Proposal: PIT - SJS

Gecklund

Registered User
Jul 17, 2012
25,276
11,856
California
The point of acquiring Granlund isn't to have him when you're contending. It's to trade him for value as a rental next year (as in 2024-2025) when he's a pending UFA.

With Simek, you're getting no value because he's a fringe NHL defenseman making decent money. With Granlund, you're paying more but you also have the chance at getting positive value back for him.



And that's what the Sharks will get when they trade Granlund as a rental.

Granlund for Simek adds $2.75 million for the Sharks next year while it gives them an actual NHL player. The year after, Granlund will be a rental and will be very easily tradeable for value.
Okay then you trade Granlund for that pick and we will take the cap flexibility. Don’t try to pawn off y’all’s issues on us.
 

Empoleon8771

Registered User
Aug 25, 2015
81,452
79,570
Redmond, WA
Okay then you trade Granlund for that pick and we will take the cap flexibility. Don’t try to pawn off y’all’s issues on us.

So you're basically saying you'd rather have a valueless player instead of a player with actual value that you can trade, just so you can have cap space as a bad team?

Yeah, that makes total sense. Guess that's how all rebuilding teams operate.
 

TheBeard

He fixes the cable?
Jul 12, 2019
15,088
16,472
Vegass
The point of acquiring Granlund isn't to have him when you're contending. It's to trade him for value as a rental next year (as in 2024-2025) when he's a pending UFA.

With Simek, you're getting no value because he's a fringe NHL defenseman making decent money. With Granlund, you're paying more but you also have the chance at getting positive value back for him.



And that's what the Sharks will get when they trade Granlund as a rental.

Granlund for Simek adds $2.75 million for the Sharks next year while it gives them an actual NHL player. The year after, Granlund will be a rental and will be very easily tradeable for value.
No team is gonna make the same mistake Hextall did. Granlund will maybe get a 4th or 5th but his numbers will end up looking horrible on the sharks. By the time he’s in “rental” territory, he’s gonna be 34 and probably coming off a 20 point season making 5. Its clear the intent was to alleviate the cap issues for Pitts so sharks want a 3rd as well.
 

Empoleon8771

Registered User
Aug 25, 2015
81,452
79,570
Redmond, WA
No team is gonna make the same mistake Hextall did. Granlund will maybe get a 4th or 5th but his numbers will end up looking horrible on the sharks. By the time he’s in “rental” territory, he’s gonna be 34 and probably coming off a 20 point season making 5. Its clear the intent was to alleviate the cap issues for Pitts so sharks want a 3rd as well.

Which you won't get if you're also dumping Simek in the deal.
 

Gecklund

Registered User
Jul 17, 2012
25,276
11,856
California
So you're basically saying you'd rather have a valueless player instead of a player with actual value that you can trade, just so you can have cap space as a bad team?

Yeah, that makes total sense. Guess that's how all rebuilding teams operate.
Yep because we can then use that cap space to get actual picks like Chicago or Minnesota did this year. Not pray that we can get a pick 2 years from now.
 

Empoleon8771

Registered User
Aug 25, 2015
81,452
79,570
Redmond, WA
Simek is on the final year making 2.25. He’s probably got way more trade value than Granlund does.

No he doesn't.

Simek isn't a NHL player. Granlund is. The only value Simek might have is costing less money than other players. There are zero teams who would actually want him as a NHL defenseman.

Dumping Simek just to get a bigger contract? Is this Jim Benning's account?

And a better player.
 

TheBeard

He fixes the cable?
Jul 12, 2019
15,088
16,472
Vegass
No he doesn't.

Simek isn't a NHL player. Granlund is. The only value Simek might have is costing less money than other players. There are zero teams who would actually want him as a NHL defenseman.



And a better player.
Radim is fine as a 7th D and his main issue is heath. if sharks retain 50% I can assure you teams will be very interested just for depth purposes. Hard to justify the same for Granlund at 5 or even 2.5.
 

Empoleon8771

Registered User
Aug 25, 2015
81,452
79,570
Redmond, WA
Radim is fine as a 7th D and his main issue is heath. if sharks retain 50% I can assure you teams will be very interested just for depth purposes. Hard to justify the same for Granlund at 5 or even 2.5.

If Granlund was only at $2.5 million, the Penguins would get back the 2nd round pick they got for him. Ridiculously easily. Did you see what Athanasiou was just paid? Granlund out-produced Athanasiou last year.

Either way, I'm going to backtrack on "you wouldn't get a 3rd in addition to dumping Simek" claim because Granlund and a 3rd for Simek is fairly similar in value to McGinn and a 3rd for Kulikov, which is the deal the Penguins made to get out of McGinn's deal. So I'd take that back and say Granlund and a mediocre future add (like a 3rd or so) for Simek is reasonable.
 

TheBeard

He fixes the cable?
Jul 12, 2019
15,088
16,472
Vegass
If Granlund was only at $2.5 million, the Penguins would get back the 2nd round pick they got for him. Ridiculously easily. Did you see what Athanasiou was just paid? Granlund out-produced Athanasiou last year.

Either way, I'm going to backtrack on "you wouldn't get a 3rd in addition to dumping Simek" claim because Granlund and a 3rd for Simek is fairly similar in value to McGinn and a 3rd for Kulikov, which is the deal the Penguins made to get out of McGinn's deal. So I'd take that back and say Granlund and a mediocre future add (like a 3rd or so) for Simek is reasonable.
Deal.
 

Patty Ice

Straight to the Banc
Feb 27, 2002
13,886
3,414
Not California
So you're basically saying you'd rather have a valueless player instead of a player with actual value that you can trade, just so you can have cap space as a bad team?

No they save it so they can weaponize it to gain draft capital. Not to help out the Pens just cuz...
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad