Speculation: Rumour, Trade, and Free Agent Speculation 2018-19 - Part X

[Mortimer Snerd]

I think I would rather overpay a little bit to Trouba and trade Buff

If all it takes to keep Trouba is a little overpay then he should be kept, absolutely.

Why trade Buff?

 

[DRW204]

If all it takes to keep Trouba is a little overpay then he should be kept, absolutely.

Why trade Buff?

agreed. there's Kulikov and Perreault who'd be on the chopping block way ahead of Buff.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Hayes is a bit risky imo He's a solid C but this year's been a bit of an aberration for him. Could have been a guy who put it together late but he could revert back to 40-45 pt production to

Of course he could. That applies to everybody. His underlying numbers were getting better each year for the last several years. It was a pretty steady progression to where he is now. That suggests it is real. Aside from that, playing with KC & Patty, I think his numbers will remain closer to 60 pts than to 45.

 

[Whileee]

Mostly agree with this. The exception is Laine at <9. I don't think this down year will have moved the needle from the POV of his agent. It just brings the bridge deal into play. I think your "much more likely" is multiplying by zero - or damn close to it.

I dunno. So much depends on the agent, as you've noted. Laine's agent (Liut) works at Octagon, and their clients have some of the most reasonable contracts...

Tarasenko - 7.5M
Huberdeau - 5.9M
Rackell - 3.8M
Scheifele - 6.1M
McDonagh - 6.75M

etc.

They seem to look at long-term security and where their clients want to play. I'm still not convinced that Laine won't sign a long-term deal that works well for the Jets.

 

[Joe Hallenback]

My guess is Trouba won't sign here long term. He is 1 year away from UFA and the Jets won't be able to wait him out. My guess is he is moved at the draft for a bag of picks and prospects.

 

[Maukkis]

I disagree about Laine's bridge deal. Of course it could be a little lower, but not a lot. We don't get a discount for the down year. He is being paid for that as it happens. But because of it, he doesn't get the 11 mil AAV he would have gotten if he had scored 50 goals this year. The down year is the reason for the bridge but he still scored 80 goals in his first 2 seasons.

OK, so what you are giving up in order to get KC locked up is Tanev + the incentive to move Kuli + the replacement for Kuli. That is not nothing. I don't see any point to getting rid of Kulikov. He is a good enough player. He is just overpaid. That goes away in 1 year and that year gives time for some of our D prospects to get ready for the NHL. If we retain 2 mil to move him and replace him with Beaulieu for 2.5 we are spending an additional 166 k and NB is not as good a D man as Kuli is. Our gain is the 3rd we got for Kuli after retaining. Not very good math.

In the table I posted, Trouba was retained as an own rental for 6.5 mil. If that isn't there, then there is money to sign Connor long term. But if the offers for Trouba are limited to the value of a 1 year rental, we are better off keeping him.

I don't think we get Hayes for under 7. That would be nice but I think the UFA market will be above that. I could be wrong of course, but I think he gets more than 32 YO Stastny got last year. Hayes is just entering his peak period, Stastny is near the end of his.

Incentive to move Kulikov? Are you for real?

Why do we accept bad players for what they are and trade away good players like Perreault to keep them? Kulikov is half a decade removed from being decent at NHL level. It is baffling to see people being more willing to stick to the bad players they know rather than ditching them and at least attempting to fix the issue. There is not one redeeming quality here that would stick out.

We don't retain a thing. We pay what is needed to get him out of the roster, look at that payment, and then think whether it is worth going for expensive bottom pairing UFAs ever again. We also don't pay Beaulieu 2.5, because he is not worth that price. Beaulieu's career trajectory looks an awful lot like Myers'; decent start, after which everything went to shit.

Also, Trouba is not going to be our own rental. There is no way to replace him, and even less so if we don't get assets for him now. The rental train must stop at once. It should have stopped the second Stastny signed with Vegas. Heck, even before that.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I dunno. So much depends on the agent, as you've noted. Laine's agent (Liut) works at Octagon, and their clients have some of the most reasonable contracts...

Tarasenko - 7.5M
Huberdeau - 5.9M
Rackell - 3.8M
Scheifele - 6.1M
McDonagh - 6.75M

etc.

They seem to look at long-term security and where their clients want to play. I'm still not convinced that Laine won't sign a long-term deal that works well for the Jets.

You could be right Whileee, but I don't think it is even close - unless Chevy has enough confidence in Laine to offer him 10.5. I think that is highly unlikely after the season he has had. The issue won't be money. I expect Chevy will be willing to pay him. But he won't be willing to commit long term until he actually sees Laine recover his scoring touch. That's why I expect a high AAV bridge deal. High because players who score 80 goals in their first 2 seasons don't usually get bridged. But a bridge because those players don't usually have the kind of scoring drought(s) Laine has had this year.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Incentive to move Kulikov? Are you for real?

View attachment 204623

Why do we accept bad players for what they are and trade away good players like Perreault to keep them? Kulikov is half a decade removed from being decent at NHL level. It is baffling to see people being more willing to stick to the bad players they know rather than ditching them and at least attempting to fix the issue. There is not one redeeming quality here that would stick out.

We don't retain a thing. We pay what is needed to get him out of the roster, look at that payment, and then think whether it is worth going for expensive bottom pairing UFAs ever again. We also don't pay Beaulieu 2.5, because he is not worth that price. Beaulieu's career trajectory looks an awful lot like Myers'; decent start, after which everything went to ****.

Also, Trouba is not going to be our own rental. There is no way to replace him, and even less so if we don't get assets for him now. The rental train must stop at once. It should have stopped the second Stastny signed with Vegas. Heck, even before that.

Yes, I'm for real. Are you? Are all of your opinions so absolute? Are you always right? Is that why you feel the need to take that aggressive tone?

I disagree that Kulikov is as bad as you think he is. Perreault is a declining asset. It is questionable whether he is able to earn his contract or not. IMO, he should have been moved at the last draft while his value was still relatively high. If we don't move him this year, we will be stuck trying to move him next year. We can't afford him for 2 more years even with Kulikov gone.

If Kulikov is as bad as you say and considering the size of his contract it would cost us another Armia to move him. I would buy him out rather than lose another Armia to get him moved. Fortunately he is not as bad as you say he is.

Who do we replace him with if we move him this year?

If Trouba will return Sanheim maybe he won't be retained as an own rental. If all he returns is rental value, then he almost certainly will be retained. It doesn't matter that you say "the rental train must stop at once". Chevy has demonstrated that he is quite strongly in favour of rentals. You are not. I am not. Neither of us has any say in the matter. I've been the voice crying in the wilderness against rentals for at least as long as you have. You don't have to convince me. Convince Chevy.

If the return offers for Trouba are just rental value, I expect to keep him. If we don't retain Hayes, I expect next years 1st + to go for a 2C again. I'll believe in Chevy changing his behaviour when I see it. Until then, I will expect him to be consistent.

 

[jokesondee]

Incentive to move Kulikov? Are you for real?

View attachment 204623

Why do we accept bad players for what they are and trade away good players like Perreault to keep them? Kulikov is half a decade removed from being decent at NHL level. It is baffling to see people being more willing to stick to the bad players they know rather than ditching them and at least attempting to fix the issue. There is not one redeeming quality here that would stick out.

We don't retain a thing. We pay what is needed to get him out of the roster, look at that payment, and then think whether it is worth going for expensive bottom pairing UFAs ever again. We also don't pay Beaulieu 2.5, because he is not worth that price. Beaulieu's career trajectory looks an awful lot like Myers'; decent start, after which everything went to ****.

Also, Trouba is not going to be our own rental. There is no way to replace him, and even less so if we don't get assets for him now. The rental train must stop at once. It should have stopped the second Stastny signed with Vegas. Heck, even before that.

So you would rather that Chevy didn't try to improve his team at the deadline and not bother trying to win a Stanley cup? We've tried 762 combinations with Little at 2nd line center and none have been successful. You'd rather the Jets keep getting bounced early in the playoffs or just miss them so they can keep getting mid-range draft picks over and over again, while wasting the remaining useful years of Wheeler, Little, Buff, etc? All the while pissing said players off by showing youre not committed to winning. Draft picks, even first round talents, are a flip of the coin at best. Teams on the cusp add proven players at the deadline in an effort to get over the top. Sometimes they re-sign, most times they don't. That's just the name of the game. I for one would much rather see my team going for it all than hoarding mid-tier draft picks.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

i think so, but if you have a supposed adept C in Reinhart (post ROR trade) and Mittlestadt isn't cutting it as a top 6C, i am not sure why you would not try Reinhart there for an extended time as the 2c.

he's been flanking eichel or ROR most of his career

I think you are correct here. IIRC, they tried him at C and didn't like what they saw. There may even have been some bust talk from fans. They moved him to the wing and he has done well there.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

My guess is Trouba won't sign here long term. He is 1 year away from UFA and the Jets won't be able to wait him out. My guess is he is moved at the draft for a bag of picks and prospects.

I think that makes sense. I may be wrong but I think GMs find it easier to give value in a trade if it doesn't mess with their current roster. At least not the young, up and coming part of their current roster. We wouldn't likely be interested in the older players they might make available so it is left to futures if we are to get good value.

I'm definitely not in favour of keeping him as an own rental, but I think that becomes very possible if the offers for Trouba are low. According to HFBoards, they will be, apparently.

 

[ps241]

My guess is Trouba won't sign here long term. He is 1 year away from UFA and the Jets won't be able to wait him out. My guess is he is moved at the draft for a bag of picks and prospects.

At first glance I thought this said “bag of pucks and prospects”


I generally don’t like trading for picks close to the draft because my eyetest tells me they tend to be overpriced:

My wish list in order:

#1) We win the cup and I am still so drunk from the parade I don’t care what happens!

#2) we get a deal done to keep Trouba

#3) we trade him for a high end prospect either centre or D man. If it’s a blockbuster type even better.

#4) we get a nice assortment of picks (one in the top #10) and prospects.

#8) If all else fails and the market sucks we rent him......this would not be great.

I didn’t include #5-6-7 because I don’t have anymore ideas off the top of my head but anything beats renting JT.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

So you would rather that Chevy didn't try to improve his team at the deadline and not bother trying to win a Stanley cup? We've tried 762 combinations with Little at 2nd line center and none have been successful. You'd rather the Jets keep getting bounced early in the playoffs or just miss them so they can keep getting mid-range draft picks over and over again, while wasting the remaining useful years of Wheeler, Little, Buff, etc? All the while pissing said players off by showing youre not committed to winning. Draft picks, even first round talents, are a flip of the coin at best. Teams on the cusp add proven players at the deadline in an effort to get over the top. Sometimes they re-sign, most times they don't. That's just the name of the game. I for one would much rather see my team going for it all than hoarding mid-tier draft picks.

There are more options than overpay for rentals on one hand and getting bounced early from the PO.

In this debate about TD rentals, those in favour of rentals consistently denigrate the value of mid to late 1st rd picks. At any other time, those picks are like gold. Those 1st round picks don't come with guarantees. But neither do TD rentals. They very often perform poorly for their new teams. We tried for Brassard last year before we got Stastny at the last minute. Or look at the rental that both CBJ & Preds got this year. Not much value so far.

The other option is to continue to make value decisions. If the team has weaknesses, fix them! Don't throw valuable resources at short term, band aid fixes that need to be repeated every year.

If the Jets are still so weak at such a crucial position then Chevy started going for it at least 1 year too soon, maybe two. We have other issues that need attention. But all of our resources are being squandered on rentals.

It isn't about hoarding mid tier draft picks. It is about which path has the best chance of actually winning a Cup. The best chance is to keep strengthening the team long term. You simply get more value that way. More value = more years contending. More years contending = more Cups. Plural.

 

[Maukkis]

Yes, I'm for real. Are you? Are all of your opinions so absolute? Are you always right? Is that why you feel the need to take that aggressive tone?

I disagree that Kulikov is as bad as you think he is. Perreault is a declining asset. It is questionable whether he is able to earn his contract or not. IMO, he should have been moved at the last draft while his value was still relatively high. If we don't move him this year, we will be stuck trying to move him next year. We can't afford him for 2 more years even with Kulikov gone.

If Kulikov is as bad as you say and considering the size of his contract it would cost us another Armia to move him. I would buy him out rather than lose another Armia to get him moved. Fortunately he is not as bad as you say he is.

Who do we replace him with if we move him this year?

If Trouba will return Sanheim maybe he won't be retained as an own rental. If all he returns is rental value, then he almost certainly will be retained. It doesn't matter that you say "the rental train must stop at once". Chevy has demonstrated that he is quite strongly in favour of rentals. You are not. I am not. Neither of us has any say in the matter. I've been the voice crying in the wilderness against rentals for at least as long as you have. You don't have to convince me. Convince Chevy.

If the return offers for Trouba are just rental value, I expect to keep him. If we don't retain Hayes, I expect next years 1st + to go for a 2C again. I'll believe in Chevy changing his behaviour when I see it. Until then, I will expect him to be consistent.

What part of Kulikov's body of work suggests that he is worth keeping on a NHL roster? I cannot see anything. Meanwhile, Perreault literally has a track record of consistently producing. Out of his last eight seasons in the NHL, he has posted a GAR of more than 8 in six separate seasons. Kulikov, on the other hand, has been at replacement level for half of them, including three of the last four. Yet we somehow conclude that Perreault is the declining asset here, but Kulikov 'isn't as bad as I think'. Why? No opinions, please, but facts.

It might not be a choice between the two, but rather a choice of them two or someone who would hurt even more. If that is the case, then so be it. But considering moving Perreault should be the last thing to do, if we have an expensive replacement level plug on payroll. As for who replaces him, I'm sure you can get some UFA on a <1m deal to come here. You'll get the same impact out of him, but at least you're not paying him north of 4 million.

 

[Maukkis]

So you would rather that Chevy didn't try to improve his team at the deadline and not bother trying to win a Stanley cup? We've tried 762 combinations with Little at 2nd line center and none have been successful. You'd rather the Jets keep getting bounced early in the playoffs or just miss them so they can keep getting mid-range draft picks over and over again, while wasting the remaining useful years of Wheeler, Little, Buff, etc? All the while pissing said players off by showing youre not committed to winning. Draft picks, even first round talents, are a flip of the coin at best. Teams on the cusp add proven players at the deadline in an effort to get over the top. Sometimes they re-sign, most times they don't. That's just the name of the game. I for one would much rather see my team going for it all than hoarding mid-tier draft picks.

What a ridiculous strawman. Rentals have minimal impact, and thus they are very rarely worth paying high picks for. For every rental that worked out, there are a bunch of those who didn't.

 

[Duke749]

What a ridiculous strawman. Rentals have minimal impact, and thus they are very rarely worth paying high picks for. For every rental that worked out, there are a bunch of those who didn't.

Worked out as in, contributed well? Or helped win a Cup?

 

[Board Bard]

If the Jets are still so weak at such a crucial position then Chevy started going for it at least 1 year too soon, maybe two. We have other issues that need attention. But all of our resources are being squandered on rentals.

I've been thinking that too. Nobody expected the Jets to seriously contend for the cup last year (well, nobody apart from people who think they can do no wrong). The rush to (and of) contender status maybe blinded Chevy a bit, like a kid suddenly in a candy store. Maybe trade-deadline buys make him feel like a big-league manager, a mover and shaker. Maybe there was a case for it last year but I think he pushed it this year. We'll see, I guess

 

[Maukkis]

Worked out as in, contributed well? Or helped win a Cup?

Either works, or even both in some rare cases. I'd consider Stastny as a rental who worked out well despite us falling short. Meanwhile, a guy like Vermette didn't have as big a role as Paul, but he was a contributor on a team that went all the way.

And then, we have a ton of rentals who did not achieve neither. Somehow, they still cost high picks and/or prospects.

 

[Whileee]

Incentive to move Kulikov? Are you for real?

View attachment 204623

Why do we accept bad players for what they are and trade away good players like Perreault to keep them? Kulikov is half a decade removed from being decent at NHL level. It is baffling to see people being more willing to stick to the bad players they know rather than ditching them and at least attempting to fix the issue. There is not one redeeming quality here that would stick out.

We don't retain a thing. We pay what is needed to get him out of the roster, look at that payment, and then think whether it is worth going for expensive bottom pairing UFAs ever again. We also don't pay Beaulieu 2.5, because he is not worth that price. Beaulieu's career trajectory looks an awful lot like Myers'; decent start, after which everything went to ****.

Also, Trouba is not going to be our own rental. There is no way to replace him, and even less so if we don't get assets for him now. The rental train must stop at once. It should have stopped the second Stastny signed with Vegas. Heck, even before that.

Some extenuating circumstances with Kulikov for his last few years, due to injury. He's been much more effective lately, and has been a net positive with the Jets in expected goals plus / minus (xGPM_60) in 2017/18 (+0.058) and again this season (+0.001). Over the past two seasons his overall xGPM_60 is on par with Trouba.

 

[Duke749]

I've been thinking that too. Nobody expected the Jets to seriously contend for the cup last year (well, nobody apart from people who think they can do no wrong). The rush to (and of) contender status maybe blinded Chevy a bit, like a kid suddenly in a candy store. Maybe trade-deadline buys make him feel like a big-league manager, a mover and shaker. Maybe there was a case for it last year but I think he pushed it this year. We'll see, I guess

I think it has to do with the fact we won’t have this kinda of cap space for big adds going forward as Laine and Connor will need new contracts. Next year will make it hard to add anyone.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

What part of Kulikov's body of work suggests that he is worth keeping on a NHL roster? I cannot see anything. Meanwhile, Perreault literally has a track record of consistently producing. Out of his last eight seasons in the NHL, he has posted a GAR of more than 8 in six separate seasons. Kulikov, on the other hand, has been at replacement level for half of them, including three of the last four. Yet we somehow conclude that Perreault is the declining asset here, but Kulikov 'isn't as bad as I think'. Why? No opinions, please, but facts.

It might not be a choice between the two, but rather a choice of them two or someone who would hurt even more. If that is the case, then so be it. But considering moving Perreault should be the last thing to do, if we have an expensive replacement level plug on payroll. As for who replaces him, I'm sure you can get some UFA on a <1m deal to come here. You'll get the same impact out of him, but at least you're not paying him north of 4 million.

I don't care what Perreault did 8 years ago. He took a step back last year and another one this year. He is still a useful player, being moved around the lineup. But he is a bottom 6 winger making 4.125 a year. His production is dropping each year. He is 31 YO. He is not a spent asset. He is a declining asset. He will be worth less at the '19 draft than he would have been at the '18 draft. That is the picture of a declining asset.

Do you watch Kulikov play? He does a good job most of the time. I don't know what else you want. I can't quote you some fancy stat that doesn't even have a standard definition, sorry. He is weak offensively but decent defensively. He does not belong in the top 4 of a good team. Unfortunately he is paid to play in the top 4. I said the moment that contract was signed that it was 1.5-2 mil too much. I don't want to extend him. I want to ride out his contract, getting as much out of him as we can and then let him go. That is the price you pay for signing bad contracts. The good thing is that it is only for one more year. I do not want to pay someone to take him off our hands. Perreault can be moved without paying a penalty. We might even get something in return. Not much but something.

If we could move Kulikov this year with no penalty, just walk away, we would still need to move Perreault in one more year. By that time, we will have to pay someone to take him. Therefore I would move Perreault this year regardless of what happens with Kulikov. Not because I don't 'like' Perreault. But because I anticipate continued decline. Just as TD rentals are poor value, poor asset management, so is hanging on to aging players.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I've been thinking that too. Nobody expected the Jets to seriously contend for the cup last year (well, nobody apart from people who think they can do no wrong). The rush to (and of) contender status maybe blinded Chevy a bit, like a kid suddenly in a candy store. Maybe trade-deadline buys make him feel like a big-league manager, a mover and shaker. Maybe there was a case for it last year but I think he pushed it this year. We'll see, I guess

I'm not sure that Chevy moved too soon - but if we genuinely need these patches then maybe he did. I suspect that the 'kid in a candy store' thing might have been jump started by winning the lottery and getting Laine. Purely speculating on my part, but maybe he advanced the timeline at that point.

Might that have encouraged him to sign Little and Wheeler when he did? Both were earlier than necessary. Again, just speculating. No way to know if they would have been any different, or any better if he had waited. Hindsight suggests that it would have been better to trade Little that off-season instead of extending him.

But if he had delayed going for it by a year or two, our assets could have been better used to plug holes at C and D and then start competing harder for the Cup. Still very speculative though. Just a thought that has occurred to me.

 

[BigZ65]

Kulikov and Perreault can both go.

 

[Maukkis]

I don't care what Perreault did 8 years ago. He took a step back last year and another one this year. He is still a useful player, being moved around the lineup. But he is a bottom 6 winger making 4.125 a year. His production is dropping each year. He is 31 YO. He is not a spent asset. He is a declining asset. He will be worth less at the '19 draft than he would have been at the '18 draft. That is the picture of a declining asset.

Do you watch Kulikov play? He does a good job most of the time. I don't know what else you want. I can't quote you some fancy stat that doesn't even have a standard definition, sorry. He is weak offensively but decent defensively. He does not belong in the top 4 of a good team. Unfortunately he is paid to play in the top 4. I said the moment that contract was signed that it was 1.5-2 mil too much. I don't want to extend him. I want to ride out his contract, getting as much out of him as we can and then let him go. That is the price you pay for signing bad contracts. The good thing is that it is only for one more year. I do not want to pay someone to take him off our hands. Perreault can be moved without paying a penalty. We might even get something in return. Not much but something.

If we could move Kulikov this year with no penalty, just walk away, we would still need to move Perreault in one more year. By that time, we will have to pay someone to take him. Therefore I would move Perreault this year regardless of what happens with Kulikov. Not because I don't 'like' Perreault. But because I anticipate continued decline. Just as TD rentals are poor value, poor asset management, so is hanging on to aging players.

How do you make up for losing Perreault? You don't with anything that is already in the organisation, so good luck shopping for another top 6 playdriving forward.

Kulikov has nothing to offer to this hockey club. Move on from him.

 

[Jimmyjets]

At first glance I thought this said “bag of pucks and prospects”


I generally don’t like trading for picks close to the draft because my eyetest tells me they tend to be overpriced:

My wish list in order:

#1) We win the cup and I am still so drunk from the parade I don’t care what happens!

#2) we get a deal done to keep Trouba

#3) we trade him for a high end prospect either centre or D man. If it’s a blockbuster type even better.

#4) we get a nice assortment of picks (one in the top #10) and prospects.

#8) If all else fails and the market sucks we rent him......this would not be great.

I didn’t include #5-6-7 because I don’t have anymore ideas off the top of my head but anything beats renting JT.

I'm right with you, including the "bag of pucks and prospects" first glance. That is until after #4 because to me #5 is keep him as our own rental because:

#6) Trade him for a poor return where no players/picks acquired help the team in the current cup window

#7) Trade him for a poor return where no players/picks acquired help the team in a future cup window

#8) Trade him where part of the return includes a cap dump contract which costs us the ability to keep Connor and Laine

There are worse outcomes than keeping him as an own rental if the return isn't there.