Speculation: Summer 2018 off season roster discussion

[Sharksrule04]

That might be closer to realistic value for Burns. I would be trading Vlasic right now if I could.

Can't wait until next year when everyone is once again realizing that Vlasic is the premiere shut down d-man. No way we should be trading him now because he would not yield any where near the value he brings to our team.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

Can't wait until next year when everyone is once again realizing that Vlasic is the premiere shut down d-man. No way we should be trading him now because he would not yield any where near the value he brings to our team.

What exactly are we going to realize next year? Is Vlasic’s strong trend of regression over the past couple of seasons suddenly going to stop?

The value he could yield in a trade would be more than the value he brings to our team because he has already started to seriously regress and while it’s only going to get worse, a lot of GMs don’t see him enough to know that. His value probably isn’t all that much lower than it was in 2016 to teams around the league but it’s significantly lower to us because of how his play has fallen off a cliff.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Can't wait until next year when everyone is once again realizing that Vlasic is the premiere shut down d-man. No way we should be trading him now because he would not yield any where near the value he brings to our team.

I think everyone knows that it's unrealistic to trade any of Burns, Vlasic, Pavelski, and Couture. Their clauses are too restrictive to get good enough value out of them to make it worth moving them. They're here until their contracts are done or there's a falling out.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

What exactly are we going to realize next year? Is Vlasic’s strong trend of regression over the past couple of seasons suddenly going to stop?

The value he could yield in a trade would be more than the value he brings to our team because he has already started to seriously regress and while it’s only going to get worse, a lot of GMs don’t see him enough to know that. His value probably isn’t all that much lower than it was in 2016 to teams around the league but it’s significantly lower to us because of how his play has fallen off a cliff.

Yeah but his current contract has a full NTC. He's not going anywhere if he doesn't want to and clearly he doesn't want to with a new contract that has a full NMC to start the first five seasons.

 

[Maladroit]

I don't think they did. They made the best of the situation for them. Anaheim got rid of a contract when they were going to lose a good player regardless. You can have your preferences but any of them were going to help Vegas immediately. Minnesota's situation is again a matter of preference but not some egregious error. Getting Staal or Brodin would help Vegas immediately. Getting Zucker would help Vegas immediately too. Tuch is a guy that had talent but when you look at it from Minnesota's perspective, they had to choose between giving up someone young and proven or giving up someone young and unproven. Tuch was unproven. All those other options aren't and they were a playoff team. They can't just prioritize Tuch six games out of college over those guys. That's just not realistic. You can talk about the AHL scoring all you like but teams don't prioritize that over proven NHL players 99% of the time. As for Haula, the fact that he's on their 4th line is why they made him available. He's 27 and not some young buck they needed to worry about keeping over others. Minnesota just had a significant amount of decent talent. They were going to lose someone very good and let go two guys that weren't big time contributors to their club over losing a bigger piece. As for Nashville, that's a move that teams make all the time. Nashville let Neal go because they weren't going to re-sign him. His spot was filled by Kevin Fiala and he produced what Neal did. And putting Neal in Smith's place doesn't change anything. Neal is a guy who only goes as much as the guy who makes the plays on his line goes. Otherwise, he's not a factor. Smith produced the same as Neal did this season. And Kyle Turris playing the way Kyle Turris did is why Craig Smith or James Neal would've made no difference in that series much less be the difference in winning the Cup.

And I probably agree with you on your scenario but it's not because of a bunch of teams making poor decisions. It's because Dale Tallon in his infinite wisdom gave up two bona fide 2nd line players simply because he didn't want to sign Marchessault for some stupid reason. Everyone else, the difference is marginal at best upon examination.

I'm not saying there was some alternate scenario where teams like the Ducks and Wild could have just given Vegas garbage. That was never going to happen. The rules were set up so that teams with quality veteran depth would be forced to make extremely tough choices and lose a good player. One good player. What these teams did was essentially get so terrified at the prospect of giving Vegas $5 that they ended up handing them a twenty.

If Anaheim and Minnesota had simply compiled no-brainer protection lists and refrained from making any deals, they likely would have lost Josh Manson and Jason Zucker, respectively. And I get it, those are two reliable top-half-of-the-lineup players that no team wants to lose for nothing. But, hey, that's what your owner signed up for with dollar signs in his eyes thanks to the $500 million expansion fee. And more to the point, those are both relatively replaceable players. 20- and 21-year-old recent first round picks whose AHL performances had them tracking extremely well to be impact NHL players in the very near future are much more difficult to replace.

Kyle Turris definitely had an awful postseason but I don't buy that having a far more proven playoff performer like Neal on his wing "doesn't change anything." Smith has underwhelmed in the playoffs his entire career. Coming into this season, he had 4 goals in 30 career playoff games. Also they would have still had Smith, just playing further down the lineup for added depth which would have helped add some scoring punch to their dismal bottom six. That was some serious overthinking by David Poile who was constructing a protection list meant more for a bubble or rebuilding team than arguably the best roster in the NHL. Keeping Neal for just one more year, even if he walked for nothing this summer, makes a lot more sense when you're the favorite to come out of the West than holding on to a third-line center who provides you with cheap depth over the longer term. At the end of the day the goal for a team like that is to win the Cup ASAP not save money on your third line in 2021.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I'm not saying there was some alternate scenario where teams like the Ducks and Wild could have just given Vegas garbage. That was never going to happen. The rules were set up so that teams with quality veteran depth would be forced to make extremely tough choices and lose a good player. One good player. What these teams did was essentially get so terrified at the prospect of giving Vegas $5 that they ended up handing them a twenty.

If Anaheim and Minnesota had simply compiled no-brainer protection lists and refrained from making any deals, they likely would have lost Josh Manson and Jason Zucker, respectively. And I get it, those are two reliable top-half-of-the-lineup players that no team wants to lose for nothing. But, hey, that's what your owner signed up for with dollar signs in his eyes thanks to the $500 million expansion fee. And more to the point, those are both relatively replaceable players. 20- and 21-year-old recent first round picks whose AHL performances had them tracking extremely well to be impact NHL players in the very near future are much more difficult to replace.

Kyle Turris definitely had an awful postseason but I don't buy that having a far more proven playoff performer like Neal on his wing "doesn't change anything." Smith has underwhelmed in the playoffs his entire career. Coming into this season, he had 4 goals in 30 career playoff games. Also they would have still had Smith, just playing further down the lineup for added depth which would have helped add some scoring punch to their dismal bottom six. That was some serious overthinking by David Poile who was constructing a protection list meant more for a bubble or rebuilding team than arguably the best roster in the NHL. Keeping Neal for just one more year, even if he walked for nothing this summer, makes a lot more sense when you're the favorite to come out of the West than holding on to a third-line center who provides you with cheap depth over the longer term. At the end of the day the goal for a team like that is to win the Cup ASAP not save money on your third line in 2021.

And I think that's exaggerating what happened. Anaheim was going to have to expose Theodore no matter what. If they went 8 skaters to protect four d-men then they're protecting Vatanen, Lindholm, Bieksa, and Manson. There is nothing no-brainer about protecting Theodore over Manson. Manson was and is more valuable than Theodore. Minnesota doesn't have a no-brainer protection list to choose from. Eight skaters to protect Dumba exposes three of Niederreiter, Coyle, Zucker, and Granlund. Picking Dumba over Brodin or Spurgeon exposes a quality defenseman regardless. Every team in the world is going to choose to trade their 4th line center and a non-roster prospect, albeit a good one, to protect everyone else that contributes to their ability to be a playoff team.

As for Neal, there's nothing about his game that suggests he would've made anything better. Neal is a one-trick pony that waits for the puck to get on his stick in a scoring area and not much else. If the line he's on isn't generating those opportunities, he's a non-factor. Kyle Turris and his line weren't generating that and Neal wasn't going to change that with how he plays. And Neal instead of Jarnkrok is a preference and not some egregious error. Keeping a back-to-back 15 goal 3rd line guy at 25 under contract for another five years over a guy who averaged 25 goals during his tenure in Nashville at 29 years old with one year left makes plenty of hockey sense. Jarnkrok is a more versatile player than Neal and the difference in production there isn't enough to justify what would have been incredibly awful asset management. Even competing clubs have to make asset management type decisions from time to time. Jarnkrok was going to help his team more than keeping Neal would have because Neal would have blocked Fiala's improvement. It's also what facilitated the Predators' ability to sign Ryan Johansen and trade for Kyle Turris. Turris' playoff woes notwithstanding, he is the type of guy that would help a team win games more than James Neal does overall.

 

[KarlssonsGroin]

Still a dumb move to let Perron go over Reaves but Perron had a pretty good streak of about three years of inconsistent play and having always been garbage come playoff time.

Gotta remember as well that Reeves was dealt for a 1st basically, does Perron have that same value to fetch a 1st? if not, Reeves provided more valuable in keeping.

 

[Maladroit]

And I think that's exaggerating what happened. Anaheim was going to have to expose Theodore no matter what. If they went 8 skaters to protect four d-men then they're protecting Vatanen, Lindholm, Bieksa, and Manson. There is nothing no-brainer about protecting Theodore over Manson. Manson was and is more valuable than Theodore. Minnesota doesn't have a no-brainer protection list to choose from. Eight skaters to protect Dumba exposes three of Niederreiter, Coyle, Zucker, and Granlund. Picking Dumba over Brodin or Spurgeon exposes a quality defenseman regardless. Every team in the world is going to choose to trade their 4th line center and a non-roster prospect, albeit a good one, to protect everyone else that contributes to their ability to be a playoff team.

As for Neal, there's nothing about his game that suggests he would've made anything better. Neal is a one-trick pony that waits for the puck to get on his stick in a scoring area and not much else. If the line he's on isn't generating those opportunities, he's a non-factor. Kyle Turris and his line weren't generating that and Neal wasn't going to change that with how he plays. And Neal instead of Jarnkrok is a preference and not some egregious error. Keeping a back-to-back 15 goal 3rd line guy at 25 under contract for another five years over a guy who averaged 25 goals during his tenure in Nashville at 29 years old with one year left makes plenty of hockey sense. Jarnkrok is a more versatile player than Neal and the difference in production there isn't enough to justify what would have been incredibly awful asset management. Even competing clubs have to make asset management type decisions from time to time. Jarnkrok was going to help his team more than keeping Neal would have because Neal would have blocked Fiala's improvement. It's also what facilitated the Predators' ability to sign Ryan Johansen and trade for Kyle Turris. Turris' playoff woes notwithstanding, he is the type of guy that would help a team win games more than James Neal does overall.

They did not expose Theodore and would have never had to because he was exempt from the expansion draft. They voluntarily gave up Theodore so that Vegas would select Clayton Stoner instead of Manson or Vatanen. I disagree that Theodore, given his age and rarer abilities, is more valuable than Manson but that's besides the point: they could and should have been able to keep both Manson and Theodore if they wanted to. If they'd bought out Bieksa and protected Getzlaf, Perry, Kesler, Rakell, Fowler, Lindholm, Manson and Vatanen (or if they didn't want to buy out NMC-equipped Bieksa, they could have protected him and traded Vatanen instead which they eventually did anyway) Vegas would have just taken Silfverberg. Again, sucks to lose a guy like Silfverberg for nothing, but they had to lose someone. That "someone" becoming a 21-year-old puck moving stud who was exempt from the expansion draft is a colossal failure.

 

[Maladroit]

Gotta remember as well that Reeves was dealt for a 1st basically, does Perron have that same value to fetch a 1st? if not, Reeves provided more valuable in keeping.

Reaves wasn't traded for a 1st. Reaves and the 51st overall pick were traded for Sundqvist and the 31st overall pick. St. Louis moved up twenty spots in the draft by trading Reaves, they didn't get a first rounder for him straight up.

 

[KarlssonsGroin]

Reaves wasn't traded for a 1st. Reaves and the 51st overall pick were traded for Sundqvist and the 31st overall pick. St. Louis moved up twenty spots in the draft by trading Reaves, they didn't get a first rounder for him straight up.

exactly. im equating sundquist to roughly the 2nd and reeves to the 1st

 

[nerdybeard]

 

[Mafoofoo]

Why. Why would you do that DW?

 

[WSS11]

Why. Why would you do that DW?

Hopefully the numbers are speculative. But man that’s f***ing awful if even close to true

 

[Maladroit]

The only way that Kane deal makes sense is if Doug Wilson heard through his sources that the Lamoriello hiring means Tavares is staying in Brooklyn. But even then this seems like a very bad idea. I don't see how we can fit both Kane and Tavares under the cap without multiple buyouts or something else unprecedented.

 

[KarlssonsGroin]

The only way that Kane deal makes sense is if Doug Wilson heard through his sources that the Lamoriello hiring means Tavares is staying in Brooklyn. But even then this seems like a very bad idea.

tons of cap to throw around, still room for Taveras. Kane is likely an additional selling point, not a deterrent

 

[Maladroit]

tons of cap to throw around, still room for Taveras. Kane is likely an additional selling point, not a deterrent

Even if Jumbo takes a massive hometown discount at $2mil and Hertl comes in at $5.5mil/yr this contract takes us to just about $75 million under a projected $80 million cap. How does that leave enough room for Tavares, especially if we also want to re-sign Tierney? It would require buying out Martin and probably Boedker as well.

 

[Friday]

Even if Jumbo takes a massive hometown discount at $2mil and Hertl comes in at $5.5mil/yr this contract takes us to just about $75 million under a projected $80 million cap. How does that leave enough room for Tavares, especially if we also want to re-sign Tierney? It would require buying out Martin and probably Boedker as well.

Don't really need Tierney if we get JT, but Boedker HAS to be moved.

 

[Maladroit]

Don't really need Tierney if we get JT, but Boedker HAS to be moved.

Yeah I don't care about Tierney at all but even assuming we don't even qualify him and DeMelo, we've got like $5mil to work with assuming the cheapest conceivable contracts for Jumbo and Hertl. Martin and Boedker now have to be bought out or dealt in retained salary transactions or something. It's doable but this deal screams to me "we're not getting John Tavares." Which also means the pick we're giving up to Buffalo could very well end up in the lottery (yeah, yeah, it's lottery protected - I'm even less confident the 2020 1st wouldn't end up in the lottery in that case).

 

[Friday]

Yeah I don't care about Tierney at all but even assuming we don't even qualify him and DeMelo, we've got like $5mil to work with assuming the cheapest conceivable contracts for Jumbo and Hertl. Martin and Boedker now have to be bought out or dealt in retained salary transactions or something. It's doable but this deal screams to me "we're not getting John Tavares." Which also means the pick we're giving up to Buffalo could very well end up in the lottery (yeah, yeah, it's lottery protected - I'm even less confident the 2020 1st wouldn't end up in the lottery in that case).

I never thought we would actually get Tavares though, and I think its somewhat smart to plan that way. BUT also Kane would come back for 7M at any point during FA because thats no home discount haha so I don't get not waiting. But honestly DW must know something we don't.

 

[KarlssonsGroin]

Even if Jumbo takes a massive hometown discount at $2mil and Hertl comes in at $5.5mil/yr this contract takes us to just about $75 million under a projected $80 million cap. How does that leave enough room for Tavares, especially if we also want to re-sign Tierney? It would require buying out Martin and probably Boedker as well.

Im assuming Martin is moving on. Both sides have said they think thats whats best. Thats roughly 3m (worst case a 1.6 cap hit from the buyout) in savings.

Deal Boedker and Melker elsewhere

Replace them with Gambrell and Goodrow/Sorenson/resign Fehr

Thronton signs at 1 year 4 mil (total 2 year contract average of 6m a year)

 

[Maladroit]

I never thought we would actually get Tavares though, and I think its somewhat smart to plan that way. BUT also Kane would come back for 7M at any point during FA because thats no home discount haha so I don't get not waiting. But honestly DW must know something we don't.

Yeah the timing is suspicious, I'm guessing someone tipped him off that Tavares' camp is leaning towards re-signing now that Lou is in charge over there. Even still this is a pretty ridiculous contract for a player who has never scored 60 points in a season. They're paying Kane like he's the player he was for us in those 17 games after the trade deadline but the problem is there are literally 550+ games of prior evidence establishing he is not that player.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

Yeah the timing is suspicious, I'm guessing someone tipped him off that Tavares' camp is leaning towards re-signing now that Lou is in charge over there. Even still this is a pretty ridiculous contract for a player who has never scored 60 points in a season. They're paying Kane like he's the player he was for us in those 17 games after the trade deadline but the problem is there are literally 550+ games of prior evidence establishing he is not that player.

I think he is that player when healthy but the problem is that he is just too inconsistent and injury prone to justify paying this much.

 

[Maladroit]

I think he is that player when healthy but the problem is that he is just too inconsistent and injury prone to justify paying this much.

I dunno. He scored at what would be something like a 45-goal pace over a full season. I'm not sure he's capable of sustaining that even if he could stay healthy. I think he was highly motivated playing for a contract, and being on a good team for once, and put together the best stretch of his career. Hard to expect him to repeat that imo. Of course if he actually does end up getting to play with Tavares anything is possible but this contract would appear to foreclose the possibility of that one.

 

[Friday]

I think he is that player when healthy but the problem is that he is just too inconsistent and injury prone to justify paying this much.

Yeah, in his early to mid 20's he has injury issues. Terrifying to think about how Kane could be 5+ years from now

 

[one2gamble]

If that's accurate I'm back on the fire DW wagon