I disagree with your analysis of cheap depth only being old or coming off bad seasons. I cited Acciari as a great example. You have to be shrewd about it, but there are absolutely guys out there you can grab with good scouting.
Acciari missed 62 games the year before we signed him. In the playoffs that season, he had 0 points and a -5 through 9 games and played just 9:55 (13th among the 15 forwards who saw any playing time for Florida in the playoffs that year). He was scratched in one of Florida's playoff games that year and I honestly don't recall whether it was a healthy scratch or due to injury/suspension.
The Acciari we signed was absolutely coming off a bad season. It was a great gamble at $1.25M on a 1 year deal and he proved that he could stay healthy and effective. And after proving that, he earned himself a 3 year deal at $2M per season. It takes him through his age 34 season and includes a modified NTC. I have major doubts that he will still be worth that by year 3 (which is fine for the team who gave it to him since they are all in for the next 2 seasons).
Acciari was a successful gamble, but it is really, really hard to hit on these every year across multiple positions.
There are 20 NHL D who are 33 or under, making $1.5M or less and whoplayed 15:45 or more last year. That is a minute more ice time than Tucker averaged last year.
And a third of them aren't NHL caliber D. Gross, Sweezey, Pouliot, Carrick, Reilly, Radish, and Wolanin all played less than 20 NHL games and were signed to go to the AHL and be used as an injury call up.
Even more are NHL-caliber, but barely. Most the guys on that list struggle to be the #6 on a competent NHL blue line. Outside of a couple guys, these are players that you bring in to be the #6 or #7 D man on your team and you are likely in big trouble if you brought them in to do more than that. There are a few exceptions.
Haakanpaa is a nice bottom pair D that handled top 4 duty well last year. Getting him at $1.5M was a nice piece of business for Dallas. With that said, this is year 3 of the 3 year deal they gave him and he was far from a clear-cut #5 when they signed him. It was a good (small) gamble by them back in 2021.
Sebastian Aho has turned into a nice NHL-regular bottom pair guy at a great contract. He also never made it to UFA. His own team signed him before the UFA window opened in 2022.
Benning was a clear #6, but a decent #6 when he signed for $1.25M AAV to play up the lineup in San Jose. It was a 4 year commitment.
Looking at this year's options you have a couple guys.
Hamonic is well worth the $1.1M he'll get this year. He made UFA, but re-signed with Ottawa. Who knows what offers he had, but at the end of the day he chose the cheap 2 year deal (with full NMC) from the team he was already on.
I love the Gustafsson signing for the Rangers. Under $1M for him was fantastic and I think he is more than a replacement level #6 D.
I've never been a big Kulikov fan, but he's adequate as a bottom pair guy. $1M is good value on a 1 year deal from Florida.
We're not as enticing as the Rangers, the no-tax states, the coastal states, etc. We're not going to win the bidding war with cheap contracts when these teams are in the running against us. A handful of examples of value either re-signing with their existing team or choosing these appealing markets doesn't tell me that we can reliably acquire #5 D for peanuts.
You are also over selling young guys who are filling these roles. While a 22-23 year old can be a bargain, they are also more mistake prone than vets. There is value in a steady guy who you know what you are getting vs a kid who will make a lot of mistakes, be overwhelmed and need coaching.
I'm not just selling his ability at 22. I'm rating him as a prospect based on how much he can contribute to the team over the remaining 4 years of team control. I'd say that getting him at $800k (warts and all) right now puts him about at a wash for 2023/24 as a more steady vet making $1.2M. The value comes from the potential to be better than (or as good) as such a vet in 2024/25 and the potential to then be a legit #5 (or maybe a hair better) for $1M+ less than UFA market for 2025/26 and 2026/27.
If he busts, then he won't provide any surplus value (just like a boom/bust 19 year old who busts). But he also won't be a net drain to the team. The reason I'm valuing him more than other prospects who have higher upside is because I don't see drastically higher upside out of any specific prospect left and I think that their odds to hit their ceiling are lower than Tucker's.
I am not saying a kid who can come in and be a bottom pair D for cheap with an outside shot at a being middle pair is worthless. I just don't think that value materializes much more if they can push beyond 4th line or 6th D territory. If they are a 4/5D or a 3rd line player, then you see some real bargain to their contract. But coming into a conversation like this and saying "He is already a 6/7 D" doesn't sell me at all unless you couple it with "and still has room to grow".
I absolutely coupled the 'what he is now' with the fact that he still ahs room to grow. I'm not trying to convince you to select Tucker or of anyone else's opinions. You asked for the thought process behind valuing low ceiling players and I talked about that.
Tucker is basically replacing Bortuzzo at that leve. We have signed Bortz under UFA contracts below $1.375M for the last 8 years.
FWIW, we gave up a not-insignificant asset for Bortz. We gave up a 25 year old Cole for a 25 year old Bortuzzo who was a pending RFA. We gave him a 2 year deal as an RFA and then the next 3 contracts we gave him were all extensions signed way before he ever had the chance to go UFA. He's an example of how quality bottom pair D men require more investment than simply scouring UFA for bargains.