Confirmed with Link: Shayne Gostisbehere to Carolina for a 2026 3rd

[Discipline Daddy]

I think this is a pretty sneaky good add. We all said some of our team weaknesses were 2C, scoring, PP, and insurance 3rd pairing D, and non-elite goaltending. (Am I missing anything ?) Took care of two of these for a 3rd. Two birds, one stone. I think we really needed the puck mover back there to pair with Chat. Those two won't be the most physical pair, but they both skate beautifully and will move the puck up the ice real well. I'd rather have that than meatheads on the third pairing like a Bryan Allen.

The one thing I don't like actually is that it's a 2026 3rd. Our team is great this year so our 3rd is likely to be a low third. We have no idea how good we will be in 3 years. It limits our deadline moves a weeee bit in subsequent years and also precludes us from certain offer sheets that year. Why not do tidy business and give up our remaining 3rd this year, or give up Perevalov or Fensore?

 

[Discipline Daddy]

Also Gost is way better than 2023 Calvin de Haan. I think CDH only plays now due to injury or as occasional games to get his rhythm.

 

[Vagrant]

I think the reason the price was so reasonable is because we didn't seek retention. I think that probably puts us out on some of the remaining large contracts if we were willing to eat the full cost here. I think we have, what, $2.5 remaining? 50% of a $5 million deal would put us up against it to the extent that we'd have to juggle with Chicago and waivers. I don't think they make a move like that. Any forward add would have to be $2 million or less with retention.

 

[Chrispy]

I think the reason the price was so reasonable is because we didn't seek retention. I think that probably puts us out on some of the remaining large contracts if we were willing to eat the full cost here. I think we have, what, $2.5 remaining? 50% of a $5 million deal would put us up against it to the extent that we'd have to juggle with Chicago and waivers. I don't think they make a move like that. Any forward add would have to be $2 million or less with retention.

With adding another D, I can see waiving Coghlan to get more space and not have an 8th D in the press box. But I think they would need to waive him today to have space to a move tomorrow.

 

[Borsig]

With adding another D, I can see waiving Coghlan to get more space and not have an 8th D in the press box. But I think they would need to waive him today to have space to a move tomorrow.

Unless they trade him. He might be picked up if waived.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Waiving or moving Coghlan puts us at ~$3.3M cap space.
50% retention gives us a chance at ~$6.6M asset.
Another 25% retention by a 3rd party on top of that gives us a chance at just about anyone we want.

Problem is that many of the players we might want have longer than 1 year left, so getting a team to take on 50% and 25% retention will be tricky.

 

[WreckingCrew]

Waiving or moving Coghlan puts us at ~$3.3M cap space.
50% retention gives us a chance at ~$6.6M asset.
Another 25% retention by a 3rd party on top of that gives us a chance at just about anyone we want.

Problem is that many of the players we might want have longer than 1 year left, so getting a team to take on 50% and 25% retention will be tricky.

Yea, I think most teams that could serve as the mediator for the extra 25% probably wouldn't want to tie up a retention slot beyond this season, so I'd count that out on any non-rental

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Yea, I think most teams that could serve as the mediator for the extra 25% probably wouldn't want to tie up a retention slot beyond this season, so I'd count that out on any non-rental

I tend to agree, but teams will do anything for the right price. I'm not sure we'd pay that price though.

 

[Borsig]

I tend to agree, but teams will do anything for the right price. I'm not sure we'd pay that price though.

Imagine needing double retention after having 10m in space

 

[Negan4Coach]

It's okay for some folks to view things differently. I'm a Borg apologist I suppose. And that's because they have given us a team we couldn't have even dreamed of that long ago. I think the idea of trying to have a super long sustained window of success is every bit as valid, and has just as much chance of bringing a championship, as going all in. They've had some moves that haven't worked out and you can certainly argue for some moves they could've/should've made. I dunno, we've won at least some kind of series each year so far (hard to do) and we went to game 7 last season with our 2nd and 3rd string goalies. I don't think we've been that far off with the current method of building though I can understand why some folks think we have been.

I think there are some things that are just a given with the way the team is run right now. They will move on from almost anyone. They have their own value for most contracts and trades and will only bend so much on it. They think teams are largely built in the offseason and not with splashes at the deadline (though they had a year with a couple of splashes and put in a good effort to one this year). They will be in on a lot of big names, but they won't get most of them. They do believe in a deep prospect pool and they hoard picks and prospects to some extent unless the opportunity to cash a few of them in for a good, proven, fairly cost controlled guy comes up. They like distressed assets and trying to find market inefficiencies.

I feel like most of this should be know and to whine when they don't do things that go against that is a bit silly to me.

And TDA is just one of the many dead horses folks beat around here. It's just the way it is.


Yeah, I'm one of the folks that did not want TDA at all and was very worried after the way things ended in NY. He played well for us other than the Rangers series and was a good teammate by all accounts. I wasn't upset to see him go, but I would have been fine to see him stay. I was more than happy to get Burns, who is much better, though.

I don't think there isn't a fan here who isn't eternally grateful to the management for meticulously building a perennially playoff team, considering what we endured for a decade.

It's just frustrating to watch them, having that great core- failing (despite expressing a dedication to doing so) to make additions to improving the playoff performance, which it seems everybody acknowledges there is a need to do. And then see the rationalizations that always follow.

They are apparently unwilling to roll the dice and part with quality assets and picks this time of year to ensure nothing backfires and harms the long term playoff viability of the team, and I get that rationale. But I don't have to like it. Or the "this is fine" responses.

I'll worry about what they do or don't do at the TDL when someone shows me some evidence the correlates TDL pickups to Cups!

I get that there are folks who demand some kind of esoteric fancy stats and algorithms that map to every move a front office makes, but this is a bizarre take. Apparently half the league every year sees it differently. Pretty simple- adding better players you normally wouldn't be able to acquire= better shot at winning in the post season. And when other great teams add star players and yours goes for reclamation projects- I don't need correlation to know that makes winning against them less likely.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Can Negan make a post without using the word "Rationalization"? I'm beginning to think it's not possible.

 

[Nikishin Go Boom]

Can Negan make a post without using the word "Rationalization"? I'm beginning to think it's not possible.

Shall we rationalize his posting history?

 

[MinJaBen]

Can Negan make a post without using the word "Rationalization"? I'm beginning to think it's not possible.

I'll take that bet....

 

[DaveG]

I think this is a pretty sneaky good add. We all said some of our team weaknesses were 2C, scoring, PP, and insurance 3rd pairing D, and non-elite goaltending. (Am I missing anything ?) Took care of two of these for a 3rd. Two birds, one stone. I think we really needed the puck mover back there to pair with Chat. Those two won't be the most physical pair, but they both skate beautifully and will move the puck up the ice real well. I'd rather have that than meatheads on the third pairing like a Bryan Allen.

The one thing I don't like actually is that it's a 2026 3rd. Our team is great this year so our 3rd is likely to be a low third. We have no idea how good we will be in 3 years. It limits our deadline moves a weeee bit in subsequent years and also precludes us from certain offer sheets that year. Why not do tidy business and give up our remaining 3rd this year, or give up Perevalov or Fensore?

I get the impression that Arizona were the ones asking for the pick to be as far away as you can trade due to where we are in the standings this year and are likely to be next year again since we don't really have cap hell to deal with until 2024-25. Calculated risk on their part. Are the Canes likely to be a playoff team at that point? Absolutely. Are they likely to be the best team in hockey in terms of points percentage over a 3 year stretch at that point? Not as lucky, unless we REALLY get some guys coming here on the cheap and can retain our core for hometown discount deals.

 

[LakeLivin]

Which is all that really counts on a message board.....btw, I give a lot of f***s about what all of you think....but my f***s aren't worth much.

That's what she said?

 

[NotOpie]

That's what she said?

Ouch!....then again, why would I care what she said as long as it's working for me.

 

[Derailed75]

I don't think there isn't a fan here who isn't eternally grateful to the management for meticulously building a perennially playoff team, considering what we endured for a decade.

It's just frustrating to watch them, having that great core- failing (despite expressing a dedication to doing so) to make additions to improving the playoff performance, which it seems everybody acknowledges there is a need to do. And then see the rationalizations that always follow.

They are apparently unwilling to roll the dice and part with quality assets and picks this time of year to ensure nothing backfires and harms the long term playoff viability of the team, and I get that rationale. But I don't have to like it. Or the "this is fine" responses.




I get that there are folks who demand some kind of esoteric fancy stats and algorithms that map to every move a front office makes, but this is a bizarre take. Apparently half the league every year sees it differently. Pretty simple- adding better players you normally wouldn't be able to acquire= better shot at winning in the post season. And when other great teams add star players and yours goes for reclamation projects- I don't need correlation to know that makes winning against them less likely.

What star players were added by who this TDL? Because as I have mentioned just every single player traded (says Kane) is not at proficient as Aho at scoring goals, and I have it on good authority (by many on this board) Aho is very good but not a star

 

[FlyingSquirrels]

Coghlan was not waived today so we will keep his salary on the books thru the TDL expiration.

 

[Svechhammer]

Coghlan was not waived today so we will keep his salary on the books thru the TDL expiration.

We like our group

we like our group so hard

 

[Chrispy]

We like our group

we like our group so hard

we like it LONG time

 

[tarheelhockey]

What star players were added by who this TDL? Because as I have mentioned just every single player traded (says Kane) is not at proficient as Aho at scoring goals, and I have it on good authority (by many on this board) Aho is very good but not a star

I think it's gone a bit under the radar how poorly Kane has played this year. He picked it up in the 4 games before getting traded, but prior to that he had 9-26-35 in 50 games. That paces for 57 points, which is what Lucas Raymond had last year.

Tarasenko, at the time of the trade had 29 in 38. Since then, 7 in 10 and that includes his 3 point game yesterday. Solid numbers but nothing special.

Tyler Bertuzzi. If he were named Todd Jones nobody would be losing sleep because their team didn't get that 4-10-14 in 29 games.

Hronek made a big splash with 24 points in his first 25 games. He has 14 in his last 35. Guess which one is the real Hronek?


Meier is the only one I really regret missing out on.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

I think it's gone a bit under the radar how poorly Kane has played this year. He picked it up in the 4 games before getting traded, but prior to that he had 9-26-35 in 50 games.

Tarasenko, at the time of the trade had 29 in 38. Since then, 7 in 10 and that includes his 3 point game yesterday. Solid numbers but nothing special.

Tyler Bertuzzi. If he were named Todd Jones nobody would be losing sleep because their team didn't get that 4-10-14 in 29 games.

Hronek made a big splash with 24 points in his first 25 games. He has 14 in his last 35. Guess which one is the real Hronek?


Meier is the only one I really regret missing out on.

I agree on 2, not so much on 2:

1) I think you might underestimate the "don't care" factor with Kane in Chicago. Domi was his top line center on a team tanking. He was fantastic last year and I would not count on him sucking for the rest of this year, unless his hip gives out.
2) Tarasenko had 34G, 82 points just 1 season ago. STL is struggling to score in general this year. Basing his worth off of 38 games is a bit short sighed.
3) Bertuzzi I kind of agree on, but he was also injured. He had a breakout year last year, but he should be a ~20G guy. Still, not really broken up too much.
4) Hronek: Didn't think many were pining over him, especially at what it cost to get him.

I would take Tarasenko and Kane (even though he wouldn't have come here) on this team in a heartbeat. The other two, if we got them I'd be ok but no regrets missing them.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I agree on 2, not so much on 2:

1) I think you might underestimate the "don't care" factor with Kane in Chicago. Domi was his top line center on a team tanking. He was fantastic last year and I would not count on him sucking for the rest of this year, unless his hip gives out.
2) Tarasenko had 34G, 82 points just 1 season ago. STL is struggling to score in general this year. Basing his worth off of 38 games is a bit short sighed.
3) Bertuzzi I kind of agree on, but he was also injured. He had a breakout year last year, but he should be a ~20G guy. Still, not really broken up too much.
4) Hronek: Didn't think many were pining over him, especially at what it cost to get him.

I would take Tarasenko and Kane (even though he wouldn't have come here) on this team in a heartbeat. The other two, if we got them I'd be ok but no regrets missing them.

Don't get me wrong, I would take them both. It's just, these aren't the 2016 Kane and Tarasenko. These are the 34/31 year old versions, who have already won a Cup, a bit dinged up with accumulating injuries, and just got traded away from the only team they've ever known. I'm sure they'll produce and be fine, but neither of them is likely to be as impactful as people expect based on memories of years gone by.

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

Don't get me wrong, I would take them both. It's just, these aren't the 2016 Kane and Tarasenko. These are the 34/31 year old versions, who have already won a Cup, a bit dinged up with accumulating injuries, and just got traded away from the only team they've ever known. I'm sure they'll produce and be fine, but neither of them is likely to be as impactful as people expect based on memories of years gone by.

That’s one outcome for sure.

The other is that one or both gets a shot in the arm playing meaningful hockey for the first time in a few years and goes nuts. They don’t need 2016 Kane. 2022 Kane had 92 points in 78 games less than a year ago.

It’s kind of an important storyline because the direction it breaks basically determines whether or not the Rangers can go toe to toe with the Bruins.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Don't get me wrong, I would take them both. It's just, these aren't the 2016 Kane and Tarasenko. These are the 34/31 year old versions, who have already won a Cup, a bit dinged up with accumulating injuries, and just got traded away from the only team they've ever known. I'm sure they'll produce and be fine, but neither of them is likely to be as impactful as people expect based on memories of years gone by.

Here's where I disagree. If they were 3-4 years past performing at a high level, then I'd agree. But Kane had 92 points last year and Tarasenko had 34G/82P last year.

Fans/HF gets so hung up on small sample sizes, focused "what have you done for me lately", and ignoring circumstances that we tend to ignore the more relevant larger body of work. Look at Skinner. 2 years ago he was "the worst contract in the NHL". He's now had to very good seasons. Heck, I could argue that if Svech didn't have 2 hat tricks against EDM, he'd have 15G this year.

Maybe you are right they won't be impactful, but Kane especially, has the potential to be very impactful.

EDIT: And I'm not saying this means they are a shoe-in to advance. There are a lot of teams in the east that can go all the way.