Toggle sidebar

ESPN: Utah-Pitt (speculation/proposal)

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
pensfan71

pensfan71

Registered User
Jun 9, 2010
15,774
1,658
1741012791158.png

Posted by Greg Wysh on ESPN, wanted to get thoughts in general from Utah fans and so on. I think most Pitt fans take this and run without question

www.espn.com

NHL trades we'd like to see before the deadline: Rantanen moves again, UHC takes big swing

How many more blockbusters will take place before 3 p.m. Friday? Here are six deals we'd love to see.
www.espn.com www.espn.com
Click to read more...
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Filthy Dangles
That trade proposal about sums up the quality of reporting from ESPN :laugh:

Maccelli and a late 1st for Rakell seems reasonable in value, mostly because Maccelli is having a very poor year and seems like a prime bounceback candidate for the Penguins. But Utah's 2025 1st isn't a late 1st, it's currently 10th overall.

Sub out the Utah 2025 1st with their 2025 2nd and I think that value is a lot more reasonable. Maccelli and 2 2nds for Rakell seems a lot closer to fair value, although I'm still not sure that is the kind of move Utah would be looking to make.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cupdreaming, shadow1, Voight and 12 others
Nothing says sensible like a very young team that is currently outside the Wild Card bubble trading their 1st and a future 2nd for an almost 32 year old winger who just so happens to be having a career year playing on the wing of Sidney Crosby.

If only Utah had a comparable center to marry Rakell to, and was actually ready to compete, this might make sense.

But I wouldn't expect better from ESPN reporting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheDawnOfANewTage, Voight, LokiDog and 7 others
Macceli posted 106pts in 146 games in his 22 & 23 year old seasons (pace of 60pts/82). He is now struggling in his 24 year old season, pacing for just 28.

Rackell posted 97 points in 152 games in his 29 & 30 year old seasons (pace of 52pts/80). He is now thriving in his 31 year old season, pacing for 69 points - a whopping 9 more than Macceli averaged in his previous two seasons.

Idiotic proposal even without taking contextual need into consideration
 
The Devilish Buffoon said:
Macceli posted 106pts in 146 games in his 22 & 23 year old seasons (pace of 60pts/82). He is now struggling in his 24 year old season, pacing for just 28.

Rackell posted 97 points in 152 games in his 29 & 30 year old seasons (pace of 52pts/80). He is now thriving in his 31 year old season, pacing for 69 points - a whopping 9 more than Macceli averaged in his previous two seasons.

Idiotic proposal even without taking contextual need into consideration
Click to expand...

Maccelli is also a regular healthy scratch. There is a somewhat reason his value would be different than a player putting up 30.
 
pensfan71 said:
View attachment 985751
Posted by Greg Wysh on ESPN, wanted to get thoughts in general from Utah fans and so on. I think most Pitt fans take this and run without question

www.espn.com

NHL trades we'd like to see before the deadline: Rantanen moves again, UHC takes big swing

How many more blockbusters will take place before 3 p.m. Friday? Here are six deals we'd love to see.
www.espn.com www.espn.com
Click to expand...
If this were next season and we had ~5 more wins instead of losses, sure. This is a "we want to get deeper than the 1st round" move. We're a "let's see if we make the playoffs" team. I think ESPN missed the mark on this one.
 
That would be robbery for Pittsburgh. Yes it makes Utah better but I wouldn't pay that price for Rakell.
 
The Devilish Buffoon said:
“Somewhat different” is fair, but this proposal takes Macceli as a significant negative asset, which he’s not.
Click to expand...

Not really, how is that the case? Rakell's value is probably something close to Macceli and a late 1st. It's a huge overpayment by Utah because of where their 1st is, but it's not showing Macceli as a "significant negative asset".
 
the focus on Maccelli is silly. He is a throw in at this point. Some upside sure but not really a needle mover either way in a return.

Pens getting the 10th overall pick for Rakell is what’s ridiculous :laugh: :laugh:. I mean I’d take it but ESPN is reaching there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Giskard
I wouldn't want to trade a first rounder OR minten for schenn and his bloated contract, let alone both. Minten will be a 3c next year. Keep him and let his develop with the team.
 
CheckingLineCenter said:
the focus on Maccelli is silly. He is a throw in at this point. Some upside sure but not really a needle mover either way in a return.

Pens getting the 10th overall pick for Rakell is what’s ridiculous :laugh: :laugh:. I mean I’d take it but ESPN is reaching there.
Click to expand...

Maccelli averaged 60 points/82 games over two seasons prior to this one.

While he may have bumped into a roadblock or into his ceiling, he’s certainly not a throw in. It seems a bit odd to weigh 52 games over 146 games. This year seems to be the outlier from what track record we have so far.

Regardless - even if you believe he’s a 30 point player and not a 60 point player, Utah has no inherent need to sell low on him. He’s young and not expensive. They can just keep him. He’s definitely not a warm body they will just add to a deal without value being applied.
 
Empoleon8771 said:
That trade proposal about sums up the quality of reporting from ESPN :laugh:

Maccelli and a late 1st for Rakell seems reasonable in value, mostly because Maccelli is having a very poor year and seems like a prime bounceback candidate for the Penguins. But Utah's 2025 1st isn't a late 1st, it's currently 10th overall.

Sub out the Utah 2025 1st with their 2025 2nd and I think that value is a lot more reasonable. Maccelli and 2 2nds for Rakell seems a lot closer to fair value, although I'm still not sure that is the kind of move Utah would be looking to make.
Click to expand...
rate..I agree with uou.

A team like Utah its a little better prospect+2nd ,vs late playoff team 1st and s lesser prospect

Utah isnt moving their 1st unless its protected someway like being outside top 20 or its a 2nd that becomes first if playoffs made
 
I have a real soft spot for Utah and they have become my second team. I don't want them to make this trade.
That 1st is gonna be a top 10 pick most likely. Rakell isn't worth that. As Emp said, Mac+2 2nds would be fine. That said, Utah has really blown through their excess draft capital so they aren't sitting on unlimited futures anymore. I do think Rakell would be a worthwhile addition but not at the cost of their 1sts.
 
Empoleon8771 said:
Not really, how is that the case? Rakell's value is probably something close to Macceli and a late 1st. It's a huge overpayment by Utah because of where their 1st is, but it's not showing Macceli as a "significant negative asset".
Click to expand...
I mean, you say it right there yourself…

Rackell is not worth close to a 10th overall pick and a future 2nd, which is what the proposal is, essentially (the pick is statistically MORE likely to go up via lottery and/or falling in standings than it is to go down via climbing standings). So if hes not worth close to that, and the proposal is those assets PLUS Macceli… that implies significant negative value.
 
BKarchitect said:
Maccelli averaged 60 points/82 games over two seasons prior to this one.

While he may have bumped into a roadblock or into his ceiling, he’s certainly not a throw in. It seems a bit odd to weigh 52 games over 146 games. This year seems to be the outlier from what track record we have so far.

Regardless - even if you believe he’s a 30 point player and not a 60 point player, Utah has no inherent need to sell low on him. He’s young and not expensive. They can just keep him. He’s definitely not a warm body they will just add to a deal without value being applied.
Click to expand...
ok? This is all theoretical but cool. Take him out of the deal. PIT takes the top 10 pick and runs and doesn’t care about Maccelli :laugh:

My whole point is that it’s a silly proposal bc who is trading a top 10 pick for Rakell lmao. Mid late first and prospect is fair.
 
Michael Farkas said:
Rakell has been an excellent player this year, and he's on a sweetheart contract for what he's providing. "Getting out of Rakell" does not accurately reflect the situation.
Click to expand...

He's 32 in May. He's been consistently injured since entering the NHL. He is a goal scorer which is always going to be a streaky archetype.

It is 100% a situation where getting out of Rakell before his value plummets should be the main focus of this deadline.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom