Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XXXIX

[Edge]

#20.

kreider for trouba

So we're asking them to give up a guy they can't sign (or else they wouldn't be trading him), and in return we're sending them a player who is going to demand a similar contract and is two years older?

I don't think that's going to be met with an enthusiastic response.

 

[DanielBrassard]

That's where it gets tricky for me.

I can't see them going for Skjei and their first back. I don't think packages based around Rykov or even Howden get it done.

But then we run into the same problem, I don't see this team being at a point where it starts handing back firsts and prospects. At this point in time, that seems counter-intuitive to me.

And if we're talking about something like a first + Howden + Hajek, then what was the point in trading McD in the first place? We essentially just kicked the can down the road to find ourselves in a similar situation 24 months later.

Well we would have had McDonagh from 30-36, Trouba would be signed from 25-31/32. That's a huge difference. Not to mention Trouba fits the "timeline" better than McDonagh would have even if the team is competitive in 2 years instead of next season.

 

[JimmyG89]

Don't see Trouba here unless he forces his way onto the team. Not only that, he doesn't have the leverage to do it.

Gorton may want to speed up the rebuild, but I believe that is more talk about up front. We did lose a ton of pieces there in the past few seasons. Having the SSS (Staal, Smith, and Shatty) under contract for a few more seasons, I find it hard to believe we're making adds there. Unless there is a commitment to demote them (Smith), scratch them (Staal) or trade them with retained salary (Shattenkirk), I cannot see a massive change to the defense as is.

We should not be buying these players out. I'd rather sit on Staal for two seasons than his penalty carry over when we could begin contending. Same for Smith, let him enjoy his time in Hartford.

I'm more inclined to trade Shatty to a team that missed on Trouba/Karlsson/Myers/Risto. Those are the 4 names out there that are RHD that can be had in trade/UFA. Ottawa moving Ceci would add another name.

I don't see them going with Zibby and the kids down the middle to start next season. Don't see Strome in the 2C role either. That's their move. Acquire a center that fits their timeline. If not, just keep the kids coming and the holes plugged.

 

[True Blue]

hes 25. hes a righty. hes a 2 way dman who plays a solid defensive game. he skates well. hes a us kid from minny. he had 50 points last season.

he would have been our 3rd leading scorer last yr. and his 50 points is 20 points more than ADA- our top scoring dman. and i get that the peg roster isnt our roster and so those numbers would be lower, but, my point remains.

Of course he would not have scored 50 points had he played here with this supporting cast.

if theres a dman you go after, he would seem to be the one. and hes available which is something that rarely happens.

Must we go down the rabbit hole again of "these type of players never hit the free market"?

 

[Off Sides]

To each their own but I think Trouba's next contract is too risky for me, and the idea of trading stuff just to make that contact happen seems way too risky. Call it feel or whatever.

On the flip side though, I share the concerns about the RD side. I'm not sure there is an ideal solution there, yet I'd probably just wait and see if something less risky or more ideal came about.

I'm not wanting to see them try to fix everything just to line up with the Entry levels of the prospects, I think they should be more looking into trying to have everything on it's way to being fixed by the time those entry levels turn into 2nd contracts. Yeah they'll have to reserve some cap space for when that transition happens, yet luckily/skillfully 4 of the biggest current contracts would end right at the beginning of all those entry level turning and if they play it tight until then they'd have extra cap space even beyond that.

 

[offdacrossbar]

So we're asking them to give up a guy they can't sign (or else they wouldn't be trading him), and in return we're sending them a player who is going to demand a similar contract and is two years older?

I don't think that's going to be met with an enthusiastic response.

the jets are a deep team defensively with 2 legit players ready to play nhl minutes.

they have chips. they arent going to resign trouba. hes been rumored to want out for a few yrs. trade him or let him walk.

adding kreider to that lineup with those forwards. its gotta be enticing.

2 guys due new deals. theres a trade there to be had.

 

[Tawnos]

The same could be said about a player who isn't part of the future and while we are bad doesn't really matter all that much. Staal is as big of a problem, so is Kirk. They're all gone right when we need them to be.

Those are both as big of problems, if not bigger, but they also aren't solve-able for very little pain.

 

[effen]

Paying assets just to pay Trouba market price at this stage of the rebuild is a year too early.

Andersson just had like 5 points in 40 games. Chytil had a trampoline for a stick for half the year. Howden was a replacement level guy outside of the first 20 games. Pionk exists in this universe. What part of any of these things tells you its time to accelerate things?

 

[Edge]

Well we would have had McDonagh from 30-36, Trouba would be signed from 25-31/32. That's a huge difference. Not to mention Trouba fits the "timeline" better than McDonagh would have even if the team is competitive in 2 years instead of next season.

But there's a few problems with that.

1. We already had McD. We didn't have to go out and give assets up for him, on top of then having to resign him. That's a huge difference.

2. McD, for all his issues, missed significantly less time than Trouba. Trouba's already missed an entire season of NHL hockey, and he's still two years younger than McD when he was traded. That fact does not do Trouba any favors.

 

[Edge]

the jets are a deep team defensively with 2 legit players ready to play nhl minutes.

they have chips. they arent going to resign trouba. hes been rumored to want out for a few yrs. trade him or let him walk.

adding kreider to that lineup with those forwards. its gotta be enticing.

2 guys due new deals. theres a trade there to be had.

Why do we assume Kreider would want to sign there?

That's a pretty big plot hole.

I gotta be honest with you, I don't think Kreider is choosing Winnipeg as an UFA. At all.

 

[effen]

Another problem is as per usual the board has baked in a 15% or so discount for player X to sign. He's not gonna want 7/49. He's gonna want 8/68. This is not someone who gives in on negotiations, that's the whole reason he's not gonna be a Winnipeg Jet.

 

[Cag29]

If you are trading for Trouba, you are giving up some combination of:

• One of Skjei/Buch.
• One, may be two of: Andersson, Miller, Lundkvist, Chytil, Kravstov.
• At least 1 non #2 overall 1st round pick.

I dont think they would have any interest in Kreider mainly due to him having just 1 year to UFA.

Way too much. Skjei and a pick. Or no thanks. Wait til UFA.

 

[Tawnos]

For me, by far the biggest reason I'm interested in Trouba from the point-of-view is the state of the team right now. The ideal way to build a roster is to draft defensemen first and then forwards, because your D is going to take longer to develop. If you draft the D first, then both your D and forwards hit their strides at about the same time. The way the organization is structured right now, I'm absolutely terrified that we're going to see our forwards peak before the D is really ready.

I completely understand why they took Andersson and Chytil when they did because of how that draft played out, but the entire organization would be in a better state if we had gotten to take Foote or Brannstrom instead of one of those guys.

While he's older, but not old, Trouba would definitely put the team on a far more solid path to competitiveness than they're on right now.

 

[DutchShamrock]

McDonagh would have gotten a long-term contract if he was the same age as Trouba, this is a faulty comparison.

To be fair, the McDonagh-Trouba comparison started as a question of HFNYR consistency. Basically "You all loved Mac, why not Trouba because they are really similar." But its actually very consistent. We got out from McDonagh before we paid his big contract because of durability concerns.

 

[romba]

I want 10 years of competing for a god damned cup. Not 10 years of being 'just competitive', perennial conference finals losers, with maybe a SC appearance to show for it. Been there. As such, I believe we should let let our record dictate our moves. Right now we're a bottom feeder. Yes, we can sign a few shiny mid 20 year olds to long term contracts and be 'competitive' for the term of their deals. Not enough really for a cup considering the lack of talent we currently have. Then, just as our prospects develop into forces, the vets we had signed will be entering the back half of their peaks. So we'd still get 2-4 years of competing for a cup as the Vets will still be great and prospects will now be ready to shine. But how long before said vets regress due to age?

The other option is to wait patiently for our young guns to develop into forces, compiling more picks and assets while we wait, and once our record begins to improve with the skilled youth developing, we can look to make trades and sign FA's to bring us over the top for 5+ years worth of time until we have to make big cap decisions. At that time the second wave of prospects we accumulated while waiting for our youth to develop should be hitting their stride and would cover some of the leaving/pending UFA's from the first wave, leading to long term health for the club.

 

[DanielBrassard]

But there's a few problems with that.

1. We already had McD. We didn't have to go out and give assets up for him, on top of then having to resign him. That's a huge difference.

2. McD, for all his issues, missed significantly less time than Trouba. Trouba's already missed an entire season of NHL hockey, and he's still two years younger than McD when he was traded. That fact does not do Trouba any favors.

1. In this scenario we would have indirectly traded McDonagh for Trouba if the package going to Winnipeg was Hajek+Howden+1st, so I don't see the concern about trading assets. Actually we would still have the Lundkvist pick as well. Would you not trade McDonagh for Trouba+Lundkvist? And we had McDonagh under contract for just 1 more year and would have had to re-sign him, again from ages 30-36 instead of 25-31.
2. McDonagh has never played a full season up until this past season ironically, Trouba has done it twice. And while Trouba has missed 6 more games/season than McDonagh I don't know that any of his injuries are chronic or point to him necessarily missing time in the future, maybe they do maybe they don't. I would agree there is slightly more risk acquiring Trouba but not enough to pass on him.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

I'll give them Pionk and a pick.

 

[TheTakedown]

After watching some of the debates on here with our own guys, why do I get the feeling that if Trouba was already ours, coming off a very successful season, after an injury plagued career thus far, that we'd be looking at his upcoming contract and looking to trade him while he had peak value?

I like Trouba. But I also feel like he's one of those names that this board has crushed on for a few years, and that he comes dangerously close to occupying a blind spot in our mirrors.

I'm sorry, but name anyone on this D who is nearing 25 years old defensemen who is up and coming on this roster who people would even want to trade?

ADA? Definitely not, kid is a stud at 24.
Pionk? he's 24, he sucks, and people STILL want him here.
Skjei? Nobody is saying trade Skjei for picks--people are talking Hockey Trade here
John Gilmour? he is AHL Fodder...


We get it, you hate Trouba, 9000 question marks, not healthy al lthe time, blah blah balh...

Yet he's played enarly the same average game count per season as our own former god of a defenseman Ryan McDonagh.

Come on man, this is rather shortsighted of you, and surprising considering your typical posts

 

[Gardner McKay]

Why do we assume Kreider would want to sign there?

That's a pretty big plot hole.

I gotta be honest with you, I don't think Kreider is choosing Winnipeg as an UFA. At all.

Didn't Winnipeg win the "least desirable place to play" category with 35%+ of the players votes? I agree with you that Kreider is unlikely to go to Winnipeg.

 

[Tawnos]

I'm sorry, but name anyone on this D who is nearing 25 years old defensemen who is up and coming on this roster who people would even want to trade?

ADA? Definitely not, kid is a stud at 24.
Pionk? he's 24, he sucks, and people STILL want him here.
Skjei? Nobody is saying trade Skjei for picks--people are talking Hockey Trade here
John Gilmour? he is AHL Fodder...


We get it, you hate Trouba, 9000 question marks, not healthy al lthe time, blah blah balh...

Yet he's played enarly the same average game count per season as our own former god of a defenseman Ryan McDonagh.

Come on man, this is rather shortsighted of you, and surprising considering your typical posts

I mean... it literally describes the situation with Zibanejad, except that Zibanejad isn't a free agent. Lots of concern about injuries... has missed huge amounts of time... but who is really talking about dealing him?

 

[TheTakedown]

Why do you say 14 months into a rebuild? The rebuild started after the loss to Penguins in the 2016 playoffs. When Gorton said the team needed to get younger. And let Yandle and Staal walk and traded Brassard. And if posters on this forum is to be trusted, he also made attempts to trade Stepan and McDonagh. It was the complete teardown that started 14 months ago. The rebuild has been going on for three years.

I do not agree on the Yandle part -- there just was not room for him here. We'd be paying him $6M to play--well at this rate it would be 1st pairing, but we had McDonagh-Staal-Skjei down the left at the time he left.

Beyond that though, I wish people would realize this more often. We've been actively *NOT* pursuing FA and quick fixes since the Zibanejad, and we've been ripping this team down to the studs since the Stepan trade... Even if you don't count the Zib trade as the rebuild start, it's been nearly TWO FULL SEASONS since that Stepan trade.

We've been collecting assets for essentially 2.5 years (Zib trade is a half rebuild half compete move)... We're nearly out of that phase. There are only so many pieces you can acquire before you start making some competitive moves

 

[True Blue]

The rebuild has gone on since 2016. I dont think anyone can argue with that.

The rebuild started when Gorton and Sather sent the letter out last year. This rebuild has been going on for 1.25 years.

 

[TheTakedown]

It's all about timing and cost.

If he's as great as everyone truly believes he is, you're not acquiring him on the cheap.

You can't talk about how great a player is, all of his wonderful attributes, and how much highway is in front of him, and then expect to flip the Jets Brady Skjei, or their first, or the prospects we're kind of lukewarm on for the moment.

It doesn't work that. You're going to pay a sizable price for the asset you just talked up.

And then once you purchase said item, you're going to pay a sizable price to sign him.

And right now, with where this team is, no, and with Trouba's history, I'm honestly not convinced he's the right choice.

Last year, I read VOLUMES of pages, and numbers, and reasons why EK was the type of player we should be going after, how he was worth the investment, how players like him don't come around often, and all the rest.

We practically have a form letter we plug names into when a player has come up over the last 12 months.

I mean literally, this is the third our fourth player in the last 12 months I've heard about who is rarely available.

At some point, maybe it isn't as rare as we think.

Tell me, did you say this about Zibanejad when we got him, too????

 

[TheTakedown]

Yeah, if you want to reduce it to the ridiculous you can make any point you choose.

$1.1m in dead space in 2021 isn't going to stop the Rangers from doing anything.

It's unnecessary when the buyont only saves us $3M THIS COMING SEASON, then saves us barely over $1M the following year, then costs us just over $1M for the next 2 years. it's just an unnecessary move. Do we need $3M in cap space for specifically next year? Go look at my bury vs buyout chart for him a couple posts up

 

[TheTakedown]

The comparison isn’t contract situation, it’s player durability. We’re all on board the McDonagh is currently breaking down, why is the guy averaging less games per season seen as more of a sure thing?

McDonagh also played some of the hardest hockey of most hockey players because of Torts.... His mileage count is very high