Value of: A goal-scoring winger to SJ

[Gilligans Island]

Sorry, crushed in the real world atm but will try to get back to you w/in 24 ish hours.

I believe we have a deal in principle, just need to review/discuss permutations as to final form.

Til then

Where are your priorities, man?!

 

[bernmeister]

Where are your priorities, man?!

We can still do a deal but I see you just moved Wingels so it needs to be tweaked.

Later...

 

[2020 Cup Champions]

We can still do a deal but I see you just moved Wingels so it needs to be tweaked.

Later...

I think you'd be better served getting out from under whatever crushed before you go making hypothetical hockey trades.

 

[bernmeister]

I think you'd be better served getting out from under whatever crushed before you go making hypothetical hockey trades.

that's so COLD, Stone Cold

seriously, I expected you to show more of an open mind.

 

[Sysreq]

We can still do a deal but I see you just moved Wingels so it needs to be tweaked.

Later...

What exactly does NYR need? Something around Boedker + Dillion would mitigate the loss of offense brought about by moving Nash, while also adding another mid-pairing defense to shore up that weakness. Cap works out to +- a few hundred thousand.

 

[Vatican Roulette]

My previous proposal is out. (Tatar for Wingles, Gambrell, Heed)

So I'll try to revise:

Tatar@50%

For

Karlsson
Gambrell
Heed
Wiederer

If it's a no, just tell me why. My feelings won't be hurt.

 

[Gilligans Island]

My previous proposal is out. (Tatar for Wingles, Gambrell, Heed)

So I'll try to revise:

Tatar@50%

For

Karlsson
Gambrell
Heed
Wiederer

If it's a no, just tell me why. My feelings won't be hurt.

I'd probably do it. We don't need retention for Tatar and would prefer to keep either Karlsson or Gambrell. That still work?

 

[Vatican Roulette]

I'd probably do it. We don't need retention for Tatar and would prefer to keep either Karlsson or Gambrell. That still work?

That's ok. Keep Karlsson, Tatar @ 2.75.

Would SJ add someone like Rod or is that too much?

 

[Fistfullofbeer]

That's ok. Keep Karlsson, Tatar @ 2.75.

Would SJ add someone like Rod or is that too much?

I would be perfectly fine moving Rod. Gambrell is tough because he is a really good prospect but I think if we want Tatar, that would be a requirement.

Heed is the one I feel uncomfortable with. But that is more to do with the fact that we got him over for a 1 year contract with him getting a decent shot at the NHL roster. Just moving him could potentially generate ill-will and prevent us from getting other European players over.

 

[bernmeister]

What exactly does NYR need? Something around Boedker + Dillion would mitigate the loss of offense brought about by moving Nash, while also adding another mid-pairing defense to shore up that weakness. Cap works out to +- a few hundred thousand.

I'll try to revise the proposal over the next hour - ish.
Boedker in a vacuum does not work as that is a long term big time underachiever, and we do not want.

While you could eat half on Boedker and try other cap dump in addition, that would be counterproductive to your cap situation.

I'll see if I can offer you a win win on balance. back soon....

btw, this was my last revised offer:

Nash at half =3.9 + Tambellini, Stromwall, Kovacs = 3 ELCs that are not active vs main club, do not count.
Rangers add 2018 NYR 3rd Also possible conditional 6th round pick in 2020 depending upon how Dillon produces and if NYR extends him.
total cap 3.9

for

Mirco Mueller + Julius Bergman prospect Ds, one each LD-RD = 2 ELCs that are not active vs main club, do not count, SJS 1st [Sharks choice of year over next 4] and acceptable cap dumps Wingels 2,475 expiring + Dillon 3.27 x 4.
total cap 5.745

Net cap: [5.745 - 3.9 = ] 1.645 net benefit to SJ

which has to be redone due to Wingels being moved

 

[bernmeister]

Updated due to Wingels being dealt...


Mirco Mueller + Julius Bergman prospect Ds, one each LD-RD = 2 ELCs that are not active vs main club, do not count, + Dillon 3.27 x 4, + Boedker 4.0 x 4, + Haley .625 expiring, Melker, 1.65 expiring w/RFA rights
cap = 8.545, Sharks retain nothing

for

Nash at half =3.9 + Girardi, 5.5 x 4 reduced to 3.1 per + Pirri + 1.1 + Puempel .9, both expiring but w/RFA rights, + Tambellini, Stromwall, Kovacs = 3 ELCs that are not active vs main club, do not count; and option to acquire Melker RFA rights at any time while effective prior to his signing a new deal, for the ‘minimum’ (conditional or actual 7th, $10,000 or minimal cash $ league accepts for such transaction).
cap = 9, NY retains 2.4m per on dif of Girardi’s deal [5.5 - 3.1]

total net cap 9 - 8.545 = .455 net benefit to Rangers
{Sharks do not retain salary, NY retains 2.4m}

Salary identified includes current year

analysis
SJ is D heavy, F light due to injury/NY is reciprocal

SJ wants to get immediate help for all in run without entirely screwing the pooch to restructure on the fly. This revision allows for Sharks to retain picks. They are surrendering 2 higher ELCs (former 1st and 2nd) D prospects + Dillon. Haley is expiring UFA on IR, his return no issue. Temporarily without Melker balance of season but get his RFA rights ASAP thereafter.

Girardi is a nightmare but do-able at 3.1, and from a $ standpoint an improvement over Boedker at 4.0, which was a huge disaster signing. His NMC (assuming he waives) would kill this, except we are all assured league will allow buyouts before the expansion draft. This means prior thereto Danny boy bought out proportionately 3.1 by SJ, 2.4 by NY [I think]. In the meantime, he can sit every game, or just give a breather against some of the weaker opponents. G figures he is getting bought out either way, does Rangers a favor approving move and has better shot at Cup this year. Alternatively, if somehow did not have to deal w/expansion draft, he switches from total to partial NMC w/partial NTC, and he can be traded to upwards of roughly half the league. However, not sure there is any workaround to having protect him in advance of expansion draft.

Balance of deal: Nash is early 30s, nice top line complement. Pirri and Puempel are not prototypes for ideal players, but no question, have scoring touch, and are cheap short term expiring stopgaps who can be retained due to RFA rights or those rights possibly traded. NY prospects: Tambellini was highest of 3 3rd rounders taken, ahead of Buchnevich and Duclair. He has the obvious bloodline, and has demonstrated some scoring touch. Likely makes NHL, not clear how far he advances. Kovacs is high risk/reward guy in Marty St. Louis/Patrick Kane/Zuc size; has also shown scoring ability; needs to learn a whole game. Not clear he makes it or not, but development not bad for a year +. Stromwall is a total crapshoot, he has worked ok so far. You don’t want to activate these guys now because, I expect (could be wrong here) that means automatic activation of daily use of NHL salary; were that not the case, you could get 5 games minimum from each before the ELC kicks in. However, while helping a little bit long term, it is a small insurance policy in case yet another Shark goes on LTIR.

Rangers: Surrender of Nash yields instant help in Dillon which is useful for 2nd pair. 2 ELC Ds helps long term w/paucity of D prospects. While not cheap, have removed Girardi and his NMC from roster, which is increased flexibility for upcoming roster situation.

Seems like a win win....

 

[Juxtaposer]

Absolutely **** no to anything including Girardi.

 

[jMoneyBrah]

Absolutely **** no to anything including Girardi.

Ditto. That's a deal breaker.

 

[Gecklund]

Wouldn't take Girardi for free. You better be giving us a much better piece than Nash to take him.

 

[Gilligans Island]

tl;dr

take out Girardi and give it another shot

 

[Fistfullofbeer]

Count me as another Sharks fan who says no to Girardi. Honestly, I think Nash is going to be too expensive for us. He is a top winger but his cap hit makes things extremely complicated. We need to look at cheaper options.

 

[CrypTic]

Girardi is a nightmare but do-able at 3.1, and from a $ standpoint an improvement over Boedker at 4.0, which was a huge disaster signing. His NMC (assuming he waives) would kill this, except we are all assured league will allow buyouts before the expansion draft. This means prior thereto Danny boy bought out proportionately 3.1 by SJ, 2.4 by NY [I think]. In the meantime, he can sit every game, or just give a breather against some of the weaker opponents. G figures he is getting bought out either way, does Rangers a favor approving move and has better shot at Cup this year. Alternatively, if somehow did not have to deal w/expansion draft, he switches from total to partial NMC w/partial NTC, and he can be traded to upwards of roughly half the league. However, not sure there is any workaround to having protect him in advance of expansion draft.

So we send you Boedker at 4M x 4 and you send us Girardi at 3.1 x 4 (or 900k savings/year). Then we buy out Girardi but have his cap on the books for six years, including a $1M signing bonus for the next three. The buyout cap isn't bad (1.1M/year per capfriendly which would be split between the two clubs but, as I understand it, the Sharks would be responsible for the full signing bonus portion and ~60% of the 1.1).

If this is correct, I'd rather keep Boedker than buy out Girardi. I think that we can retain $1M on Boedker and trade him to someone. He's not a good fit with DeBoer's system but he could be with another team's. That's cheaper than buying out Girardi for us and it will be off our books sooner. Boedker still has some chance of working out. He has some good games, then some where he looks lost. There is no chance that Girardi works out.

Count me as another Sharks fan who says no to Girardi. Honestly, I think Nash is going to be too expensive for us. He is a top winger but his cap hit makes things extremely complicated. We need to look at cheaper options.

I agree with all of this. I like Nash but we can't afford him.

 

[Beville]

But...

We just gave you Buddy Robinson

 

[InfinityIggy]

Assuming the Flames are out at the deadline, would the Sharks have any interest in Brouwer?

 

[Satastic]

Assuming the Flames are out at the deadline, would the Sharks have any interest in Brouwer?

I wouldn't mind picking him up, depending on the price

 

[Juxtaposer]

Assuming the Flames are out at the deadline, would the Sharks have any interest in Brouwer?

None at all. Frolik, I would though.

 

[Limekiller]

take out Girardi and give it another shot

Agreed. Put me solidly in the group of SJ fans who's opinion of Girardi is: "I wouldn't touch him with a 10 foot cattle prod". Any even vaguely reasonable deal that involves sending him to us is basically a complete non-starter. Do Not Want.

 

[jMoneyBrah]

Updated due to Wingels being dealt...

TO RANGERS
Dillon @ 3.27 x 4
Boedker @ 4 x 4
Haley @ .625 - UFA
Karlsson @ 1.65 - RFA
Mueller
Bergman
-.455M to this seasons cap

TO SHARKS
Nash @ 3.9 x 2
Girardi @ 3.1 x 4
Pirri @ 1.1 - RFA
Puempel @ .9 - RFA
3 ELCs
+.455 to this seasons cap

Seems like a win win....

Sorry, I just had to make all of that a bit more concise

My thoughts:
1. No on Girardi
2. Sharks hope to be contending for the cup. Can't move 4 roster players for any reason.
3. The 3 ELCs still don't do anything for me. There is absolutely no chance any of them see any NHL time this season, and none are really any better than what we already have in the AHL currently. The Barracuda are doing fine even with Meier and Labanc in the NHL. Even aftermoving assets for a scorer of Nash's ilk, the Sharks drafter/scouting, realistically, needs to graduatate only 2/3 players every 3 seasons. They've managed that well over the last several years and the way things are looking now, there's decent likelihood they can continue to do so without taking and prospects in this deal. We have contract slots open to take contracts back if needed to facilitate the deal, but let's not kid each other, there would be no expectation that they'd be adding any hockey value to the deal.
4. No on Girardi
5. I'm open to trading our first for a forward who will be an additional legit goal scoring threat in our top 6.
6. Girardi...no

I think we can get back to the core of focusing around a deal of Nash to SJ and D help, youth, and futures to NYR.

I have two options for you to ponder:

----
OPTION A

Dillon @ 3.27 x 4
Tierney @ .711 - RFA
Mueller
2017 1st

For

Nash @ 3.9 x 2
2017 5th
2018 4th

----
OPTION B

Dillon @ 3.27 x 4
Tierney @ .711 - RFA
Mueller
Bergman
2017 1st

For

Nash @ 3.9 x 2
2018 2nd (Ottawa's)
2018 3rd

----

Both deals are, near as makes no difference, cap neutral deals. In both deals Rangers get 3 prime seasons from Dillon that they can slot in 4/5 role, on either the left or right side, a young 3/4C with a bit of room to grow, a young former 1st round LHD with plus size, skating, tools, and 2way top 4 potential.

The 2nd deal tacks on Bergman (RHD also looking pretty close to NHL ready with plenty of room to grow) in exchange for upgrading the two picks going back to the Sharks.

 

[CanadienShark]

My previous proposal is out. (Tatar for Wingles, Gambrell, Heed)

So I'll try to revise:

Tatar@50%

For

Karlsson
Gambrell
Heed
Wiederer

If it's a no, just tell me why. My feelings won't be hurt.

In a heartbeat. Tatar is the perfect LW for us. He's a great fit on Thornton's or Couture's lines. And I like Karlsson/Heed.

 

[bernmeister]

Absolutely **** no to anything including Girardi.

Ditto. That's a deal breaker.

Wouldn't take Girardi for free. You better be giving us a much better piece than Nash to take him.

take out Girardi and give it another shot

I heard you loud and clear on Girardi.
In my defense, let's be clear this was because the club actually dealt Wingels, requiring an acceptable proposal to be reworked. Also, I was not just dumping G on you, I was sending him reduced by 2.4 from 5.5 to 3.1, while taking on Boedker at the full 4.0.

Acknowledged no Girardi in any deal.

Count me as another Sharks fan who says no to Girardi. Honestly, I think Nash is going to be too expensive for us. He is a top winger but his cap hit makes things extremely complicated. We need to look at cheaper options.

you are welcomed to go there, but as often is the case, you get what you pay for.