LeBrun: Guentzel: Pens want prospects over picks - Carolina favorite

[WetcoastOrca]

It's a lot closer than what you're suggesting.

Hoglander, a B prospect and a 2025 1st for Guentzel is closer to fair value than a B prospect and a 2025 1st is. By a considerable margin. That is too much from the Canucks, it's about 2 1sts and a B prospect for Guentzel, but that's a hell of a lot closer than a late 1st next year and a B prospect.

Fair value for Guentzel is probably a late 1st and 2 2nds in value. 2 1sts and a 2nd is less of an overpayment than a 1st and a 2nd is an underpayment, by a significant margin.



If your team has like 7 A prospects, why would you not be willing to trade one of them for win-now help?

I don’t think it’s close at all. That’s what I mean by unreasonable expectations. We will see.

 

[Nikishin Go Boom]

If your team has like 7 A prospects, why would you not be willing to trade one of them for win-now help?

Because we believe in keeping the farm stocked because it’s better to draft top scorers than try to trade and/or overpay for aging ones

Also we don’t like rentals because of the system and it’s long familiarity timeline

 

[Ryder71]

As a Canucks fan I'd rather go for Toffoli who has proven chemistry.. and will probably be cheaper.

A lot cheaper, but will it put you over the top? Probably not.

 

[dellzor]

Have a feeling the Canucks offer (based that they don't want to part with a 1st, Lekkerimaki or Willander) and based off of reports the Pens are looking for ready now prospects

2025 2nd
Podkolzin
Raty
Mikheyev (Dubas)

But I'd assume the Pens want at least Lekkerimaki or Hoglander to be included into the deal

 

[Empoleon8771]

Others discussing Nadeau and a first or Bunting, Blake and a 1st. Not the Canes way, thankfully

Not speaking specifically of Guentzel, but I don't understand why you'd rather hoard prospects and never spend them on win-now help over spending them on win-now help. Like the goal is to win a Stanley Cup, not have the top rated prospect pool in hockey.

I'm not saying you should do Nadeau and a 1st for Guentzel, I'm just saying that the "Canes way" is likely not going to result in winning anything if they don't get more aggressive at actually adding win-now help.

I don’t think it’s close at all. That’s what I mean by unreasonable expectations. We will see.

Which means you're likely super overvaluing Hoglander.

A 1st and 2 2nds for Guentzel is entirely reasonable. Just because Canucks fans don't want to pay that doesn't make it unreasonable.

 

[Ryder71]

Others discussing Nadeau and a first or Bunting, Blake and a 1st. Not the Canes way, thankfully

Well, you guys are in the mix a lot. And have all these highly touted prospects. Not trying to be rude, but when are you guys gonna take that decisive step forward?

 

[Empoleon8771]

Because we believe in keeping the farm stocked because it’s better to draft top scorers than try to trade and/or overpay for aging ones

Also we don’t like rentals because of the system and it’s long familiarity timeline

And what kind of success has that yielded for your team?

If I were a fan of the Canes, I would be extremely unhappy with them focusing on keeping the farm stocked over having the best team possible, considering where their team is at in its contending window.

 

[Nikishin Go Boom]

Not speaking specifically of Guentzel, but I don't understand why you'd rather hoard prospects and never spend them on win-now help over spending them on win-now help. Like the goal is to win a Stanley Cup, not have the top rated prospect pool in hockey.

I'm not saying you should do Nadeau and a 1st for Guentzel, I'm just saying that the "Canes way" is likely not going to result in winning anything if they don't get more aggressive at actually adding win-now help.



Which means you're likely super overvaluing Hoglander.

you are making assumptions that somehow spending on rentals is related to playoff success or even helps. There isn’t a big correlation.

 

[Empoleon8771]

you are making assumptions that somehow spending on rentals is related to playoff success or even helps. There isn’t a big correlation.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to conclude that adding good win-now players helps your team's chances at winning games.

 

[Nikishin Go Boom]

And what kind of success has that yielded for your team?

If I were a fan of the Canes, I would be extremely unhappy with them focusing on keeping the farm stocked over having the best team possible, considering where their team is at in its contending window.

You mean 2 ECF appearances and playoff round wins in every year? Success. Not the ultimate prize but still success

 

[Ryder71]

These conservative mentalities are the reasons why these teams don't get to the promise land all that much. Teams like PIT, TB and Vegas who swing for the fences do.

 

[Empoleon8771]

You mean 2 ECF appearances and playoff round wins in every year? Success. Not the ultimate prize but still success

That's worth nothing. Go ask Rangers fans how happy they were with the Rangers being that with Lundqvist for years.

Again, I'm not trying to convince you to agree to any Guentzel deal. I'm just saying that the "Canes way" would be something that would drive me mad if I was a Canes fan. Watching my team consistently not win a cup because they constantly get out-bid on top end talent and won't spend on rental help would make me extremely mad as a fan. That's just IMO, though.

 

[Nikishin Go Boom]

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to conclude that adding good win-now players helps your team's chances at winning games.

It really “helped” Florida last playoffs. It really didn’t help Toronto, Boston, etc last postseason. That is just 1 playoffs too.

Since the cap was instituted the percentage of top 4 OA teams winning the cup percentages have gone down. Its more about getting hot and having a crazy goalie run

 

[Clint Eastwood]

I'm guessing Vegas gets Buchnevich and Guentzel goes to Carolina. Or Guentzel goes to Carolina and Vegas somehow gets a forward that I didn't know was available.

 

[The Grim Reaper]

I'm guessing Vegas gets Buchnevich and Guentzel goes to Carolina. Or Guentzel goes to Carolina and Vegas somehow gets a forward that I didn't know was available.

That forwards name? Jansen Harkins.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

Not speaking specifically of Guentzel, but I don't understand why you'd rather hoard prospects and never spend them on win-now help over spending them on win-now help. Like the goal is to win a Stanley Cup, not have the top rated prospect pool in hockey.

I'm not saying you should do Nadeau and a 1st for Guentzel, I'm just saying that the "Canes way" is likely not going to result in winning anything if they don't get more aggressive at actually adding win-now help.



Which means you're likely super overvaluing Hoglander.

A 1st and 2 2nds for Guentzel is entirely reasonable. Just because Canucks fans don't want to pay that doesn't make it unreasonable.

Not really. I think you’re over valuing Guentzel. Don’t forget Horvat is a center and had insane goal production when he was traded.
I think a first and a B prospect is fair.

 

[Nikishin Go Boom]

That's worth nothing. Go ask Rangers fans how happy they were with the Rangers being that with Lundqvist for years.

Again, I'm not trying to convince you to agree to any Guentzel deal. I'm just saying that the "Canes way" would be something that would drive me mad if I was a Canes fan. Watching my team consistently not win a cup because they constantly get out-bid on top end talent and won't spend on rental help would make me extremely mad as a fan. That's just IMO, though.

It drives plenty of them mad but not me. We have tried to spend big, very big to get a top line player to change us. Thats where A prospects and 1sts need to go. Guys who will be with us for a long time and be at or near peak the entire deal.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Not really. I think you’re over valuing Guentzel. Don’t forget Horvat is a center and had insane goal production when he was traded.
I think a first and a B prospect is fair.

And you're wrong. A 1st and a B prospect is what gets you Andrew Copp as a rental, not Jake Guentzel.

What you're offering is more in line with Tyler Bertuzzi (traded for a 1st and 4th last year) than Guentzel.

I also find it hilarious how a "1st and a B prospect" is fair for Guentzel, when Vancouver literally paid more than that for Lindholm barely over a month ago. A 1st and a B prospect was literally not even enough for Lindholm a month ago, a trade your team made.

 

[Ryder71]

You mean 2 ECF appearances and playoff round wins in every year? Success. Not the ultimate prize but still success

2ECF appearances? Sure, if from there you progress up the ladder in the next year or two. If that's where you stay I mean...

I'd prefer to suck as we do now and garner picks and prospects. Staying middle or above middle without winning I mean to me that's just glorified failure. I'd rather win or be last.

 

[The Grim Reaper]

It really “helped” Florida last playoffs. It really didn’t help Toronto, Boston, etc last postseason. That is just 1 playoffs too.

Since the cap was instituted the percentage of top 4 OA teams winning the cup percentages have gone down. Its more about getting hot and having a crazy goalie run

I agree with being hot, but disagree with having a crazy goalie run. Since the lockout, few teams have won the cup because their goalie stood on their head. It's more about consistently good goaltending, Osgood, Quick, Crawford, Murray, etc. Having said that, a crazy goalie run can help.

 

[Nikishin Go Boom]

I agree with being hot, but disagree with having a crazy goalie run. Since the lockout, few teams have won the cup because their goalie stood on their head. It's more about consistently good goaltending, Osgood, Quick, Crawford, Murray, etc. Having said that, a crazy goalie run can help.

You mean like Bob who was awful in the regular season? Or hill who was their fifth goalie and potentially waiver fodder in the middle of the season?

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

And you're wrong. A 1st and a B prospect is what gets you Andrew Copp as a rental, not Jake Guentzel.

What you're offering is more in line with Tyler Bertuzzi (traded for a 1st and 4th last year) than Guentzel.

I also find it hilarious how a "1st and a B prospect" is fair for Guentzel, when Vancouver literally paid more than that for Lindholm barely over a month ago. A 1st and a B prospect was literally not even enough for Lindholm a month ago, a trade your team made.

You must be confused. Hunter B is a B prospect (no pun intended) and we included Kuzmenko as a cap dump with another year left on his contract. So Lindholm was actually less than a 1st + B prospect when you factor in Kuzmenko’s negative value.

 

[Empoleon8771]

It drives plenty of them mad but not me. We have tried to spend big, very big to get a top line player to change us. Thats where A prospects and 1sts need to go. Guys who will be with us for a long time and be at or near peak the entire deal.

Yeah and I think that's totally valid. I would just be really mad about them not being more aggressive about winning when they have a great core that's hard to come by and won't be there forever. I think there's a better balance there between the old "screw it yolo" that the Canes used to have with JR and "I'm not willing to trade a 1st for a rental" that the Canes have now.

I understand not wanting to pay a 1st and an A prospect for a rental Guentzel, but if I was a Canes fan and learned the team turned down Bunting, their like 7th best prospect and a 1st for a rental Guentzel, I'd be irate with that.

You must be confused. Hunter B is a B prospect (no pun intended) and we included Kuzmenko as a cap dump with another year left on his contract. So Lindholm was actually less than a 1st + B prospect when you factor in Kuzmenko’s negative value.

Canucks fans were insistent that Kuzmenko didn't have negative value at the time of the trade. So no, I don't buy that.

The Canucks paid a 1st, B prospect, another 3rd round prospect and a conditional 3rd round pick for Lindholm.

 

[Nikishin Go Boom]

2ECF appearances? Sure, if from there you progress up the ladder in the next year or two. If that's where you stay I mean...

I'd prefer to suck as we do now and garner picks and prospects. Staying middle or above middle without winning I mean to me that's just glorified failure. I'd rather win or be last.

Yea the canes were bogged with near misses of the playoffs and so we didn’t get the top picks. Sucking and getting picks then a big run or two is cool if you happen to get all-star level talent when you pick. That isn’t always the case and sometimes teams suck a drafting. So now you sucked and moved up just to mediocre.

 

[The Grim Reaper]

You mean like Bob who was awful in the regular season? Or hill who was their fifth goalie and potentially waiver fodder in the middle of the season?

I missed Bob winning the cup. Florida likely has a much better shot winning the cup without $10M tied up in a career mediocre playoff goatlender. He had a great run, still not enough. Amazing goaltending rarely wins you the cup, good consistent goaltending at $5M more often than not does.