I think it's to protect a player from the exact situation Peca is in, where he could likely play in the NHL, just not with the team he's with. Not sure what the number of games is, but Marchessault was in a similar situation.
Player Discussion: Matthew Peca
- Thread starter LightningStrikes
- Start date
I think it's to protect a player from the exact situation Peca is in, where he could likely play in the NHL, just not with the team he's with. Not sure what the number of games is, but Marchessault was in a similar situation.
TampaJay
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2016
- 779
- 151
There are several categories of UFAs. Looks to me like Peca falls under the definition of a Group 6 player: “Any Player who is age 25 or older who has completed three (3) or more professional seasons, whose standard player contract has expired and: (i) in the case of a Player other than a goaltender, has played less than 80 NHL Games, or (ii) in the case of a goaltender, has played less than 28 NHL Games.”
TennisMenace
Registered User
Hab fan here. I’m sure you probably know, until the two centers we drafted last year and this year make it to the bigs, We are soooooo desperate at the center position. Many Hab fans certainly hope he can play lines 2/3. We have enough guys who qualify for line 4.
I know many of us prefer he were taller than 5’8” but that is my height so who am I to voice this argument? I realize you have no need for him so hopefully your trash is our treasure. By the way, I have no ill will toward TBay...I usually root for your boys in the playoffs when we are not there or eliminate. I hate Boston, Philly, Leafs, Pitt, etc....no hate for your boys.
I know many of us prefer he were taller than 5’8” but that is my height so who am I to voice this argument? I realize you have no need for him so hopefully your trash is our treasure. By the way, I have no ill will toward TBay...I usually root for your boys in the playoffs when we are not there or eliminate. I hate Boston, Philly, Leafs, Pitt, etc....no hate for your boys.
I don't know. He always looked like a guy who had more than we got from him, but I'm not sure he can ever be a top-sixer on a good team.
Very fast, decent hands, NHL shot, smart.
FinnLightning26
Death and no taxes
Good for Peca for getting that deal. He wasn't going to get anything like that here. Too many good forwards.
LightningStrikes
Champa Bay Lightning
- Nov 24, 2009
- 26,130
- 9,883
T REX
Registered User
- Feb 28, 2013
- 11,054
- 8,337
Stormbreaker
Registered User
- Apr 2, 2012
- 16,843
- 9,946
TeslaCoilFan
Slightly Elite Fan
I wish him the best of luck! He really was more a victim of our forward depth than anything else.
LightningStrikes
Champa Bay Lightning
- Nov 24, 2009
- 26,130
- 9,883
- Jan 23, 2017
- 19,320
- 26,573
I'd take him as a center any day over Drouin as a center that's for sure.
Yeah, I wish we’d played him all season as our 4C. Paquette finally showed up in the playoffs but he spends so much time either injured or ineffective that we could have used an energy guy who can win faceoffs and contribute some secondary scoring in that role. We could have easily jettisoned Conacher as Peca had far more to offer us. But once again we lose another talented player because Cooper played favorites with somebody not as good.
I could see him possibly becoming a low end 2C if he hits his ceiling. Not particularly likely but he does have some Johnson-lite upside. But you’re right, he’s better suited for a 3C role on a good team. Loved him in that spot with Killorn and Gourde on his line - he had better chemistry with Killorn than probably anyone else on our roster.
This guy is 25 and hasn't scored 15 goals in a season since he was a sophomore in college. He was never even close to ppg in the AHL after 3 seasons. This guy has limited offensive potential I don't matter how speedy he looked when he was up. He's no more than a 3C and he maxes at 40 points.
Sky04
Registered User
- Jan 8, 2009
- 29,019
- 18,030
Which you know, is pretty damn good for a 7th round pick... would've been a very good depth player at 1m, we should've kept him for depth. Guy has shown more then Erne and is a better version of Conacher. We drafted him, developed him and he's NHL quality, seems like a waste to have let him walk.
Paquette is someone we should ditch, he's been on the decline for 4 years straight, has yet to play a full season and his injuries will continue to increase with his playstyle. Any size advantage he has over Peca would've been negated with games played and production, Paquette plays the body more but Peca is significantly better on the forecheck and dangerous on the PK.
The problem is he wasn't going to be a 3C here so he wasn't going to hit 40 points. He doesn't play the style Cooper wants on the 4th line so he wouldn't have been used properly there either. Just like Marchessault it comes down to money, we probably offered him a deal similar to what Conacher and Dumont took last year. He clearly was able to find a team willing to pay him way more than that. He would be good depth and has shown to be better than Erne but Erne will be making 500k less, for a depth player that's a lot no matter how much money Vinik can throw around. We are a cap team and as a cap team you will lose guys because of a few hundred thousand, we tie up our money in the top guys and need to rely on ELC or cheap depth, it's just the way it is and Gourde might become a victim of this too.
VoluntaryDom
Formerly DominicBoltsFan / Ⓐ / ✞
Ad
Upcoming events
-
Oshawa Generals @ Ottawa 67s - Oshawa Generals leads series 2-0Wagers: 2Staked: $50.00Event closes- Updated:
-
North Bay Battalion @ Sudbury Wolves - North Bay Battalion leads series 2-0.Wagers: 2Staked: $54.00Event closes
- Updated:
-
London Knights @ Kitchener Rangers - London Knights leads series 2-0Wagers: 2Staked: $40.00Event closes
- Updated:
-
Which team will win the last available playoff spot in the Eastern Conference? - ONLY PICK ONE TEAMWagers: 10Staked: $11,563.00Event closes- Updated:
-