Stonehands1990
Registered User
- Apr 2, 2021
- 1,381
- 1,454
Maybe you don’t pay attention very well but the question was if they thought of going 7-3-1 after the McCann deal and then Dubas said no because of Holl
hope this helps
Confirmed with Link: [TOR/PIT] TOR acquires Jared McCann for Filip Hallander & 7th Round Pick but for Seattle.
- Thread starter Cor
- Start date
- Status
hope this helps
Bluelines
Python FTW!
- Nov 17, 2013
- 12,349
- 4,559
Bluelines
Python FTW!
- Nov 17, 2013
- 12,349
- 4,559
There is a difference between having all those assets at the same time and giving up those assets to keep Kerfoot.
I'm still confused as to how we got ahold of McCann for Hallander and a 7th in the first place.
Pens couldn't do better than that?
Pens couldn't do better than that?
Evidently it worked well for them. They were going to lose McCann in the expansion draft anyways so got some value from him and forced Seattle to take one of the bigger contract forwards they wanted to/needed to move anyways
Maybe you aren’t capable of thinking for yourself.
There wasn’t any scenario where they were going to lose Holl as he couldn’t be replaced for less than 2M as Dubas said.
McCann has nothing, zero to do with Holl. He was a safety net, in house replacement in case another forward (Kerfoot) was selected. This way Dubas could keep his roster in tact, as he said himself.
Hextall Explains McCann-Hallander Trade, Says Malkin Injury Affected Protected List - Pittsburgh Hockey Now
After the Pittsburgh Penguins tied off loose ends on Wednesday night by waving goodbye to Brandon Tanev, four days after dealing Jared McCann to Seattle (via Toronto unprotected list), GM Ron Hextall provided some interesting context and a few valuable nuggets for the Penguins coming offseason.
Some of the details will make fans happy. Some…not so much. Based on body language, tone, and even the answers themselves, it surely does not seem like the Penguins GM has an ace up his sleeve. Those silly blockbusters that make you and I drool will likely remain on Xbox and not transfer into the real world.
Hextall felt Seattle would snag McCann and shopped him around the league.
“We set a price for Jared (McCann) where we would move him if we got the right price, and Toronto met that price,” Hextall said. “So we moved ahead with that deal. Part of it was knowing we’d lose another player and give us an opportunity to become cap compliant…”
Before trading McCann and losing Tanev to the Seattle Kraken, Hextall projected the Penguins to be between $3-3.5 million over the salary cap. If you’re keeping score at home, that projects to about $1.8-$2.3 million for Penguins RFA Zach Aston-Reese. Almost exactly on our mark.
The Pittsburgh Penguins cleared about $6.44 million by losing Tanev and McCann, which isn’t much money when the team needs to replace the pair, add a third-line RW and a right-side defenseman.
Some in-house candidates will get a shot.
“We do feel like we have enough candidates in-house that we feel like certainly, we can fill a number of the spots,” said Hextall. “But we will look outside and see what we can find, whether it’s through trades or free agency.”
After the Pittsburgh Penguins tied off loose ends on Wednesday night by waving goodbye to Brandon Tanev, four days after dealing Jared McCann to Seattle (via Toronto unprotected list), GM Ron Hextall provided some interesting context and a few valuable nuggets for the Penguins coming offseason.
Some of the details will make fans happy. Some…not so much. Based on body language, tone, and even the answers themselves, it surely does not seem like the Penguins GM has an ace up his sleeve. Those silly blockbusters that make you and I drool will likely remain on Xbox and not transfer into the real world.
Hextall felt Seattle would snag McCann and shopped him around the league.
“We set a price for Jared (McCann) where we would move him if we got the right price, and Toronto met that price,” Hextall said. “So we moved ahead with that deal. Part of it was knowing we’d lose another player and give us an opportunity to become cap compliant…”
Before trading McCann and losing Tanev to the Seattle Kraken, Hextall projected the Penguins to be between $3-3.5 million over the salary cap. If you’re keeping score at home, that projects to about $1.8-$2.3 million for Penguins RFA Zach Aston-Reese. Almost exactly on our mark.
The Pittsburgh Penguins cleared about $6.44 million by losing Tanev and McCann, which isn’t much money when the team needs to replace the pair, add a third-line RW and a right-side defenseman.
Some in-house candidates will get a shot.
“We do feel like we have enough candidates in-house that we feel like certainly, we can fill a number of the spots,” said Hextall. “But we will look outside and see what we can find, whether it’s through trades or free agency.”
Havoc
Registered User
- Jul 25, 2009
- 7,305
- 7,544
By your logic 1 + 1 = 2 = 4
That logic is ridiculous. We didn't lose Hallander and a 7th and McCann from a value stand point. Any other stand point is useless.
Bluelines
Python FTW!
- Nov 17, 2013
- 12,349
- 4,559
What are you talking about? It's grade 2 math if you can't understand simple, and I mean simple math, no one can help you. You had a pick an prospect added a NHLer lost an NHLer ... -1-1+1-1 ... pretty simple.
cupcrazyman
Stupid Sexy Flanders
conFABulator
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2021
- 734
- 723
A day before the draft our roster had all of our players (including Kerfoot, Hill, Dermott, Engvall all of whom would be exposed in the ED). We also had all of our prospects (including some B levels like Hallinder) and we had limited draft picks, but we did have our 7th.
...after the ED we still have all of those pieces with the exception of Hallinder and the 7th...because that is all we lost. It cost us those two assets to keep our roster in tact...think of it like we traded Hallinder and a 7th to Seattle for them not to take Kerfoot (or Dermott).
I don't see how people are seeing this as us having lost McCann AND the assets is cost us to acquire McCann.
...if I have a dollar and exchange it for 4 quarters and then someone takes my four quarters I am down only a dollar, right?
Stonehands1990
Registered User
- Apr 2, 2021
- 1,381
- 1,454
Correct you are only down a dollar. But according to that poster you lost $2. I hope that person doesn’t own a business LOL
Martin Skoula
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2017
- 11,788
- 16,619
Please tell me nobody's safety at work depends on your ability to grasp grade school math.
Bluelines
Python FTW!
- Nov 17, 2013
- 12,349
- 4,559
You reply with an insult to a simple math equation, Bravo! You're a special one... Derp!
Bluelines
Python FTW!
- Nov 17, 2013
- 12,349
- 4,559
The quote you replied to and what you explained to me, is the same thing that I said. -1-1+1-1 ...
WestCoastLeafs
I beleaf
- Jun 10, 2013
- 2,668
- 876
My friend needed some change, so I traded him two $10 for a $20. Then I gave that $20 bill to Domino's and they gave me a pizza.
Let's do the math here. $10 + $10 + $20. Well dang, that pizza cost me $40.
Let's do the math here. $10 + $10 + $20. Well dang, that pizza cost me $40.
conFABulator
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2021
- 734
- 723
Sorry if I replied to the wrong post. My point was that we did not lose McCann AND Hallinder + 7th.
I must have lost track of who was saying what in this confusing thread.
EDIT. The post I quoted (from you) certainly reads as though you believe we lost 3 assets in the ED. You are disputing someone who says we only lost two (the prospect and the pick). It might just be unclear wording but this is how it reads to me.
Bluelines
Python FTW!
- Nov 17, 2013
- 12,349
- 4,559
We lost 3 assets and gained one for a net 2 asset loss all in an effort to keep a poor 3rd line center.
The two assets we lost (7th round pick and Hallander) are worth less than Kerfoot is. Losing Kerfoot would have hurt the team more, we can still trade Kerfoot and net more assets if we need to.
ULF_55
Moderator
The CyNick
Freedom of Speech!
- Sep 17, 2009
- 11,364
- 2,032
And McCann, who could have been protected after the trade.
Team was always going to lose at least one asset. Our management group determined it was better to lose 3 assets in total.
Key is not all assets are equal. Remains to be seen if they made the right call.
Some people are counting us losing a 7th, Hallander and McCann. I'm not entirely sure why. As without Hallander and the 7th, there is no McCann. We can't lose them twice.
- Status
