GDT: Free Agency / Fantasy GM Part 6

[iceburg]

Sergachev in a Vancouver uniform would be so sweet. I don't see how Tampa can dump enough salary to pay both Sergachev and Cirelli, let alone Cernak. They are going to lose one and will need to take the best deal in a market where their backs are against a wall.
The Canucks would have to get rid of Eriksson's salary to another team first. But I would be willing to give up a lot as long as it's not named Hughes or Pettersson.

I would give a 1st, Podkolzin plus to get rid of Eriksson to team X and acquire Sergachev from Tampa. In other words give a 1st (plus) to get rid of Eriksson. Then Rathbone or Podkolzoin may be enough to get Sergachev out of Tampa. But I would be willing to add to make that happen.

Problem is there aren't that many team X's to create a market. And Tampa will most likely be competing in that transaction.

 

[Boose Brudreau]

IMO he’s the most expendable. Tampa has a bunch of players who can play centre but their defence is already weak so Sergachev is a priority and they have absolutely no on the right side. If they lose Cernak it’s gonna get ugly.

i don't agree that he's the most expendable, but even if he was, they sure as hell aren't going to let him go for a 2nd round pick.

 

[Boose Brudreau]

Sergachev in a Vancouver uniform would be so sweet. I don't see how Tampa can dump enough salary to pay both Sergachev and Cirelli, let alone Cernak. They are going to lose one and will need to take the best deal in a market where their backs are against a wall.
The Canucks would have to get rid of Eriksson's salary to another team first. But I would be willing to give up a lot as long as it's not named Hughes or Pettersson.

I would give a 1st, Podkolzin plus to get rid of Eriksson to team X and acquire Sergachev from Tampa. In other words give a 1st (plus) to get rid of Eriksson. Then Rathbone or Podkolzoin may be enough to get Sergachev out of Tampa. But I would be willing to add to make that happen.

Problem is there aren't that many team X's to create a market. And Tampa will most likely be competing in that transaction.

Cernak would be a better fit in Vancouver , or Weegar. and neither would cost anywhere close to acquire or carry.

If you could get out from under eriksson, you may be able to trade futures to TB for Killorn and Cernak. then offer Virtanen +? to Florida for Weegar and our D is rebuilt. cost to move Eriksson would be ugly.

 

[Bertuzzzi44]

Pearson is the type of player to get squeezed when he hits free agency. Too much for a 3rd liner, but doesn't produce like a true 2nd liner.

Think his next deal will drop him under $3 mill against the cap.

Between 2-2.2M is probably what he’ll get on a short term deal. Leivo & Galcenyuk are getting a Million or less, he won’t make 3 times as much. Next season will be even tighter due to the flat Cap again. As a lot of teams around the NHL sign the

 

[BB06]

Depending on how this season goes I'd be willing to spend assets next summer to dump the last of the remaining bad contract that are expiring (Loui/Beagle/Roussel). They'll be even better deals next offseason when teams have even less money to work with.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Yes, thankful that we signed a #7 dman to an overpriced contract with extra term, otherwise we never would have been able to move him and get a cap dump with negative value in exchange, who totally predictably ended up returning to being a valuable middle sixer on our team

i mean this is not just you i am responding to here, but come on. how far do you guys bend reality to your will. i realize it is the interwebs and there is no accountability for having ludicrous opinions and that if like minded groups of people with such opinions get together and just gaslight everyone else all can seem rosy in your little imaginary forum.

but seriously?

three different nhl teams have paid an asset to acquire gudbranson under the contract the canucks signed him to. three teams.

that is overwhelming objective evidence his contract had and has market value. it does not matter what you think those teams should think. your opinion does not define the market. the actual market defines the market.

in response to pointing that out, i get people calling that objective fact he had value a "hot take" and/or just jeering at the idea.

it is not a hot take. it is objective reality.

i am sorry but you just don't get to declare your opinions correct, even on the internet. also, a large number of people spouting nonsense does not make it reality. this place is not a fantasy discussion group loosely based on the nhl. it's a discussion of the actual nhl.

not only that, but the proposition you are challenging here if you pay attention is not that gudbranson was worth his contract. the proposition is that signing gudbranson to salvage value was a good move.

it. was. a. good. move. it is exactly the move you guys claim should be made when a team has made a miscalculation. benning did not give up. and he salvaged value for gudbranson. that is an inescapable truth. consider that if you have to distort reality this hard to say otherwise in order to force reality to constantly conform to your biases, that is just not rational. just admit you are wrong sometimes or you are no longer discussing hockey. you are living in a fantasy alt-fiction environment and if you can't see that you need to take a look in the mirror and maybe leave the keyboard alone for a few days.

and let's be clear before anyone tries to deflect by calling me a gudbranson lover. i think he was an absolute disaster on our team. he not only sucked, but he damaged ben hutton, probably permanently, and he cost us the benefit of hamhuis on the roster helping our young dmen develop in a positive manner.

but re-signing him based on a belief he still had market value in order to salvage move was a gutsy move by the team that paid off in the pittsburgh deal, and which has been ratified as more than a fluke by two more trades in which other teams have wanted gudbranson on their team at that salary.

 

[Ginger Papa]

I'll place this in a couple of Threads but as this is one of the more active I figured I'd start here.

News on OHL season...







https://twitter.com/JeffMarek/status/1321513422257852422

 

[MS]

i mean this is not just you i am responding to here, but come on. how far do you guys bend reality to your will. i realize it is the interwebs and there is no accountability for having ludicrous opinions and that if like minded groups of people with such opinions get together and just gaslight everyone else all can seem rosy in your little imaginary forum.

but seriously?

three different nhl teams have paid an asset to acquire gudbranson under the contract the canucks signed him to. three teams.

that is overwhelming objective evidence his contract had and has market value. it does not matter what you think those teams should think. your opinion does not define the market. the actual market defines the market.

in response to pointing that out, i get people calling that objective fact he had value a "hot take" and/or just jeering at the idea.

it is not a hot take. it is objective reality.

i am sorry but you just don't get to declare your opinions correct, even on the internet. also, a large number of people spouting nonsense does not make it reality. this place is not a fantasy discussion group loosely based on the nhl. it's a discussion of the actual nhl.

not only that, but the proposition you are challenging here if you pay attention is not that gudbranson was worth his contract. the proposition is that signing gudbranson to salvage value was a good move.

it. was. a. good. move. it is exactly the move you guys claim should be made when a team has made a miscalculation. benning did not give up. and he salvaged value for gudbranson. that is an inescapable truth. consider that if you have to distort reality this hard to say otherwise in order to force reality to constantly conform to your biases, that is just not rational. just admit you are wrong sometimes or you are no longer discussing hockey. you are living in a fantasy alt-fiction environment and if you can't see that you need to take a look in the mirror and maybe leave the keyboard alone for a few days.

and let's be clear before anyone tries to deflect by calling me a gudbranson lover. i think he was an absolute disaster on our team. he not only sucked, but he damaged ben hutton, probably permanently, and he cost us the benefit of hamhuis on the roster helping our young dmen develop in a positive manner.

but re-signing him based on a belief he still had market value in order to salvage move was a gutsy move by the team that paid off in the pittsburgh deal, and which has been ratified as more than a fluke by two more trades in which other teams have wanted gudbranson on their team at that salary.

If, in the summer of 2019, this team had given a 3 year/$10 million contract to an objectively bad player like Derrick Pouliot, and then somehow had an even dumber GM pay them a 5th round pick for Pouliot during last season, that doesn't mean they signed a good contract. They signed an awful contract that they were luckily bailed out of by a stupid GM.

Also, Gudbranson's terrible play in 18-19 came close to single-handedly costing this team a playoff berth, so even when you take the trade value stuff out of it, it had a massive, obvious, direct negative value on this team and their ability to win games.

 

[Melvin]

If, in the summer of 2019, this team had given a 3 year/$10 million contract to an objectively bad player like Derrick Pouliot, and then somehow had an even dumber GM pay them a 5th round pick for Pouliot during last season, that doesn't mean they signed a good contract. They signed an awful contract that they were luckily bailed out of by a stupid GM.

Also, Gudbranson's terrible play in 18-19 came close to single-handedly costing this team a playoff berth, so even when you take the trade value stuff out of it, it had a massive, obvious, direct negative value on this team and their ability to win games.

Moreover, bad contracts appreciate in value when the term remaining decreases. Gudbranson's contract had more value when there was only 1 year remaining and was at its lowest point in value the moment it was signed by Benning. This is also pretty easily demonstrable from the order of trades.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Lol cant tell if serious. Sure hope so

i am srs. also out for a while. unless something big happens, talk to you guys next when hockey is happening.

 

[Fatass]

i am srs. also out for a while. unless something big happens, talk to you guys next when hockey is happening.

Define, “big”.

 

[Melvin]

i am srs. also out for a while. unless something big happens, talk to you guys next when hockey is happening.

See? Time exists.

 

[iceburg]

Cernak would be a better fit in Vancouver , or Weegar. and neither would cost anywhere close to acquire or carry.

If you could get out from under eriksson, you may be able to trade futures to TB for Killorn and Cernak. then offer Virtanen +? to Florida for Weegar and our D is rebuilt. cost to move Eriksson would be ugly.

I agree Cernak would be a fit. But Sergachev is very enticing - game changing. They can sort out the LD vs RD. Not interested in Kilhorn. Coming off a career year and 31 years old. 15 to 20 goal scorer for 4.45m for 3 years, not interested.

 

[MS]

With Benning's declaration that he 'believes in the kids' at D, I think you can probably put a big fat ribbon this offseason, especially when it comes to the blueline. They're done.

 

[Waveburner]

i mean this is not just you i am responding to here, but come on. how far do you guys bend reality to your will. i realize it is the interwebs and there is no accountability for having ludicrous opinions and that if like minded groups of people with such opinions get together and just gaslight everyone else all can seem rosy in your little imaginary forum.

but seriously?

three different nhl teams have paid an asset to acquire gudbranson under the contract the canucks signed him to. three teams.

that is overwhelming objective evidence his contract had and has market value. it does not matter what you think those teams should think. your opinion does not define the market. the actual market defines the market.

in response to pointing that out, i get people calling that objective fact he had value a "hot take" and/or just jeering at the idea.

it is not a hot take. it is objective reality.

i am sorry but you just don't get to declare your opinions correct, even on the internet. also, a large number of people spouting nonsense does not make it reality. this place is not a fantasy discussion group loosely based on the nhl. it's a discussion of the actual nhl.

not only that, but the proposition you are challenging here if you pay attention is not that gudbranson was worth his contract. the proposition is that signing gudbranson to salvage value was a good move.

it. was. a. good. move. it is exactly the move you guys claim should be made when a team has made a miscalculation. benning did not give up. and he salvaged value for gudbranson. that is an inescapable truth. consider that if you have to distort reality this hard to say otherwise in order to force reality to constantly conform to your biases, that is just not rational. just admit you are wrong sometimes or you are no longer discussing hockey. you are living in a fantasy alt-fiction environment and if you can't see that you need to take a look in the mirror and maybe leave the keyboard alone for a few days.

and let's be clear before anyone tries to deflect by calling me a gudbranson lover. i think he was an absolute disaster on our team. he not only sucked, but he damaged ben hutton, probably permanently, and he cost us the benefit of hamhuis on the roster helping our young dmen develop in a positive manner.

but re-signing him based on a belief he still had market value in order to salvage move was a gutsy move by the team that paid off in the pittsburgh deal, and which has been ratified as more than a fluke by two more trades in which other teams have wanted gudbranson on their team at that salary.

Basically you arguing that signing terrible players to bad long term contracts is smart because there are other stupid GM's who may or may not trade you a tiny amount of value for said player in the future. BTW, if anyone else has made that argument in the past, they were just as wrong as you are.

The saddest part is you deciding to taking your own advice and "leave the keyboard alone for a few days". I prefer when you keep posting for the humor.

 

[Melvin]

Like, imagine if Eriksson is actually playing fairly well in the final year of his deal, and some team decides to trade us a 7th for him because they think he’d be a useful depth player in the playoffs and there’s only 2 months left on his contract. That doesn’t suddenly retroactively mean it was a good contract because “the market.” The term that you signed vs the term you are trading for is a very important variable.

And this is before even getting into the competence level of other gms.

 

[Boose Brudreau]

I agree Cernak would be a fit. But Sergachev is very enticing - game changing. They can sort out the LD vs RD. Not interested in Kilhorn. Coming off a career year and 31 years old. 15 to 20 goal scorer for 4.45m for 3 years, not interested.

taking killorn is how you get a piece like cernak and the idea would be to then move Virtanen. Killorn is a massive upgrade on Virtanen but also someone we could expose in the expansion draft. Sergachev (while a good player) is not a great fit IMO. he would be a downgrade over hughes on the PP, isn't who i would want killing penalties and his next deal is going to be big. if we didn't have QH43 then maybe he'd be a guy worth targeting. Cernak is kind of an ideal fit here. big physical, 2 way right side D that will be able to eat up minutes at ES /PK and his next contract should be manageable.

 

[Boose Brudreau]

With Benning's declaration that he 'believes in the kids' at D, I think you can probably put a big fat ribbon this offseason, especially when it comes to the blueline. They're done.

likely. but dreams are free.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

With Benning's declaration that he 'believes in the kids' at D, I think you can probably put a big fat ribbon this offseason, especially when it comes to the blueline. They're done.

Aren't you a proponent of Schmidt..?...Doesnt he make the overall top 4 better?..Its certainly way more mobile...Is the D instantaneously going to become a complete tire fire because one of (Rathbone,Juolevi,Rafferty) the young players will take one of the 3rd pairing spots?

 

[DonnyNucker]

Aren't you a proponent of Schmidt..?...Doesnt he make the overall top 4 better?..Its certainly way more mobile...Is the D instantaneously going to become a complete tire fire because one of (Rathbone,Juolevi,Rafferty) the young players will take one of the 3rd pairing spots?

Anyone of the kids will be better than Stecher so I can’t envision the D being worse. Goaltending is the only question mark. Nobody knows what Demko has as a starter

 

[MS]

Aren't you a proponent of Schmidt..?...Doesnt he make the overall top 4 better?..Its certainly way more mobile...Is the D instantaneously going to become a complete tire fire because one of (Rathbone,Juolevi,Rafferty) the young players will take one of the 3rd pairing spots?

Huh?

I was commenting on the possibility of future moves with the blueline. Nothing even remotely about the quality we have in place. This was the furthest thing in the world from a pro/anti Benning or pro/anti team fortunes post. It was simply saying that based on our cap situation and the recent comments from Benning, that we're done making moves on D and will go into the season with what we have.

As for the offseason : replacing Tanev with Schmidt is an upgrade. Replacing Stecher with a rookie is a downgrade. Edler and Myers are a year further into their 30s, which is a downgrade. Hughes should improve ... but also will receive a lot more of the sort of attention he received in the Vegas series, and will find his second time through the league tougher. Hopefully he deals well. We're unlikely to be as healthy at D as last year.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Huh?

I was commenting on the possibility of future moves with the blueline. Nothing even remotely about the quality we have in place. This was the furthest thing in the world from a pro/anti Benning or pro/anti team fortunes post. It was simply saying that based on our cap situation and the recent comments from Benning, that we're done making moves on D and will go into the season with what we have.

As for the offseason : replacing Tanev with Schmidt is an upgrade. Replacing Stecher with a rookie is a downgrade. Edler and Myers are a year further into their 30s, which is a downgrade. Hughes should improve ... but also will receive a lot more of the sort of attention he received in the Vegas series, and will find his second time through the league tougher. Hopefully he deals well. We're unlikely to be as healthy at D as last year.

I thought you were talking about the quality...

Edler could be a player affected by age....Myers is 30 ( only a year older than Schmidt.) ,I dont see him deteriorating that quickly, he's a good skater for his size...I'm not convinced the loss of Stecher is the make or break of the D...The top 4 is upgraded, the bottom pairing is slightly downgraded..imo.

 

[MS]

I thought you were talking about the quality...

Edler could be a player affected by age....Myers is 30 ( only a year older than Schmidt.) ,I dont see him deteriorating that quickly, he's a good skater for his size...I'm not convinced the loss of Stecher is the make or break of the D...The top 4 is upgraded, the bottom pairing is slightly downgraded..imo.

Replacing a guy like Stecher who can defend on a top pairing with Edler against Vegas in playoff games and kill it with guys like Juolevi/Rafferty who can't even defend in the AHL will be more than a 'slight' downgrade.

If Edler can maintain his level of play or very close to it, yes, the top-4 is upgraded. However, the bubble on him will burst on him at some point, and he's already past due on that.

 

[BB06]

I think only playing 17 games over 10 months will bode extremely well for Edlers longevity.

 

[ginner classic]

If, in the summer of 2019, this team had given a 3 year/$10 million contract to an objectively bad player like Derrick Pouliot, and then somehow had an even dumber GM pay them a 5th round pick for Pouliot during last season, that doesn't mean they signed a good contract. They signed an awful contract that they were luckily bailed out of by a stupid GM.

Also, Gudbranson's terrible play in 18-19 came close to single-handedly costing this team a playoff berth, so even when you take the trade value stuff out of it, it had a massive, obvious, direct negative value on this team and their ability to win games.

Said another way: He was a huge asset for the tank.