Speculation: Acq./Rost. Bldg./Cap/Lines etc. Part LXXVII (New Year, New Lines)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Langway

In den Wolken
Jul 7, 2006
32,264
8,890
Or they could just sign Cannata to a one-year extension. Not that he's particularly good.
 

twabby

Registered User
Mar 9, 2010
13,624
14,443
Also I'd rather lose Grubauer than Orlov or Schmidt. Grubauer has been a great player but he's nowhere near as important as two young, high quality puck moving defensemen.
 

Hivemind

We're Touched
Oct 8, 2010
37,009
13,425
Philadelphia
It's unquestionable that Grubauer would be the lowest impact loss of the expansion draft, in terms of the immediate impact on the roster. That being said, there's some argument for considering the opportunity cost of not being able to trade Grubauer. In a normal market, I think a late 1st would be a reasonable fetch for a Graubauer trade, and giving up a late 1st-valued asset for nothing would be a definite loss. As good as Schmidt is, I don't think he fetches a 1st in a trade.

However, this isn't a normal market for goaltenders. Because of the expansion draft, the value of goalies is going to be suppressed. Team's can't protect more than one, so that rules about a lot of the tandem situations as Grubauer destinations (which suppresses value). Even more damaging to his value, is the fact that Pittsburgh will be scrambling to trade Fleury. Tampa and Colorado could also join the scramble to move a goaltender (although less urgent than Pittsburgh). Based on that, it looks like it will be a buyer's market for the few teams that will want a goaltender upgrade.

Not a good time to try and cash out on a goalie.
 

Zoidberg Jesus

Trotzkyist
Oct 25, 2011
3,814
0
Sure thing, if you want to lose Holtby to Vegas instead.

Each team must expose a goaltender that's under contract or has received a qualifying offer for next season. The only goaltenders the Capitals have under contract are Holtby and Vanecek, but Grubauer is a RFA and thus can be qualified. Vanecek is a 2nd year pro, and thus exempt from the expansion draft. So the only goaltenders the Capitals have to expose are Holtby and Grubauer. If they trade Grubauer without getting another goalie under contract for next season, the Caps would have to expose Holtby.

So you get a goalie under contract back as part of the return, it's not that difficult. As far as I can tell, twabby's right that there's no games played requirement for the goalie a team exposes. If we were trading him to, say, Calgary, they'd just have to include Tom McCollum and we'd be set. I think most teams have a valueless goalie like that we could ask for, and if not, giving Cannata a one year extension wouldn't be the end of the world. I don't think this is as big a problem as you're making it out to be. (Edit: Guess I was late to the party on this one)
 

Langway

In den Wolken
Jul 7, 2006
32,264
8,890
Based on that, it looks like it will be a buyer's market for the few teams that will want a goaltender upgrade.

Not a good time to try and cash out on a goalie.
There could be quite a few that want one, though. Dallas and perhaps Winnipeg and Calgary come to mind. Detroit seems a bit unsettled. They're inside the division but any of Carolina, NYI or Philadelphia could attempt to upgrade what they've been using. How about St. Louis with Allen not showing well lately?

Obviously Fleury and Bishop come with a track record but they're also pretty expensive whereas Grubauer would be a cheaper alternative with more prime left in his career. I'm not sure he carries quite as much value as Jones but if he continues to match Holtby I think there's a reasonable chance they're able to gain an asset to move him rather than losing him to Vegas.
 

Hivemind

We're Touched
Oct 8, 2010
37,009
13,425
Philadelphia
This team is losing a player which it would rather keep in the expansion draft. That's a fact. There's no way around that. It's true for all 30 franchises.

Selling a player at less than market value to avoid them being picked in expansion just means you lose two players instead of one.
 

twabby

Registered User
Mar 9, 2010
13,624
14,443
If you do trade Grubauer for let's say a first round pick optimistically and get a token backup in return to meet the exposure requirement, the exchange is:

Gain: 1st round pick + Token backup
Lose: Grubauer + Orlov/Schmidt

Obviously if you get an early first round pick you probably make the deal but I'm not sure it makes sense if it's a late pick. Even if McPhee doesn't select Grubauer the Capitals can always trade him later and likely get the exact same deal.

Basically not trading Grubauer until after the draft increases the chances of retaining a high quality two way D IMO. There's no rush to trade Grubauer.
 

Hivemind

We're Touched
Oct 8, 2010
37,009
13,425
Philadelphia
There could be quite a few that want one, though. Dallas and perhaps Winnipeg and Calgary come to mind. Detroit seems a bit unsettled. They're inside the division but any of Carolina, NYI or Philadelphia could attempt to upgrade what they've been using. How about St. Louis with Allen not showing well lately?

Obviously Fleury and Bishop come with a track record but they're also pretty expensive whereas Grubauer would be a cheaper alternative with more prime left in his career. I'm not sure he carries quite as much value as Jones but if he continues to match Holtby I think there's a reasonable chance they're able to gain an asset to move him rather than losing him to Vegas.

Detroit is far more likely to try and trade away one of Howard or Mrazek than bring in another candidate. Same with Philadelphia. The Islanders are playing a waiting game with Sorokin and clearly value Berube enough to keep him on their roster over Halak, so I don't think they're going to crowd that crease even more than it is. I don't see Winnipeg giving up on Hellebuyck at this point, and bringing in Grubauer would mean exposing Helle, so that's not likely a viable destination. With the state of their team, Dallas is far more likely to opt for Bishop or Fleury than Grubauer.

The market for goaltenders is going to suck until after the expansion draft.
 

Zoidberg Jesus

Trotzkyist
Oct 25, 2011
3,814
0
Detroit is far more likely to try and trade away one of Howard or Mrazek than bring in another candidate. Same with Philadelphia. The Islanders are playing a waiting game with Sorokin and clearly value Berube enough to keep him on their roster over Halak, so I don't think they're going to crowd that crease even more than it is. I don't see Winnipeg giving up on Hellebuyck at this point, and bringing in Grubauer would mean exposing Helle, so that's not likely a viable destination. With the state of their team, Dallas is far more likely to opt for Bishop or Fleury than Grubauer.

The market for goaltenders is going to suck until after the expansion draft.

With how Mason and Neuvirth are playing, and the fact that they're both UFAs, I'd think Philly would be in the market for a new starter. Islanders are about to enter the last year of Tavares' contract, so I don't know how much their interested in waiting for a 21 year old whose KHL contract is up at the same time as Tavares'. Dallas has 12 guys under contract next year for a total of 50M against the cap, so a cheap option might be their best bet if they want room to replace the depth that's heading for free agency. I could see any of those three, plus Calgary and Carolina, being interested in Grubauer.
 

Roughing

Registered User
Oct 11, 2010
1,942
303
Frederick, MD
Would you rather:

1) Lose Orlov and Grubi
2) Lose Orlov and Eller + trade Grubi for a late 1st (and get a cheap 1-yr vet G to expose)

That's kind of how I see it. It's like getting a late 1st for Eller - basically you can pass the Grubi trade value/return down the line. We're also left with more cap room in #2.

For #2 the hope is that Vrana and Bowey could start to makeup for the players lost. Either way we have a backup G need or rely on the 1-yr vet.
 
Last edited:

Langway

In den Wolken
Jul 7, 2006
32,264
8,890
Selling a player at less than market value to avoid them being picked in expansion just means you lose two players instead of one.
Who's to say that's the sole reason? Losing two players could be inevitable anyway given the way they're playing. It's not just about managing expansion protection slots but further down the line the cap next year. Will they have room for Grubauer after arbitration if he posts stellar limited numbers? How about Orlov? Schmidt? They're likely going to need to be active in reshuffling next season no matter what.
Detroit is far more likely to try and trade away one of Howard or Mrazek than bring in another candidate. Same with Philadelphia. The Islanders are playing a waiting game with Sorokin and clearly value Berube enough to keep him on their roster over Halak, so I don't think they're going to crowd that crease even more than it is. I don't see Winnipeg giving up on Hellebuyck at this point, and bringing in Grubauer would mean exposing Helle, so that's not likely a viable destination. With the state of their team, Dallas is far more likely to opt for Bishop or Fleury than Grubauer.

The market for goaltenders is going to suck until after the expansion draft.
No one is going to want Howard and Mrazek has been very up-and-down. Both Mason & Neuvirth are pending UFAs and Berube isn't that good. Hellebuyck probably winds up protected but I don't think it's a total lock. (Friedman mentioned Pavelec maybe gets another chance soon.) Again, Grubauer for a team like Dallas allows them to put resources elsewhere as you'd figure they'd locked him in for at least $2-3M less than Fleury/Bishop/Varlamov. That could also be appealing for a team like St. Louis that has Allen at $4.35M but maybe can't give him a full vote of confidence. Teams like Calgary and Carolina may want to build with a younger goaltender and there isn't too much else out there that's young and NHL-ready it seems.

If Grubauer plays more often he easily could play himself on the map as a prime trade target for one of ten unsettled spots (BUF, CGY, CAR, COL, DAL, DET, NYI, PHI, STL, WPG). Even if it's only four or five actively in the market he still could be strongly in the mix. It depends on the level of urgency with many of them but I don't see a buyer's market necessarily. A couple of them may need to buy out one of their own Gs first but a case could be made for any of those spots should they clue into their lack of a true #1. Not to say Grubauer necessarily will be one in time but the more he puts up the numbers of one the more likely a team believes in the possibility. It's one of the perks of Trotz/Korn.
 

Hivemind

We're Touched
Oct 8, 2010
37,009
13,425
Philadelphia
Who's to say that's the sole reason? Losing two players could be inevitable anyway given the way they're playing. It's not just about managing expansion protection slots but further down the line the cap next year. Will they have room for Grubauer after arbitration if he posts stellar limited numbers? How about Orlov? Schmidt? They're likely going to need to be active in reshuffling next season no matter what.

So then execute those other moves AFTER the expansion draft, once the market has normalized. Don't settle for 50 cents on the dollar for a goaltender.

No one is going to want Howard and Mrazek has been very up-and-down. Both Mason & Neuvirth are pending UFAs and Berube isn't that good. Hellebuyck probably winds up protected but I don't think it's a total lock. (Friedman mentioned Pavelec maybe gets another chance soon.) Again, Grubauer for a team like Dallas allows them to put resources elsewhere as you'd figure they'd locked him in for at least $2-3M less than Fleury/Bishop/Varlamov. That could also be appealing for a team like St. Louis that has Allen at $4.35M but maybe can't give him a full vote of confidence. Teams like Calgary and Carolina may want to build with a younger goaltender and there isn't too much else out there that's young and NHL-ready it seems.

If Grubauer plays more often he easily could play himself on the map as a prime trade target for one of ten unsettled spots (BUF, CGY, CAR, COL, DAL, DET, NYI, PHI, STL, WPG). Even if it's only four or five actively in the market he still could be strongly in the mix. It depends on the level of urgency with many of them but I don't see a buyer's market necessarily. A couple of them may need to buy out one of their own Gs first but a case could be made for any of those spots should they clue into their lack of a true #1. Not to say Grubauer necessarily will be one in time but the more he puts up the numbers of one the more likely a team believes in the possibility. It's one of the perks of Trotz/Korn.

I still don't think you're factoring in the expansion draft in your math here. In any other year everything you're saying is true. But nobody is going to pay full price for a goaltender when there's BOTH more proven options (Bishop, Fleury) available AND the threat of expansion around the corner. Teams will realize that protecting Grubauer means exposing another goaltender, and will price their proposals accordingly. As up-and-down as Mrazek has been, do you really think that Detroit wants to give him up for free? They'd be putting themselves into the same situation people here want to avoid. They aren't going to overpay to put themselves in that position.
 

Hivemind

We're Touched
Oct 8, 2010
37,009
13,425
Philadelphia
Look at it this way. People here are lamenting over the concept of losing a 1B for free. Why are other teams going to pay assets to put themselves in the same position?
 

Roughing

Registered User
Oct 11, 2010
1,942
303
Frederick, MD
Look at it this way. People here are lamenting over the concept of losing a 1B for free. Why are other teams going to pay assets to put themselves in the same position?

Maybe our backup is a better option for a few teams than anything else they have. Maybe not.
 

um

Registered User
Sep 4, 2008
15,698
5,293
toronto
we could still protect 4 forwards and 4 defensemen if you don't want to lose Orlov.
 

Langway

In den Wolken
Jul 7, 2006
32,264
8,890
So then execute those other moves AFTER the expansion draft, once the market has normalized. Don't settle for 50 cents on the dollar for a goaltender.
I think there's just a lot more strategy that will be involved that doesn't make it so dire, esp. if the piece is in demand. My main point is you can't yet have a high degree of confidence in what the goaltender market will be. Nor what Grubauer's value/demand is league-wide just yet. Given the fuzzy framework GMs have in talks with Vegas pre-expansion there's a lot more to it than just protection numbers. GMs have the power to finesse things more to their liking.
I still don't think you're factoring in the expansion draft in your math here. In any other year everything you're saying is true. But nobody is going to pay full price for a goaltender when there's BOTH more proven options (Bishop, Fleury) available AND the threat of expansion around the corner. Teams will realize that protecting Grubauer means exposing another goaltender, and will price their proposals accordingly. As up-and-down as Mrazek has been, do you really think that Detroit wants to give him up for free? They'd be putting themselves into the same situation people here want to avoid. They aren't going to overpay to put themselves in that position.
But you're assuming these high cap options are unquestionably higher priority targets and that every team has a 1b they absolutely don't want to lose (and that it's unavoidable). When it comes to Bishop he's a pending UFA so that comes with negotiating a new deal. He and Fleury also have NMCs and can control the process while narrowing their markets.

Teams will pay for a perceived upgrade if there's enough urgency. The question in part is whether Grubauer plays himself into the spotlight this season. It's no different than the best D or Fs at expansion draft risk. The very best at risk should move in league-wide restructuring should such movement be deemed the best strategy. Expansion may eliminate DET or STL as G-needy barring a souring on internal options (as arguably suspect as they are). But others may not care if they run the risk of losing a 1b type...and even those two might not depending on how the season plays out. DAL sure wouldn't mind losing one. COL would at least cut salary when it comes to Varlamov (same with CAR and theirs) or open the door for them to keep a deeper blueline as a result of losing one. Teams could gain another 1b later in UFA at a lower rate depending on how the market progresses. Or they could likewise move their 1b prior to expansion depending on the status of the market.

Some of those scenarios involve a lot of movement but I think there's probably going to be a lot of it. That sort of restructuring tends to happen in an expansion year and the rules should help facilitate it.
 

SpinningEdge

Registered User
Feb 12, 2015
7,719
3,492
Fairfax, VA
Trade Eller, Winnik, first rd pick and then whatever prospect another team wants for a true difference maker and this team could be unstoppable.

Imagine doing that deal and getting Duchene and instead of Eller we have Duchene providing secondary scoring.

This would be a huge move
 

Calicaps

NFA
Aug 3, 2006
21,816
14,097
Almost Canada
Trade Eller, Winnik, first rd pick and then whatever prospect another team wants for a true difference maker and this team could be unstoppable.

Imagine doing that deal and getting Duchene and instead of Eller we have Duchene providing secondary scoring.

This would be a huge move

Winnik may be overpaid, but his chemistry with Beagle and Willy is not easily replaced.
 

Holtbyisms

Matt Irwin is a legit talent
Jul 1, 2012
6,914
3,572
Bedford, PA
Trade Eller, Winnik, first rd pick and then whatever prospect another team wants for a true difference maker and this team could be unstoppable.

Imagine doing that deal and getting Duchene and instead of Eller we have Duchene providing secondary scoring.

This would be a huge move

Trade away our third line center and a guy who's half of the best PK tandem in the NHL for a second line center(we already have one) who can't play in his own zone to save his life? It's not about having more skilled players it's about having the right pieces and parts to play together as a team. That trade does absolutely nothing for us and in fact probably makes us a weaker team IMO. We've got enough skill up front they just need to show up when the money's on the table this year. Also the Av's aren't parting with Landeskog or Duchene without a top pairing D coming back.
 

g00n

Retired Global Mod
Nov 22, 2007
30,433
14,291
We are destroying the best teams in the league. But that isn't good enough. What the hell am I reading.
 

SpinningEdge

Registered User
Feb 12, 2015
7,719
3,492
Fairfax, VA
Trade away our third line center and a guy who's half of the best PK tandem in the NHL for a second line center(we already have one) who can't play in his own zone to save his life? It's not about having more skilled players it's about having the right pieces and parts to play together as a team. That trade does absolutely nothing for us and in fact probably makes us a weaker team IMO. We've got enough skill up front they just need to show up when the money's on the table this year. Also the Av's aren't parting with Landeskog or Duchene without a top pairing D coming back.

Yes, id take Duchene over Eller and Winnik 10 times out of 10.

Duchene isn't that bad in his own zone btw.
 

Hivemind

We're Touched
Oct 8, 2010
37,009
13,425
Philadelphia
we could still protect 4 forwards and 4 defensemen if you don't want to lose Orlov.

At this point I'm leaning towards protecting Orlov and letting Alzner dangle. Alzner's a UFA, and if his motivation is to seek a big deal, they aren't going to be able to keep him anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->