Dreger: Chychrun trade talks — latest media report AZ hasn’t lowered their asking price

[Jakey53]

No need to act tough, it's the internet, so stop posturing.

Arizona isn't going to get value for taking expiring contracts. That's simply the cost of making trades this deadline.

Arizona or any other team that has cap space will most definitely get assets for taking expiring contracts if said team needs the cap space to make a trade or is having a player returning from injury.

 

[Jakey53]

Who is acting tough, and who is posturing? I was just pointing out your opinion on JP or Foegele's return was based on a 'fact' you didn't know. (ie Kassian's return)

I am also saying JP has literally zero value for us. Because he takes ice time away from prospects and doesn't fit into our rebuild. Therefore we would consider him a dump. So if for some reason EDM wants to trade him to us it'll cost something.

Not sure why EDM would do that (deal's expiring at the end of the year so why bother), but also not sure why you would assume that Arizona will just take salary dumps for free. We've shown many times over the past few years that we're happy to take dumps but it'll cost some combination of 2nds or 3rds depending on the player / contract. One example (out of many) is the Kassian dump whose return you incorrectly quoted

I disagree. JP has value to us IF assets are also included, or if we need to take his cap to finalize a trade. Has nothing to do with taking ice time away from our prospects because is only a few games anyway.

 

[jbeck5]

Chychrun will be a leaf boys. He'll be in a blue and white uniform by next Saturday.

Tomorrow you'll start hearing the "TOR/AZ close" by Friedman or that turd Marek (shortly after Eklund declares "E5").

I do declare: AZ will not get a King's Ransom like you say they will.

1st in 2023, conditional 2nd in 2024, and Engvall.

For

Chychrun, Bjugstad, and a 5th round pick in 2023.

The price mentioned has always been more.

If that was the price, Ottawa could have gotten him for a 1st lottery protected, a conditional 2nd and an average roster player, he would have been traded to Ottawa in the fall.

Keep in mind Ottawas picks are more valuable then Toronto's.

 

[PainForShane]

I disagree. JP has value to us IF assets are also included, or if we need to take his cap to finalize a trade. Has nothing to do with taking ice time away from our prospects because is only a few games anyway.

Not really, it's the assets have value, it's not JP. It's like if I have a fridge of moldy oranges and I pay you $20 to clean my fridge, it's the $20 that has value, not the moldy oranges. Sure you can keep the oranges but that's not what drove the value in our transaction.

Not saying JP (or any human) should be compared to moldy oranges but the analogy still holds

 

[ManofSteel55]

Yamamoto is coming off the LTIR so the Oilers have to make room for cap reasons, so Pulijarvi could be a dump.

Likely not in the traditional sense of a dump. Traded to make room, yes. Traded with a big piece attached just to clear the space? Likely not. I would anticipate that if they pay to move someone it would be Foegle as he has an extra year on his deal. They can also get under by waiving and sending down Foegle if he clears, and sending down Shore. It leaves the Oilers with not much in terms of injury fill ins, but if every team is trying to play hardball and get an asset back for Pulujarvi, Holland can buy some time that way.

The other option is to send a couple of guys down, activate Yamamoto, and trade him. Again, not ideal, but Yamamoto is a 20 goal scorer so there would likely be more interest than in Pulujarvi or Foegle.

 

[ChaoticOrange]

Chychrun will be a leaf boys. He'll be in a blue and white uniform by next Saturday.

Tomorrow you'll start hearing the "TOR/AZ close" by Friedman or that turd Marek (shortly after Eklund declares "E5").

I do declare: AZ will not get a King's Ransom like you say they will.

1st in 2023, conditional 2nd in 2024, and Engvall.

For

Chychrun, Bjugstad, and a 5th round pick in 2023.

Phrasing your trade offers like a southern belle sipping sweet tea doesn't make them any better. That's a poor offer.

 

[PainForShane]

It doesn't matter if the fans consider him a dump. Here's a news flash for you - you aren't actually negotiating a deal here. It won't cost teams to move expiring contracts to balance cap hits, just as it never has in other years, even those where cap space is tight league wide like last season. If he had years beyond this year you might have a point, but as soon as the trade deadline hits, your cap space means nothing, and the expiring contracts you take mean nothing. So if the best deal for Chycrun involves taking an expiring deal, you won't get paid to do that. That's not how it has ever worked in the past, it won't start now, and it shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what is considered as a cap dump and what isn't.

You're right, I'm not the one negotiating a deal here. Good thing for AZ because our GM is a better negotiator than I am. But also, you're not the one negotiating a deal either... which seems like a good thing for EDM because, unlike you, Ken Holland would definitely know that dumping Zach Kassian's contract require a second and third rounder... and if he know he'd be able to look it up before entering negotiations with another team. Still not sure why you didn't at least look that up before posting. *shrug*

Anyway if you're talking about balancing cap hits re: trade, not sure what Foegele or JP or any of your forwards have to do with anything. We would ask for, and get, Tyson Barrie. First of all the cap hits are equal (Barrie at 4.5, Chych at 4.6), second of all we'd need a d-man to replace Chych (and GhostBear after we trade him or he leaves in the summer). From EDM's perspective, not an Oil fan, but I think EDM would likely be ok trading Barrie because otherwise you have an extra defenseman (which blocks Broberg at least through 2024), and just as importantly Foegele is still a good player, to me it seems unlikely Ken Holland blows up his bottom six mid-season for no reason when he could just trade Barrie instead. Yes it may hurt your power play but McDavid drives that unit anyway, and besides, you'd think Bouchard should soon be ready for PP1 soon anyway (if he isn't already).

***

And in terms of cap dumps I think you're the one that doesn't understand, and I think most others who understand the game / following this convo would agree. A cap dump means a team is trying to dump cap. That's all. It has nothing to do with how good or not good the player is.

For examples, past few years Vegas cap dumped the reigning Vezina winner, a perennial 30-goal scorer in MaxPac, SJ dumped Brent Burns this past offseason everyone would agree he is still at least a top 4 defenseman on any team. They are all better players than JP or Foegele and they were all cap dumps.

***

But yeah, in terms of equaling out contracts, Barrie coming back (to balance cap hits) would make way more sense than JP or Foegele or whoever else -- and trading another player with the primary purpose of clearing space is a cap dump. Put another way, how can anyone possibly argue "trading JP to make cap room for Yamo" coming off LTIR is not a cap dump and is instead "trading a player to make room". What are you even saying

 

[AslanRH]

Balancing contracts / dumping cap
In one, the cost is built into the trade package, in the other it is generally a pure dump with nothing of note coming in return
potato / potato

 

[Dead Coyote]

It doesn't matter if the fans consider him a dump. Here's a news flash for you - you aren't actually negotiating a deal here. It won't cost teams to move expiring contracts to balance cap hits, just as it never has in other years, even those where cap space is tight league wide like last season. If he had years beyond this year you might have a point, but as soon as the trade deadline hits, your cap space means nothing, and the expiring contracts you take mean nothing. So if the best deal for Chycrun involves taking an expiring deal, you won't get paid to do that. That's not how it has ever worked in the past, it won't start now, and it shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what is considered as a cap dump and what isn't.

I must have imagined when we got Ghost, Ladd, Stralman, recently with assets attached for them because of their contracts. Must have imagined when OEL was attached with Garland to reduce the cost to Vancouver.

 

[Jakey53]

Not really, it's the assets have value, it's not JP. It's like if I have a fridge of moldy oranges and I pay you $20 to clean my fridge, it's the $20 that has value, not the moldy oranges. Sure you can keep the oranges but that's not what drove the value in our transaction.

Not saying JP (or any human) should be compared to moldy oranges but the analogy still holds

To get those assets you have to take JP. No JP, no assets.

 

[PainForShane]

To get those assets you have to take JP. No JP, no assets.

Which would mean JP has negative value. Because:

Assets (positive value) + JP (negative value) = neutral value.

Either way JP / Foegele / other EDM forwards should be irrelevant to a discussion about a Chychrun trade because we would be getting Barrie instead (see my long-ish post above for reasons)

 

[ManofSteel55]

Arizona or any other team that has cap space will most definitely get assets for taking expiring contracts if said team needs the cap space to make a trade or is having a player returning from injury.

Not if it is part of a larger deal and the expiring contract is needed to balance the cap. If someone was phoning Arizona just asking them to take a bad expiring contract they would need to pay for that. If it ends up being "we'll give you what you're asking in the Chycrun deal but you have to take this expiring contract too", Arizona probably accepts. That's been a pretty normal practice over the past few years.

I must have imagined when we got Ghost, Ladd, Stralman, recently with assets attached for them because of their contracts. Must have imagined when OEL was attached with Garland to reduce the cost to Vancouver.

None of those were expiring contracts. The discussion is whether expiring contracts (ie, contracts that are done at the end of the year) require assets attached if part of a larger deal.

 

[kingpest19]

I must have imagined when we got Ghost, Ladd, Stralman, recently with assets attached for them because of their contracts. Must have imagined when OEL was attached with Garland to reduce the cost to Vancouver.

Stralman had one year left, Ghost and Ladd had two years left on their deals. All three were pure cap dumps and not part of a larger deal.

 

[PainForShane]

Not if it is part of a larger deal and the expiring contract is needed to balance the cap. If someone was phoning Arizona just asking them to take a bad expiring contract they would need to pay for that. If it ends up being "we'll give you what you're asking in the Chycrun deal but you have to take this expiring contract too", Arizona probably accepts. That's been a pretty normal practice over the past few years.


None of those were expiring contracts. The discussion is whether expiring contracts (ie, contracts that are done at the end of the year) require assets attached if part of a larger deal.

Is it? I thought this whole thing started when you mentioned Foegele should be thrown into a Chychrun deal, for free, because according to you the entire cost of the Kassian dump was moving a first round pick from #32 overall to #29 overall and the cost of taking Foegele should be less than that. As you know (or apparently don't know), Foegele is signed through 2024 so he is not on an expiring contract.

I guess I must've been imagining things.

And also, news flash -- if you want to move the goalposts, it generally helps if you don't move them so far that they no longer apply to the argument you've been making the entire time. Personally I think moving the goalposts is a borderline insufferable way to try to win an internet argument, but maybe that is just me

 

[ManofSteel55]

Is it? I thought this whole thing started when you mentioned Foegele should be thrown into a Chychrun deal, for free, because according to you the entire cost of the Kassian dump was moving a first round pick from #32 overall to #29 overall and the cost of taking Foegele should be less than that. As you know (or apparently don't know), Foegele is signed through 2024 so he is not on an expiring contract.

I guess I must've been imagining things.

And also, news flash -- if you want to move the goalposts, it generally helps if you don't move them so far that they no longer apply to the argument you've been making the entire time. Personally I think moving the goalposts is a borderline insufferable way to try to win an internet argument, but maybe that is just me

No, I mentioned Pulujarvi and his expiring contract wouldn't cost anything to include. I never said Foegle wouldn't cost anything to dump if Arizona didn't want him as a player. In fact, what I said was,

"Foegele I don't think lives up to his contract, but I also don't think its such an awful deal that it would cost a ton to take it, if anything" meaning that it might cost something marginal to move him, but it probably won't be a ton, assuming your GM doesn't want him.

I will still stand by my statement that the cost of taking Pulujarvi would be nothing, as his contract is expiring. My statement in my first response to you is the same as I am saying it now. Arizona won't get any assets for taking expiring contracts. That doesn't include Foegle, as he is not an expiring contract. Again, I never once said you guys would take Foegle for free if he isn't a player your GM wants for next year. Not once. So stop with the micro-aggressions. I'm not moving any goal posts, you're the one stating we were discussing Foegle when I clearly stated expiring contracts.

 

[PainForShane]

No, I mentioned Pulujarvi and his expiring contract wouldn't cost anything to include. I never said Foegle wouldn't cost anything to dump if Arizona didn't want him as a player. In fact, what I said was,

"Foegele I don't think lives up to his contract, but I also don't think its such an awful deal that it would cost a ton to take it, if anything" meaning that it might cost something marginal to move him, but it probably won't be a ton, assuming your GM doesn't want him.

I will still stand by my statement that the cost of taking Pulujarvi would be nothing, as his contract is expiring. My statement in my first response to you is the same as I am saying it now. Arizona won't get any assets for taking expiring contracts. That doesn't include Foegle, as he is not an expiring contract. Again, I never once said you guys would take Foegle for free if he isn't a player your GM wants for next year. Not once. So stop with the micro-aggressions. I'm not moving any goal posts, you're the one stating we were discussing Foegle when I clearly stated expiring contracts.

"I also don't think its such an awful deal that it would cost a ton to take it, if anything" (re Foegele).

Obviously you are talking about Foegele. And obviously Foegele's contract expires in 2024. So obviously Foegele is not on an expiring contract. So obviously when you say

The discussion is whether expiring contracts (ie, contracts that are done at the end of the year) require assets attached if part of a larger deal.

then you are wrong or misleading (intentionally or not, I have no idea), because obviously Foegele is part of the discussion that you just described above.

***

Also, no micro-aggressions here. I just honestly don't know why you're talking or what you are actually arguing for. Do you honestly believe that just because a contract is expiring it is value neutral and should be taken on for free?

If so, we'll give you Nick Ritchie and Christian Fischer and Stecher as part of a larger deal and not expect additional compensation for any of them. Or maybe you can just trade with Toronto and they can add Engvall and Kerfoot and Justin Holl and Wayne Simmonds as part of some other package and they wouldn't have to increase their trade offer at all, you'd just take those players because as we all know expiring contracts don't cost anything when included in a larger trade package.

Argument solved. smh

 

[Nowotny]

Phrasing your trade offers like a southern belle sipping sweet tea doesn't make them any better. That's a poor offer.

Almost as bad as mint julep made with Canadian whisky

 

[ManofSteel55]

"I also don't think its such an awful deal that it would cost a ton to take it, if anything" (re Foegele).

Obviously you are talking about Foegele. And obviously Foegele's contract expires in 2024. So obviously Foegele is not on an expiring contract. So obviously when you say


then you are wrong or misleading (intentionally or not, I have no idea), because obviously Foegele is part of the discussion that you just described above.

***

Also, no micro-aggressions here. I just honestly don't know why you're talking or what you are actually arguing for. Do you honestly believe that just because a contract is expiring it is value neutral and should be taken on for free?

If so, we'll give you Nick Ritchie and Christian Fischer and Stecher as part of a larger deal and not expect additional compensation for any of them. Or maybe you can just trade with Toronto and they can add Engvall and Kerfoot and Justin Holl and Wayne Simmonds as part of some other package and they wouldn't have to increase their trade offer at all, you'd just take those players because as we all know expiring contracts don't cost anything when included in a larger trade package.

Argument solved. smh

"Would not take a ton, if anything", doesn't imply for free. It literally says "not a ton", which is in fact, something. The "if anything at all" comes into play if Arizona's GM actually wanted Foegle moving forward.

Keep your "no micro-aggressions" stuff, you are throwing insults left, right and centre. Acting like you're a genius and everyone else is an idiot is no way to have a conversation. Yes, I left out the middling assets mentioned in the Kassian deal, as they are throw in pieces and the main part of that trade was dropping down a handful of spots. Kassian also had an entire other year on his deal, and is done as an NHL player, so the comparison isn't even a good one, other than to show that you can get assets for negative value players - which I never argued.

As per the bolded, yes, I do believe that expiring contracts get thrown into deals all the time to make the salary cap work for both teams involved. It happens every year. That's not to say that if Holland just called up your GM and said, "hey, take Devin Shore from me, he's already cleared waivers but you can have him for free" that it wouldn't cost anything, but if it was a deal for Jacob Chycrun (as he's the obvious one who is available), and both teams agreed upon 2 1st and a prospect, including Jesse Pulujarvi wouldn't cost anything because it is only to offset the cap in the deal, and his contract is expiring. I do expect adding a Foegle to offset more of the cap would have a marginal cost to it, some type of mid round draft pick or picks, as per the usual price, unless, as I've said before, your GM just wanted Foegle for some reason. It would be the same in a Toronto deal if the assets you mentioned are on expiring contracts too. If your GM gets what he wants in terms of picks and prospects for Chycrun, he will take on expiring contracts in the deal to get the deal done. It happens every year.

Now, I'm done with your posturing. Have a good day.

 

[Ianturnedbull]

Phrasing your trade offers like a southern belle sipping sweet tea doesn't make them any better. That's a poor offer.

It's true. A Tim Hortons double-double slurping Fubar Mega Hoser can see right through that shit. What does Edmoncton have to offer for Chychrun?

"The Mac, she's a cruel mistress, and she will freeze you, if you don't love her, the way we all love her up here. We are the Mac... are you the Mac?"

-TRON

 

[Tetragrammaton]

Florida's 2023 1st
Evans
Mesar or Kidney

 

[PainForShane]

"Would not take a ton, if anything", doesn't imply for free. It literally says "not a ton", which is in fact, something. The "if anything at all" comes into play if Arizona's GM actually wanted Foegle moving forward.

Keep your "no micro-aggressions" stuff, you are throwing insults left, right and centre. Acting like you're a genius and everyone else is an idiot is no way to have a conversation. Yes, I left out the middling assets mentioned in the Kassian deal, as they are throw in pieces and the main part of that trade was dropping down a handful of spots. Kassian also had an entire other year on his deal, and is done as an NHL player, so the comparison isn't even a good one, other than to show that you can get assets for negative value players - which I never argued.

As per the bolded, yes, I do believe that expiring contracts get thrown into deals all the time to make the salary cap work for both teams involved. It happens every year. That's not to say that if Holland just called up your GM and said, "hey, take Devin Shore from me, he's already cleared waivers but you can have him for free" that it wouldn't cost anything, but if it was a deal for Jacob Chycrun (as he's the obvious one who is available), and both teams agreed upon 2 1st and a prospect, including Jesse Pulujarvi wouldn't cost anything because it is only to offset the cap in the deal, and his contract is expiring. I do expect adding a Foegle to offset more of the cap would have a marginal cost to it, some type of mid round draft pick or picks, as per the usual price, unless, as I've said before, your GM just wanted Foegle for some reason. It would be the same in a Toronto deal if the assets you mentioned are on expiring contracts too. If your GM gets what he wants in terms of picks and prospects for Chycrun, he will take on expiring contracts in the deal to get the deal done. It happens every year.

Now, I'm done with your posturing. Have a good day.

So now I've been "throwing insults left, right, and center" is that so.

I'm sorry, I just can't take you seriously anymore.

To everyone else, Kassian had 2 years left on a 3.2m cap hit and was traded for a 2nd (2025), a 3rd (2024), and the ability to move up from #32OA to #29OA in last year's draft (swapped picks, we had COL's from the Kuemper trade). I don't think any sane person who actually follows hockey would classify future 2nd and 3rd round picks as "middle assets" or "throw in pieces" like this guy just did, especially considering we're a rebuilding team. And also, moving up from 32 to 29 imo was probably not that important given we went off board with that pick anyway (we picked a very large defender named Lamoureux who was projected to go much later).

And also, of course most deals done these days requires cap going back the other way, and of course a Chych trade would be no different. But a Chychrun trade with EDM would require Barrie come back the other way for cap purposes, not JP or Foegele or anyone else. Mostly because Barrie is a defenseman and has a very similar cap hit to Chychrun (4.5m vs 4.6m), but a few other reasons too. For instance, if EDM doesn't send Barrie back, then Broberg's development would be completely blocked -- he'd be the #7 defenseman on that team and all 6 guys above him would be signed through 2025, there'd literally be no roster spot for him through 2025. And also Zona could use an NHL-level defenseman especially if Chych (and likely GhostBear) get traded before next season's start. And also we literally have no need for any more depth forwards this year, for next year if needed we could just sign some random free agents for 1-1.5m and call it a day (lower cost than both Foegele and JP's current contract BTW).

So if EDM wants to offload bad contracts like JP, it would cost them something. Not much, maybe a third in a few years, I don't know. But Chych and Barrie have the same cap, so pretending or even believing you'd need to send either of them back the other way to make the cap work for a Chychrun trade is more than silly, it's delusional.

And lastly, I don't think it takes a genius to be able to look at capfriendly and figure this all out by yourself, weird choice of words but whatever. Here, the link is Edmonton Oilers Salary Cap, Draft Picks, and Player Contracts - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps and if you scroll down you will see:

And if you click on the AZ page you'll see Chych has a 4.6m cap hit. So I have no idea why this poster (or anyone else) would think you'd need to send more bad contracts over just to make the cap work, it just doesn't make any sense. *shrug*

 

[rynryn]

please go East please go East

 

[gvineq]

I also think it's crazy to suggest that a guy with 0 NHL games looks better than a proven top pair defenseman.

not really,chremisty and injuy history are important, i wouldkeep Clarke andpropects over injutry prone and expensive Chychrun

 

[Ianturnedbull]

Seriously?Late 1st,conditional 2nd,UFA after this season?That is delusional

Who is going to give AZ an early 1st?!?! Who's being delusional now? What GM would want Chychrun over Bedard.

Jeeeese!!!!

 

[Mr Positive]

please go East please go East

That's a factor I worry about as an Oiler fan. Small moves like the Kassian dump are one thing. Is Arizona ready to trade a core piece within the conference? Teams don't like doing that.

My hope is that the Oilers have a lot of desire to get him and will have the best offer as well. Maybe if we overpay a bit we can overcome the usual trend.