Value of: Kucherov to NYI
- Thread starter JZCislesHockey
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
IODCPiper
Registered User
- Jan 26, 2016
- 548
- 87
SLAPSHOT723
QU! Bobcats!
Pure Slaughter Value
Registered User
As an Islanders fan, I agree. If Strome had two straight seasons of 50 points it wouldn't be a bad offer but he was awful last year
As underrated as de Haan is he's still not the centerpiece around a trade for a "budding superstar".
Kucherov gave me fits during the playoffs, I cringed every time he got the puck, much like how Bolts fans cringed every time Carl's got the puck
On edit: Just a ridiculous shot by Kucherov off the unfortunate bounce off Trouba's attempted clear.
Last edited:
LeapOnOver
Mackenzie is a hack!
Isn't this take #2 on this thread?
The last one pretty much came to agreement that the only player the Lightning would want is Tavares, and Tampa would have to add some. The second best tradeable player is no where close enough to value to try to land Kutcherov who would be the best player in the deal. With Tavares being untouchable It ended in name calling and gridlock lol.
I happen to agree that there would be no suitable package to land a guy like Kucherov because we just don't have anyone close talent wise and Garth isn't going to want to trade the youth it would take. Even Pulock and Strome including in a deal adds too much for them to have to protect come expansion time.
It's here in case you don't like redundancy http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=2115113
The last one pretty much came to agreement that the only player the Lightning would want is Tavares, and Tampa would have to add some. The second best tradeable player is no where close enough to value to try to land Kutcherov who would be the best player in the deal. With Tavares being untouchable It ended in name calling and gridlock lol.
I happen to agree that there would be no suitable package to land a guy like Kucherov because we just don't have anyone close talent wise and Garth isn't going to want to trade the youth it would take. Even Pulock and Strome including in a deal adds too much for them to have to protect come expansion time.
It's here in case you don't like redundancy http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=2115113
Yep that's pretty much it. We're in a great position to compete for the Cup for the next several years and trading a 30-goal scorer who is an absolute beast in the playoffs for an assortment of lesser pieces and futures simply isn't a move that we would ever consider.
I'm beating a dead horse with this but I personally wouldn't have resigned Stamkos and I especially wouldn't have resigned him without taking care of Kucherov first. But since that's not how Yzerman has chosen to handle things, if we have to move other pieces to resign Kucherov this season then that's what we'll do. Yzerman's mishandling of this offseason will cost us someone valuable (whether it's this summer or the next), but that someone won't be Kuch.
The only way we lose Kucherov is if he gets tired of Yzerman lowballing him and it sours him on Tampa altogether. Which could very well happen (and I will be unbelievably pissed at Yzerman if it does), but aside from that there's simply no way we don't keep Kuch around long term - after Hedman he's the most irreplaceable player on our team.
bert
Registered User
- Nov 11, 2002
- 37,576
- 23,899
LeapOnOver
Mackenzie is a hack!
Would be nuts if Yzerman can't keep Kutcherov. He's turned into everything you want a draft pick to be and may not have even hit his ceiling. Everybody on that roster has to be salivating Stanley Cup and I think it would actually take Yzerman pooping in a bag on Kutche's doorstep and lighting it on fire for him to not sign something to get that cup.
LordNeverLose
Registered User
LordNeverLose
Registered User
Well the presumption in all these threads is that the Bolts decide they simply can't fit Kucherov's salary into the team, so they trade him.
Also, I agree that Kucherov > Stamkos, but that'd be terrible asset management to let Stammer walk in order to re-sign Kuch. Worst case scenario, they end up with Stamkos + whatever they are forced to trade Kuch for, as opposed to ending up with just Kuch.
The presumption is wrong. If we can't fit Kucherov's salary into the team we trade somebody from the team to make it fit. With the possible exception of Hedman nobody is more important to our future.
And you're wrong about letting Stamkos walk. He's a one-dimensional player who disappears in the postseason and wasn't worth the money we were paying him before his raise - and this was before he had surgery that involved cutting into his shoulder muscle. Letting Stamkos walk would have enabled us to keep players who have been far more valuable in big games while maintaining flexibility in a time of a stagnant cap. People here throw around the phrase "asset management" like they have the slightest clue what it means. Well guess what? Sinking a large amount of money into a declining property at a time when you have more valuable investment opportunities is not sound asset management.
I would say its more like :
CDH > Sustr
Strome = Killorn , Strome has poteintal while Killorn has put decent stats and just hiting his prime
NYI 1st = TB 1st Both will be late firsts , NYI and Tampa will make the playoffs (most likely)
rikker
Registered User
- Jun 6, 2003
- 5,233
- 0
i have to agree. Yzerman has to seriously be thinking of other creative ways to be cap compliant, without just 'giving' 1 or some of his stars away. all other teams drool when they learn that an opposing team has to shed quality players, but it doesn't happen very often. i would love Kucherov on the Isles, but i see no reason why TB would expect nothing less than an overpayment for him. we have a better chance of prying Stamkos from TB, IMO.
I think at the end of the season there will be a lot of TB fans comfortable with "losing" a trade involving Filppula, Callahan, Killorn, Coburn, and/or Garrison to keep Kucherov and Drouin.
Deadweight
Registered User
It's not like the Islanders are offering up a Weber level talent in exchange here.
LeapOnOver
Mackenzie is a hack!
For sure, maybe even throw a prospect in ala Chicago to keep what they have. I expect Kutcherov signed any day now.
1. Kucherov > Hall or Johansen
2. Even if Hamonic did equal Kucherov in value (which he doesn't) we don't need and can't protect another defenseman
3. None of that matters because Kucherov is not for sale
So yes, let's wrap it up now and stop making ridiculous proposals for our best forward because no Tampa fan is going to agree with them.
LTIR Trickery
Plz stop pucks
Its tough, but I wouldn't be against prospects. Obviously losing 86 leaves a huge hole so you'd want someone close to making the jump (or even a roster player), but taking prospects that don't need to be paid right away isn't the worst thing in the world.
LTIR Trickery
Plz stop pucks
You know, I was going to mention the comparison of Hall vs. Kuch, but the more I think about it the smaller the gap gets. While Hall puts up top notch ES numbers as a winger, you know how GMs get about guys who have played in the playoffs or won a cup, they generally go bonkers for a guy who is "playoff proven". For that, i'd rather have Kuch - the guy is simply lights out in the playoffs and the regular season. I don't know if i'd say outright Kuch > Hall, but i'd say i'd still pick Kucherov. Hamonic would be an awesome get for Kuch if we absolutely had to move him, but I don't see Hamonic wanting to be here.
JT Kreider
FIRE GORDIE CLARK
I'd say Kucherov > Hall. Easily. And so did everyone else when this comparison come up in the previous Kucherov to NYI thread.
