Believing him here means Carolina was trying to ditch pesce on a reasonable expiring contract while offering up a high pick when Pesce was coming off a good season. Meanwhile, Pesce coming off a bad season is likely going to get paid more than he was last season and for more than 1 season. It makes zero sense that Trotz or any other team didn't take them up on that if it really happened
Nashville Predators talk - The Offseason
- Thread starter triggrman
- Start date
- Status
Farewell Preds HFBoards.
The. Why did you ask if he had sources. Based off your comment that I highlighted none of the beat writers have used information. You had already answered your own question before you even asked it.
token grinder
Facts Get Deleted
If I were Trotz today....
Get my extension in place for Saros
Re-Sign Lankinen
Sign Pesce
Offer up Askarov for Simon Nemec of the Devils-straight up hockey trade. If they want the rights to Carrier or some B/C prospect (or a guy like Novak)to feel better about themselves, fine.
Plan on working ZLH and one of Kemell/Fedor into the lineup. It's time
Get my extension in place for Saros
Re-Sign Lankinen
Sign Pesce
Offer up Askarov for Simon Nemec of the Devils-straight up hockey trade. If they want the rights to Carrier or some B/C prospect (or a guy like Novak)to feel better about themselves, fine.
Plan on working ZLH and one of Kemell/Fedor into the lineup. It's time
Predsanddead24
Registered User
- Mar 7, 2019
- 5,970
- 6,708
I was wondering if he had done anything to show he had insider info. I am definitely biased to thinking our beat writers don't know any insider info, thought maybe he had done something to the contrary. Sorry for asking about the validity of a claim that seems pretty questionable. Didn't realize it would offend.
To me the claim is either:
1) Trotz turned down a high draft pick for a player that would've looked like our best RHD going into the season. I mean the defense would've looked pretty stout
Josi Pesce
McDonagh Barrie/Fabbro
Lauzon Fabbro/Schenn
Or
2) It didn't happen as described. Maybe mistaken with the team/player (Supposedly Vancouver was trying to ditch Myers early in the year) or the trade value (instead of receiving a pick Nashville would send a high pick).
Option 1 makes me question if Trotz is a good GM
Option 2 is more questionable depending on the circumstances. Myers contract looked terrible but a high pick is a high pick. Paying out a high pick for Pesce if we could get him for free in free agency might look bad in retrospect but you don't know he would sign here at the time and we need our high picks.
Bringer of Jollity
Registered User
If there is any truth to the rumor we are interested in signing Pesce in free agency, there is no logical consistency to why we wouldn't take him and a compensation pick this past season. Press credentials and access or no, without any further context being mentioned, the report makes no sense with other things we've heard or been lead to believe. Now if we reject the rumor we are interested in signing Pesce, the whole picture may make more sense.
Porter Stoutheart
Seen Stamkos?
- Jun 14, 2017
- 16,089
- 12,557
I think it still wouldn't make any sense, because Pesce had an even better reputation last summer than he does today, a year left on his contract at a reasonable Cap for what he was perceived to be able to provide, and we certainly would not have been the ONLY team interested in him. If he was available for free, let alone at a negative value, then he wouldn't be on Carolina anymore, period. Barring some unknown factor in his personal life devaluing him behind the scenes anyway. Any team with the Cap space would have snatched him up, limited only by his 15-team NTC.
It's probably just the case that the reporter isn't familiar with the player, or heard something about Myers as suggested above, and got the names mixed up in his head, or didn't even hear the names at all and got "5" when he tried to put two and two together.
Softball99
Registered User
- Dec 16, 2014
- 456
- 174
Most likley editing error and meant to say it would've cost us a high draft pick
Predsanddead24
Registered User
- Mar 7, 2019
- 5,970
- 6,708
Gallagher expanded on what he heard in the comments. I could buy that Carolina initiated discussion with us about a Pesce deal and it fell apart when some of their other moves didn't come to fruition. Still makes no sense to me that we wouldn't have been willing to take him as a pure cap dump let alone with a high pick attached just so we could have cap flexibility that we never used.
Porter Stoutheart
Seen Stamkos?
- Jun 14, 2017
- 16,089
- 12,557
I don't think he helped his case at all, lol.
Predsanddead24
Registered User
- Mar 7, 2019
- 5,970
- 6,708
Best part is the condescending "that's not how this works" when someone points out what he is saying makes no sense. Giving me some real Vingan vibes where he thinks having media credentials makes him a genius.I don't think he helped his case at all, lol.
Bringer of Jollity
Registered User
I think the only way that kind of makes sense is if Trotz thought we had a legit shot of signing him in the summer anyway, the compensation wasn't really all that much, AND it was felt we wanted to keep space for a big expensive fish before the summer. I still don't really buy it, as there was enough cap space to do all of it.
And this isn't even trying to grasp at straws or read too much into anything. What is being reported just doesn't make sense at face value.
And this isn't even trying to grasp at straws or read too much into anything. What is being reported just doesn't make sense at face value.
"Insiders" like Vingan and Gallagher are why we can't have nice things.
Armourboy
Hey! You suck!
And stuff like this is why we come here and listen to ourselves an national news media rather than local guys.
Trotz takes on Pesce even with the cap hit because he is exactly the kind of player Trotz was trying to bring in here to start with.
Now I don't think Trotz gives up anything of value for him, if that would have been the ask but I could have seen it easily being a " future considerations " type of deal.
I think really what he should have reported was " Carolina and Trotz discussed moving Pesce in offseason ". I think the high pick part is completely made up and is what turned it on his head.
Porter Stoutheart
Seen Stamkos?
- Jun 14, 2017
- 16,089
- 12,557
One thing that WAS talked about was using us and our prodigious unused Cap space also to potentially help swallow some part of Erik Karlsson's $11.5M Cap hit. That's probably where the pick coming to us would have factored in. It wasn't for Pesce. It was for retaining on Karlsson. We might still have received Pesce in the process, depending on how much Carolina needed us to retain. But the payment to us was for the Karlsson retention, which Trotz may well have balked at, given our scarcity of retention space/slots available, which would indeed limit our future flexibility, and sticking us with 4 more years of that dead Cap could indeed have made things unwieldy and caused us to not be able even to take Pesce back as part of the payoff. But it's not like it was just paying us to take Pesce alone.
- Aug 13, 2007
- 35,925
- 16,511
Wait, what? Everyone thinks we want this guy, but we decided not to get him for free plus a draft pick sweetener last season? Something doesn't add up
Armourboy
Hey! You suck!
Yeah just to have cap flexibility which was never used?
Bringer of Jollity
Registered User
Whoa. That's a credentialed Preds reporter you're questioning there, message board warrior.
glenngineer
Registered User
Trotz is in a tough spot. Saros is going to want what other top tier goalies get. If he gives in, then what do you do with Askarov? Do you use him as a trade chip? Being that he's not proven, he's not going to get you as much as you'd like. You'd also regret it if what you got back wasn't very good and he turns into a top goalie in the league.
Does he keep Askarov around and transitions the tending position to him down the road? If so, Saros is approaching his mid 30's on a big contract and his play is starting to decline. Who's taking that contract on? Now we're stuck with an aging goalie on a bad contract.
If you move Saros for a piece or pieces, you have to make sure they're the value you want and gives you the players you need to move this franchise in the right direction, by adding more talent to the roster. Risk here is you have Lanky and Askarov as your tandem moving forward. You better darn well hope that Askarov is the guy you think he is.
For me, I can't see paying Saros what he thinks he's worth compared to other goalies around the league. I think it's a bad decision for the club and it doesn't get us out of the mushy middle. If we're going to be spending big dollars on players, I'd rather it be upgrading our forwards than keeping a goalie who's been stellar during the regular season but hasn't had any post season success and I fear is not a great fit for the way Brunette wants this team to play.
I also fear, this last part is often overlooked, does the new structure help or hinder Saros long term? While we saw glimpses of both, if the system breaks down, Saros is unable to cover for the lapses in front of him. Adding better players hopefully resolves this. At the same time, will Askarov be able to cover for the lapses in front of him? Too hard to say but if we clog the middle and a lot of shots are screened, are we better served by a taller goalie in net who can see thru traffic a little easier? This isn't a knock on Saros but if you can't see thru screens, that's a problem.
I'm all for ripping off the band aid. We've had great goalies with one Cup run in 25 years. We've made it to the second round, four times in our existence? If you want a change in results, you have to start somewhere and while Poile built the team from the net out, I feel the NHL is built the other way for playoff success. You have to build from your forwards to the back end. You also have to find players that excel in the playoffs and we haven't been able to identify a lot of those in years past and when we did land them, they left us too soon.
Does he keep Askarov around and transitions the tending position to him down the road? If so, Saros is approaching his mid 30's on a big contract and his play is starting to decline. Who's taking that contract on? Now we're stuck with an aging goalie on a bad contract.
If you move Saros for a piece or pieces, you have to make sure they're the value you want and gives you the players you need to move this franchise in the right direction, by adding more talent to the roster. Risk here is you have Lanky and Askarov as your tandem moving forward. You better darn well hope that Askarov is the guy you think he is.
For me, I can't see paying Saros what he thinks he's worth compared to other goalies around the league. I think it's a bad decision for the club and it doesn't get us out of the mushy middle. If we're going to be spending big dollars on players, I'd rather it be upgrading our forwards than keeping a goalie who's been stellar during the regular season but hasn't had any post season success and I fear is not a great fit for the way Brunette wants this team to play.
I also fear, this last part is often overlooked, does the new structure help or hinder Saros long term? While we saw glimpses of both, if the system breaks down, Saros is unable to cover for the lapses in front of him. Adding better players hopefully resolves this. At the same time, will Askarov be able to cover for the lapses in front of him? Too hard to say but if we clog the middle and a lot of shots are screened, are we better served by a taller goalie in net who can see thru traffic a little easier? This isn't a knock on Saros but if you can't see thru screens, that's a problem.
I'm all for ripping off the band aid. We've had great goalies with one Cup run in 25 years. We've made it to the second round, four times in our existence? If you want a change in results, you have to start somewhere and while Poile built the team from the net out, I feel the NHL is built the other way for playoff success. You have to build from your forwards to the back end. You also have to find players that excel in the playoffs and we haven't been able to identify a lot of those in years past and when we did land them, they left us too soon.
2 goalies in the final right now... Bobrovsky is middle of the pack this postseason for sv% and Skinner is bottom of the barrel.
Some real good goalies have been put out. At some point, you have to score goals though. You can't win 0-0
101st_fan
I taught Yoda
Gallagher can't form rational point.
Porter Stoutheart
Seen Stamkos?
- Jun 14, 2017
- 16,089
- 12,557
Yeah until we get a Barkov/Tkachuk or McDavid/Draisatl tandem it won’t hurt us to have good goaltending.
So... ride saros till his career dies or we get some great luck in the draft
McDavid - 1st overall
Barkov - 2nd overall
Draisaitl - 3rd overall
Tkachuk - 6th overall but traded for a haul
- Aug 13, 2007
- 35,925
- 16,511
I'll just say it. If we sign Saros to a long term, big money deal, we are destined to not escape the mushy middle and in fact will be basically condemned to it. We will finish anywhere between 7th and 10th for every year we have him.
Several teams are at least semi-desperate for a goalie this summer. Market will probably never be hotter. Get the best return you can get and turn the page.
Several teams are at least semi-desperate for a goalie this summer. Market will probably never be hotter. Get the best return you can get and turn the page.
Armourboy
Hey! You suck!
We seem set on continuing to do the same thing and expect a different result...
- Status
