Toggle sidebar

Confirmed with Link: Trade deadline thread

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
  • We are currently aware of "log in/security error" issues that are affecting some users. We apologize and ask for your patience as we try to get these issues fixed.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Big Friggin Dummy said:
I have no concrete evidence to support it but I gotta imagine Dubas had his pick of probably 4 or 5 legit deals and just wanted to get a king's ransom for Rakell, so he didn't pull the trigger. It doesn't kill the franchise or cripple the post-Sid years or anything but this team should be all about getting as many quality assets for the future as possible. More lotto tickets the better.

I dunno, I'd have retained on Rakell to get like a 1st + Clarke from LA. Cap doesn't matter anymore aside from extracting value.

Unless the goal is to throw an obscene offer sheet at some RFA but nobody jumps out at me, then sign Marner and Chychrun to some insane deals this July. If that's the case, I dunno. Good luck, but that's volatile as shit and while I really like Marner, I do not think he's the guy you place at your team's foundation and build around. At all.
Click to expand...

Call it biased, but I feel like Dubas would have done that had it been on the table. Hell, I think he would have taken less on the draft pick if he could have pulled off Clarke.

I think the most likely scenario is that the Penguins were getting great offers in terms of draft picks, possibly even 2 1sts in value, but Dubas wanted a top prospect or young player to justify trading Rakell.
 
Big Friggin Dummy said:
I have no concrete evidence to support it but I gotta imagine Dubas had his pick of probably 4 or 5 legit deals and just wanted to get a king's ransom for Rakell, so he didn't pull the trigger. It doesn't kill the franchise or cripple the post-Sid years or anything but this team should be all about getting as many quality assets for the future as possible. More lotto tickets the better.

I dunno, I'd have retained on Rakell to get like a 1st + Clarke from LA. Cap doesn't matter anymore aside from extracting value.

Unless the goal is to throw an obscene offer sheet at some RFA but nobody jumps out at me, then sign Marner and Chychrun to some insane deals this July. If that's the case, I dunno. Good luck, but that's volatile as shit and while I really like Marner, I do not think he's the guy you place at your team's foundation and build around. At all.
Click to expand...
Retaining on a guy who’s going to be 2.5 mill underpaid already next year is a bad move. I think Clarke was probably only available for Rantanen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KrisLetAngry
IcedCapp said:
I imagine it was a “pick two” situation. Give me a 1st and someone who is young / good or give me two young / good players. All 3 seems a bit nuts, but these prices were insane.
Click to expand...
I think it might have been that high because of the need to keep Sid productive; Dubas probably was asking for the moon when he believes he can get 90% of the moon for him over the summer and keep at least one line going now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KrisLetAngry
MrBrightside said:
This is exactly it. Everyone assuming they are about to go full Sabres or Hawks isn't paying attention.
Click to expand...
This is a false narrative.

They still would have had 87, 71, 58, 65 & 17 in the fold. How in the hell does RAKELL get added to indispensable core???

If you took a poll last TDL for Rak getting traded for a 1+3 + Prospect.......the vote would have been 98 to 3 YES
 
BlindWillyMcHurt said:
Yeah this one has me laughing a lot, lately. Acting like taking back a "roster component" in the trade was smart just never flew with me. Plus I didn't at all want that roster player.

Let me just reiterate here that... no... I don't "hate" the Jake trade and am more comfortable with it after the year Koi is having since I know talking about it in anything less than glowing terms sends a lot of you into a spiral.
Click to expand...
A year later, that trade ended up being Koivunen, Ponomarev, Brunicke, Novak, lucious, a 2nd and a 4th. 4 guys destined to be NHL players for us, a longer term prospect and 2 picks. I'm good with that deal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lustaf, Nikkoshine and cygnus47
Coastal Kev said:
This is a false narrative.

They still would have had 87, 71, 58, 65 & 17 in the fold. How in the hell does RAKELL get added to indispensable core???

If you took a poll last TDL for Rak getting traded for a 1+3 + Prospect.......the vote would have been 98 to 3 YES
Click to expand...
I think I mostly hate how indispensable completely mediocre players are on this club. The idea of Rust being a one-team player just curdles my stomach.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: MetalheadPenguinsFan, sovietsanta87 and Coastal Kev
Empoleon8771 said:
Call it biased, but I feel like Dubas would have done that had it been on the table. Hell, I think he would have taken less on the draft pick if he could have pulled off Clarke.

I think the most likely scenario is that the Penguins were getting great offers in terms of draft picks, possibly even 2 1sts in value, but Dubas wanted a top prospect or young player to justify trading Rakell.
Click to expand...
Turning down 2 1sts for Rakell would be f***ing insane.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Andy99, Coastal Kev and Big Friggin Dummy
DesertPenguin said:
A year later, that trade ended up being Koivunen, Ponomarev, Brunicke, Novak, lucious, a 2nd and a 4th. 4 guys destined to be NHL players for us, a longer term prospect and 2 picks. I'm good with that deal.
Click to expand...

Like I just said... it's fine. Just fine.

I feel like the fact that people are so sensitive about that trade says more than they'd like lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pens x and HandshakeLine
Empoleon8771 said:
Call it biased, but I feel like Dubas would have done that had it been on the table. Hell, I think he would have taken less on the draft pick if he could have pulled off Clarke.

I think the most likely scenario is that the Penguins were getting great offers in terms of draft picks, possibly even 2 1sts in value, but Dubas wanted a top prospect or young player to justify trading Rakell.
Click to expand...
I guess. But two 1sts gives you two more universally sought after assets to go and chase those guys from teams who may not want/need Rakell. /shrug
 
pistolpete11 said:
Turning down 2 1sts for Rakell would be f***ing insane.
Click to expand...

I think people are really overrating late 1sts. 2 1sts from a team like Dallas or Tampa are not equal to 2 1sts from a middling team.

Would I take 2 1sts from NYR for Rakell? Yes, definitely. Would I do it from Dallas? Meh, those picks are going to be super late.
 
BlindWillyMcHurt said:
Like I just said... it's fine. Just fine.

I feel like the fact that people are so sensitive about that trade says more than they'd like lol
Click to expand...
Yeah, the fact that people immediately had to go "well, Koivunen..." instead of realizing that we could have still gotten Koivunen + other things is pretty amazing. We asked for Bunting and designed the trade around him per Dubas. :laugh:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pens x
Empoleon8771 said:
I think people are really overrating late 1sts. 2 1sts from a team like Dallas or Tampa are not equal to 2 1sts from a middling team.

Would I take 2 1sts from NYR for Rakell? Yes, definitely. Would I do it from Dallas? Meh, those picks are going to be super late.
Click to expand...
What were you saying about Rakell like 6 months ago? Just curious. I'd bet you weren't saying they could get 2 1sts for him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom