Speculation: 2017 Trade Deadline Discussion (Buy/Sell, Rumors, Trades, Scouts, etc.)

[CatsforReinhart]

I'd likely pull the trigger too but I'd hesitate a bit. More so because I'm pissed we are trading a roster player for serg or a guy like Chychrun when we could've had him for free. Nylander is nice and all but is redundant given the steps forward taken by bailey, baptiste and carrier with fasching as a wildcard still and seemingly hitting on asplund (who is a center sure but still a middle six forward).

Looking at it in hindsite if we could have a young dman like that for Kane and have a young dman like that already in system over nylander it stings.

Then again nylander could just as likely light the world on fire next year and make me eat those words so...

The way I look at it is giving Kane 6+ million is a problem. The Kane we see for 40 games is great but I am not willing to pay 6+ Million and hope this is the real Kane. We are capped screwed if it doesn't work out. I will take the D prospect and look for what he adds elsewhere or at least replace the 20+ goals through trade or UFA.

 

[CatsforReinhart]

With the talent we have right now we might become an inconsistent bubble team, not a regular play off candidate.
We blew the Eichel/Reinhart elc window and should sell, rebuild next year and then make another push for It.
Hence: sell Kane and anyone that might return anything that will help us in the long run.

No one is saying that so it is ridiculous to imply as I am one of the people saying trade Kane. Its like a joke what you write?

I prefer to solve the Defence problem with trading Kane for a stud and look to Bailey, Fasching, Baptiste, Nylander, trades and UFA to replace Kane.

A top 4 defender is more valuable to this team than Kane. Defense wins games and we are lacking or do you think Guhle is our Savior? Come on lets not be silly. Kane can solve a problem and put a #2 defender on the ice with Risto for the next 5+ years you pull the trigger.

 

[DJN21]

The way I look at it is giving Kane 6+ million is a problem. The Kane we see for 40 games is great but I am not willing to pay 6+ Million and hope this is the real Kane. We are capped screwed if it doesn't work out. I will take the D prospect and look for what he adds elsewhere or at least replace the 20+ goals through trade or UFA.

I agree and respect that. But replacing 25 goals via free agency now days costs 6 million anyways. I'll take the guy with wheels, jam and can pk etc. If a ladd, okposo, lucic etc let alone dumbing it down to brouwer level can get in the 6+ range I'll take the devil I know.

 

[Gordo21]

The way I look at it is giving Kane 6+ million is a problem. The Kane we see for 40 games is great but I am not willing to pay 6+ Million and hope this is the real Kane. We are capped screwed if it doesn't work out. I will take the D prospect and look for what he adds elsewhere or at least replace the 20+ goals through trade or UFA.

I'll take the "Kane" you talk about for 40 games (which I call BS anyway) before the Bogosian and Moulson we have for 10.

Kane would not be the one screwing up our cap situation.

The fact that we are balking at a player of Kane's magnitude, even at realistic numbers, tells me maybe we should be looking at the architect of this team with a little more scrutiny as far as our cap situation goes.

How is Toronto's cap situation moving forward?


Goodness, between Moulson, Bogosian and Ennis, this team is carrying 15 Mil per season thru 2018-19.

 

[Gordo21]

Not to mention that if we lose Kane, Winnipeg will still have Myers, Lemieux, Armia, The player they selected with their number 1 pick, and Stafford (or whatever they get for him moving forward) left from that trade.

And we'll have Bogosian, Kasdorf and whatever we get for Kane.

Between the ridiculous contracts we're carrying for the next 2 seasons, and the remnants of that trade, look no further as to why this team won't be competitive for at least another 3 years.


I sure love having riverboat gamblers GMing our sports teams. SMH

 

[Djp]

I'll take the "Kane" you talk about for 40 games (which I call BS anyway) before the Bogosian and Moulson we have for 10.

Kane would not be the one screwing up our cap situation.

The fact that we are balking at a player of Kane's magnitude, even at realistic numbers, tells me maybe we should be looking at the architect of this team with a little more scrutiny as far as our cap situation goes.

How is Toronto's cap situation moving forward?


Goodness, between Moulson, Bogosian and Ennis, this team is carrying 15 Mil per season thru 2018-19.

Balking in what way????

They cant negotiate a contract extension with Kane until July 1st.

sure there is a debate about Mouson/Ennis contracts where when signed in 2014 you werent sure when Reinhart would be NHL ready and you had no idea who they would get in 2015. The thought was Rei nhart+ 2015 1st might not start till 16/17 and then their ELCs end in 2019. They happened to start a year earlier than planned.

Also remember the deals for Kane and ROR were not even touched.

In 18/19 there would be a team salary imbalance toward forward with tose 2 o the team still. their contract raises in 2018 will put themnear the cap if they were to resign Kane.

 

[Gordo21]

This team has very little flexibility moving forward.


Compare that to "rebuilding" Toronto moving forward.


If I were Pegula, I'd be looking very closely as to how GMTM handles Kane.



That's assuming he's paying attention. Hint hint ... Terry it's not always the coaches fault!

Coach's coach what GMs give them.

 

[DJN21]

Not to mention that if we lose Kane, Winnipeg will still have Myers, Lemieux, Armia, The player they selected with their number 1 pick, and Stafford (or whatever they get for him moving forward) left from that trade.

And we'll have Bogosian, Kasdorf and whatever we get for Kane.

Between the ridiculous contracts we're carrying for the next 2 seasons, and the remnants of that trade, look no further as to why this team won't be competitive for at least another 3 years.


I sure love having riverboat gamblers GMing our sports teams. SMH

If you GM a team based on winning former trades you don deserve to be a GM...just saying.

 

[Ace]

I enjoy how he's turned us having the clear best player in the trade into a nightmare scenario that people should be fired for.

 

[Gordo21]

If you GM a team based on winning former trades you don deserve to be a GM...just saying.

Jesus, no I base them on what kind of season their teams have. But sometimes there is a direct correlation.


And If GMTM gets nothing but a prospect for Kane, there will be a direct correlation.

 

[Gordo21]

I enjoy how he's turned us having the clear best player in the trade into a nightmare scenario that people should be fired for.

If we sign him yes.

Certainly we're putting the cart ahead of the horse right now.

 

[krt88]

This team has very little flexibility moving forward.


Compare that to "rebuilding" Toronto moving forward.


If I were Pegula, I'd be looking very closely as to how GMTM handles Kane.



That's assuming he's paying attention. Hint hint ... Terry it's not always the coaches fault!

Coach's coach what GMs give them.

Little flexibility?

Next year Gionta, Kulikov and Frasons are all off the books. That saves us more than 11.5m against the cap. There replacements are likely Bailey, Gurle and an UFA. 11+m in cap room is more than enough to sign one major free agent defenseman.

Moulson is owed 8 million so a buyout becomes possible. Enis is owed 7.3 m over 2 years, we might be able to move him. And No one will be due a major raise so the flexibility is for one year. Lehner will likely need a bridge deal, 2 years 7.5m/8.0m. That doesn't change his cap figure too much. If you hold onto Moulson one more year you buy him out ultra cheap creating cap room for Reinhart and Eichel. Enis seems more likely for a buyout unless you can convince Vegas to take him.

I certainly try to go into next season with some extra cap room to allow for some flexibility during the season to add pieces of needed.

 

[threeVo]

Jesus, no I base them on what kind of season their teams have. But sometimes there is a direct correlation.


And If GMTM gets nothing but a prospect for Kane, there will be a direct correlation.

Myers 11 2+3
Stafford 39 4+8
Armia 38 6+6

Total 88 12+17

Kane 48 21+11

So why are we complaining about the trade? Bogosian and Myers is a wash, we got the best player in the deal by far for 2 3rd line NHL players a prospect who will be lucky to crack 15G in a season and a late 1st round pick. Kane is still an asset that will be resigned or traded as a 25YO PF at the TDL in 2018. Not worried in the slightest about this.

 

[Jame]

Not to mention that if we lose Kane, Winnipeg will still have Myers, Lemieux, Armia, The player they selected with their number 1 pick, and Stafford (or whatever they get for him moving forward) left from that trade.

And we'll have Bogosian, Kasdorf and whatever we get for Kane.

Between the ridiculous contracts we're carrying for the next 2 seasons, and the remnants of that trade, look no further as to why this team won't be competitive for at least another 3 years.


I sure love having riverboat gamblers GMing our sports teams. SMH

Do you like Kane or something?

 

[HaNotsri]

No one is saying that so it is ridiculous to imply as I am one of the people saying trade Kane. Its like a joke what you write?

I prefer to solve the Defence problem with trading Kane for a stud and look to Bailey, Fasching, Baptiste, Nylander, trades and UFA to replace Kane.

A top 4 defender is more valuable to this team than Kane. Defense wins games and we are lacking or do you think Guhle is our Savior? Come on lets not be silly. Kane can solve a problem and put a #2 defender on the ice with Risto for the next 5+ years you pull the trigger.

I'm not implying anything and I think we agree.

What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter how well Kane performs, as long as we get at asset that help solving our defensive problems long term. I would even look for other futures rather than keeping Kane (or anyone that isn't Risto/McCabe/Reinhart/Eichel). We won't have a serious window until we have a real top four anyway. Realistically, what should we expect, 2-3 seasons to fix the d? That's my guess. :-(

 

[Sabretip]

Looking at the players available at the trade deadline, there are some who will be worth the asking price, and others who would actually make teams worse.

Who To Target

Undervalued D-men: There’s a few here, and that’s because evaluating defense is very tough. The highest defenseman from Buffalo on this list costs more and is much worse. Cody Franson should be the guy to grab there and he’ll likely cost much less to acquire. He’s fallen off since his days in Toronto, but he’s still a dependable player who suppresses shots at a terrific rate. They may be in pillow soft minutes, but all that means is he’ll crush a sheltered role and a team wouldn’t have to worry about sending him over the boards at 5-on-5 like they do with other bottom-pairing D-men. He’s right handed, too. A very easy pick-up. I think Brendan Smith and Michael Del Zotto also fall in to this camp as they’ve been solid shot rate drivers in the past (though Del Zotto has taken a step back this year). All three are having a down season and it won’t take much to pry them out as a result. They’ll help teams win more than some of the other D-men on the market. Speaking of which…


Who To Avoid

Especially Dmitry Kulikov: If there’s one player to completely avoid at the deadline, it’s Kulikov. To say he’s been among the league’s worst defensemen this year may sound unfair, but it would probably be accurate, too. He’s been bad. It’s not just this year either, he hasn’t been all that good for the past couple seasons. He’s one of the league’s biggest drags on shots at both ends of the ice and this year his scoring has dried up, too. His Game Score this year is better than just one regular defenseman: Josh Gorges. That’s. It. Over the last three years he’s averaging a 16 point pace and is a net negative six shot attempts relative to his team. At $4 million, any team that acquires him is paying way too much for someone who really only makes them worse, not to mention the cost to acquire him. The Panthers knew that much when they moved him in exchange for the very underrated Mark Pysyk who’s been doing just fine this year. There aren’t too many landmines this year, but he’s the biggest one.

Young Reclamation Projects: There are three kids rumoured to be on the move on TSN’s trade bait list, and I’m happy Matt didn’t have them on his list because they’re just not very good. Anthony Duclair is 21 and was the prize of the Keith Yandle trade and after a big 2015-16, he’s fallen off quickly. Turns out you won’t score on 19 percent of your shots forever. The guy barely takes more than one shot per game and is a ghost on defense. He’s the best one of the three though and may actually be worth the risk for a bounce back. The other two though… not so much. Mikhail Grigorenko was the prize of the Ryan O’Reilly trade and he hasn’t worked out either. Imagine being 6.5 shot attempts worse on a team as bad as the Avs because that’s what Grigorenko is working with. But even he isn’t as bad as Curtis Lazar, who somehow has hype behind him. Somehow. He’s got one point in 32 games this season and is one of the league’s worst possession players at minus-24 net shots per 60. Blame his linemates if you want, because Chris Kelly and Chris Neil are terrible, but even they’re doing better than him. Young reclamation projects are nice gambles on most deadlines, but this time around it’s hard to see as much upside given how these three have played.

http://www.thehockeynews.com/news/a...m_source=the-hockey-news_Newsletter-All_Users

If Murray does nothing more than erase his mistake last summer by unloading Kulikov, I'll be thrilled for all the reasons succinctly summed up above. Many lament the Kane and Lehner trades but Murray's only real flop in judgment and action to date was the dumping of Pysyk for Kulikov. The whole tenor at the time with the Fowler rumors and debate over whether the Sabres would give up their 1st, followed by the Kulikov deal, felt a lot like Murray really wanted Fowler but wasn't prepared to give up enough so he settled for a mediocre 2nd choice.

 

[OkimLom]

http://www.thehockeynews.com/news/a...m_source=the-hockey-news_Newsletter-All_Users

If Murray does nothing more than erase his mistake last summer by unloading Kulikov, I'll be thrilled for all the reasons succinctly summed up above. Many lament the Kane and Lehner trades but Murray's only real flop in judgment and action to date was the dumping of Pysyk for Kulikov. The whole tenor at the time with the Fowler rumors and debate over whether the Sabres would give up their 1st, followed by the Kulikov deal, felt a lot like Murray really wanted Fowler but wasn't prepared to give up enough so he settled for a mediocre 2nd choice.

Right?

Thankfully we got to see what Kulikov can do in a system that brings out the best from the defense, and that we were able to see how terrible he can be in a fully healthy season.

 

[Der Jaeger]

This isn't just about prospects in general, this is about THAT prospect who gets absurdly overrated because Montreal drafted him. I didn't like him all that much in the draft, and I like him less now. People act as if he's a blue chip prospect and he isn't. I'd trade Kane for McAvoy, Chabot, or Chychrun. Just not Sergachev (or Juolevi). Your point about Kane is correct though. He's not a sure thing, which is why I'd trade him at all.

I think Sergachev is a blue chip prospect. He plays a dangerous game, for sure, but so does McAvoy at times. Sergachev, harnessed, is Kris Letang once fully developed.

Juolevi won't ever get a whole lot of recognition because he doesn't rack up points. He's Reinhart on D. Juolevi, fully developed, is Teppo Numminen.

I'd take either one, and both are blue chip prospects.

 

[Der Jaeger]

Jesus, no I base them on what kind of season their teams have. But sometimes there is a direct correlation.


And If GMTM gets nothing but a prospect for Kane, there will be a direct correlation.

If GMTM turns Kane into a prospect like Sergachev, Juolevi, or McAvoy, the direct correlation will be a seriously improved Sabres blue line in two years.

 

[CatsforReinhart]

I'll take the "Kane" you talk about for 40 games (which I call BS anyway) before the Bogosian and Moulson we have for 10.

Kane would not be the one screwing up our cap situation.

The fact that we are balking at a player of Kane's magnitude, even at realistic numbers, tells me maybe we should be looking at the architect of this team with a little more scrutiny as far as our cap situation goes.

How is Toronto's cap situation moving forward?


Goodness, between Moulson, Bogosian and Ennis, this team is carrying 15 Mil per season thru 2018-19.

First I don't care about Toronto, Bogosian is servicable and so is Ennis, Moulson can be bought out after 2018. if you sign Kane it will be until 2024. My god did you think through your post? Salary Cap is not an issue until around 2019-20. No one is "balking" at Kane's "magnitude". This team will not solve the defensive problem without trading Kane away. So if we are looking at Risto playing 30 minutes a game next year and who knows what are top 4 is it wont be pretty. With Risto, McCabe, and Bogo signed and unless Guhle is put into a top 4 next year which I hope he is not rushed and is ready to play this team's defence is not good. We have Fasching, Baptiste, Nylander and Bailey as prospects and it is much easier to find a 20 goal score through UFA or trade then a top 4 defenceman. As of right now it will be a painful season next year if this defense is not fixed.

 

[Havok89]

If we sign him yes.

Certainly we're putting the cart ahead of the horse right now.

And if he's traded for a defenseman of similar value and arguably greater team impact, how is it any different.

 

[CatsforReinhart]

And if he's traded for a defenseman of similar value and arguably greater team impact, how is it any different.

For me defense is more important than forwards. I am not trying to dump Kane or Balk at Kane or throw Kane away or however posters want to put it. If you think Forwards are more important then you are for keeping Kane. Given our roster I would gladly take a defenceman of Kane's magnitude in exchange for Kane.

 

[Djp]

Not to mention that if we lose Kane, Winnipeg will still have Myers, Lemieux, Armia, The player they selected with their number 1 pick, and Stafford (or whatever they get for him moving forward) left from that trade.

And we'll have Bogosian, Kasdorf and whatever we get for Kane.

Between the ridiculous contracts we're carrying for the next 2 seasons, and the remnants of that trade, look no further as to why this team won't be competitive for at least another 3 years.


I sure love having riverboat gamblers GMing our sports teams. SMH

I dont see Buffalo losing Kane for nothing. If he was not signed to an extnesion, he gets traded for something likely in late July after they talk some (if he isnt traded before that)

lets relook at the trade with Winnipeg...

Bogo=Myers

so you have Kane for a UFA+ a late 1st+Armia+ Lemieux. I see Lemieux as a 4th lliner on a good team, on a poor team he plays 3rd line. Armia is a nd/3rd line winger who could play on a 1st line if there is chemistry with the linemates. The late 1st 25-30 is an utter crapshoot in terms of being anything beyond a 3rd liner/#4-6 Dman.

if Buffalo kept their players and didnt make these trades (for ROR and Kane) you would be looking at this:

vets drafted in 2012 or before (9)
Ennis, Moulson, Foligno, Gionta, Larsson,Girgensons, Grigorenko, Armia, Des,
drafted 2013 or later (9):
Eichel, Reinhart, Lemieux, Compher, Bptiste, Bailey, Fasching, Carrier, Nylander,
+ other system forwards and the 1st and 2nd round picks traded

18 forwards listed---you can only carry a max of 14 on your roster....they had too many---ideally you want to trade 2 or 3 of them and bring in an estqblished veteran forward. That is what they did.

This team has very little flexibility moving forward.


Compare that to "rebuilding" Toronto moving forward.


If I were Pegula, I'd be looking very closely as to how GMTM handles Kane.



That's assuming he's paying attention. Hint hint ... Terry it's not always the coaches fault!

Coach's coach what GMs give them.

The issue is the Ennis and Moulson contracts.....

as a result 18-19 will be close to the cap if they dont move one of them

Nylander(ELC)-Eichel ($6M)- Bailey (BR) = 8.2
Carrier (BR)-ROR($7.5M)- KO ($6M) =14.7
Kane ($6M)-Reinhart ($5M)- Baptste (BR) = 12.2
Foligno ($3M))-Larsson/Girgs ($3M)-Fasching(BR) =8.2
Moulson ($5M), Ennis ($4.6M) = 9.6

(BR)=$1.2M
(ELC)=$1M

F= 8.2+ 14.7+ 12.2+8.2+9.6=$52.9M
D/G= 11.4+ 6.7+4+5= $27.1M
T= $80M


vet ($6M)- Risto ($5.4M)
McCabe($1.6M)-Bogo($5.1M)
Guhle (ELC)- vet($2M)
vet ($1M)

Lehner ($4M)
backu ($1M)


the totl is $80M---I highly doubt the cap will be that high---more like $75M. If Buffalo could move Moulson they would be just under the cap.

This is also why I see only 1 of Foligno/Larsson/Girgensons being on the tem in 18/19. A cost cutting move. substituting $1M/ELC players saves them around $4M in cap space.

in 19/10 season

Moulson/Ennis will come off the books---that$9.6M would then go to McCabe+ Nylander or one of the other BR players.

Bogosian cap space when his contract end in 2020 would then open up space to sign Guhle from his ELC ending and save space for the likely 2017 1st Dman they would then sign after the ELC in maybe 2020 or 2021

Jesus, no I base them on what kind of season their teams have. But sometimes there is a direct correlation.


And If GMTM gets nothing but a prospect for Kane, there will be a direct correlation.

With Toronto...in 18/19 Toronto is in a little bit of a quadry

tin 2017 and 2018 they have 10 RFA contracts up to be resigned and 7 UFAs that expire.

as of now for 18/19 thy have 7 contracts costing $29M

in 2019 they have Matthews and Marner to sign--those arent counted in the 10 RFAs I mentioned above.

If they operate with a $75M cap then you figure they would have an internal cap limit of around $60M in committed contracts in 2019 summer when they need to sign Matthews and Marner. They wil need to be careful the next couple of years and their 10 RFAs could be gotten with low offer sheets that only cost a 2nd round pick as compensation.

Also in 2019/20 them having Horton and his dead cap space will play a role that season because many of their players will be beyongd ELC so they wont be able to put contracts against Hortons LTIR.

 

[joshjull]

What started the madness of posters thinking we can get Sergachev at the deadline?

 

[Yatzhee]

This team has very little flexibility moving forward.


Compare that to "rebuilding" Toronto moving forward.


If I were Pegula, I'd be looking very closely as to how GMTM handles Kane.



That's assuming he's paying attention. Hint hint ... Terry it's not always the coaches fault!

Coach's coach what GMs give them.

I understand the sentiment, but its a bit premature. We are just 3 seasons removed from a complete tear down and only 2.5 seasons into the rebuild with youth.

The expansion draft, trades and off season will get many of these bad contracts gone. We'll have to let it play out until next trade deadline to truly assess how Tim Murray had done.