Speculation: 2017 off-season talk thread

[Maylo]

So what contracts do you think Wennberg and Anderson will get? Both bridge or Wennberg will get PAID?

 

[JohnnyJacket13]

So what contracts do you think Wennberg and Anderson will get? Both bridge or Wennberg will get PAID?

I think in the end both will get bridge deals, with Wennberg at 3 years (to maximize his team control) at, or around, 3.3M. And Anderson at 2-3 years at <1.5M annually.

 

[JohnnyJacket13]

So were you on the bandwagon for Duchene?

This isn't directed at you, but I do want to make this clear. I would be for getting Stepan if we moved Foligno or Savard. I think he's more valuable then what people around here give him credit for and I don't think he would be that expensive from an asset perspective.

I do agree the above poster in that we should want until after the expansion draft if it's going to mean that we have someone else to protect and expose another player. However if we trade them a player we were going to protect it would be kind of a wash.

Under no realistic circumstance am I willing to move Savard. He's locked in at a very good rate for the foreseeable future, and our RHD depth after him and Jones is close to nothing.

 

[CBJWerenski8]

So what contracts do you think Wennberg and Anderson will get? Both bridge or Wennberg will get PAID?

Bridge them both, but if they go long term on one of them it should be Wennberg, but bridge them both.

Wennberg: 2 years 3.5m (yep, sticking with it)
Anderson: 2 years 2m

 

[blahblah]

Under no realistic circumstance am I willing to move Savard. He's locked in at a very good rate for the foreseeable future, and our RHD depth after him and Jones is close to nothing.

Yeah, we know that I don't find him nearly as irreplaceable as those around here. I have no idea what the love affair is with this guy.

To be honest, getting people to face our Cap situation and that we are wasting money on some of these players is impossible.

My biggest issues with Savard are;
1. His "hockey sense" is well below average.
2. He lives on the edge with his physical skills. I'm concerned we'll go into a season before he's 30 and he'll no longer be able to keep up.

Sure he's ok in the defensive zone. The biggest thing this season was that he wasn't a liability in the neutral zone. So he had that going for him. However, he still fell asleep way too much and had no clue that players were behind him. He has little to no ability to recover from a mental mistake, he just doesn't have the speed.

I'd be watching and I'd see a break away, i'd look back and a great deal of the time Savard was directly involved. Too many times it was just he had no idea what was going on around him.

 

[blahblah]

I think in the end both will get bridge deals, with Wennberg at 3 years (to maximize his team control) at, or around, 3.3M. And Anderson at 2-3 years at <1.5M annually.

I could see them going long term with Wennberg. We know what we have there. I get the feeling if we go bridge deal with him, which is probably likely, it will be more from Wennberg's side than the CBJ's.

I would feel totally comfortable with a long term deal with Wennberg. He's going to be on this team for a long time.

 

[Maylo]

I think in the end both will get bridge deals, with Wennberg at 3 years (to maximize his team control) at, or around, 3.3M. And Anderson at 2-3 years at <1.5M annually.

Idk, that Drouin contract kinda set the bar high.

 

[CBJWerenski8]

Idk, that Drouin contract kinda set the bar high.

Eh, not a fair comparison. Drouin was traded for, so he wasn't going to get a bridge deal from Montreal. Just like when we traded for Saad, we had no chance to bridge him either (same for Jones).

 

[Maylo]

Eh, not a fair comparison. Drouin was traded for, so he wasn't going to get a bridge deal from Montreal. Just like when we traded for Saad, we had no chance to bridge him either (same for Jones).

Ok is Kuznetsov a right comparison? They are even in points this season and Kuzy is looking for something like 4X5M.

 

[CBJWerenski8]

Ok is Kuznetsov a right comparison? They are even in points this season and Kuzy is looking for something like 4X5M.

Sure, I think that's a fair one.

 

[Viqsi]

Yeah, we know that I don't find him nearly as irreplaceable as those around here. I have no idea what the love affair is with this guy.

To be honest, getting people to face our Cap situation and that we are wasting money on some of these players is impossible.

My biggest issues with Savard are;
1. His "hockey sense" is well below average.
2. He lives on the edge with his physical skills. I'm concerned we'll go into a season before he's 30 and he'll no longer be able to keep up.

Sure he's ok in the defensive zone. The biggest thing this season was that he wasn't a liability in the neutral zone. So he had that going for him. However, he still fell asleep way too much and had no clue that players were behind him. He has little to no ability to recover from a mental mistake, he just doesn't have the speed.

I'd be watching and I'd see a break away, i'd look back and a great deal of the time Savard was directly involved. Too many times it was just he had no idea what was going on around him.

It's in no small part due to the fact that RHDs of any quality whatsoever are kind of a rare commodity at the moment. Savard has his warts, but he's a damn sight better than the vast majority of the alternatives available out there.

One has to consider replacement cost when looking at this stuff, and right now the replacement cost for someone who can play that #2RHD role is rather insane. If we had someone in the pipeline ready to step up, I'd say we go for it and take advantage of the market, but the closest equivalent we have is Peeke and I don't think he'll be ready for some time.

 

[blahblah]

It's in no small part due to the fact that RHDs of any quality whatsoever are kind of a rare commodity at the moment. Savard has his warts, but he's a damn sight better than the vast majority of the alternatives available out there.

They (RHD) will always be, however "well he's better then the rest of the crap out there" isn't really a compelling reason. To me the RHD argument gets far more compelling when you are dealing with puck movers. There are a lot of thing the Savard is, but a puck mover isn't one of them. His breakout pass is just painful. He's doesn't really offer anything to a PP. His one timer is kind of hilarious to watch as well, he will accidentally scores a goal that probably surprises himself.

Where Savard shines, for now, is in the defensive zone and I don't find him being a RHD as meaningful in the defensive zone - especially if your passes are accurate at like 10 or less. How many times have you see Savard in the defensive zone zone rip it around the boards without looking because he anticipates pressure? He has no feel for who is behind him and no one from our team will be on the boards to intercept the puck. He has little to no awareness. He is also more of an instinctual player; when put in a decision where he has to make a decision he usually doesn't make a good one. I think they spend a lot of time in practice beating situational plays into his head so that he doesn't have to think. Dealing with 2-1's is an example, he used to try and play the puck and the man. Now he mostly plays the man. It took a couple of seasons for him to change.

He is who he is and I don't consider him critical to this team.

 

[Viqsi]

They (RHD) will always be, however "well he's better then the rest of the crap out there" isn't really a compelling reason.

I think it is, because, well, consider it this way: with as many issues as Savard has, would you prefer someone who's demonstrably worse? Or would cost even more with little or no improvement?

He won't reach 30 'till his current contract expires, so for now he's fine even per your long term worries. Certainly we can keep an eye out for other RHDs such that he can become expendable, but right now he's not because all the replacement options are worse or even more expensive.

No, he's not ideal. Many folks here recognize that. The alternatives are currently worse. Therefore, do not deal him away until better alternatives present themselves. Don't dump him and then cross one's fingers and hope someone better appears. That's the "we need to dump Wennberg because he's not yet Backstrom and he doesn't shoot enough" approach.

 

[blahblah]

I think it is, because, well, consider it this way: with as many issues as Savard has, would you prefer someone who's demonstrably worse? Or would cost even more with little or no improvement?

I added more context to the post. I'm judging Savard's play; not him against other, available, RHD.

What are you trying to say? We could have it worse (I see that in a mentioned later in your post)? Well he's likely to not get much worse before he hits 30? I said a while back that I think, with the guys that we have coming up, I don't think Savard would be missed very long. I don't consider Savard's minutes constructive to the team from a long term perspective, his minutes might be better used on NHL ready prospects.

 

[blahblah]

The good news for those around here is that I don't see anyone paying the price NY is asking for Stepan (according to TSN). I don't see how they get their version of Seth Jones for him. Then again TSN got it from Books and I trust his opinion as much as I trust AP's.

 

[stevo61]

The good news for those around here is that I don't see anyone paying the price NY is asking for Stepan (according to TSN). I don't see how they get their version of Seth Jones for him. Then again TSN got it from Books and I trust his opinion as much as I trust AP's.

They wont get their Jones but they might get a shutdown guy like Tanev

 

[EspenK]

I was reading TSN's Top 40 of Trade Bait and #40 was Nathan Mackinnon.
I know he is probably not available but what would you be willing to give up to get him?

I'd give up Murray, Jenner, Milano (or a D prospect if that's what Colorado wanted) and our 1st if we haven't traded it to LV otherwise I'd use next year's 1.

Alternatively I'd substitute Savard for Murray, and make the draft pick a 2nd rather than a 1st.

 

[Old Guy]

I think this community of posters has established a new record.

I read the new posts each morning. It feels like the same posters are having the same discussion/argument/pi$$ing match in 4 different threads simultaneously.

It's like arguing in the living room for a while and then everybody moves to the kitchen to continue the same argument. Pretty soon the whole house has been utilized.

 

[Goulet17]

I was reading TSN's Top 40 of Trade Bait and #40 was Nathan Mackinnon.
I know he is probably not available but what would you be willing to give up to get him?

I'd give up Murray, Jenner, Milano (or a D prospect if that's what Colorado wanted) and our 1st if we haven't traded it to LV otherwise I'd use next year's 1.

Alternatively I'd substitute Savard for Murray, and make the draft pick a 2nd rather than a 1st.

If you were the GM for Colorado, would you trade a 21 year old MacKinnon for that?

It would have to include a Jones, Werenski, and/or PLD to make that kind of trade.

 

[OldGoaltender]

I was reading TSN's Top 40 of Trade Bait and #40 was Nathan Mackinnon.
I know he is probably not available but what would you be willing to give up to get him?

I'd give up Murray, Jenner, Milano (or a D prospect if that's what Colorado wanted) and our 1st if we haven't traded it to LV otherwise I'd use next year's 1.

Alternatively I'd substitute Savard for Murray, and make the draft pick a 2nd rather than a 1st.

I'd do that trade but it might not be enough for Colorado, might have to add one more prospect.

 

[Goulet17]

I'd do that trade but it might not be enough for Colorado, might have to add one more prospect.

Still makes no sense for Colorado.

Like all trade proposals, you want the most valuable piece from the other team while only giving up peripheral pieces from your own organization.

It is not realistic.

 

[EspenK]

If you were the GM for Colorado, would you trade a 21 year old MacKinnon for that?

It would have to include a Jones, Werenski, and/or PLD to make that kind of trade.

\
That wasn't question. The question was what would you give up on a take it or leave it basis.

 

[CBJWerenski8]

I'm not trading Murray AND Jenner, two cost controlled players who will be RFA's, not UFA's,and next years first for Matt Duchene, who only has two seasons left before he's a UFA. If they want Jenner, then I am not adding much more to the deal, if at all, and if they want Murray I would add to the deal.

Basically, they'd need to pick one if it were me.

 

[EspenK]

I'm not trading Murray AND Jenner, two cost controlled players who will be RFA's, not UFA's,and next years first for Matt Duchene, who only has two seasons left before he's a UFA. If they want Jenner, then I am not adding much more to the deal, if at all, and if they want Murray I would add to the deal.

Basically, they'd need to pick one if it were me.

The proposal was for Mackinnon if that makes a difference.

 

[CBJWerenski8]

The proposal was for Mackinnon if that makes a difference.

Whoops. My fault. Its early