Trade deadline

[wmupreds]

If a team came to me and asked for Saros, I'd say "No!", think about it and say, "4 1sts to start the conversation."

That's the kind of player he is, but he's signed at $5M for 2 more years where we won't be in a window. Then it'll cost a whole lot more to keep him.. Asset management perspective says to sell high but the goalie market is tough

 

[BigFatCat999]

That's the kind of player he is, but he's signed at $5M for 2 more years where we won't be in a window. Then it'll cost a whole lot more to keep him.. Asset management perspective says to sell high but the goalie market is tough

agreed and Askarov is in the pipeline which will drive Saros' value down. BUT if you are LA, you have prospects to burn AND you could afford two go 2 prospects and 2 1sts...

 

[wmupreds]

agreed and Askarov is in the pipeline which will drive Saros' value down. BUT if you are LA, you have prospects to burn AND you could afford two go 2 prospects and 2 1sts...

I wouldn't hate eating Petersen's contract to make that work. It's not prohibitively long. Don't see Poile doing this though.

 

[GeauxPreds1]

agreed and Askarov is in the pipeline which will drive Saros' value down. BUT if you are LA, you have prospects to burn AND you could afford two go 2 prospects and 2 1sts...

You’re not getting 2 1st rounders and 2 top prospects for saros. Your proposals are always extremely unrealistic. I could see the kings being interested in saros though and could see them paying a 1st and a top prospect along with Peterson coming back as well. Poile won’t sell him though. Having saros gives Poile the opportunity to possibly sneak in the playoffs every year with him.

 

[wmupreds]

You’re not getting 2 1st rounders and 2 top prospects for saros. Your proposals are always extremely unrealistic. I could see the kings being interested in saros though and could see them paying a 1st and a top prospect along with Peterson coming back as well. Poile won’t sell him though. Having saros gives Poile the opportunity to possibly sneak in the playoffs every year with him.

I would make the 1st + top prospect trade today. Agree the 2 + 2 idea is unrealistic.

Trading Saros for 1st/top prospect/Petersen contract would be painful. But again, have to gamble to make this roster truly competitive again.

 

[BigFatCat999]

You’re not getting 2 1st rounders and 2 top prospects for saros. Your proposals are always extremely unrealistic. I could see the kings being interested in saros though and could see them paying a 1st and a top prospect along with Peterson coming back as well. Poile won’t sell him though. Having saros gives Poile the opportunity to possibly sneak in the playoffs every year with him.

Opinion does not equal market values. *I* would ask for the sun and moon for Saros, 1st (what pick?) and a prospect (How good?) is not enough for me.

 

[wmupreds]

Opinion does not equal market values. *I* would ask for the sun and moon for Saros, 1st (what pick?) and a prospect (How good?) is not enough for me.

But why? 2 years of Saros and nothing to really show for it and staring down an 8M contract with term (which probably means letting him go as a UFA and going with Askarov anyway) does us no good long term.

 

[Kat Predator]

But why? 2 years of Saros and nothing to really show for it and staring down an 8M contract with term (which probably means letting him go as a UFA and going with Askarov anyway) does us no good long term.

Could always just waive him now. I mean, who wants to deal with annoying contract negotiations a few years from now anyway?

 

[wmupreds]

Could always just waive him now. I mean, who wants to deal with annoying contract negotiations a few years from now anyway?

I know you're joking, but this is asset management 101. Are we in a window now? We have a goalie that we drafted 1st round and is developing well. If (and it's a big if) there's a good deal to be made for the elite goalie we have? I think it's more than worth considering.

 

[nine_inch_fang]

Everyone keeps saying that there's no way poile would retain salary for a guy like Johansen but why? It's a shorter and cheaper prospective than buying out a contract. Judging by what we heard yesterday from Poile he's ready to move on from some underperforming players.

 

[herzausstein]

Saros would get alot.... but it would also signal packing it in this year, next year, and likely the year after as well unless lankinen and/or askarov stepped in and played out of their minds. And as much i love askarov as a prospect there is no guarantee he ever becomes as good as saros. Too much risk for poile to take

 

[Armourboy]

Everyone keeps saying that there's no way poile would retain salary for a guy like Johansen but why? It's a shorter and cheaper prospective than buying out a contract. Judging by what we heard yesterday from Poile he's ready to move on from some underperforming players.

Go back and pull up the transactions Poile has ever retained on. Then dig around and find the ones he took lesser returns on not to retain. That's your why.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

Go back and pull up the transactions Poile has ever retained on. Then dig around and find the ones he took lesser returns on not to retain. That's your why.

That's "why we don't believe it will happen"... the real question is "why won't Poile do it"... what's his actual rationale for not doing it? The team saves money, saves Cap, and has the opportunity to fill a roster spot with a better/cheaper/younger player... so what is the drawback? Just optics/pride/some sense of personal honor?

 

[Armourboy]

That's "why we don't believe it will happen"... the real question is "why won't Poile do it"... what's his actual rationale for not doing it? The team saves money, saves Cap, and has the opportunity to fill a roster spot with a better/cheaper/younger player... so what is the drawback? Just optics/pride/some sense of personal honor?

Spending the owners money on nothing. Think about how long it took him before he bought someone out that actually had some weight to it. And even then he did it because Turris' attitude was so bad he was wiling to do anything to get him out of town.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

Spending the owners money on nothing. Think about how long it took him before he bought someone out that actually had some weight to it. And even then he did it because Turris' attitude was so bad he was wiling to do anything to get him out of town.

But a buyout is spending LESS money than keeping the player. Ditto the retention. The owners actually save money overall on these things.

 

[Kat Predator]

I know you're joking, but this is asset management 101. Are we in a window now? We have a goalie that we drafted 1st round and is developing well. If (and it's a big if) there's a good deal to be made for the elite goalie we have? I think it's more than worth considering.

Yes, I was joking.

You're right about selling high of course.

On the downside, I wonder if selling Saros (or Josi or Forsberg, all high value) would be a klaxon alarm to anyone and everyone that the Preds are no longer truly trying to compete for anything but lottery balls in the short term. Free agents would think long and hard about coming here or re-signing. Some other good players would take less to leave and demand trades to better teams. We could quickly develop a losing culture, the ambiance of apathy in the locker room. If it got as bad as Arizona, our best prospects would demand trades, leaving us basement dwellers with little hope.

I'm describing the fire sale approach to rebuilding very negatively. Like an expansion team without an expansion draft. I know there are strong advocates of this approach, since drafting the next Connor McDavid guarantees a dynasty and many Cups according to some reporters, etc. I'm more on the not so fast side of that.

 

[wmupreds]

Yes, I was joking.

You're right about selling high of course.

On the downside, I wonder if selling Saros (or Josi or Forsberg, all high value) would be a klaxon alarm to anyone and everyone that the Preds are no longer truly trying to compete for anything but lottery balls in the short term. Free agents would think long and hard about coming here or re-signing. Some other good players would take less to leave and demand trades to better teams. We could quickly develop a losing culture, the ambiance of apathy in the locker room. If it got as bad as Arizona, our best prospects would demand trades, leaving us basement dwellers with little hope.

I'm describing the fire sale approach to rebuilding very negatively. Like an expansion team without an expansion draft. I know there are strong advocates of this approach, since drafting the next Connor McDavid guarantees a dynasty and many Cups according to some reporters, etc. I'm more on the not so fast side of that.

I don't think there's any guarantee at all. Trading Saros would carry a ton of risk and those are all fair points. I do think, though, that there needs to be movement with one of the big assets (or at least consideration of it) to shake the team up and position it better for the next few years. Not saying it has to be "total rebuild".

It is, of course, a lot easier to talk about in a vacuum when you're just a guy on a message board and not actually dealing with the people in the locker room.

 

[Armourboy]

But a buyout is spending LESS money than keeping the player. Ditto the retention. The owners actually save money overall on these things.

Not if you are spending that free cap dollars anyways. The only way you are spending less is if you buy them out and never spend the cap space that is opened up.

 

[Viqsi]

Opinion does not equal market values. *I* would ask for the sun and moon for Saros, 1st (what pick?) and a prospect (How good?) is not enough for me.

...which is exactly why it's not worth it to move him, because folks aren't going to pay even that "not enough" price. He hasn't actually won a Vezina and has had moments of uncertainty, therefore folks are going to go all "goaltending is voodoo" and stay away. The only goaltenders that can be semi-reliably sold are promising-looking prospects, and even they get poor returns relative to their potential team impact, because of the sheer amount of uncertainty around the position as a whole.

 

[Viqsi]

On the downside, I wonder if selling Saros (or Josi or Forsberg, all high value) would be a klaxon alarm to anyone and everyone that the Preds are no longer truly trying to compete for anything but lottery balls in the short term.

Hypothetically, Josi would be movable for a king's ransom. Forsberg is a question mark and very market-dependent, because he's a winger, so we'd have to look for someone who feels a strong need for one like him. The odds of that are still better than those of finding fair value for Saros, tho.

The evil trick in figuring out market values is to consider why you'd be willing to move someone. If you're thinking "we can probably get a good enough replacement so we can afford to move him" - guess what, the guy you're trying to sell to is thinking the same thing, and so they're not going to offer as much.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

Not if you are spending that free cap dollars anyways. The only way you are spending less is if you buy them out and never spend the cap space that is opened up.

This is a good way of rationalizing a lot of what David Poile does IMO. He has A Budget. He doesn't want to do anything to spend over his budget. Period. Those are the dollars he said he would spend, and he's not even looking for any way to go over that. It's his own version of a hard Cap. Hence, no buyouts, no retentions, no taking on Cap dumps, no putting players on IR or LTIR if he can avoid it, none of it. Bonus if he can find any small ways of sneaking under it (e.g. demoting players to the minors, carrying less than 23 players, etc).

Whereas many teams in the league are constantly, actively seeking ways to spend more money than the Salary Cap and have no firm internal budget, or at least have ongoing flexibility to negotiate the upper end of that budget if they think it could give them a better chance of winning.

I wonder how much things will change as the new ownership settles in.

 

[Predsanddead24]

The problem with trading goalies is always the market. Every contending team could theoretically use another forward or defensemen but only a few contending teams have bad goaltending situations. That being said Kuemper got a 1st, a 3rd, and Connor Timmins (formerly #32 OA pick). Saros is younger, has an ideal contract for a team in their contending window, and is a better goalie so you'd have to think he could get a better return than Kuemper did if we wanted to move him though.

 

[BigFatCat999]

...which is exactly why it's not worth it to move him, because folks aren't going to pay even that "not enough" price. He hasn't actually won a Vezina and has had moments of uncertainty, therefore folks are going to go all "goaltending is voodoo" and stay away. The only goaltenders that can be semi-reliably sold are promising-looking prospects, and even they get poor returns relative to their potential team impact, because of the sheer amount of uncertainty around the position as a whole.

My original statement was about 'I'd hate to hear what proposals the Preds have gotten for Saros.' I wouldn't unless it's a Godfatherr deal and Saros says, 'I wants out.'

 

[herzausstein]

Kings would be a good landing spot for saros. I dont see much in their goalie prospects. Quick is toast, petersen has failed. They have a thing for former nashville players as well. Unfortunately, petersen would likely have to come back our way which would kill any enthusiasm unless the trade return was astronomical. Even then you would have to prey that petersen rebounded (which i dont think he will).

Trading saros just isnt in the cards unless poile goes drag down full rebuild.

 

[Flgatorguy87]

I've come around to the idea that Saros might not be a bad option to move if there is a decent return. I do think it's as simple as are we in a contending window, yes or no? Who can we move that holds real value if the answer is no. What purpose does he serve on this team if again, the answer was no.

I think my hesitation comes because the hopes are all on Askarov's development if you move Saros. Sure things are looking good now, but man things can change in a hurry from a development perspective. If you don't move Saros then Askarov's development is only frustrating from a draft perspective and you could turn your focus to extending Saros as his deal get's to it's end.

If you did move Saros it's also waving the surrender flag. Your looking for a stop gap goalie to probably split games with Lank until your long term solution arrives.