Speculation: Official Fantasy Trade Offers/Armchair GM Thread: 2018-20 edition

[iam76]

Ah. It depends on how you reason. I assume that Zito is smart, so that he has something lined up for Yandle if he gets Krug.

We need to see if a kid can step up as well. Other teams have no issues having kids step up for 2nd and third line roles 2nd and third pairing.

 

[violaswallet]

We need to see if a kid can step up as well. Other teams have no issues having kids step up for 2nd and third line roles 2nd and third pairing.

I mean, we've had two step up in the top four past two seasons: Stillman and Weegar.

For forwards, you're absolutely right...althouhh my guess is that Tippett and Deni occupy two of three top-9 RW spots. Kind of barren for centers though.

 

[GrumpyKelly]

Yandle QBs the number 1 PP though...we won't sign Krug if he can't play his most important role.

Yandle only makes sense if he players the PP

Five players on a PP? Put the both on PP1 if you have to which you don't. You could actually have two competent PPs.

 

[Dread Clawz]

Also I'm curious - "in the running for Krug's rights"? What does that even mean; how much do you really give up for a guy's rights? Cost us a 6th-turned-4th rounder for Yandle IIRC?

Happens all the time. Edmunson cost Montreal a 6th. So I assume Krug is a 3rd or 4th.

 

[iam76]

I mean, we've had two step up in the top four past two seasons: Stillman and Weegar.

For forwards, you're absolutely right...althouhh my guess is that Tippett and Deni occupy two of three top-9 RW spots. Kind of barren for centers though.

i was more focused on o for sure and added dmen in to make my point.. but i agree.

 

[violaswallet]

Also I'm curious - "in the running for Krug's rights"? What does that even mean; how much do you really give up for a guy's rights? Cost us a 6th-turned-4th rounder for Yandle IIRC?

This is a weird year with no negotiating window and well Covid. In free agency, prices determine fit and having a better understanding of prices from the player's perspective matters, especially with how insane free agency will be with no early negotiations? As a pedagogical example, suppose Florida is willing to pay Krug 6.75M a year. We have no idea if he will accept/if it is market value now. Zito's attention is limited when it comes. Is it worth a 6th round pick to find this out early and then focus on other players if he won't sign for our maximum amount?

 

[violaswallet]

Five players on a PP? Put the both on PP1 if you have to which you don't. You could actually have two competent PPs.

Krug and Yandle are two similar for the same PP...does it make sense to pay a PPQB2 >6M with our needs?

 

[violaswallet]

i was more focused on o for sure and added dmen in to make my point.. but i agree.

Yep: it's why I offered the contingency with Yandle being traded for a similar contract upfront

We need to upgrade our D of course, but only a few upgrades make sense right now

 

[GrumpyKelly]

Krug and Yandle are two similar for the same PP...does it make sense to pay a PPQB2 >6M with our needs?

Are you logically impaired? You're initial argument was we have to move Yandle if we get Krug. We don't HAVE to move him. He already played third pairing this year and as a PP specialist.

 

[Mass Panther Fan]

Maybe its a scare tactic to force yandle to request a trade or waive ntc. Make him scared he is gonna lose his pp1 spot

 

[violaswallet]

Are you logically impaired? You're initial argument was we have to move Yandle if we get Krug. We don't HAVE to move him. He already played third pairing this year and as a PP specialist.

Wow, insulting man. (First time from a Panthers fan)

No need to continue this conversation, especially given that the entire board agrees with me except for you: Krug in implies Yandle out if we're optimizing. You seem to be taking the literal "can we fit him on the books;" the answer is yes. Yet, the question we all ask is "Does it make sense for the team to keep both if we want to compete." (Or the more reasonable, "conditional on the move, what else must happen for the move to be reasonable/logical")

Edit: Really it is unnecessary to insult someone else here, especially given the circumstances. If you find someone else's view unreasonable, try to explain the differences in their reasoning and logic (which I did above).

 

[GrumpyKelly]

Wow, insulting man. (First time from a Panthers fan)

Victim? Also appeal to the crowd.

No need to continue this conversation, especially given that the entire board agrees with me except for you: Krug in implies Yandle out if we're optimizing. You seem to be taking the literal "can we fit him on the books;" the answer is yes. Yet, the question we all ask is "Does it make sense for the team to keep both if we want to compete." (Or the more reasonable, "conditional on the move, what else must happen for the move to be reasonable/logical")

Nonsense. I was the first to say Yandle is gone if Krug/AP comes, doesn't mean we HAVE to move him.

Edit: Really it is unnecessary to insult someone else here, especially given the circumstances. If you find someone else's view unreasonable, try to explain the differences in their reasoning and logic (which I did above).

Maybe just grow a pair. If you can't then learn to take a punch or whatever, I had to argue with you because you started defending a stupid position that we HAVE to move Yandle. Which was obviously a waste of time.

 

[ProjectPanthers]

We do have to move Yandle if Krug is brought in though....

Krug is also a liability in his own zone, we cannot afford to have two guys back there who don't give a f*** about defending.

This move makes no sense. I just don't understand it.

 

[violaswallet]

Victim? Also appeal to the crowd.



Nonsense. I was the first to say Yandle is gone if Krug/AP comes, doesn't mean we HAVE to move him.



Maybe just grow a pair. If you can't then learn to take a punch or whatever, I had to argue with you because you started defending a stupid position that we HAVE to move Yandle. Which was obviously a waste of time.

I mean, I defended my position adequately and explained what I meant. Appealing to the group on why my definition holds is the definition of reasonability: ultimately, you were arguing on a semantical definition on what "must" means (the physical cap constraint), not the "optimization" definition (i.e. what makes sense) that we usually mean on this board, so it absolutely follows that we ask those in the conversation how they perceive it.

It's unnecessary to move towards any sort of insulting language on a board for a sport. I wish you all the best in the future.

 

[letsgrowcactus]

Happens all the time. Edmunson cost Montreal a 6th. So I assume Krug is a 3rd or 4th.

This is a weird year with no negotiating window and well Covid. In free agency, prices determine fit and having a better understanding of prices from the player's perspective matters, especially with how insane free agency will be with no early negotiations? As a pedagogical example, suppose Florida is willing to pay Krug 6.75M a year. We have no idea if he will accept/if it is market value now. Zito's attention is limited when it comes. Is it worth a 6th round pick to find this out early and then focus on other players if he won't sign for our maximum amount?

My point is, how much does one pay for a guy's rights, a mid/late round pick? I'm wondering what the "competition" with Detroit is about - who offers a higher 4th rounder? Or maybe a pick if he signs with us/them?
Whatever, I just wish there was some actual Panthers hockey happening. Hate this stupid virus.

 

[violaswallet]

My point is, how much does one pay for a guy's rights, a mid/late round pick? I'm wondering what the "competition" with Detroit is about - who offers a higher 4th rounder? Or maybe a pick if he signs with us/them?
Whatever, I just wish there was some actual Panthers hockey happening. Hate this stupid virus.

No idea how much is optimal, but I do see an argument for a positive price? If the CBA still allows conditional picks for rights, something like Yandle's offer makes sense, although I think conditional picks are banned. In GR's interview with Zito, Zito was very clear that he thinks through contingencies, i.e. if not player A, can we get player B. I could see us paying say a 4th-5th to figure out if we can get Krug, if it is guarantees we can get at least someone else for that money? Zito probably can't negotiated with two players at once and make two offers for one cap spot at the exact start of free agency

 

[Bure1096]

You're all wrong, Ekblad and Yandle will be our 1st pairing with Krug running the power play with no one else but Hornqvist screening the goalie.

 

[violaswallet]

You're all wrong, Ekblad and Yandle will be our 1st pairing with Krug running the power play with no one else but Hornqvist screening the goalie.

To insure against shorties, we'll play 2 goalies @Bure1096 you're a genius.

 

[Gizmo Tkachuk]

You're all wrong, Ekblad and Yandle will be our 1st pairing with Krug running the power play with no one else but Hornqvist screening the goalie.

We all know that the PP will just be 4 other players trying to pass the puck to Hoffman (if he returns)

 

[Dread Clawz]

I mean I don't get it, but we'd still be better defensively than we were with Matheson.

 

[Ghoste]

-ghoste

 

[SoupyFIN]

Moving on to the next one as this has passed a thousand posts.

Speculation: - Official Fantasy Trade Offers/Armchair GM Thread: 2020-21 edition