Bill Zito discussion thread

[Gentle Man]

Dumba, Orlov, Severson, Dunn, Graves, Gavrikov…

Sound like a pretty good market to me, if we’re looking for a Weegar-replacement, all those guys are better IMO, most of them are younger, and some will probably be cheaper…

So… If we get Zito’s pick out of those free-agents, I’m confident Cole Schwindt and a first will become laughable to every single one of us !

Edit: Never was a big-fan of Dumba and saw that his production didn’t pick-up this year… Forget him, his hockey-IQ is lower than Weegar, and he seems to have lost his explosiveness ! I would still take the other 5 over him…

Edit 2: Got fooled by Capfriendly and it was bothering me… Dunn is RFA. Still would take Gavrikov, Graves or Severson kinda long-term here !

No to all of those except Gavrikov. And I dont think any of them are better than Weegar

(Dunn is an RFA. He doesnt count. That would involve a steep trade.)

 

[BabyBennettov]

No to all of those except Gavrikov. And I dont think any of them are better than Weegar

(Dunn is an RFA. He doesnt count. That would involve a steep trade.)

I should have said « as good » maybe…

Can we agree that either of them would complete our top-4 quite nicely ?

 

[Gentle Man]

I should have said « as good » maybe…

Can we agree that either of them would complete our top-4 quite nicely ?

Even I can step in and be an upgrade or Marc let's be honest

 

[TheImpatientPanther]

@Gentle Man would you have cards for some of the free agent D mentioned in here?

Soucy, Graves, Dumba, the 2nd pairing guys, etc.

I like Graves and Soucy a little more but not against Gavrikov as well.
His numbers will likely improve with lower role on 2nd pair and being far far away from CBJ.

 

[KW]

View attachment 672889

@Gentle Man would you have cards for some of the free agent D mentioned in here?

Soucy, Graves, Dumba, the 2nd pairing guys, etc.

I like Graves and Soucy a little more but not against Gavrikov as well.
His numbers will likely improve with lower role on 2nd pair and being far far away from CBJ.

I like Gavrikov. The team he’s on makes a big difference to optics. Of everyone mentioned he’s my top pick.

It was the same with Montour. I loved the trade right away because I remembered how he was with the Ducks who didn’t give him enough opportunities. And Buffalo, who really didn’t use him right.

 

[Gentle Man]

View attachment 672889

@Gentle Man would you have cards for some of the free agent D mentioned in here?

Soucy, Graves, Dumba, the 2nd pairing guys, etc.

I like Graves and Soucy a little more but not against Gavrikov as well.
His numbers will likely improve with lower role on 2nd pair and being far far away from CBJ.

I dont have the Rono ones

I eyed Soucy for a Hornqvist trade before the season

No to Dumba

Here is one that is pretty wild

 

[TheImpatientPanther]

I like Gavrikov. The team he’s on makes a big difference to optics. Of everyone mentioned he’s my top pick.

It was the same with Montour. I loved the trade right away because I remembered how he was with the Ducks who didn’t give him enough opportunities. And Buffalo, who really didn’t use him right.

....

To you both,

It'll depend on if we bring back Gudas for me who'd fit better.

Attached 3 year samples for Gavrikov, Graves and Soucy below.

If we bring back Gudas, I'd be after Graves, he can still supply a couple hits a game, he provides the most offensive upside of the 3 and he blocks the most shots, something we need on PK and general size to push others from crease/slot area and he's most disciplined as well in PIMs

If we don't bring back Gudas, I'd lean on both Gavrikov and Soucy in hopes of replacing Gudas physical play across 2 players instead of one. We still have 3 D (assuming Ekblad stays 23-24) capable of supplying high level offense in Fors, Ek and Monty. Gavrikov has had biggest TOI so that's a plus in resting Forsling and Ekblad a couple minutes here or there a game

Unless Zito goes bigger and uses Reinhart + pick+ prospect for more of a #3D than the #4D level listed above?

 

[BabyBennettov]

Would be curious to see Gavrikov’s card since being with the Kings…

My old uncle has been praising crazy shit about the dude, but my uncle is an old drunk !

He tends to know his hockey though… Always loved Gavrikov since his entering the league, and I think he has been progressing nicely… He’s been our obvious target for quite some time IMO.

 

[Dread Clawz]

Would be curious to see Gavrikov’s card since being with the Kings…

My old uncle has been praising crazy shit about the dude, but my uncle is an old drunk !

He tends to know his hockey though… Always loved Gavrikov since his entering the league, and I think he has been progressing nicely… He’s been our obvious target for quite some time IMO.

The consensus among Kings fans is he's been very good for them.

 

[Ghoste]

Can Gavrikov skate? I know Staal won’t be back there next season but I’d rather not replace him with another slow guy.

-ghoste

 

[Dread Clawz]

Can Gavrikov skate? I know Staal won’t be back there next season but I’d rather not replace him with another slow guy.

-ghoste

I'd say he's a notch below Mahura, maybe not even a full notch. He can actually move decently well, especially for a D his size.

 

[KW]

I'd say he's a notch below Mahura, maybe not even a full notch. He can actually move decently well, especially for a D his size.

So what you’re saying is he’s way better than Ekblad.

 

[Dr Beinfest]

Stopped reading at "however". Tkachuk trade will go down as the greatest trade in this franchise history, there is no caveat to it. It's a clear WIN with absolutely no negative.

Absolutely no negative? Talk about hindsight. It’s a massive win, but Florida had no business adding a 1st and a prospect to that trade. Florida traded away in-prime 115 point winger entering a contract year - say whatever you want about your crystal ball back then. We added an in-prime top-4 defenseman entering a contract year.

Calgary’s decision to give these two players massive contracts prior to the start of the season was absolutely dumb. They should have played it out, kept these players in contract-earning mode, and chosen whether or not to deal them at the deadline for massive hauls.

Anyways though, we gave up too much. It’s total hindsight to say otherwise. It worked itself out, though. We got our money’s worth, clearly.

 

[FinlandPanther]

Absolutely no negative? Talk about hindsight. It’s a massive win, but Florida had no business adding a 1st and a prospect to that trade. Florida traded away in-prime 115 point winger entering a contract year - say whatever you want about your crystal ball back then. We added an in-prime top-4 defenseman entering a contract year.

Calgary’s decision to give these two players massive contracts prior to the start of the season was absolutely dumb. They should have played it out, kept these players in contract-earning mode, and chosen whether or not to deal them at the deadline for massive hauls.

Anyways though, we gave up too much. It’s total hindsight to say otherwise. It worked itself out, though. We got our money’s worth, clearly.

We got Matthew signed for 8 years. It was a sign and trade. Matthew was going to get a f***ing haul. Age matters in this context which makes Matthew way more valuable than Huberdeau and Weegar alone.

 

[Dr Beinfest]

We got Matthew signed for 8 years. It was a sign and trade. Matthew was going to get a f***ing haul. Age matters in this context which makes Matthew way more valuable than Huberdeau and Weegar alone.

The circumstances of this first of its kind sign and trade lowered Tkachuck’s value, it did not raise it. Tkachuck had a virtual no trade clause imposed with a shortlist of teams he would accept a trade to.

 

[WaitingForThatCab]

The assets sent in exchange for Tkachuk:

- A mid/late first round pick
- A very good forward on the wrong side of 30 looking for a max term payday next season.
- A top 4 defenseman who was generally good, but utterly putrid in three consecutive playoff series and wanted to get bigtime paid next season.
- A prospect who is statistically unlikely to be anything better than a replacement level player

I think the Panthers are better off without Huberdeau and Weegar on the contracts they signed in Calgary. From my point of view, the team suffering a bit this season with the cap squeeze is well worth it.

If Tkachuk has somehow had two complete fluke seasons and turns back into a pumpkin, then obviously this trade will have sucked for the Panthers. But that does seem unlikely from a historical standpoint.

 

[Little Bobby Boo]

We need to stop acting like the Tkachuk trade was some Chychrun-like saga negotiation (or Duchene even).

Treleving HAD to trade MT. He got MT's list and then reached out to the 3 (I think) GM's for an offer.

It wasn't some back/forth, long grind negotiation. It was more of a blind auction. MT was always going to go to the highest bidder of us, Tampa and St. Louis.

Thankfully, Zito has massive balls and paid up (the same thing everyone praises Bresbois for EVERY trade deadline).

Seemed steep at the time, but we make this trade 100/100 going forward. We got the best player and (possibly more valuable) longterm cap flexibility.

Look how much teams are paying for cap space these days. Good players (ie: Bjorkstrand) are straight up traded for nothing.

We also avoided the whole "contract negotiations during the season" dealio which Allan Walsh would be Tweeting about non-stop if Hubs didn't have a deal. Which also means we got to avoid the whole "the panthers are keeping Huberdeau and Weegar as own rentals!!!!!!" TDL nonsense, where we lose two key players for nothing.

Zito deserves nothing but praise for this trade.

 

[pantherbot]

Absolutely no negative? Talk about hindsight. It’s a massive win, but Florida had no business adding a 1st and a prospect to that trade. Florida traded away in-prime 115 point winger entering a contract year - say whatever you want about your crystal ball back then. We added an in-prime top-4 defenseman entering a contract year.

Calgary’s decision to give these two players massive contracts prior to the start of the season was absolutely dumb. They should have played it out, kept these players in contract-earning mode, and chosen whether or not to deal them at the deadline for massive hauls.

Anyways though, we gave up too much. It’s total hindsight to say otherwise. It worked itself out, though. We got our money’s worth, clearly.

Completely disagree. Said it was a win the day trade was made and value wise it was fair.

You could argue that Huber and Tkachuk were considered equivalent (although I disagreed with that even at the time and thought Tkachuk was the better complete player).

Tkachuk younger by a lot and you get his prime years, add an asset.

Tkachuk was likely cheaper, so add another asset.

Tkachuk was signed, so add another asset.

That means it's Huber for Tkachuk. Weegar for the younger years. 1st and Schwindt for the cheaper and more certain contract.

This was absolutely a homerun deal by Zito. People need to take into account age and contracts when evaluating trades, this isn't 1995 anymore.

 

[pantherbot]

The circumstances of this first of its kind sign and trade lowered Tkachuck’s value, it did not raise it. Tkachuck had a virtual no trade clause imposed with a shortlist of teams he would accept a trade to.

A sign and trade always adds value. It adds certainty you'll get the player you want at the price your want for a long time.

We weren't the only team bidding on Tkachuk, at least two others. And realistically in today's NHL there's probably only ever maybe a few teams bidding on a primo asset.

 

[austropanther]

We clearly got the best player. I kind of have trouble with putting all eggs in one basket, meaning that we are lucky that MT has stayed healthy throughout most of the season - knocking on wood. Imagine he was injured for a longer time, we would be completely empty handed. Yet I love this trade, MT is awesome and is so good for this team!

 

[Dr Beinfest]

A sign and trade always adds value. It adds certainty you'll get the player you want at the price your want for a long time.

We weren't the only team bidding on Tkachuk, at least two others. And realistically in today's NHL there's probably only ever maybe a few teams bidding on a primo asset.

That is all reference frame.
A good player with a long term contract is better than a player with one year remaining on their contract. Given there’s no additional value of sign and trade in the NHL like there is in the NBA, this basically means they traded a player with a long term contract. For that, yes, his value was higher.
But also he used his willingness to do a sign and trade to create said virtual NTC. If he short-lists teams, that handicaps Calgary to either trade him as though he didn’t have the long term contract, or be forced to trade to a small subset of teams. My reference frame is that they would not have traded Tkachuck until the deadline if they could not get a dance partner on Tkachuck’s list. With that being said, limited trading partners add leverage to the other side.

The summation of the value of Huberdeau + Weegar to contending teams at the deadline,at the time, were reasonably Huberdeau = 2x 1sts, 2nd or 3rd, mid-to-top prospect, and Weegar = 1st, mid prospect. If any player could possibly fetch 4 1st round picks, a 2nd or 3rd, and two upper prospects, I think we would see more offer sheets more frequently (for context, max compensation is 4 1sts). Given that Tkachuck was willing to sign long term, I would equate that fact to be balancing out the equivalent of acquiring a player of his caliber with multiple remaining RFA years.

In my mind, there are very few exceptions to that max value designation. Those are players whose value break the system and the salary cap makes their individual value fuzzy. Connor McDavid, for example, is individually worth more than the maximum contract value, and would be worth more than 4 1sts (under the assumption that he’s refusing to sign). I’m not really sure there are many (or any) other players who meet that criteria though, and I don’t believe Tkachuck does.

Also as some of you may have noticed, my phone autocorrect’s Tkachuk to Tkachuck. I hate it but I gave up a long time ago. I probably wrote it once and it has forsaken me since.

 

[FinlandPanther]

The circumstances of this first of its kind sign and trade lowered Tkachuck’s value, it did not raise it. Tkachuck had a virtual no trade clause imposed with a shortlist of teams he would accept a trade to.

Um 8 year Tkachuk was worth more than 1 year Tkachuk so….

 

[Gentle Man]

The only thing a sign and trade added to the trade was the 8th year. Was that extra 8th year worth the first and Prospect? Personally I think the prospect would be enough. In the NBA, a sign and trade adds a 5th year PLUS more money. MUCH more money, the "Max" or "Super Max." But that actually doesnt net teams more assets for signing a player first. Since the player wants to leave anyway. It could if the player was an RFA. But the NBA has much more lax rules when it comes to RFAs and offer sheets are not taboo at all.


I think in our case though the extra year wasnt so much for getting that 8th year but more about pushing his cap hit lower. And Treliving likely sold Zito on that. The trade likely still happens if you do Huby + Weegs +Schwindt but the lower cap hit helped convince Zito to add the first.

 

[pantherbot]

That is all reference frame.
A good player with a long term contract is better than a player with one year remaining on their contract. Given there’s no additional value of sign and trade in the NHL like there is in the NBA, this basically means they traded a player with a long term contract. For that, yes, his value was higher.
But also he used his willingness to do a sign and trade to create said virtual NTC. If he short-lists teams, that handicaps Calgary to either trade him as though he didn’t have the long term contract, or be forced to trade to a small subset of teams. My reference frame is that they would not have traded Tkachuck until the deadline if they could not get a dance partner on Tkachuck’s list. With that being said, limited trading partners add leverage to the other side.

The summation of the value of Huberdeau + Weegar to contending teams at the deadline,at the time, were reasonably Huberdeau = 2x 1sts, 2nd or 3rd, mid-to-top prospect, and Weegar = 1st, mid prospect. If any player could possibly fetch 4 1st round picks, a 2nd or 3rd, and two upper prospects, I think we would see more offer sheets more frequently (for context, max compensation is 4 1sts). Given that Tkachuck was willing to sign long term, I would equate that fact to be balancing out the equivalent of acquiring a player of his caliber with multiple remaining RFA years.

In my mind, there are very few exceptions to that max value designation. Those are players whose value break the system and the salary cap makes their individual value fuzzy. Connor McDavid, for example, is individually worth more than the maximum contract value, and would be worth more than 4 1sts (under the assumption that he’s refusing to sign). I’m not really sure there are many (or any) other players who meet that criteria though, and I don’t believe Tkachuck does.

Also as some of you may have noticed, my phone autocorrect’s Tkachuk to Tkachuck. I hate it but I gave up a long time ago. I probably wrote it once and it has forsaken me since.

I think you've set your own reference frames and then went from there, which is what we all do, but I think some of the assumptions are off base.

Just because he short-listed teams he was willing to sign with doesn't mean that the bidding wasn't competitive. St. Louis may have been offering something like Kyrou, 2023 1st, plus whatever else (Krug, Tarasenko, prospects) and we had to beat that. Tampa was reportedly pick, New Jersey tried hard to trade for him (even if he wasn't on the short-list, doesn't mean they weren't in the conversation, anything can happen). All you can say for sure is that he was traded with a long-term contract that had a good AAV, and that's valuable.

Actually yes lots of players are worth what a top-tier RFA could be signed at, but GMs are too dumb and timid to make those trades. The reason you don't see it happen is not because the value isn't worth it, it's because there's this strange unspoken rule to not do so. GMs generally don't want to piss each other off. There's also the problem of needing to outbid the owning team. Why wouldn't a fully-developed star player be worth 4 mid-to-late 1sts? The hit rate on 1st round picks to get a star player is maybe like 10%? Yeah they're on cheaper ELC, but they are also usually still developing during those years because they aren't a top-3 surefire prospect.

It also doesn't matter what you think Huber may or may not have been worth, what matters is how much more was Tkachuk worth vs. Huberdeau. If you think Huberdeau was worth 2x1sts, 2nd/3rd, plus a prospect, then that means Tkachuk was also worth at least that much, and then you add to it based on younger years, cheaper contract, and cost certainty. If you want to argue that the signed contract should have been offset by less competition (which again as stated above can't be assumed), then you still have to account for 5 years of prime vs. 5 years of past prime, which is a huge difference that we already knew based on years of data proving this, it wasn't just hindsight.

Let's for example exclude the uncertainty factor by saying we're trading a signed Tkachuk at 8x$9.5M for a signed Huber at 8x$10.5M (plus his initial $5.9M year). We'll say the AAV difference is a wash vs. the initial cheaper year for Huberdeau. Now you're comparing Tkachuk's age 24-32 years vs. Huberdeau's age 30-38 years. What's the difference worth? I think it's worth more than 1-year of Weegar, so you had to add to that. How about a lottery protected 1st round pick 3 years out? That's equivalent to like a 2023 late-2nd/early-3rd given time value. Then Schwindt, who is a 3rd round pick, possible 3rd liner in two years.

 

[Dr Beinfest]

Um 8 year Tkachuk was worth more than 1 year Tkachuk so….

Did you read the post? Seems like you’re twisting words here to make your comment. I didn’t say otherwise.