Proposal: Couture to PIT

[inthewings]

Couture has negative value on that contract.

 

[CrosbyMalkin]

Couture has more playoff points in 2 different seasons than McDavid has in his career. You're not getting it though. ZERO teams could put in a claim. Literally ZERO could claim McDavid off waivers. You need to have the cap space to put in a claim. ZERO teams have the cap space. Point is the waiver argument is bullshit and a stupid nonsensical statement that just makes whatever poster that uses it look like a moron at worst and ignorant at best.

Sorry you see it that way but in a cap league he is negative value at that cap hit. If you are a team that spends to the cap which the contending teams do then you can't take on a contract like his. 32 years old with 7 years left at $8 million cap hit is ridiculous for his production at this time. It will be even worse in a few more years. No team takes that contract without retention and that doesn't happen if you claim a player.

I don't believe any contender would claim him and take that anchor contract. Those type of contracts are why the Sharks are in such bad shape paying players into upper 30's to expensive contracts they are no longer worth.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Sorry you see it that way but in a cap league he is negative value at that cap hit. If you are a team that spends to the cap which the contending teams do then you can't take on a contract like his. 32 years old with 7 years left at $8 million cap hit is ridiculous for his production at this time. It will be even worse in a few more years. No team takes that contract without retention and that doesn't happen if you claim a player.

I don't believe any contender would claim him and take that anchor contract. Those type of contracts are why the Sharks are in such bad shape paying players into upper 30's to expensive contracts they are no longer worth.

That's a big reason why waivers is not a determining factor for trade value so it's pointless to even comment about whether someone would pass through waivers. It's meaningless to the discussion.

 

[CheckingLineCenter]

If you took one of Petts/Matheson/Tanev too id have to think about it really hard.

 

[Gecklund]

If you took one of Petts/Matheson/Tanev too id have to think about it really hard.

I’d take any of them too. I’d prefer Tanev because we already have 4 LD in our top 6 but if needed I’d take one of Pettersson or Matheson since we will probably lose Simek in the expansion anyway.

 

[CrosbyMalkin]

That's a big reason why waivers is not a determining factor for trade value so it's pointless to even comment about whether someone would pass through waivers. It's meaningless to the discussion.

The point still stands that he has negative trade value due to his contract cap hit, age, declining production, and 7 years left. Now if he is at 50% retained you would get some decent assets. No team would give up a 7th round pick for him without retention. Even if the Sharks gave a 1st round pick for him most contenders would not take that contract. So one last time, he has negative value!

 

[TFHockey]

If Pittsburgh has Seattle take say Peterson at $4M

then this trade they would have 16 player with about $4.5M in space.

filling out there roster with avg $1M players that puts thrm at 22 players for about $83M.

they woukd have to make another move to gain $1.5M. Maybe move NcCann for a $1M p,Ayer

Why does Seattle do this? ZAR is a more likely target. At least that is my impression. The Kraken aren't doing anyone any favors.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

The point still stands that he has negative trade value due to his contract cap hit, age, declining production, and 7 years left. Now if he is at 50% retained you would get some decent assets. No team would give up a 7th round pick for him without retention. Even if the Sharks gave a 1st round pick for him most contenders would not take that contract. So one last time, he has negative value!

I disagree with the point that he has negative trade value. His playoff production would absolutely override any view of declining production especially considering San Jose's circumstances. You're not going to get 50% retention on anyone with more than a full season left on their deal. You will at most get 2 mil retention and 6 mil for Couture is a bargain. I wholeheartedly disagree that no team would give up a 7th round pick for him without retention. Practically every team has contracts they would return to make it where they wouldn't need retention. Sharks may be willing to retain up to 2 million but you're going to give up value to make that happen. So no, he doesn't have negative value. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how trade value actually works and what options are there. The Sharks being willing to retain and/or take back poor value deals make it very easy to at the same time get good value out of trading Couture if they want to.

 

[Jared Dunn]

If you needed more cap room for next year, you could always throw in Carter with the OP as a 2.6 M cap dump. It would make the cap next year an even on the trade. (I don't covet Carter at all, but sometimes teams need to help each other out if these bigger trades are going to happen). Other option is to potentially toss in Tanev. I dont watch him play, but pure stats wise, he seems like an overpaid third liner. This would save you multiple years of a under-producing 3rd liner. (We would likely offload him down the road, if we could).

This is why it's normally a good idea to know just a little bit about the players you're proposing trading for

 

[Nolan11]

This is why it's normally a good idea to know just a little bit about the players you're proposing trading for

I take it you have no intention of moving Tanev, which is fine by me. If you considered him not worth his contract and wanted to cap dump him to make the larger trade work, I was saying we could work with that. I have barely had time to watch the Sharks this year, so I gave the info that I have not watched Pens for just that reason, cause it is better to know the players and how they are valued by the other fan base.

I have seen enough of Carter over the years to know enough of him. He was a great player and is still a net positive. At 36 and one more year, I suspect he is expendable for an upgrade. If you need cap room for this deal, throw him in. If not, don't

 

[CrosbyMalkin]

I disagree with the point that he has negative trade value. His playoff production would absolutely override any view of declining production especially considering San Jose's circumstances. You're not going to get 50% retention on anyone with more than a full season left on their deal. You will at most get 2 mil retention and 6 mil for Couture is a bargain. I wholeheartedly disagree that no team would give up a 7th round pick for him without retention. Practically every team has contracts they would return to make it where they wouldn't need retention. Sharks may be willing to retain up to 2 million but you're going to give up value to make that happen. So no, he doesn't have negative value. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how trade value actually works and what options are there. The Sharks being willing to retain and/or take back poor value deals make it very easy to at the same time get good value out of trading Couture if they want to.

You can disagree all you want and that is why we have discussion boards. I am not trying to be a jerk about this. If he was on my team I would be saying the same thing. I thought the Hornqvist contract was bad paying him 3 more years at $5.5 million a year at 34. I said he had negative value also and pointing out how TJ from Tampa couldn't be given away because of his contract compared to production.

32 years old and production the last few years already not worth $8 million cap hit and probably more worthy of a $5-6 million cap player. Guentzel is making $6 million a year and he signed that after being a 40 goal scorer and was still in prime for that deal.

7 years left actually 6 years after this year for a 32 year old player is crazy bad for that cap hit. I would say it is one of the worst contracts in the NHL which it is but then I realized you have 3 contracts even worse. Your GM literally ruined that team for years with those bloated contracts to players already not worth the cap hits and are going to be in late 30's with those cap hits.

If Pens had players like that our board would not be posting defending those contracts and saying they are tradable assets. Heck, you would of thought the sky was falling paying Matheson $4.8 million and he was 26 at the time of that trade and has proven he can be a 2nd pairing defensman and provide some offensive punch to the lineup. Even now people act like he is untradable.

I am glad you think he is worth it but I wouldn't want him on our team with that contract. Let's just agree to disagree. If Hextall traded a 7th round pick for him this summer I would be very upset. I like the player and if he had 2 years left on the deal I wouldn't mind him on the team if he had $2 million retained. At $8 million cap hit? No thanks.

To everyone, is their a team that has a worse contract situation than the Sharks with 4 bloated contracts that go on until the players are approaching 40?

 

[Jerkbait]

on behalf of the pittsburgh penguins, I accept.

NO...NO YOU DON'T

 

[66-30-33]

Why do Pens want a 32 year old with 6 years left after this season?

 

[fasterthanlight]

NO...NO YOU DON'T

aa darn, trade call already went through. I can't believe gary fell for that one. Sorry.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

You can disagree all you want and that is why we have discussion boards. I am not trying to be a jerk about this. If he was on my team I would be saying the same thing. I thought the Hornqvist contract was bad paying him 3 more years at $5.5 million a year at 34. I said he had negative value also and pointing out how TJ from Tampa couldn't be given away because of his contract compared to production.

32 years old and production the last few years already not worth $8 million cap hit and probably more worthy of a $5-6 million cap player. Guentzel is making $6 million a year and he signed that after being a 40 goal scorer and was still in prime for that deal.

7 years left actually 6 years after this year for a 32 year old player is crazy bad for that cap hit. I would say it is one of the worst contracts in the NHL which it is but then I realized you have 3 contracts even worse. Your GM literally ruined that team for years with those bloated contracts to players already not worth the cap hits and are going to be in late 30's with those cap hits.

If Pens had players like that our board would not be posting defending those contracts and saying they are tradable assets. Heck, you would of thought the sky was falling paying Matheson $4.8 million and he was 26 at the time of that trade and has proven he can be a 2nd pairing defensman and provide some offensive punch to the lineup. Even now people act like he is untradable.

I am glad you think he is worth it but I wouldn't want him on our team with that contract. Let's just agree to disagree. If Hextall traded a 7th round pick for him this summer I would be very upset. I like the player and if he had 2 years left on the deal I wouldn't mind him on the team if he had $2 million retained. At $8 million cap hit? No thanks.

To everyone, is their a team that has a worse contract situation than the Sharks with 4 bloated contracts that go on until the players are approaching 40?

Notice that you didn't actually respond to any of what I argued. You merely restated your position and now want to appeal to popular opinion regarding team contract situations rather than whether Couture has trade value. Then there's a part in there basically making the case that people should be ashamed to even try to make the argument that he has trade value? You made reference to Hornqvist even though he was traded. You made reference to Matheson but he was traded but somehow Couture isn't when he's only slightly worse than Hornqvist but clearly still more valuable than Matheson when you only account for this season and not anything beyond that which GM's always do.

Your argument is self-defeating.

 

[ColbyChaos]

Good for you. Plenty of teams that actually want to win and do damage in the playoffs will trade for someone like Couture.

Username: TeamCozens


Bruh chill out a bit, this mans was probably like 7 years old the last time the Sabres made the playoffs

 

[Gurglesons]

I can’t see him costing that much without retention.

 

[Russian Factor]

sincerely do hope the Sharks can get out of some of those anchor deals but sure as shit hope it ain't at the expense of my team thanks but no thanks homies

 

[Mick Jagr]

I hate the way Couture looks. No thanks.

 

[Kristopher Letang]

The Sharks are so f***ed it ain’t even funny.

 

[Mister Ed]

8M for 6 more years, and he's 32. That would be a huge undertaking for another team.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

8M for 6 more years, and he's 32. That would be a huge undertaking for another team.

It would be a lot right now in a flat cap scenario but it's unlikely the Sharks are seriously considering moving Couture. But the Sharks did trade for a 32 year old Dan Boyle with six years left on his newly signed contract at 6.6 mil coming off a big injury and a full NTC. It's not unheard of that these sorts of deals get made. And the reality is that the flat cap is not going to go on in perpetuity. It's likely only going to last a couple more seasons.

 

[Kcoyote3]

Could see the Sharks retaining like a million. Would that make everyone chill?

 

[Extra Texture]

I take it you have no intention of moving Tanev, which is fine by me. If you considered him not worth his contract and wanted to cap dump him to make the larger trade work, I was saying we could work with that. I have barely had time to watch the Sharks this year, so I gave the info that I have not watched Pens for just that reason, cause it is better to know the players and how they are valued by the other fan base.

I have seen enough of Carter over the years to know enough of him. He was a great player and is still a net positive. At 36 and one more year, I suspect he is expendable for an upgrade. If you need cap room for this deal, throw him in. If not, don't

Tanev might make slightly too much for a third liner, but he brings way more than the points he puts up. The guy is a catalyst, is physical without being dirty, plays every shift at full speed and is the first in the trenches despite his size. Lives up to the nickname "Turbo". Often pops up with big goals in big moments, and is an emotional spark plug for the Pens. On a team where the stars can sometimes lose focus, its a huge asset. Also, injuries have pushed him up the lineup, and he looked right at home riding shotgun on Malkin's makeshift line for a time because he's smart and can adjust his game. Point is, I hated the contract when Rutherford first signed it, but it only took a couple of months for him to become one of my favorite current players.

Now, the Pens will probably expose Tanev in the ED, but that's more of a result of his contract probably scaring Francis off. And the fact that McCann, Blueger, Kapanen, etc are younger and more productive. With any luck Seattle applies the same logic and says "yikes, four years at 3.5 million" and picks elsewhere.

8M for 6 more years, and he's 32. That would be a huge undertaking for another team.

Yup. If a team like the Pens made that move, and it didn't go right, its a certified "window closer".

Like Russian Factor, I get why SJ wants to move on from one of the "big five" contracts they have, and give themselves some flexibility, but I think a younger team looking to take a "step up" into contention is the best possible landing spot.

 

[Mr Fahrenheit]

Guy is just shy of a 30 goal pace on one of the lowest scoring teams in the league all while being washed up and not worth a waiver claim