Speculation: Expansion Draft Discussion

[NoNecksCurse]

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?

i am all for shopping him. i would think poile would actually do that. we also lost a good hockey player at the time in James Neal last expansion. We are going to lose a solid hockey player any way you look at it. I would rather lose someone the organization views as a piece that no longer fits the puzzle. That gives us several possible candidates.

 

[Flgatorguy87]

Any chance we sell Ellis before expansion, then ask Seattle to give us an asset to expose Arvy...or better yet also trade Arvy before expansion. I assume it'll be difficult to find a team that has protection space available but it's fun to think about.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

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?

I have typically listed Arvidsson as my favorite player in the last several years. But even with that, I can see he's really just not as effective for us anymore. And if that's Hynes' system causing that, well, we're going to have Hynes' system for a good long while to come. I don't have any problem declaring that Tolvanen, Jeannot, and Trenin are simply more effective players for us than Arvidsson is. We have Tomasino coming up. Arvidsson isn't a key player for us anymore.

He can still be a good player, without being one that we need to keep. Craig Smith was a pretty good player, Nick Bonino was a pretty good player. They weren't boat anchors and we let them go and "got nothing for them" and they had pretty good seasons with their new teams. Without it hurting us either. I think Arvidsson is firmly in that category now.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

Any chance we sell Ellis before expansion, then ask Seattle to give us an asset to expose Arvy...or better yet also trade Arvy before expansion. I assume it'll be difficult to find a team that has protection space available but it's fun to think about.

Yeah, it can't hurt to ask. If we can get a deal, so much the better. Or if we can extract anything from Seattle, so much the better. But per my manifesto above, I'm not going to change my plans if those deals aren't available. Poile should try to bluff and extract whatever he can, for sure. But end of the day, if nobody is biting, then it shouldn't change how he does his protections, and if we end up exposing Arvy and Ellis to Seattle, I think that's the direction we still have to take.

 

[Scoresberg]

I have typically listed Arvidsson as my favorite player in the last several years. But even with that, I can see he's really just not as effective for us anymore. And if that's Hynes' system causing that, well, we're going to have Hynes' system for a good long while to come. I don't have any problem declaring that Tolvanen, Jeannot, and Trenin are simply more effective players for us than Arvidsson is. We have Tomasino coming up. Arvidsson isn't a key player for us anymore.

He can still be a good player, without being one that we need to keep. Craig Smith was a pretty good player, Nick Bonino was a pretty good player. They weren't boat anchors and we let them go and "got nothing for them" and they had pretty good seasons with their new teams. Without it hurting us either. I think Arvidsson is firmly in that category now.

All due respect, you’re really overvaluing Jeannot and Trenin. Those guys are fine as bottom-sixers but in no way key parts of the team and ultimately easily replaceable. Arvidsson’s still a 20-goal scorer and therefore a valuable asset, unlike Jeannot or Trenin who every team has a few of.

 

[Scoresberg]

I still go with

Joey-Forsberg-Arvy-Kunin

On defense, I'm probably leaving Ellis exposed in order to protect Carrier. Would love to trade Ellis but unfortunately, I think we might be stuck with him.

Guys like Trenin and Jeannot, they come and go. Don't fall in love with your bottom-sixers (has burnt Poile a few times).

If Duchene, Ellis and Joey cannot bounce back and we're stuck with them, buckle up. There might some lean years ahead in Music City. That's $22,25 mil in dead space, add Turris' buyout to that and you have almost third of the cap space on dead assets.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

All due respect, you’re really overvaluing Jeannot and Trenin. Those guys are fine as bottom-sixers but in no way key parts of the team and ultimately easily replaceable. Arvidsson’s still a 20-goal scorer and therefore a valuable asset, unlike Jeannot or Trenin who every team has a few of.

Agreed to disagree. Bottom-sixers are important also. And if they are easily replaceable... how? Whereas here come Tolvanen and Tomasino who actually do render Arvidsson "easily replaceable".

 

[Scoresberg]

I'm not sure if you're kidding or whatever but you can't seriously imply we'd be better off letting Arvidsson go for nothing and keeping Trenin/Jeannot on our 4th line..

Trenin/Jeannot are the exact type of players who can score in the AHL enough but to be called up, they energize the team for a bit, but eventually do not have a very long career in the NHL. I think you have to have guys in the bottom-six that go paycheck-to-paycheck and have that hunger constantly. You don't want to attach yourselves into those type of players for very long. We did with Watson, and Grimaldi and..

Tolvanen and Tomasino might be great, or they might not. Arvidsson has some track record in the league and if properly utilized on the PP, would've probably scored at a 20-goal pace on a team that has jack for offense. Tolvanen's a PP specialist, who's not proven to be much of a producer at even strength in NHL or AHL. Tomasino's yet to play in the NHL.

I'd hardly say those guys "easily" replace what Arvidsson brings to this team.

 

[Flgatorguy87]

I think the other thing to remember is Arvy was a 20 goal scorer, but will he be again? I know he was banged up last year and banged up again this year, but at what point do you say maybe he is just a guy that gets banged up a little each year? We aren't buying his past, we are hoping to maintain his future. Is the money we owe him the best option for those dollars going forward? If you get an asset for him and you get his cap space I think it's reasonable to expose him.

 

[Kat Predator]

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

If we use points per game as a measure, then only Forsberg, Granlund, and Richardson improved 5-6% over last season. Others, including Arvidsson, remained pretty flat +/- 2%. And some fell off a cliff.

The concerning thing with Viktor is his points production for the last 2 seasons is significantly down (25-30%) from where it was.

 

[GoldOnGold]

I think the other thing to remember is Arvy was a 20 goal scorer, but will he be again? I know he was banged up last year and banged up again this year, but at what point do you say maybe he is just a guy that gets banged up a little each year? We aren't buying his past, we are hoping to maintain his future. Is the money we owe him the best option for those dollars going forward? If you get an asset for him and you get his cap space I think it's reasonable to expose him.

In the past I've expressed hope that Arvy will get back to his old play and pace, and he showed a few flashes this year, but it's been over 100 games now that he's played at his lower production level.

Maybe some of it is the system, but he is a lot weaker on the boards and on his skates than he used to be.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

I think there's a very real chance that Seattle wouldn't even take Arvidsson, particularly if we were exposing Ellis also.

Even if Arvidsson was a 20-goal scorer... and he has 25 in his last 107 games so that almost still computes... 19.15... I would argue that very one-dimensional small 20-goal scorers are not exactly a hot commodity in the NHL. There are a lot of talented unidimensional players who can't even stick in the NHL. If you played them on a 1st line, like Arvy, sure they'd get 20 goals. If you further stipulate that they are 5'9"... well... I think you'd find that type of commodity is actually FAR MORE REPLACEABLE in the NHL than big, strong, cheap young guys like Trenin and Jeannot.

And that's the key transition for Arvy. He has lost his edge. Scoring at a 19-goal pace over the last 2 years and getting frequently injured, it has taken away his value. People will make room for a small 30-goal guy who plays a kamikaze style. People won't make room for a small one-dimensional 19-goal guy who has lost that edge.

He does fall down a lot. He doesn't get his nose dirty as much. He makes a lot of really bad passes and turnovers. Do you think Carolina talks about Arvidsson in their gameplan? Do they even know he exists? He's not as good as Trenin or Jeannot right now. Will he ever be again? I sure hope so, but I wouldn't make an Expansion Draft bet on it. Like I said, he has been my favorite player for a while, but he's not the same, as much as it hurts to admit it. I held out hope for a while too, and through this thread I kept him in my protected list a lot longer than some people did. But it's just becoming increasingly evident watching the games that we need to update our thinking.

 

[Kat Predator]

Arvy is one of my favorites as well, but I have to admit that he doesn't seem to fit the direction that Hynes wants to take this team in—to deemphasize speed and emphasize grit and brawn. It would not be surprising to see the Preds move on from him, Grimaldi, etc.

 

[Scoresberg]

Arvy is one of my favorites as well, but I have to admit that he doesn't seem to fit the direction that Hynes wants to take this team in—to deemphasize speed and emphasize grit and brawn. It would not be surprising to see the Preds move on from him, Grimaldi, etc.

Even so, you do not give him up for free. If not for us, he can be valuable to a team that prefers offense rather than whatever system we have right now

 

[Scoresberg]

I think there's a very real chance that Seattle wouldn't even take Arvidsson, particularly if we were exposing Ellis also.

Even if Arvidsson was a 20-goal scorer... and he has 25 in his last 107 games so that almost still computes... 19.15... I would argue that very one-dimensional small 20-goal scorers are not exactly a hot commodity in the NHL. There are a lot of talented unidimensional players who can't even stick in the NHL. If you played them on a 1st line, like Arvy, sure they'd get 20 goals. If you further stipulate that they are 5'9"... well... I think you'd find that type of commodity is actually FAR MORE REPLACEABLE in the NHL than big, strong, cheap young guys like Trenin and Jeannot.

And that's the key transition for Arvy. He has lost his edge. Scoring at a 19-goal pace over the last 2 years and getting frequently injured, it has taken away his value. People will make room for a small 30-goal guy who plays a kamikaze style. People won't make room for a small one-dimensional 19-goal guy who has lost that edge.

He does fall down a lot. He doesn't get his nose dirty as much. He makes a lot of really bad passes and turnovers. Do you think Carolina talks about Arvidsson in their gameplan? Do they even know he exists? He's not as good as Trenin or Jeannot right now. Will he ever be again? I sure hope so, but I wouldn't make an Expansion Draft bet on it. Like I said, he has been my favorite player for a while, but he's not the same, as much as it hurts to admit it. I held out hope for a while too, and through this thread I kept him in my protected list a lot longer than some people did. But it's just becoming increasingly evident watching the games that we need to update our thinking.

Agree to disagree. Just from an asset management standpoint, though, I can’t see him getting exposed and lost for nothing.

 

[Armourboy]

I have no issue losing Arvy at all, he is physically well on his way to being done. That small frame has caught up to him so if I have a choice between him and just about anyone else I'm letting him go. Appreciate what he did in the past, but the past is the past. We have enough players on contracts already that are paid for the past.

 

[GoldOnGold]

Agree to disagree. Just from an asset management standpoint, though, I can’t see him getting exposed and lost for nothing.

Even though I am somewhat down on Arvy's future play, I agree with this. Despite his decrease in production, he was right there for highest producing forward besides Forsberg, and it's not like this team is full of offensively-oriented players being stymied.

 

[Legionnaire11]

Even so, you do not give him up for free. If not for us, he can be valuable to a team that prefers offense rather than whatever system we have right now

Under normal circumstances you're absolutely right. But we have a ticking clock in the looming expansion draft, most teams are worried about who they're going to protect as is and aren't too interested in giving up assets for a player they would then want to protect.

Then if you protect Arvy so that you can trade him after the draft, well now you're losing someone else that you don't want to lose and either still trading a guy that you just protected, or stuck with a guy who is not fitting in with his current role on the roster.

Overall I think exposing Ellis, Arvy, Duchene... and losing one of them for nothing, is pretty acceptable considering that if you don't, you're either losing a better asset for nothing, or you're trading something else of value to protect another asset.

There's just no getting around it, the only team that comes out ahead in the expansion draft is Seattle. Everyone else will lose something, it's just a matter of which piece or pieces.

 

[101st_fan]

There were 533 instances of a player scoring 20+ goals in the last five full 82 game seasons. 3-4 per team. Perennial 20+ goal scorers are hard to find and keep. That isn't to say expose, protect, or trade ... but understand what the 20, 25, 30, and higher goal plateaus mean once and repeatedly when talking about losing a player.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

Under normal circumstances you're absolutely right. But we have a ticking clock in the looming expansion draft, most teams are worried about who they're going to protect as is and aren't too interested in giving up assets for a player they would then want to protect.

Then if you protect Arvy so that you can trade him after the draft, well now you're losing someone else that you don't want to lose and either still trading a guy that you just protected, or stuck with a guy who is not fitting in with his current role on the roster.

Overall I think exposing Ellis, Arvy, Duchene... and losing one of them for nothing, is pretty acceptable considering that if you don't, you're either losing a better asset for nothing, or you're trading something else of value to protect another asset.

There's just no getting around it, the only team that comes out ahead in the expansion draft is Seattle. Everyone else will lose something, it's just a matter of which piece or pieces.

This. We're going to lose somebody. Just pretend they are impending UFAs if that makes it easier. Like I said, we didn't flinch (much) about the idea of losing Smith or Granlund as UFAs last year. That's the level of player we're talking about here. You worry about losing a star player "for nothing", sure... I would worry about losing Forsberg or Ekholm for nothing if we can't extend them. I don't worry about losing players who we actively WANT to change in our lineup and already have replacements on hand for.

It doesn't mean that Poile shouldn't even ask around. By all means, he should ask and find out if there's anything out there. There might be. But per above, with a flat cap and Expansion Draft there very well might not be. I do not believe that there's a guaranteed market for Arvidsson or Ellis out there pre-Expansion. And then either way, the worst that can happen if you expose both is that you lose ONE of them "for nothing".

I'd rather have NOT signed Ellis to his lifetime contract and instead watched him walk as a UFA last summer than be having this discussion right now, for example. Losing a player "for nothing" is not automatically a bad thing. It doesn't even mean the player is necessarily a bad player. It just means we need a change.

 

[Kat Predator]

There were 533 instances of a player scoring 20+ goals in the last five full 82 game seasons. 3-4 per team. Perennial 20+ goal scorers are hard to find and keep. That isn't to say expose, protect, or trade ... but understand what the 20, 25, 30, and higher goal plateaus mean once and repeatedly when talking about losing a player.

In other words, the average team has 0.7 20+ goal scorers on its roster per season. Maybe not a snap to replace one, and certainly not an asset you want to give away for nothing?

 

[101st_fan]

In other words, the average team has 0.7 20+ goal scorers on its roster per season. Maybe not a snap to replace one, and certainly not an asset you want to give away for nothing?

The average is about 3.5 per team per year. Still not an item you just toss aside but something that requires attention to detail to see if that player is likely a one time wonder or a repeatable performer. A Pred scored 20 or more 54 times ... but are we talking Andreas Johansen or Fil Forsberg? There are both objective and subjective aspects here ... a bit of guessing if past performance will continue into the future or if the best days are past.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

In other words, the average team has 0.7 20+ goal scorers on its roster per season. Maybe not a snap to replace one, and certainly not an asset you want to give away for nothing?

I'm not sure I follow... the last time there was a full season there were 122 20-goal scorers in the NHL. The average team has 4 of them, not 0.7?

 

[NoNecksCurse]

I'm not sure I follow... the last time there was a full season there were 122 20-goal scorers in the NHL. The average team has 4 of them, not 0.7?

The average team has 4 of them. Nashville has on average 0.7

 

[Predsanddead24]

The average team has 4 of them. Nashville has on average 0.7

That is also not true.