Proposal: PIT - VGK

Empoleon8771

Registered User
Aug 25, 2015
81,452
79,566
Redmond, WA
The thing that conflicts me with this deal is that I think the concept of a "1st and 2nd" seems pricier than it actually is. Assuming Vegas picks at like 30th in the 1st round, their 1st and 2nd (30th and 62nd) are only equal to about 24th overall. Kolesar, Brisson and 24th overall for Guentzel seems super reasonable.

Just with the deal listing a 1st and 2nd, it seems too rich for Vegas. But when you look at where those picks will be, I think it's actually pretty reasonable.
 

The Duck Knight

Henry, you're our only hope!
Feb 6, 2012
8,080
4,548
702
A 1st and Brisson is fair value wise but Vegas doesn't do rentals (biggest pure rental they've had was Cousins) and I can't see them being able to afford a Guentzel extension.
 

Drake1588

UNATCO
Sponsor
Jul 2, 2002
30,108
2,502
Northern Virginia
If they can get an extension agreed, and they like him enough, this seems very on brand for the Knights. Price seems about ballpark too.

They have a lot of offseason decisions to make, and this would only work if they like JG well enough to let something else go in the summer, and perhaps shy away from trying to re-sign someone they consider core. They sort of have to do that anyway, but this would make that a more serious adjustment.

Do they like him more than they like, say, Chandler Stevenson? That's the kind of question they'd have to answer. They can't contemplate a choice like this in a vacuum, with their cap issues.
 

The Duck Knight

Henry, you're our only hope!
Feb 6, 2012
8,080
4,548
702
If they can get an extension agreed, and they like him enough, this seems very on brand for the Knights. Price seems about ballpark too.

They have a lot of offseason decisions to make, and this would only work if they like JG well enough to let something else go in the summer, and perhaps shy away from trying to re-sign someone they consider core. They sort of have to do that anyway, but this would make that a more serious adjustment.

Do they like him more than they like, say, Chandler Stevenson? That's the kind of question they'd have to answer. They can't contemplate a choice like this in a vacuum, with their cap issues.

Stephenson is a guy they shouldn't even think about signing over 5m+ long term. He's a product of a perfect situtation. The big problem with a Guentzel extension is it probably means Marchessault is gone too and then there is still the hole at LD on the top pair.

You don't think they go all in this deadline?

Also, wasn't Barbashev a pure rental?

I don't. Think it makes more sense to add Tarasenko or Buchnevich than spending premium assets on Guentzel if you can't sign him. And I don't think it makes sense to sign him from the Knights perspective.

They signed him. Same as they did with Lehner. Same with Stone. They normally only deal for UFA's to be if they intend to get them extended. Hence why I don't think Guentzel is a fit.
 

Gurglesons

Registered User
Dec 18, 2009
92,196
74,446
San Diego, CA
last-train-tocool.blogspot.com
Stephenson is a guy they shouldn't even think about signing over 5m+ long term. He's a product of a perfect situtation. The big problem with a Guentzel extension is it probably means Marchessault is gone too and then there is still the hole at LD on the top pair.



I don't. Think it makes more sense to add Tarasenko or Buchnevich than spending premium assets on Guentzel if you can't sign him. And I don't think it makes sense to sign him from the Knights perspective.

They signed him. Same as they did with Lehner. Same with Stone. They normally only deal for UFA's to be if they intend to get them extended. Hence why I don't think Guentzel is a fit.
Jake over Marsh seems unquestionably the smart move tbh:
 

The Duck Knight

Henry, you're our only hope!
Feb 6, 2012
8,080
4,548
702
Jake over Marsh seems unquestionably the smart move tbh:

It wouldn't just be Jake over Marchie. It would be Jake over Marchie (who just won a Conn Smythe) and a top pair LD.

I'm assuming we can get Marchie around 6 and Guentzel is looking for closer to 9?
 

Empoleon8771

Registered User
Aug 25, 2015
81,452
79,566
Redmond, WA
It wouldn't just be Jake over Marchie. It would be Jake over Marchie (who just won a Conn Smythe) and a top pair LD.

I'm assuming we can get Marchie around 6 and Guentzel is looking for closer to 9?

I think you're right with Guentzel (I have him at like $8.5 million), but Marchessault at $6 million seems low to me.

I'd bet it would be like a $2-$2.5 million cap difference.
 

Seven0two

Registered User
Apr 17, 2018
209
201
It wouldn't just be Jake over Marchie. It would be Jake over Marchie (who just won a Conn Smythe) and a top pair LD.

I'm assuming we can get Marchie around 6 and Guentzel is looking for closer to 9?
I would assume that Hague would move up to the top pairing and Hutton would jump in with Whitecloud in the third pair. Obviously not as strong, but I do think the defense corps of would be fine. If you can get Marchy at $6m and Guentzel at $9m (kind of low for him) then you could make it work. The problem would actually be the season after that when you have to extend Theodore.
 

The Duck Knight

Henry, you're our only hope!
Feb 6, 2012
8,080
4,548
702
I would assume that Hague would move up to the top pairing and Hutton would jump in with Whitecloud in the third pair. Obviously not as strong, but I do think the defense corps of would be fine. If you can get Marchy at $6m and Guentzel at $9m (kind of low for him) then you could make it work. The problem would actually be the season after that when you have to extend Theodore.

I can't get behind the philosophy of investing so much money on the wing. Cups are won down the middle and on the backend. I don't want Guentzel at the expense of a top LD and/or top 9 C.
 

Ryder71

Registered User
Nov 24, 2017
23,230
11,213
For the record Jake is back skating, shooting and handling the puck.
 

The Old Master

come and take it.
Sep 27, 2004
17,583
4,866
burgh
If they can get an extension agreed, and they like him enough, this seems very on brand for the Knights. Price seems about ballpark too.

They have a lot of offseason decisions to make, and this would only work if they like JG well enough to let something else go in the summer, and perhaps shy away from trying to re-sign someone they consider core. They sort of have to do that anyway, but this would make that a more serious adjustment.

Do they like him more than they like, say, Chandler Stevenson? That's the kind of question they'd have to answer. They can't contemplate a choice like this in a vacuum, with their cap issues.
maybe add a "future consideration" to send over to pgh. in the off season to help with the cap? although it would change the price.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad