Chychrun IS available. I would much rather see the Blues find some way to acquire him and spend assets than spill their spaghetti trying to acquire Tkachuk on a worst case scenario inflated contract this season. If he goes somewhere else and screws up their cap situation, then it's just a bullet dodged.

 

[PocketNines]

If Army doesn't get this MK deal done soon, then hope the Cards get Juan Soto or this city will go batty...

This is exactly my point. It has become more important to get it done than exactly what gets done. Hopefully it lingers as long as possible. Right now there is an insane number of fans willing to lose Perron, Tarasenko and Kyrou off the RW in a single offseason just to get this guy. The intensity of the situation has discombobulated the thinking of far too many.

 

[STL fan in MN]

Primarily because we run the risk of not getting him by waiting. He could be traded somewhere else, and be willing to sign there.

Secondly, we would get this year out of him. We do not know if O'Rei will re-sign. So it may be the only chance to have O'Rei + Tkachuk. Assuming Tkachuk is better than what we lose to acquire him, its just another year of adding him to the team. If we get worse by adding Tkachuk (trade Kyrou for him and trade Tarasenko for salary) then it makes far less sense. But if we only have to move Tarasenko and futures, then we are a better team this year as well as the next 7 or however many we re-sign Tkachuk.

That sums it up pretty well but it assumes that if we don’t trade for him now that he’ll sign a long term extension with someone else.

Even JR’s piece this morning was entirely based on that assumption:

you may be wondering, “Why would the Blues give up anything if they can get Tkachuk next summer when he becomes a UFA?” The answer is easy: because he’s expected to sign a long-term extension with another team before the Aug. 11 arbitration hearing and likely won’t be hitting the market next offseason. So if you want Tkachuk, you’d better get him now.

Put me in the camp that would only make a move on MT if the pieces fell in place to where it actually helps the team now. Otherwise, I’d pass and then see if MT is a UFA a year from now.

My guess is Army has a much more accurate picture on the “ifs” involved than us so I’ll trust him to make the right call.

 

[Majorityof1]

I didn't say they were a LD OR a goaltender away, I said they needed both. If you have to ship out assets for a player you could conceivably get for free next offseason, that's just poor asset management, especially when it's all but guaranteed the asking price will be lower if you simply wait. I don't consider Tkachuk a superstar, nor do I think he'll become one. He's an elite winger for sure, but he's no Kucherov and never will be able to have that kind of effect on the game or impose his will like that.

Comparing Tkachuk to Tarasenko and saying Tkachuk is better is a non sequitur and a strawman. Who would argue against that at this point in their respective careers? If all it took was Tarasenko to acquire him then sure I'd be all for it, but we know that's not what the Flames want.

I think this whole thing is Shiny New Toy syndrome. Tkachuk doesn't address a team need.

Chychrun IS available. I would much rather see the Blues find some way to acquire him and spend assets than spill their spaghetti trying to acquire Tkachuk on a worst case scenario inflated contract this season. If he goes somewhere else and screws up their cap situation, then it's just a bullet dodged.

You say it yourself. We could Concievably get him next year. You could always concievably gey a player cheaper if you wait. If you want him, you pay a price for the certainty of it.

Tkachuk does address a team need as better defensive play from our forwards is a team need. Comparing him for Tarasenko is absolutely relevant because while we would pay futures, the only difference in our team would be having Tkachuk instead of Tarasenko and Scandella. So our team gets better because Tkachuk is more better than Tarasenko than Scandella is better than whatever $1M replacement D we could sign. If that amount of more better is worth less than what Calgary wants for the trade, you don't make the trade. Ruling it outright is dumb though, just because we could possibly maybe hopefully sign Tkachuk next year.

Why pay for Chychrun, when it is concievable he will be cheaper next year?He'll have a 10 team no trade list next year, so there will be less competition. Less term as well. So his trade price CONCIEVABLY would go down. You could save assets by waiting a year. That is better asset management.

Also how do we fit Cychrun in our cap structure. Moving Scandella aint it. We need more cap than that. Which means we have to downgrade our forwards. Suddenly a top 9 forward does become a need.

 

[ValHaller]

You say it yourself. We could Concievably get him next year. You could always concievably gey a player cheaper if you wait. If you want him, you pay a price for the certainty of it.

Tkachuk does address a team need as better defensive play from our forwards is a team need. Comparing him for Tarasenko is absolutely relevant because while we would pay futures, the only difference in our team would be having Tkachuk instead of Tarasenko and Scandella. So our team gets better because Tkachuk is more better than Tarasenko than Scandella is better than whatever $1M replacement D we could sign. If that amount of more better is worth less than what Calgary wants for the trade, you don't make the trade. Ruling it outright is dumb though, just because we could possibly maybe hopefully sign Tkachuk next year.

Why pay for Chychrun, when it is concievable he will be cheaper next year?He'll have a 10 team no trade list next year, so there will be less competition. Less term as well. So his trade price CONCIEVABLY would go down. You could save assets by waiting a year. That is better asset management.

Also how do we fit Cychrun in our cap structure. Moving Scandella aint it. We need more cap than that. Which means we have to downgrade our forwards. Suddenly a top 9 forward does become a need.

I still think you're talking yourself into it. We know the team needs a defenseman and that's not being debated by pretty much anyone. So circling back to your first paragraph you say if we want him, we pay the price. I don't want him. Not because I don't think he could help the team, but because of the larger implications of what his presence does for the future and the cap situation. If you ask me to choose between MT at 10M/year and Kyrou at 7.75M/year I am going to choose Kyrou.

The next thing you said, which I can summarize as "MT >> VT, but Chychrun > Scandella" is just not a great argument, not least because I think the step up from Chychrun to Scandella is quite the chasm. Defense is the known need and the relative impact of improving at the position should pay exponential dividends over improving at forward.

We pay for Chychrun now because it's 3 seasons at 4.6m/year which is a pittance for what he can do, and it leaves us far more room to sign whatever top 9 forward than a 10 million dollar Tkachuk would. How are you going to advocate gunning for Tkachuk and have the stones to say Chychrun is somehow harder to fit than him?

 

[Brian39]

Can someone make a cogent argument as to why the Blues would be benefitted more from acquiring MT this offseason versus for free next offseason?

To preface, I'm not in favor of paying a ton for him in a trade this summer. With that said, there are a variety of advantages to getting him this summer.

1: We are currently in a Cup window. The West got worse this summer. The Avs are still the class of the Conference, but they got worse. Even if you believe that they can find a way to keep Kadri and/or acquire rental(s) to replace the offense that left, there is a much larger question mark in net than they had last year. Kuemper was (at worst) adequate for them and he was damn good for long stretches. He had a .921 over 193 starts in the 4 years before getting to Colorado and his worst season SV% saw him still post a .907. He has been replaced with a guy with a career .908, but who has seen his SV% drop by half a percentage point in every year of his career so far. Posting a .918 to .914 to .910 to .905 to .898 as a backup is a pretty troubling trend and he's never started more than 32 games in a season. He's their guy now and that is objectively a step back until he proves otherwise. Colorado is banking that they can win with simply adequate goaltending and they put their chips on a guy who hasn't yet proven that he can be adequate in even a tandem role. They got better than adequate goaltending most the year last season and Georgiev is a much riskier bet to be adequate in a playoff run. Minnesota got noticeably worse. Calgary got noticeably worse. I like Edmonton's summer, but I'm not a big Campbell believer and they don't look to scary to me. I think Vegas is a playoff team again this year, but they don't appear to be a super team. This was a wide open Conference last year and the door opened wider. This is a great year to go for it and trying to make the team better is absolutely a good goal. Depending on what you give up, Tkachuk can absolutely make this team better in 2022/23 and help us try to win a Cup in a year that we should be trying to win the Cup.

2: Tkachuk is pretty damn good defensively. LD was the clearest positional weakness of the team last year, but team defense was an issue well beyond just the left D men. Adding a scoring forward who can also defend and drive possession away from our zone at an elite level absolutely addresses a direct team need. We have a top 5 scoring forward group, but they aren't at all above average defensively. And while I wouldn't call Leddy a top LD, we can't ignore that we saw very little of Leddy and Krug in the lineup together last season. They were both in the lineup for 8 regular season games and 1 playoff game last year. It is reasonable to expect a season of Leddy and Krug on the roster to be stronger than the left side we actually iced during the playoffs last year. I still wouldn't call it a position of strength, but it is reasonable to expect it to be better than what we actually got last year.

3: Getting him now eliminates all the risk that he gets a better offer from someone else over the next 11+ months. How much risk there is of that is an unknown variable. But it is absurd to pretend that it isn't a variable. Banking that we can get him next summer absolutely might be a gamble worth taking depending on the acquisition cost now. But it is absolutely a gamble.

4: There is absolutely no guarantee that his value goes down without Johnny. Lindholm is still a pretty damn good center and Calgary still has a ton of cap space to potentially add another guy (like a Kadri) to the team to replace some of Gaudreau's lost production. Tkachuk will likely get some more ice time to try and offset some of that as well. He also might get dealt as a rental to a stacked contender and build his resume. Let's say Calgary doesn't get the package they like this summer, accept the arbitration award and trade him with 50% retained at the deadline for the best package they can get then. A Tkachuk-MacKinnon-Rantanen line could see him fall ass-backwards into a 25+ point playoff run. Even if he spends the entire season in Calgary, I'd guess that a 90 point Gaudreau-less season would at least keep his value flat and might even increase it depending on his line mates. An 80-85 point season probably doesn't decrease his value by any tangible amount if he is still putting up exceptional underlying numbers (which he has consistently done regardless of his line mates).

I'm in the camp that isn't interested in giving up a king's ransom for him now. I'm also in the camp that is only interested in signing him if he takes a pretty substantial discount. And while I really like him as a player, I'm comfortable with a future where the cost is just too great and we let another team snag him. My strategy would be to make a sub-ROR-trade value offer to Calgary that is contingent on us being able to work out an extension pre-trade.

My offer would be something along the lines of Tarasenko, Scandella, a top 10 protected 1st in 2023, and their choice of any prospect besides Neighbours/Bolduc/Hofer/Snug (Perunovich is no longer a prospect). If Tarasenko won't waive to Calgary, then the package would involve trading Tarasenko to a 3rd team and flipping those proceeds to Calgary. Calgary might have to be a middle man and retain salary on Tarasenko to facilitate that trade. But they are trying to move a $10M player more than a week after the open of free agency when teams started spending their free cap space. And they have a pretty hard deadline to get a trade value reflective of an extension unless they want to gamble on keeping him until at least 1/1/23. They have frittered away a ton of their leverage. If they want multiple high value assets, they need to eat some money. A year of Tarasenko should return a 1st rounder and maybe more if he only comes with a $3.725M cap hit. Assuming Perunovich/Mikkola/Bortz round out the 5-7 D spots in this scenario and Neighbours makes the 23 man roster, that leaves us with up to $9.8M for a Tkachuk contract. I don't really want him for more than that, so that's a great line in the sand.

Does that meet Calgary's asking price? Nope. But I don't think they are going to get any offers that meet their asking price. If they retain 50% on Tarasenko, they should be able to come away with two 1st round picks in a draft that scouts are drooling over along with a low/mid value prospect or two. More power to them if they can find a better package. I still have concerns/doubts about what adding Tkachuk does to the rest of the roster beyond 2023, so I'm not going much beyond that package if that's what it takes. Maybe I'd add a 2024 or 2025 mid-late pick to help facilitate a 3-team trade, but that's about it.

If I can land Tkachuk at sub-$10M by giving up Tarasenko, Scandella, a 1st and a non-essential prospect then I think long and hard about pulling the trigger now instead of hoping to land him at that price (or lower) next summer. That trade removes a problem contract, extracts value out of Tarasenko, and doesn't gut the prospect cupboard. We get better right now, we lock up the prime of a stud LW and we have an extra year to set up the 2023/24 cap situation. If it is Kyrou, then we can trade his 2 remaining years of RFA rights for a damn good return next summer. Maybe you can get creative and find a way to move on from Krug/Schenn/Saad and make one/two of them the cap casualty needed to make it work. Maybe it is moving on from ROR because he doesn't bounce back to his old, expected self this season. Regardless, that decision would need to be made if you signed Tkachuk as a UFA. Getting him now gives you a draft and a few weeks of offseason to work on it with the certainty that you already have Tkachuk. That is objectively better than waiting until after 7/1/23 or making those moves without certainty of landing Tkachuk.

Again, I'm not offering the moon for Tkachuk right now. But it is insane to act like there aren't multiple advantages to getting him now instead of waiting until the open of UFA next summer. Change the line combos how you like, but I'm more comfortable taking a run for the Cup in 2023 with this roster than the current roster:

Tkachuk-Thomas-Buch
Saad-ROR-Kyrou
Barby-Schenn-Neighbours
Brown-Aciari-Torpo
Walker, Leivo

Leddy-Parayko
Krug-Faulk
Mikkola-Bortz
Perunovich

Binner
Greiss

 

[Majorityof1]

I still think you're talking yourself into it. We know the team needs a defenseman and that's not being debated by pretty much anyone. So circling back to your first paragraph you say if we want him, we pay the price. I don't want him. Not because I don't think he could help the team, but because of the larger implications of what his presence does for the future and the cap situation. If you ask me to choose between MT at 10M/year and Kyrou at 7.75M/year I am going to choose Kyrou.

The bolded is what it all boils down to. Its not that you don't want to trade for him this year. You don't want him. So you are quibbling about when we acquire him.

Are you so sure Chychrun is available? Why did we sign Leddy for $4M if we could have easily got Chychrun for $4.6? Its likely B. Armstrong's asking price is astronomical so we went with option B.

 

[ValHaller]

The bolded is what it all boils down to. Its not that you don't want to trade for him this year. You don't want him. So you are quibbling about when we acquire him.

Are you so sure Chychrun is available? Why did we sign Leddy for $4M if we could have easily got Chychrun for $4.6? Its likely B. Armstrong's asking price is astronomical so we went with option B.

No I've actually made my position very clear if you bother to read anything I wrote, which is that I don't want to drop the assets to acquire him this offseason based on the multiple reasonable factors I laid out, and others have laid out as well. It makes far more sense to wait it out. If you'd prefer to succumb to FOMO and overpay first in assets, and second in contract AAV, that's your prerogative.

Chychrun has been candid in the media saying he wants to be on a playoff team. It's pretty well known there's smoke there. Everything else you said there is speculation.

 

[Xerloris]

No I've actually made my position very clear if you bother to read anything I wrote, which is that I don't want to drop the assets to acquire him this offseason based on the multiple reasonable factors I laid out, and others have laid out as well. It makes far more sense to wait it out. If you'd prefer to succumb to FOMO and overpay first in assets, and second in contract AAV, that's your prerogative.

Chychrun has been candid in the media saying he wants to be on a playoff team. It's pretty well known there's smoke there. Everything else you said there is speculation.

Waiting to get him till next year because he would be cheaper is so stupid it's hard to comprehend. Do you have any idea how much shit can happen in a year?

 

[ValHaller]

Waiting to get him till next year because he would be cheaper is so stupid it's hard to comprehend. Do you have any idea how much shit can happen in a year?

Sure do. A player can lose his 115 point linemate who had a career contract year and unbelievable luck clearly outlined in his analytics. Amazing what looking at the numbers can do to help you make arguments instead of flinging insults because you're butthurt.

 

[Majorityof1]

No I've actually made my position very clear if you bother to read anything I wrote, which is that I don't want to drop the assets to acquire him this offseason based on the multiple reasonable factors I laid out, and others have laid out as well. It makes far more sense to wait it out. If you'd prefer to succumb to FOMO and overpay first in assets, and second in contract AAV, that's your prerogative.

Chychrun has been candid in the media saying he wants to be on a playoff team. It's pretty well known there's smoke there. Everything else you said there is speculation.

Chychrun doesn't have a f***ing say in where he goes. So what the f*** does that matter? Obviously if Chyrchun is available for a reasonable price and his medicals are not worrisome, that changes the calculation.

And yes, your position is quite clear. You say a whole bunch of other bullshit, but it comes down you what you wrote. "I don't want him". Fine. You think his cap hit will be troublesome. That won't change much in a year. We actually agree more than you think. I only want him on a reasonable, discounted contract AND for a reasonable trade price. If we have to sacrifice Kyrou, or Bolduc (I don't mind Neighbours or Scandella as I think they aren't that good) than no way. I basically want to move Taraseno and use those assets plus a small sweetener for the certainty that he doesn't sign elsewhere.

 

[Xerloris]

Sure do. A player can lose his 115 point linemate who had a career contract year and unbelievable luck clearly outlined in his analytics. Amazing what looking at the numbers can do to help you make arguments instead of flinging insults because you're butthurt.

So your entire argument is that he won't have as good of a season so we can sign him for cheaper? So we should always wait an extra year to trade for someone just in case they suck next year so we can pay them less? Just as stupid as I thought it was going to be.