Speculation: Coyotes 2021 Offseason Roster Discussion Thread #1

[hbk]

What was said about Garland?

Agent presented options. Tone from Armstrong as status is an extension will get done.

 

[KG]

Agreed this was a particularly insightful piece from Morgan. Aside from the player tidbits, there’s good information on Doan from the WC.

I read Armstrong’s quote in Keller differently. To me it sounded like they hadn’t talked since the exit interview. Keller wanted some time away. Hopefully a new coach will hit the right buttons with him.

 

[rt]

BA continues to go on and on about fixing the D through FA. Makes me think he's not eyeing too many big trades. I assume if he was thinking about dealing the likes of Keller and/or Schmaltz, etc., he'd be thinking about shoring up the D. But since he hasn't mentioned anything beyond FA, I'm thinking most forwards are safe.

I think Kessel is likely gone. And they'll do everything they can to move OEL. I wouldn't be surprised if they kept Kuemper, exposed Hill, and just crossed their fingers. I don't think we're getting huge shake-ups outside of Kessel (probably) and OEL (if possible).

 

[Jagged Ice]

Don't want Domi. Beyond him being a dumbass, he just had shoulder surgery and is out til December.

Any team wanting Domi better have a good PK.

 

[WrinkledPossum]

Bye bye Bunting then. I wouldn’t touch that if i was AZ.

I wouldn't want us to do it either. I just think it would be tempting for an expansion team to do something like that. Going to have a lot of cap space, not a lot of assets. Low risk, high reward. If I was them I'd would be making a lot of bold 1 year deals to try and get some players in the door.

Teams won't allow another situation where the expansion team makes it to the cup final. I don't see many trades happening, they'll either have to get resourceful or be patient.

 

[hbk]

I wouldn't want us to do it either. I just think it would be tempting for an expansion team to do something like that. Going to have a lot of cap space, not a lot of assets. Low risk, high reward. If I was them I'd would be making a lot of bold 1 year deals to try and get some players in the door.

Teams won't allow another situation where the expansion team makes it to the cup final. I don't see many trades happening, they'll either have to get resourceful or be patient.

I think that type of deal on a player with less than 20 games of nhl play would piss off every GM in the league. Would be a nightmare with arbitrations going forward.

 

[RemoAZ]

BA continues to go on and on about fixing the D through FA. Makes me think he's not eyeing too many big trades. I assume if he was thinking about dealing the likes of Keller and/or Schmaltz, etc., he'd be thinking about shoring up the D. But since he hasn't mentioned anything beyond FA, I'm thinking most forwards are safe.

I think Kessel is likely gone. And they'll do everything they can to move OEL. I wouldn't be surprised if they kept Kuemper, exposed Hill, and just crossed their fingers. I don't think we're getting huge shake-ups outside of Kessel (probably) and OEL (if possible).

Ooooor, maybe he thinks it will be easier to fix the D through FA since he already has a couple #1's and he's going to use trades to fix the offense.

 

[Bonsai Tree]

I think that the stuff about free agency pick ups is just misdirection. I could see one or at most two FA pickups. I don’t see three or four.

 

[lanky]

I think that the stuff about free agency pick ups is just misdirection. I could see one or at most two FA pickups. I don’t see three or four.

We're gonna need to add more than 1 or 2 players if we want to have a whole hockey team.

 

[SpaceCoyote]

And Bunting can simply say no thanks to Seattle because he already has a contract in his back pocket.

He would be pretty foolish to not at least listen to offers, I don't see the justification for assuming blind loyalty to the coyotes. Not to mention, I wouldn't risk it for any of the forwards we will potentially lose otherwise.

 

[Sm00chy]

So 20+ teams are run by terrible asset managers?

I kid, but IMO there's nobody in the league desperate to take an undersized winger with exactly one season above 60 points in his career and a trend of a 50-point ceiling who is going to be paid over $7M/year average in real dollars for the next seven years, with an NTC/NMC kicking in in a couple of years to boot.

We can all sit around and go back and forth about his potential and how he might look in a couple of years under a new coach, but right now Clayton Keller is not a premium asset on anyone's balance sheet except ours.

Clayton Keller is only 22 years old...

 

[Jakey53]

Clayton Keller is only 22 years old...

This will be Keller's fifth year, a year where many players break out. We all know he is capable from watching him that first year, but since then he has gone backwards. This past year he was more involved, but he has to get much stronger and faster to get to the next level. The balls in his court. It would also help if we had someone to protect our smaller players.

 

[The Feckless Puck]

Clayton Keller is only 22 years old...

He's been in the league for five years. With each passing second, the "he's still a kid, he'll figure things out" argument becomes less valid.

 

[Sm00chy]

He's been in the league for five years. With each passing second, the "he's still a kid, he'll figure things out" argument becomes less valid.

His biggest need is to get stronger and that comes with age.

Also my response to your original post is more about you suggesting no one in the league would touch him. Keller is not a massive liability or a problem for this team. Does he need to improve in order to live up to his contract? Sure. But to suggest that no one in the league would touch this kid is just ridiculous.

I am sure almost everyone on this board (including myself) thought Garland would never amount to anything in the NHL when he was 22.

 

[The Feckless Puck]

Also my response to your original post is more about you suggesting no one in the league would touch him. Keller is not a massive liability or a problem for this team. Does he need to improve in order to live up to his contract? Sure. But to suggest that no one in the league would touch this kid is just ridiculous.

Well, that's absolutely fantastic because I didn't say or imply anything of the sort. What I said was that nobody is gonna be falling all over themselves to acquire Keller for a premium return, because as it stands now, he's a middling undersized winger with a titanic albatross of a contract. In other words, the ROI on a contract that occupies so much cap space and, in a couple of years, becomes virtually unmoveable, is not there at this point.

I am sure almost everyone on this board (including myself) thought Garland would never amount to anything in the NHL when he was 22.

Except Garland was in the minors and was told he'd have to basically change 80% of his game in order not to fizzle out. The context for Keller is a bit different. Nobody's telling him he's gotta change his game or he's out of the league. Nobody's keeping him in the minors and saying that he's running out of shots at the big time. Keller has been treated like a star his whole hockey life, and Chayka basically continued that treatment with that stupefyingly bad contract and his public fanboying.

I'm extremely interested to see what Keller does this upcoming season. For me, he'll have to play like Patrick Kane, rather than project to be like Patrick Kane, in order for me to rethink my opinion that we'd be way better off trading him in the next two years rather than keeping him.

 

[Sm00chy]

Well, that's absolutely fantastic because I didn't say or imply anything of the sort. What I said was that nobody is gonna be falling all over themselves to acquire Keller for a premium return, because as it stands now, he's a middling undersized winger with a titanic albatross of a contract. In other words, the ROI on a contract that occupies so much cap space and, in a couple of years, becomes virtually unmoveable, is not there at this point.



Except Garland was in the minors and was told he'd have to basically change 80% of his game in order not to fizzle out. The context for Keller is a bit different. Nobody's telling him he's gotta change his game or he's out of the league. Nobody's keeping him in the minors and saying that he's running out of shots at the big time. Keller has been treated like a star his whole hockey life, and Chayka basically continued that treatment with that stupefyingly bad contract and his public fanboying.

I'm extremely interested to see what Keller does this upcoming season. For me, he'll have to play like Patrick Kane, rather than project to be like Patrick Kane, in order for me to rethink my opinion that we'd be way better off trading him in the next two years rather than keeping him.

You said "So 20+ teams are terrible asset managers"...thats implying of sorts.... we can agree to disagree on other teams being interested in Keller. You seem to think he cant be moved and I am VERY far from that idea. I actually think he holds a lot of value...YES even with that contract.

You really believe Keller has to perform on pace with one the best American hockey players of all-time... a true superstar.... or else he is a bust? Sheesh.... we are further apart on our opinions than I thought.

Your opinion... but agree to disagree.

 

[The Feckless Puck]

You really believe Keller has to perform on pace with one the best American hockey players of all-time... a true superstar.... or else he is a bust? Sheesh.... we are further apart on our opinions than I thought.

Sigh.

I never said Keller is a bust.

I am approaching Keller in this discussion as a team asset and a cog in our financial machine, not as a person. I am limiting my assessment to his production value versus his cost-to-retain or cost-to-acquire.

50 points is a good season for any NHL player. Period. BUT - when it comes to asset management, you have to apply context. 50 points from Conor Garland is significant value, because you're currently paying him less than a million dollars per season. 50 points from Keller, whom you are paying seven million dollars per season, is far lesser value, and that value will diminish even further once the No-Trade Clause kicks in, followed by the No-Movement Clause a couple seasons later.

If you are the general manager - that is to say, the asset manager of an NHL franchise - do you try to acquire Conor Garland, or Clayton Keller, and which asset has the higher price tag if you make the attempt? The clear answer is Garland. His ROI - even with an upcoming extension - is significantly higher. His production-to-payout ratio is much better than Keller's, and (as of this writing) his contract is not restricted by any clauses, which makes future planning and roster moves simpler.

If a GM wants to acquire Keller, he must reconcile the fact that he will be paying a premium paycheck to a player whose production does not warrant it, and furthermore he will be at the mercy of the player's agent if the gamble does not pay off for the team in a couple of years because of the NTC/NMC. Therefore, because the risk factor is much higher for Keller than for Garland, that GM will likely not desire to consummate any trade deal by sending a premium return back to the Coyotes.

In order for the ROI to square in Keller's contract, his value as a player has to increase significantly. Now, some might say that his comparable is Evander Kane rather than Patrick, since the former's contract is $7M on a long term deal with a modified NTC, and if you look at the point totals between Evander Kane and Clayton Keller, they appear to be similar on the surface. However, Evander Kane plays a more well-rounded game, brings more size, and more positional flexibility to his production than Keller does. Keller's size and (at the moment) one-dimensional gameplay reduces his utility and limits his deployment in certain game situations. So yes, because Keller's contribution is so specialized, he will need to boost his point production past the Evander Kane level and closer to the Patrick Kane level for his contract ROI to improve sufficiently enough to reach "slight overpayment" or better status.

Obviously, context is key throughout this process. If Keller brings other intangibles to his game - leadership effects, for instance - then those also will help improve his contract's value. To this point, though, there has not been much evidence that he brings these elements to the table.

Therefore, my conclusion is that, if I am an NHL general manager and am in search of new assets for my team, Clayton Keller is far down on my acquisition list, because the way things stand, I don't want to be financially handcuffed long-term to an undersized, one-dimensional second-line winger. I can find much better value in other players, or I could recreate him in the aggregate for pennies on the dollar without sabotaging my team's longer-term roster composition and financial outlook.

I hope that this explanation sets fire to the strawman and explains my position sufficiently that we have no further misunderstandings.

 

[jdfitz12]

Yotes need to pluck 2-3 D off UFA unless a trade is made.
My targets : (reasonable contract)

Jamie Oleksiak
Erik Gudbranson

 

[The Feckless Puck]

Yotes need to pluck 2-3 D off UFA unless a trade is made.
My targets : (reasonable contract)

Jamie Oleksiak
Erik Gudbranson

If they're available, I'd like David Savard and Tucker Poolman. But who knows who'll be on the market at this point.

 

[Vinny Boombatz]

If they're available, I'd like David Savard and Tucker Poolman. But who knows who'll be on the market at this point.

Tucker Poolman YES, David Savard NO

 

[The Feckless Puck]

Tucker Poolman YES, David Savard NO

How about Ian Cole on a one-year deal?

 

[WrinkledPossum]

We don't really have trade assets to improve the team unless it's 2 forwards for 1 star. Trading a forward for a D creates another hole.

We have 3 open d spots. Sign one to a long term deal. Two 1 years. Have Soderstrom take one spot next season.

Most of the offensive problems can hopefully be fixed with a new coach and young players developing. Still need a 3C and 2/3 W. Bandaid fixes are fine, we have Hayton, Jenik, Macceli who should be ready soon.

 

[GhostofTommyBolin]

Clayton Keller is only 22 years old...

Every year it's "he's still young" and every year there's little to marginal improvement. He still seems disinterested when he doesn't have the puck.

He reminds me of Jeff Skinner, but 20 lbs. smaller. Their career trajectories are on an eerily similar arc. The first four full seasons(since Keller has only played 4 full ones so far):

Skinner: 294 games, 192 points
Keller: 290 games, 191 points

Both have contracts that pay them far too much, but Keller still has a chance to prove he's worth it. I don't see Skinner getting back to the form that got him his deal.

 

[Coyotedroppings]

His biggest need is to get stronger and that comes with age.

Also my response to your original post is more about you suggesting no one in the league would touch him. Keller is not a massive liability or a problem for this team. Does he need to improve in order to live up to his contract? Sure. But to suggest that no one in the league would touch this kid is just ridiculous.

I am sure almost everyone on this board (including myself) thought Garland would never amount to anything in the NHL when he was 22.

Keller showed more strength this season imo and I thought Garland would be effective.... mad skills, never understood why so many others were down on him.

 

[The Feckless Puck]

Keller showed more strength this season imo and I thought Garland would be effective.... mad skills, never understood why so many others were down on him.

The most common knock on him before his renaissance was that he was a puck hog and didn't play a team game. Speed, grit, scoring touch for days, but it was like the other four guys on the ice at the time were on a different planet when he was out there... which makes his turnaround that much more amazing, since now he's one of the best playmakers the Coyotes have.