Value of: Jared McCann to your team

[Empoleon8771]

I'm curious what you would value McCann at for your team. McCann's a strong defensive 24 year old C/LW coming off a really solid year (14 goals and 35 points in 66 games), where he performed very well in a 2C role when Crosby was out. However, he's due for an extension after the year and I'm not convinced the Penguins will want to pay him the $3-$3.5 million he'll be owed, especially after scratching him after a bad performance in the playoffs.

I think it makes the most sense to sink McCann's value to dump Johnson's contract, but for just purely McCann, what would you trade for him?

Click to read more...

 

[13pacheco31]

Without a contract? Not very much

 

[Empoleon8771]

Without a contract? Not very much

He's a RFA, not a UFA.

 

[13pacheco31]

He's a RFA, not a UFA.

Still would get more if he was signed

 

[Taytro]

Its Jared McCanns RFA rights, and I honestly dont think they hold a ton of value. I dont even think his rights have enough value to move 3 more years of Johnson.

In my opinion you should submit a qualifying offer and if someone offer sheets him, you take the compensation if it's too rich, or match it if you can afford it. Outside of that the most you'd get is a mid round pick. Again, RFA rights are not worth that much.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Still would get more if he was signed

A team wouldn't trade for McCann if they weren't sure they'd sign him. Any team that trades him will almost definitely have a contract essentially agreed upon when they're acquiring him.

Kerfoot was traded as a RFA in the Kadri deal last year and the Leafs signed him to an extension 3 days later.

Its Jared McCanns RFA rights, and I honestly dont think they hold a ton of value. I dont even think his rights have enough value to move 3 more years of Johnson.

In my opinion you should submit a qualifying offer and if someone offer sheets him, you take the compensation if it's too rich, or match it if you can afford it. Outside of that the most you'd get is a mid round pick. Again, RFA rights are not worth that much.

What is this based on?

Trouba was traded as a pending RFA last summer, he brought back Pionk and a 1st. Burakovsky was traded as a RFA last summer, he brought back a 2nd and 3rd. Both Lindholm and Hanifin were traded in that blockbuster in 2018 as pending RFAs.

 

[13pacheco31]

A team wouldn't trade for McCann if they weren't sure they'd sign him. Any team that trades him will almost definitely have a contract essentially agreed upon when they're acquiring him.

Kerfoot was traded as a RFA in the Kadri deal last year and the Leafs signed him to an extension 3 days later.



What is this based on?

The main piece in that trade was barrie with retained salary. Kerfoot was a throw in

 

[Empoleon8771]

The main piece in that trade was barrie with retained salary. Kerfoot was a throw in

1. No he wasn't.
2. That's not the point I'm making

The point I'm making is that teams don't put less value on RFAs, because if teams are trading for RFAs, it's because they intend on signing them. Look at Burakovsky and Trouba last year. Look at Hanifin, Lindholm, Domi and Grubauer in 2018. Saad back in 2015 was in the same boat, too. I think Shaw was traded as RFA rights to Montreal back in 2016 too. The ideas that RFA rights don't have a lot of value isn't based on anything that has actually happened.

 

[13pacheco31]

Domi was traded 1 for 1 with a player they were trying to get rid of. Hanafin and Lindholm were traded together for Hamilton, and Trouba was a high profile player so that's kind of different.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Domi was traded 1 for 1 with a player they were trying to get rid of. Hanafin and Lindholm were traded together for Hamilton, and Trouba was a high profile player so that's kind of different.

Hanifin and Lindholm were also traded for Ferland and Fox's RFA rights. What about Burakovsky, who brought back a 2nd and 3rd? What about Shaw, who brought back 2 2nds? What about Grubauer, who brought back a 2nd and also got Washington out of Orpik's contract? What about Armia, who was used as the sacrificial lamb to dump Steve Mason's contract? What about Drouin, who was traded for Sergachev and a 2nd as a pending RFA in 2017? What about Andersen, who was traded for a 1st and 2nd as a RFA in 2016?

There are literally dozens of players who have been traded for significant value as RFAs. Where is this idea that RFA rights are much less valuable shown?

 

[Gecklund]

Sharks would pretty readily offer 34th overall+Gambrell+Sorensen for McCann but I don’t know if PIT would do that.

 

[StreetHawk]

A team wouldn't trade for McCann if they weren't sure they'd sign him. Any team that trades him will almost definitely have a contract essentially agreed upon when they're acquiring him.

Kerfoot was traded as a RFA in the Kadri deal last year and the Leafs signed him to an extension 3 days later.



What is this based on?

Trouba was traded as a pending RFA last summer, he brought back Pionk and a 1st. Burakovsky was traded as a RFA last summer, he brought back a 2nd and 3rd. Both Lindholm and Hanifin were traded in that blockbuster in 2018 as pending RFAs.

Returns are based on:
1) is the RFA worth at least either his QO or his likely arbitration award. If McCann, based on his stats is going to command $3 mill, or more in an arbitration award, does the team feel that he is worth that? (something Colorado felt when they acquired Burkovsky)
2) If the RFA is a year from UFA, then return is based on the acquiring team being able to extend the player. Few teams are interested to paying a large asset price for someone who won't extend with them. One of the main reasons Trouba returned a lower package than expected. He was willing to go to arbitration 1 more time and sign as a UFA if he didn't land in a place he wanted to sign with long term.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Returns are based on:
1) is the RFA worth at least either his QO or his likely arbitration award. If McCann, based on his stats is going to command $3 mill, or more in an arbitration award, does the team feel that he is worth that? (something Colorado felt when they acquired Burkovsky)
2) If the RFA is a year from UFA, then return is based on the acquiring team being able to extend the player. Few teams are interested to paying a large asset price for someone who won't extend with them. One of the main reasons Trouba returned a lower package than expected. He was willing to go to arbitration 1 more time and sign as a UFA if he didn't land in a place he wanted to sign with long term.

I think this is valid, but McCann's a good bit off from UFA status (I think he's 3 years away but I could be wrong) and his qualifying offer is very low. I don't see anything in McCann's situation that makes me think his value would be dramatically lowered by his RFA status.

Sharks would pretty readily offer 34th overall+Gambrell+Sorensen for McCann but I don’t know if PIT would do that.

I think the Penguins would prefer a better singular piece over both Gambrell and Sorensen. The value isn't a problem, but they already have a lot of NHL forwards. Or maybe swap out Sorensen for a 4th or 5th or something like that.

Gambrell, pick #34 and one of San Jose's 5th for McCann would be good for me.

 

[Captain Mountain]

Domi was traded 1 for 1 with a player they were trying to get rid of. Hanafin and Lindholm were traded together for Hamilton, and Trouba was a high profile player so that's kind of different.

Domi/Galchenyuk was a mutual change of scenery trade.

 

[GirardSpinorama]

Probably similar to Burakovsky ; 2 and 3rd. Cap space is precious this offseason so I think prices won't be as high for any team trying to be maintain cap.

 

[Gecklund]

I think this is valid, but McCann's a good bit off from UFA status (I think he's 3 years away but I could be wrong) and his qualifying offer is very low. I don't see anything in McCann's situation that makes me think his value would be dramatically lowered by his RFA status.



I think the Penguins would prefer a better singular piece over both Gambrell and Sorensen. The value isn't a problem, but they already have a lot of NHL forwards. Or maybe swap out Sorensen for a 4th or 5th or something like that.

Gambrell, pick #34 and one of San Jose's 5th for McCann would be good for me.

Sorensen is in there as a cap dump. No Sorensen no trade. Sharks wouldn’t be able to afford it.

 

[Fatass]

Not much value. These guys are the ones who will see the squeeze during the flat cap era. Lots will become available over the off season, and sign for contracts around a million. That drives down the value of all those other guys, who are similar types of players.

 

[Gecklund]

Not much value. These guys are the ones who will see the squeeze during the flat cap era. Lots will become available over the off season, and sign for contracts around a million. That drives down the value of all those other guys, who are similar types of players.

McCann won’t sign for 1 million.

 

[PensandCaps]

Sharks would pretty readily offer 34th overall+Gambrell+Sorensen for McCann but I don’t know if PIT would do that.

I like it

 

[Empoleon8771]

Not much value. These guys are the ones who will see the squeeze during the flat cap era. Lots will become available over the off season, and sign for contracts around a million. That drives down the value of all those other guys, who are similar types of players.

If that's the case, most of these teams with players like McCann would just keep those players over trading them for less. I think you're overestimating how large of an impact a flat cap will have.

Sorensen is in there as a cap dump. No Sorensen no trade. Sharks wouldn’t be able to afford it.

Ah that makes sense then.

I wouldn't mind it if he had to be included, especially because pick #34 is essentially a 1st rounder itself, but that becomes a little tougher. I'd probably request Gambrell be swapped out with a comparable defenseman at that point, if San Jose had someone like that.

 

[Fatass]

McCann won’t sign for 1 million.

I didn’t say he would. I said there will be guys of similar quality who will, which will drive down the value of others, like McCann. Teams are dealing with a flat cap era. Top guys will still get paid, so it’s the rest who will be devalued. As a result players like McCann will not carry much value.

 

[Fatass]

If that's the case, most of these teams with players like McCann would just keep those players over trading them for less. I think you're overestimating how large of an impact a flat cap will have.



Ah that makes sense then.

I wouldn't mind it if he had to be included, especially because pick #34 is essentially a 1st rounder itself, but that becomes a little tougher. I'd probably request Gambrell be swapped out with a comparable defenseman at that point, if San Jose had someone like that.

You can try to convince yourself and others that the effects of the flat cap era on McCann level players won’t be evident, but it will. Top players will continue to earn big cap dollars, because there is a limited quantity. Players like McCann’s level will get less (and have less value) because there are a lot of them, and they can easily be replaced, especially by young players on ELCs.

 

[PensandCaps]

If that's the case, most of these teams with players like McCann would just keep those players over trading them for less. I think you're overestimating how large of an impact a flat cap will have.



Ah that makes sense then.

I wouldn't mind it if he had to be included, especially because pick #34 is essentially a 1st rounder itself, but that becomes a little tougher. I'd probably request Gambrell be swapped out with a comparable defenseman at that point, if San Jose had someone like that.

I like Gambrell though, He's a C and has good offensive skill. His stats in the AHL/NCAA show there might be some untapped offense there.

I don't know if he's any good defensively though, probably not.

 

[Empoleon8771]

[QUOTE="Luckylarry, post: 172830301, member: 285023"]You can try to convince yourself and others that the effects of the flat cap era on McCann level players won’t be evident, but it will. Top players will continue to earn big cap dollars, because there is a limited quantity. Players like McCann’s level will get less (and have less value) because there are a lot of them, and they can easily be replaced, especially by young players on ELCs.[/QUOTE]

No, I think you're just grossly overestimating the impact that not increasing the cap by $2 million a year will have.

With a normal rising cap, the cap would probably be about $85 million in 2 years. It will be $81 million instead, and then the cap will start going up again.

 

[Fatass]

[QUOTE="Luckylarry, post: 172830301, member: 285023"]You can try to convince yourself and others that the effects of the flat cap era on McCann level players won’t be evident, but it will. Top players will continue to earn big cap dollars, because there is a limited quantity. Players like McCann’s level will get less (and have less value) because there are a lot of them, and they can easily be replaced, especially by young players on ELCs.

No, I think you're just grossly overestimating the impact that not increasing the cap by $2 million a year will have.

With a normal rising cap, the cap would probably be about $85 million in 2 years. It will be $81 million instead, and then the cap will start going up again.[/QUOTE]
Teams sign important players first, and there are fewer of those. Supply and demand drives up their value. Lots of McCann level players available (who are replaceable with ELCs) which drives down their value.