Speculation: Expansion Draft Discussion

101st_fan

I taught Yoda
Oct 22, 2005
13,773
5,024
Near where sand and waves meet.
Poile signed deals at then current market value. What he didn't do with the current roster is sign them to deals with NMC/NTC. If there is a trade option ... take it. There is no reason to protect Ellis, Joey, Duchcene, or even Arvy in the expansion draft ... protect the future, not the struggling current/past.

Now to see what approach the team takes.
 

CRay

Registered User
Feb 9, 2021
91
77
No way I would protect 4 D. You have to leave the Garden Gnome exposed and take your chances. Then expose Duchene and try to lure a deal to take him. I love Ellis but he is clearly not the player he once was, and is about to go upside down on value.
 
  • Like
Reactions: predhead1

nine_inch_fang

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Oct 8, 2004
5,906
4,272
Nashville
I've seen too many instances of teams holding onto a guy to maximize value, only to diminish their value.

If we're trading Ellis with the ED in mind, we're not necessarily trying to trade him for his maximum value. Part of the value we're getting is the ability to protect Fabbro or Carrier or both. We're also getting value in removing his defensive liability from the ice, and in freeing up his cap space for someone else.

Taking all of that into account, the Preds are basically already coming out ahead just by giving him away.
The last addition by subtraction trade I remember is sending Dunham to the Rangers. Getting Dunham out of the way was the main reason for the trade but Poile also managed to get Zidlicky out of the deal. Wouldn't hurt my feelings to see a trade like that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Legionnaire11

Predsanddead24

Registered User
Mar 7, 2019
5,234
5,444
The last addition by subtraction trade I remember is sending Dunham to the Rangers. Getting Dunham out of the way was the main reason for the trade but Poile also managed to get Zidlicky out of the deal. Wouldn't hurt my feelings to see a trade like that.

Subban was too. Opened up a top four spot for Fabbro and cap space. The problem was we then used that cap space to pick up a player that didn't fix any of our problems.

To a lesser extent moving Watson and Wilson too since those moves primarily served to open up a spot for some other depth guys to step up.
 

BigFatCat999

First Fubu and now Pred303. !@#$! you cancer
Apr 23, 2007
18,813
3,004
Campbell, NY
Poile said he is not going to lose Ekholm. This draft is going to be light on centers. A center is being exposed.
 

Armourboy

Hey! You suck!
Jan 20, 2014
19,005
10,372
Shelbyville, TN
I think if Poile has a handshake deal with Granlund worked out you will probably see Duchene exposed at a minimum. I think Granlund is giving Poile what he expected to get from Duchene.
 
  • Like
Reactions: originalpredfan

nine_inch_fang

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Oct 8, 2004
5,906
4,272
Nashville
Subban was too. Opened up a top four spot for Fabbro and cap space. The problem was we then used that cap space to pick up a player that didn't fix any of our problems.

To a lesser extent moving Watson and Wilson too since those moves primarily served to open up a spot for some other depth guys to step up.
I guess I put those in a little different category than Dunham and a potential Ellis move. Moving Dunham for scraps to let Vokoun play as a true number one and moving a very capable Ellis for potentially scraps/pieces to be able to protect other players is different to me.
 

Armourboy

Hey! You suck!
Jan 20, 2014
19,005
10,372
Shelbyville, TN
I guess I put those in a little different category than Dunham and a potential Ellis move. Moving Dunham for scraps to let Vokoun play as a true number one and moving a very capable Ellis for potentially scraps/pieces to be able to protect other players is different to me.
Eh not really. If you are moving Ellis you are doing it for more than to open a protection slot. The primary reason is to get rid of that contract before it goes south, the bonus is the protection slot.
 

Porter Stoutheart

We Got Wood
Jun 14, 2017
14,876
11,256
I've seen too many instances of teams holding onto a guy to maximize value, only to diminish their value.

If we're trading Ellis with the ED in mind, we're not necessarily trying to trade him for his maximum value. Part of the value we're getting is the ability to protect Fabbro or Carrier or both. We're also getting value in removing his defensive liability from the ice, and in freeing up his cap space for someone else.

Taking all of that into account, the Preds are basically already coming out ahead just by giving him away.
It's funny, 3 or 4 years ago I was saying that. I guess I was just ahead of my time. But now I'm not really saying that. Ellis is in the doghouse right now in terms of what he has done for us lately, but I'm also not trading him with the ED in mind. I'd just be trading him with our mix on D in mind. Hence why I'm fine with waiting until after the ED.

That said, you have to have a feel for the market. I suspect Poile has a reasonable feel for it. If you go through the ED and find out there is no market for Ellis, whups, that'd be a mistake. I'm just assuming there would be a robust market for him. If that's wrong, my bad.
 

Porter Stoutheart

We Got Wood
Jun 14, 2017
14,876
11,256
Poile said he is not going to lose Ekholm. This draft is going to be light on centers. A center is being exposed.
I submit that ALL of our centers should be exposed! :eek:

But seriously, Duchene and Johansen as big contracts Seattle won't touch + Granlund, Haula, and Richardson as UFAs + Sissons. All of them. Heck, Pitlick too if you think of him as a center.
 

MrJoshua

Registered User
Mar 24, 2010
1,549
309
Decatur, AL
Poile could also be talking to Seattle about what they'd offer him to get him to leave Ellis unprotected. If he's going to be getting lower offers from other teams anyway AND losing someone else in the expansion draft, it might be a better deal to only lose Ellis even if the return from Seattle is lower. Assuming, of course, that moving Ellis is his plan.
 

herzausstein

Registered User
Aug 31, 2014
6,600
4,545
West Virginia
I'd still be pretty disappointed in Duchene if he was giving us Granlund level production.
It's about expectations here. Duchene is being paid 8M. Granlund maybe gets around 5M (I honestly think that's high for a 40 point or so forward which is what he's settled into here). 0.5 PPG pace is meh for a 5Mish forward but Granlund can play in all situations so it's a little bit better. Duchene is currently around 0.33 PPG this season but 0.54 PPG pace for his 98 regular season games he's played for us. Duchene cannot play on the penalty kill and his defensive play has alot to be desired. So for an 8M dollar forward that's terrible.
 

Spurgeon

Registered User
Nov 25, 2014
5,919
1,944
MinneSNOWta
How much of C has Granlund been playing for you guys? Feel like he could be a low-risk move for the Wild to bring back to play Top 6 C on a short-term deal. Not sure if you guys are expecting him to re-sign in Nashville or not, but $5M seems like a pretty high estimate for him.
 

NoNecksCurse

#164303
Oct 19, 2011
13,236
4,958
How much of C has Granlund been playing for you guys? Feel like he could be a low-risk move for the Wild to bring back to play Top 6 C on a short-term deal. Not sure if you guys are expecting him to re-sign in Nashville or not, but $5M seems like a pretty high estimate for him.
he’s played some C and looked decent doing it. he’s been meh for me the whole time here. never does anything really wrong but he came in as a top 6 guy. 5 million is way too high for the production he has had here.

actually had kunin on one wing and jarnkrok the other. he’s centered a 2nd line of sorts for us lately.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spurgeon

Spurgeon

Registered User
Nov 25, 2014
5,919
1,944
MinneSNOWta
he’s played some C and looked decent doing it. he’s been meh for me the whole time here. never does anything really wrong but he came in as a top 6 guy. 5 million is way too high for the production he has had here.

Yeah, I’ve been sort of shocked by how much he’s struggled with you guys. I thought you guys had some pretty solid pieces that he’d find success with, but offensive players seem to struggle once they become Preds for whatever reason.

I thought he’d be a pretty solid target for the Wild on a 2-year $3.5-4M AAV deal. Wild have a great opportunity for him to jump into a 1st line role with Kaprizov and #1PP duties. Not sure if he’d return to the 70-point player he was here, but he’s got to be a better option than Rask and Bonino :laugh: Which btw, hope Kunin has been alright for you guys. Wild sold way too early on that kid, but I think it was mainly for expansion reasons.
 

Spurgeon

Registered User
Nov 25, 2014
5,919
1,944
MinneSNOWta
We would definitely go higher than that for Granlund. He has been our best center down the stretch (albeit that is a very low bar) and Hynes seems to love him.

I guess my only hope is that he views Minnesota as a better opportunity to earn a larger contract in the future. Glad to hear that he’s finding some success at center again though. Always thought he had the potential to succeed in that position given the right linemates.

What are Nashville’s plans for Duchene and Johansen if they’re bringing Granlund back at ~$5M?
 

Predsanddead24

Registered User
Mar 7, 2019
5,234
5,444
I guess my only hope is that he views Minnesota as a better opportunity to earn a larger contract in the future. Glad to hear that he’s finding some success at center again though. Always thought he had the potential to succeed in that position given the right linemates.

What are Nashville’s plans for Duchene and Johansen if they’re bringing Granlund back at ~$5M?

It's not really clear what our plan is moving forward. As of now Duchene is playing wing and I wouldn't be surprised if he continues to play there moving forward, which leaves a 2C spot open for Granlund. I expect us to dump one or more of Duchene, Johansen, Ellis, and Arvidsson this offseason so we should have ample cap space for whatever we want to do but even without it we should be able to make Granlund fit if we really want to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spurgeon

herzausstein

Registered User
Aug 31, 2014
6,600
4,545
West Virginia
I guess my only hope is that he views Minnesota as a better opportunity to earn a larger contract in the future. Glad to hear that he’s finding some success at center again though. Always thought he had the potential to succeed in that position given the right linemates.

What are Nashville’s plans for Duchene and Johansen if they’re bringing Granlund back at ~$5M?
My hope is Seattle takes Duchene since there aren't alot of great Cs being exposed in expansion and we bring Granlund back on a couple year 5Mish contract then if Tomasino comes in as a center Granlund can move back to wing
 

Porter Stoutheart

We Got Wood
Jun 14, 2017
14,876
11,256
I would like Granlund back at 4x4, but perhaps wouldn't be irate with 5x5. Anything in that range works. It might be risky in the sense that he didn't play that well for us before this season, but we've got plenty of cap and roster room to take him back at that price.

I feel pretty confident that he'll be back with us, actually. Poile sounded confident. And nobody loves Granlund more than Hynes seems to. He won't get a bigger role anywhere else.
 

Porter Stoutheart

We Got Wood
Jun 14, 2017
14,876
11,256
So I don't think we have too much more time left to learn much about this team before Expansion. I would say if I was building this team I might shift my focus to "what do I want my team to look like next season" and do my Expansion protections accordingly. The idea that smaller, faster skilled teams would be the "New NHL" has pretty much fallen by the wayside, because at the end of the day there are enough bigger, faster, skilled/physical players to defeat that approach.

So here's the lineup I want for next year, say:

Forsberg - Johansen - Tomasino
Tolvanen - Granlund - Kunin
Trenin - Sissons - Jeannot
+ leftovers

Josi - Unicorn
Ekholm - Carrier
Filler - Fabbro

Up front I don't NEED Jarnkrok, Grimaldi, Duchene, or even Arvidsson moving forward. No matter what happens in Expansion, we're going to be left with some combination of them left over anyway. More than enough to fill out a roster. Maybe even all of them depending on who Seattle picks.

And then on D it has just become glaringly obvious that we can't function with Ellis on our top pair anymore. I don't have a clue how we find the perfect unicorn to pair with Josi, so maybe it has to just be Fabbro for now while the search continues. It would be nice to maximize our trade value return on Ellis, but frankly I'm ready to move past that ideal now. "It would be nice" is the key part of that statement. If we can get a decent pre-Expansion trade for him, great, if not, I'm not proposing to alter my protection decisions to accommodate that "nice to have".

So in my mind I'm already perfectly content to expose all of the following:
F - Duchene, Arvidsson, Jarnkrok, Cousins, Grimaldi, Pitlick
D - Ellis, Harpur, Borowiecki, Benning

The only remaining question in the above lineup framework is whether our best odds of retaining that desired core is by going 7-3-1 or 4-4-1. Either way, we would have some members of that core exposed. Tomasino and Tolvanen are exempt. Granlund is a UFA. We could assume that Seattle would be scared off by Johansen's contract. And if we have all of those other guys exposed, why would Seattle take Sissons? With those considerations we could go 4-4-1:

Forsberg - Kunin - Trenin - Jeannot
Josi - Ekholm - Carrier - Fabbro


Leaving the following smorgasborg of exposures for Seattle to fill their boots with:
F - Duchene, Johansen, Arvidsson, Sissons, Jarnkrok, Cousins, Grimaldi, Pitlick
D - Ellis, Harpur, Borowiecki, Benning

In the past we used to say "why on earth would Seattle take Trenin, Jeannot, or Carrier?" ... too unproven, they won't take them, they need blablabla instead, etc. But without trying to read Seattle's mind, I would rather lose any of the players/contracts I've left exposed than them. Maybe that's enough? Maybe we don't need to try to read Seattle's mind? :dunno:
 

NoNecksCurse

#164303
Oct 19, 2011
13,236
4,958
i don’t know if i have posted as such but that’s the route i would go with the exact players you listed protected. you can’t lose carrier on D. the other 3 defenseman to protect are obvious. i think Seattle would take arvidsson.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Porter Stoutheart

Porter Stoutheart

We Got Wood
Jun 14, 2017
14,876
11,256
i don’t know if i have posted as such but that’s the route i would go with the exact players you listed protected. you can’t lose carrier on D. the other 3 defenseman to protect are obvious. i think Seattle would take arvidsson.
Indeed, I think Seattle should be positively thrilled to get Arvidsson or Ellis, and I think those players would be very good for them. And that's fine. My goal is not to make it look to the rest of the hockey world like Seattle got the lowest value player imaginable from us. My goal is to continue to advance our own team's ability to compete, and as good as both those players are, and as much as they've done for us in the past, we've learned that we need other elements more than we need them right now.
 

Scoresberg

In Trotz We Trust?
May 28, 2015
9,946
4,777
Earth
People here are really selling Arvidsson short.. dude is still a legit top-six scorer in this league and for a team that needs scoring giving him up for NOTHING would be pretty stupid. It’s not like his contract is a boat-anchor either.

Yeah, he hasn’t had much success in Hynes’ system but who forward has?
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->