Speculation: 2018 Off-season Thread

[moosemeister]

Agreed. Last year there weren’t many players I’d have over Stepan and Raanta.

This year we could end up with an impact player. I really like Wahlstrom, but unless it’s Tkachuk, I don’t think I can be upset about anyone we draft at five, even the later risers

 

[rt]

If Chayka and the scouts like Brady the best at 5, I’ll be perfectly happy with that.

 

[Grimes]

I feel if we draft Brady one of Domi or Perlini are moving.

 

[Bonsai Tree]

Somebody must be smoking the peace pipe if they think that our first line of Keller - Stepan - Panik is a good first line. It is a good second line on a playoff team. Sure, we can nudge into the playoffs, perhaps next year, but without a boatload more of top 6 scoring, we really aren't going to challenge for anything more. We need one, probably two more players of Keller's calibre, in the RW and C position to really challenge. I'm not saying Keller's style, but Keller's calibre. Zadina and a better playing Strome might just do it.

 

[Vinny Boombatz]

c'mon now...the last 15 games Keller/Stepan/Panik were in the top 10 in line production. I'm certain that counts as a first line on many of the teams around the NHL. Granted it would be better if we could find someone who would finish the setups Keller/Stepan provided Panik, but it's the best line we've had since Whitney played Keller's role.

 

[BUX7PHX]

Unfortunately, look at just about every single comment that has come up regarding this, and it involves getting a pick at #5 OA that we know will succeed. The last 6 comments involve players like Wahlstrom, Tkachuk, and Zadina/Svechnikov. I am not suggesting that any of these players can't be elite or very good players. But here are some things to chew on:

First off, relative to an NHL regular, we have little idea of what the #5 OA pick could be. It could be Kessel or it could be Dal Colle. Wahlstrom or Tkachuk may be great and may not be. They could be NHL caliber immediately or take 3-4 years. At least with an NHL caliber player, you know what you are getting, and b/c it is the #5 pick that is being offered, we aren't going to get an average player with that.

Second, we have already mentioned getting some veteran presence in to help push the team forward. I know that can mean many things, but if we are to believe ourselves about trying to get a little older and pushing for a playoff spot (which I think we are closer to than realized), does it make sense to wait up to 3 or 4 years for a player that may evolve into something, but maybe not everything we need him to be?

Look at Boedker. Former #8 OA pick. It took until the age of 23 for him to have what I will call a productive enough year to be consistently relied upon. Most of the players that we have in the pipeline (who also happen to be in the NHL already) are right at that point where they are 22 years old, been professionals in some caliber for 2-4 years, and this is that time when we can start to see the breakouts happen. So, why would we simply suggest that picking at #5 is the best option? I would much rather look into trading for a player in the 23-28 year old range where we know that they can help the young guys who are just about to bloom. So, go after the Trocheks, Reilly Smiths, and other players of that caliber. All they can do is help now and for the future, since we know what we are getting. We don't know if some of the draft picks are even ready to go after 1 year, so why perpetuate the waiting game when the team may need that veteran presence to further stabilize the roster?

Our prospect pool is the deepest it has probably ever been, so it's not blowing up the pool and starting over. It's saying that we have a good chunk of players who are upcoming and we can afford to look for a current player without sacrificing the prospect pool. If this were 3 or 4 years ago where our top prospect was Gormley, then absolutely take the pick. But that was a different time and we can look at all options.

 

[Bonsai Tree]

c'mon now...the last 15 games Keller/Stepan/Panik were in the top 10 in line production. I'm certain that counts as a first line on many of the teams around the NHL. Granted it would be better if we could find someone who would finish the setups Keller/Stepan provided Panik, but it's the best line we've had since Whitney played Keller's role.

Yea, they were in the top ten for the time when players are either finalizing off season plans or pacing themselves for the playoffs. Come on. There is no way to project their "junk time" production for the games which actually matter. They are not a top 10 first line.

 

[Vinny Boombatz]

I didn't say they were top 10, I said they played that way down the stretch and they "are" one of the top 31 productive lines in the NHL, so theoretically they are a first line and the best we've had in the last half decade.

 

[SniperHF]

Something I've been meaning to do one of these days I work out exactly what constitutes an average NHL first line production wise on each piece of the line. It's not easy to do since most teams don't really have solidified 3 man units anymore but pairs with 3rd wheels moving up and down all the time. Maybe someone's already done the work out there.

Gut instinct says that THE WAY THEY PLAYED THE LAST 2 MONTHS, they are good enough to be an averageish top line. But Panik was playing way over his head. Keller wasn't. Stepan maybe a little bit, but given that players aren't really consistent for the most part they usually have good streaks and bad streaks, it's not unreasonable to expect Stepan to be at a point per game for several months in a season. If you also understand that he'll be more around half a point per sometimes. I don't think it's actually an good enough top line, but it's better than Bonsai is making it out to be.

Also consider that Keller was just as good early in the season, it was the veteran Stepan who was not. Now that he's acclimated to the team, system, and hopefully doesn't come in out of shape again I don't anticipate such a slow start for him again.

As for the garbage time thing, sorry I just don't buy it and never have with the way the Coyotes played the last 2 months. It's an easy thing to throw out there until you look at the opponents and what happened in the individual games. A lot of the Coyotes opponents in that stretch were playing for their playoff lives. The games are only meaningless if the other team has no reason to play. The only team that legitimately took the night off was Tampa who actually rested players. The Vegas game was hard fought. So were both Kings games. The Canucks on the Sedin's last home game was no picnic. A few cupcake games against Buffalo and earlier against Vancouver sure, but every stretch of games has a few bad teams in it.

The better question is how the team does if Raanta is a little more like an above average goalie rather than a super human one.

 

[Mosby]

Hasn't he been playing RW since Kitchener?

Right-handed shot, I mean.

 

[Bonsai Tree]

Give me a top line RW and I might agree with Sniper and ctwin. Keller is all that and a bag of chips. Stepan is a very good 2nd line center, average to good 1st line center. Panik has not, historically, been a top 3 RW. (or am I wrong?). I just don't see that line matching up well in the West.

 

[Jakey53]

I am not against being patient, but it is all based on who is out there and who we target. Let's say the #5 pick is in play and we can use exactly (no other picks, players, or prospects involved) the #5 pick to get either ROR or Granlund.

If we trade for ROR:

LW: Keller, Perlini, Domi, Crouse, Bunting
C: Stepan, O'Reilly, Strome, Dvorak, Kruger, Cousins
RW: Fischer, Panik

We are still fairly void on RW and would require moving a player to a off-wing position or away from C, which is a risk. So, we take a riskier approach to our lineup and in order to fill out the roster, we are likely having to make at least 2 or 3 other moves (move a player to RW, sign a FA RW and/or likely trade one or two of our young players away to bring in a RW)

If we trade for Granlund:

LW: Keller, Perlini, Domi, Crouse, Bunting
C: Stepan, Strome, Dvorak, Kruger, Cousins
RW: Granlund, Fischer, Panik

Our only move that is truly necessary is moving a player to RW or signing a 4th line RW.

Would you rather have multiple other transactions to make as a result of 1 transaction, or would you rather minimize the remaining transactions that need to get made if the value is all the same?

Someone brought up the Smith trade as a reason for Chayka being able to bring this together, but remember that goalies are a different animal. There are a lot more good goalies in the league than there are good centers, so I don't know if we can judge the ability of a GM making multiple trades work in this context. Raanta was not THE major takeaway from the trade last year. It was about improving at C and G both and getting rid of Smith's contract to open up the $ to absorb Stepan. I don't know if we can view a trade for forwards vs goalies under the same microscope. And since we are not a cap team and do have a budget to work with, we want to get the best bang for our buck. If that means adding ROR and then trading Perlini + for a RW making $4.5 M per year, maybe that drains a lot of our funds for the year and we have to be cheap. The cap is the least of my concerns, but once we take on bigger money deals, we are tied to those for the remainder of that contract.

All that I am suggesting is to not create more trouble than it is worth, especially when dealing with more known quantities in the NHL level players. Get the right value, but if it means making 3 other moves as a result of that one move, maybe that is asking too much to go perfectly right, b/c any one of those additional moves could fall flat, even if the first move worked great.

That's why I am saying - if we add a C, let's make sure we lose a C in that trade. Adding a RW? Let's use the draft pick or LW, where we have a higher number of players available to move. Anything else closes one hole in the lineup but may open another somewhere else.

I think we are closer to being a playoff team than people realize, but we need some consistency across our top 3 lines. Only way to get that is to add a solid RW.

I thought last year we should have been sniffing a playoff spot, and this year I expect us to be in the playoffs, and if not only a couple or so points out. I don't want a ROR or Granlund because of the cost. We are still rebuilding so I would do a couple of short cap UFA's if possible, and if not, keep on acquiring assets and developing what we have.

 

[Jakey53]

Please keep 5oA.....a top end prospect with 3 ELC years to follow. This is the wrong organization to trade top 7oA picks two years in a row.

I agree. You build a winner with drafting and adding a trade here and there, not by trading your high end draft picks for players that will be leaving their prime in a year or two. I want to be in the playoffs for 5-7 yrs., not one or two.

 

[Jakey53]

we have a solid 1st line with Keller/Stepan/Panik (it would be nice to get an upgrade on Panik though), but that group did produce lots of points down the stretch and we're dominate in a lot of games

the big question mark for me is who is going to be paired with Domi/Strome to make them both more effective. We don't have a 2nd line RW so that is the biggest need in the off season for me.

3rd line for me is Perlini/Dvorak/Fischer - inconsistent players game to game that maybe this year with Fischer a year older and the 3rd years for Dvorak & Perlini that they can find some more consistency putting up points. I'd really like to see Perlini get into the 25 goal category along with Fischer. That would do wonders for generating a better offense.

4th line is looking better without Martinook & Richardson. Crouse/Kruger/Cousins I'm liking it.

I'm with you, but RT mentioned he would like another C, RW and D. In that order. Not sure if that was before or after the Kruger trade though.

 

[Mosby]

It was after. I think he specifically mentioned a top C.

Edit: The quote in question -

"I talked to another coach the other day and said, ‘we’d like to get a really high-end center’ and he said, ‘join the club.’ Everybody wants one. You always want to strengthen your center position."

 

[AZviaNJ]

It was after. I think he specifically mentioned a top C.

When your point of reference is Sid and Geno...…..

 

[Mosby]

7x7 for Evander Kane? Hahaha.

I think JVR's a better player and could command more than that. I'd love to add JVR, but not if the numbers get stupid high.

 

[moosemeister]

It’s UFA, the numbers were gonna get stupid high regardless

 

[Bonsai Tree]

So maybe OEL is going to command 9.

 

[Mosby]

I think you gotta use the same position as contract comparables, unless you're Rieder's agent.

 

[Mosby]

Coyotes not expected to retain either Anton Karlsson (3/87th, 2014) and David Westlund (6/163rd, 2014), per Craig.

Our showing in '14 still looks pretty good though, with Perlini, Dvo, MacInnis, Bunting, and possibly Mayo.

 

[hbk]

Coyotes not expected to retain either Anton Karlsson (3/87th, 2014) and David Westlund (6/163rd, 2014), per Craig.

Our showing in '14 still looks pretty good though, with Perlini, Dvo, MacInnis, Bunting, and possibly Mayo.

Karlsson made a mistake when he didn’t come over to CHL.

 

[BUX7PHX]

Coyotes not expected to retain either Anton Karlsson (3/87th, 2014) and David Westlund (6/163rd, 2014), per Craig.

Our showing in '14 still looks pretty good though, with Perlini, Dvo, MacInnis, Bunting, and possibly Mayo.

I thought Karlsson had a chance to make it. Or at least be some type of potential trade fodder, at worst.

Guess not all Swedes make it to AZ

 

[Mosby]

The new Wild GM is talking about making some tweaks, so maybe that opens the door for a possible Charlie Coyle trade. As a RW, he could fit with Domi and Strome.

Panik Stepan Keller
Domi Strome Coyle
Perlini Dvorak Fischer
Crouse Kruger Cousins

No idea what Minny would want in return though.

 

[Jakey53]

Unfortunately, look at just about every single comment that has come up regarding this, and it involves getting a pick at #5 OA that we know will succeed. The last 6 comments involve players like Wahlstrom, Tkachuk, and Zadina/Svechnikov. I am not suggesting that any of these players can't be elite or very good players. But here are some things to chew on:

First off, relative to an NHL regular, we have little idea of what the #5 OA pick could be. It could be Kessel or it could be Dal Colle. Wahlstrom or Tkachuk may be great and may not be. They could be NHL caliber immediately or take 3-4 years. At least with an NHL caliber player, you know what you are getting, and b/c it is the #5 pick that is being offered, we aren't going to get an average player with that.

Second, we have already mentioned getting some veteran presence in to help push the team forward. I know that can mean many things, but if we are to believe ourselves about trying to get a little older and pushing for a playoff spot (which I think we are closer to than realized), does it make sense to wait up to 3 or 4 years for a player that may evolve into something, but maybe not everything we need him to be?

Look at Boedker. Former #8 OA pick. It took until the age of 23 for him to have what I will call a productive enough year to be consistently relied upon. Most of the players that we have in the pipeline (who also happen to be in the NHL already) are right at that point where they are 22 years old, been professionals in some caliber for 2-4 years, and this is that time when we can start to see the breakouts happen. So, why would we simply suggest that picking at #5 is the best option? I would much rather look into trading for a player in the 23-28 year old range where we know that they can help the young guys who are just about to bloom. So, go after the Trocheks, Reilly Smiths, and other players of that caliber. All they can do is help now and for the future, since we know what we are getting. We don't know if some of the draft picks are even ready to go after 1 year, so why perpetuate the waiting game when the team may need that veteran presence to further stabilize the roster?

Our prospect pool is the deepest it has probably ever been, so it's not blowing up the pool and starting over. It's saying that we have a good chunk of players who are upcoming and we can afford to look for a current player without sacrificing the prospect pool. If this were 3 or 4 years ago where our top prospect was Gormley, then absolutely take the pick. But that was a different time and we can look at all options.

We all know that the draft is a crap shoot, but trading away your 5OA and 7OA in consecutive years is not the right way to go for this team, in my opinion. Let's take ROR for example. He will help the team now but when we are starting to contend in three years or so, he will be well past his prime. Also, these proven players are going to cost more than the 5OA in my opinion. If Strome and Crouse make the team this year our prospect pool of the so called elite talent will not be deep as you suggested. If Strome and Crouse do not make the team, then we have to start looking at different playing to replace those two. I would keep the pick and try to pick up a couple of UFA's on short deals. At this point in time I want to keep all the talent we have, acquire more talent and let's develop our own ROR, Trocheks etc.