Salary Cap: - Pittsburgh Penguins Salary Cap Thread: A New Error? | Page 29 | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League
Toggle sidebar

Salary Cap: Pittsburgh Penguins Salary Cap Thread: A New Error?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The only way i could be done reasonably would be Jarry and McCann as the base. They would obviously need to see Longer term potential in them both for it to work.

Then you can reassess if you need to move a LHD for bottom 6 forward help.
 
KIRK said:
1. Backes is a cap dump in the last year of his deal to keep the deal close to cap neutral, which both teams need (you could move him in a subsequent deal to be cap neutral or he's off your books at the end of the year).
2. McCann is no loss.
3. Zucker is a loss (much less of one given how he's used) and can be replaced in the LD for LW deal referenced.

What have you 'lost' in this process?

Only thing I don't get is why Anaheim would do this.
Click to expand...

Backes does nothing for us.

I disagree on McCann as he is the only bottom 6 player that's played in the top 6 with both Sid and Malkin and has been semi-competent. You lose both, Tanev and ZAR are your new 4/5 wings. No.

Zucker is obviously the loss.

Gibson would be great no doubt but I dont think this deal is good for either team unless Anaheim would look to flip each Zucker and McCann. I think they could for a value that exceeds Gibson though.
 
SEALBound said:
Backes does nothing for us.

I disagree on McCann as he is the only bottom 6 player that's played in the top 6 with both Sid and Malkin and has been semi-competent. You lose both, Tanev and ZAR are your new 4/5 wings. No.

Zucker is obviously the loss.

Gibson would be great no doubt but I dont think this deal is good for either team unless Anaheim would look to flip each Zucker and McCann. I think they could for a value that exceeds Gibson though.
Click to expand...

Do you understand how trading works? You have to give to get, and you have to sometimes take something you don't want to get.

For a ******* Vezina caliber goalie, if you can do it with just Zucker and the 'deal' is you have to take Backes in the last year of a crap contract, you do that every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

But, again, it's all hypothetical . . . no way Anaheim trades Gibson where the best piece is Zucker and there's no prime future included.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lustaf and dogthateats
WheresRamziAbid said:
The only way i could be done reasonably would be Jarry and McCann as the base. They would obviously need to see Longer term potential in them both for it to work.

Then you can reassess if you need to move a LHD for bottom 6 forward help.
Click to expand...

Jarry, McCann, Scevior for Gibson, Rowney

Idk why Anaheim does it but I probably do it even if you replaced McCann with Zucker.
 
Yeah the only way any of this makes sense is if Anaheim saw Jarry as a long teem #1 that then can buy low on and McCann as more of his play from early last season rather than the end of Last season.
Barring that there is no deal here to be made.
 
Solzhenitsyn said:
Jarry, McCann, Scevior for Gibson, Rowney

Idk why Anaheim does it but I probably do it even if you replaced McCann with Zucker.
Click to expand...

I think you need to send both and take back worthless Backes and his expiring deal.

Thing is, that opens up cap space after this year, McCann is no loss, and Zucker can be replaced by dealing a LD (or Backes and his expiring him and a futures/futures) for a LW who probably won't look any worse with Malkin-Kapanen.

BUT, even then I don't know why Anaheim would be interested.

I'd think they'd want Jake + Jarry for Gibson + Backes (with retention to make the deal cap neutral).

IF you believed Zucker-Sid-Rust would be a good line, then . . . man, I'm not sure what I'd do.

That said, my spitballed Zucker, McCann, Jarry for Gibson, Backes . . . I do that any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
 
KIRK said:
Do you understand how trading works? You have to give to get, and you have to sometimes take something you don't want to get.

For a ******* Vezina caliber goalie, if you can do it with just Zucker and the 'deal' is you have to take Backes in the last year of a crap contract, you do that every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

But, again, it's all hypothetical . . . no way Anaheim trades Gibson where the best piece is Zucker and there's no prime future included.
Click to expand...

I have a vague understanding yes. I'm just not biting that creating two holes at forward on two lines to bolster goaltending is an overall good move. Keep one of the two and put a pick in there or something.

OR suggest an additional trade that fills the hole.
 
MayorofWBS said:
It doesn't make much sense for the Ducks to move Gibson unless they wanted to for money reasons. Filing this under hog wash...
Click to expand...

Oh for sure. No way you're giving away a Vezina caliber goalie absent a Patrick Roy type situation.

And even if they were willing to deal him for scoring, they'd want real higher end scoring, as distinct from a guy who plays on a scoring line.

SEALBound said:
I have a vague understanding yes. I'm just not biting that creating two holes at forward on two lines to bolster goaltending is an overall good move. Keep one of the two and put a pick in there or something.

OR suggest an additional trade that fills the hole.
Click to expand...

Moving McCann doesn't create a hole. Guys like that are a dime a dozen.

And I have little doubt that Hextall then could move a LD to find a LW who can replace Zucker's minimal impact on L2 (in fact, I suspect he'd improve on it).
 
KIRK said:
Oh for sure. No way you're giving away a Vezina caliber goalie absent a Patrick Roy type situation.

And even if they were willing to deal him for scoring, they'd want real higher end scoring, as distinct from a guy who plays on a scoring line.



Moving McCann doesn't create a hole. Guys like that are a dime a dozen.

And I have little doubt that Hextall then could move a LD to find a LW who can replace Zucker's minimal impact on L2 (in fact, I suspect he'd improve on it).
Click to expand...

I can get frustrated by McCann as anyone else but guys that can score at a 40+ point pace in the bottom six that are good defensively arent dime a dozen.

He might not be a true difference maker but unless the guy your trading him to views him as that, there is no point to moving him.
 
KIRK said:
Oh for sure. No way you're giving away a Vezina caliber goalie absent a Patrick Roy type situation.

And even if they were willing to deal him for scoring, they'd want real higher end scoring, as distinct from a guy who plays on a scoring line.

Moving McCann doesn't create a hole. Guys like that are a dime a dozen.

And I have little doubt that Hextall then could move a LD to find a LW who can replace Zucker's minimal impact on L2 (in fact, I suspect he'd improve on it).
Click to expand...

It absolutely creates a hole and while I will agree there are more McCann's out there, it's not like they are out there for free at the moment. He has value in some capacity. Certainly more than a afterthought in a trade like this. If it's Zucker only, you can at least backfill that hole with McCann. We don't have the depth to cover two holes like that, even if it's Gibbons coming back.
 
SEALBound said:
It absolutely creates a hole and while I will agree there are more McCann's out there, it's not like they are out there for free at the moment. He has value in some capacity. Certainly more than a afterthought in a trade like this. If it's Zucker only, you can at least backfill that hole with McCann. We don't have the depth to cover two holes like that, even if it's Gibbons coming back.
Click to expand...

If you're worried about trading for John Gibson because you're worried about not being able to replace Jared McCann, then . . . (checks notes) . . . I'm going to have to end this discussion, because I'm struggling to think of a reply that won't invite an infraction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Big Friggin Dummy
How do y'all feel about these long pants moves?:

McCann to CGY for Bennett
Guentzel and Jarry to ANA for Gibson
Zucker and Dumoulin to EDM for Nugent-Hopkins

And whatever other pieces to make the caps work.

Just so we're clear, just because I typed it doesn't mean I want it to happen. Just like my previous post about acquiring Kassian, Lucic, and whatever other garbage. :laugh:
 
KIRK said:
If you're worried about trading for John Gibson because you're worried about not being able to replace Jared McCann, then . . . (checks notes) . . . I'm going to have to end this discussion, because I'm struggling to think of a reply that won't invite an infraction.
Click to expand...

If you're going to intentionally be obtuse, then fine, end the discussion.
 
Randy Butternubs said:
How do y'all feel about these long pants moves?:

McCann to CGY for Bennett
Guentzel and Jarry to ANA for Gibson
Zucker and Dumoulin to EDM for Nugent-Hopkins

And whatever other pieces to make the caps work.

Just so we're clear, just because I typed it doesn't mean I want it to happen. Just like my previous post about acquiring Kassian, Lucic, and whatever other garbage. :laugh:
Click to expand...

Yes, probably not, no.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KIRK
Solzhenitsyn said:
Yes, probably not, no.
Click to expand...

One thing that is coming through . . .

Hextall's two big issues to deal with are goaltending and the mix on the 2nd line (I think Malkin can work with Kapanen, but Zucker is a square peg in a round hole and just a horrid fit with Malkin in general and those two specifically)

His 'chips' are Zucker and one of Dumo/Pets.

It's doable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Turin and Andy99
ZAR's performance in his 2 games back this year makes me wonder where McCann actually fits on this team.

If ZAR continues to play like this, ZAR-Blueger-Tanev is a legitimately good 3rd line. You could run with a 3A and 3B line, but IMO your 4th line is so far away from a 3B that I don't even know how you'd get there with McCann as the main piece.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Turin and KIRK
Empoleon8771 said:
ZAR's performance in his 2 games back this year makes me wonder where McCann actually fits on this team.

If ZAR continues to play like this, ZAR-Blueger-Tanev is a legitimately good 3rd line. You could run with a 3A and 3B line, but IMO your 4th line is so far away from a 3B that I don't even know how you'd get there with McCann as the main piece.
Click to expand...

It's why I said IF Anaheim could be suckered into a Zucker, McCann, Jarry for Gibson, Backes (and his expiring deal) type of thing (and I can't imagine WHY they would be), then you can address L2 LW with a move of Dumo or Pets.

If Sullivan insists that Zucker must be in the top 6, then we're nearing addition by subtraction territory there. Hell, I'm not sure McCann over Zucker on L2 LW isn't an improvement.
 
Empoleon8771 said:
ZAR's performance in his 2 games back this year makes me wonder where McCann actually fits on this team.

If ZAR continues to play like this, ZAR-Blueger-Tanev is a legitimately good 3rd line. You could run with a 3A and 3B line, but IMO your 4th line is so far away from a 3B that I don't even know how you'd get there with McCann as the main piece.
Click to expand...

I see Zucker and Dumoulin being moved for a goalie and winger swap. McCann will be kept as insurance since he can play all 3 positions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KIRK
Empoleon8771 said:
ZAR's performance in his 2 games back this year makes me wonder where McCann actually fits on this team.

If ZAR continues to play like this, ZAR-Blueger-Tanev is a legitimately good 3rd line. You could run with a 3A and 3B line, but IMO your 4th line is so far away from a 3B that I don't even know how you'd get there with McCann as the main piece.
Click to expand...

Scratch Jankowski. McCann is 4C
 
Empoleon8771 said:
The issue is I don't think you can justify having McCann on your 4th line unless you make it a 3B line, but that line is so far away from being a 3B line even with McCann on it.
Click to expand...

Unless there is a good deal for us or we need the space he’s still better than Jankowski. I think Sceviour would benefit more.
 
Empoleon8771 said:
ZAR's performance in his 2 games back this year makes me wonder where McCann actually fits on this team.

If ZAR continues to play like this, ZAR-Blueger-Tanev is a legitimately good 3rd line. You could run with a 3A and 3B line, but IMO your 4th line is so far away from a 3B that I don't even know how you'd get there with McCann as the main piece.
Click to expand...

Your post just made me realize that McCann exists, so thanks for that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EightyOne
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom