Speculation: Roster Improvements: Who should we trade for?

[DFC]

When healthy our left side is pretty locked - Hedman/Garrison/Carle (assuming Carle isn't moved).

That's the thing I meant. He's making a loooot of money. I mean, it's not quite the Brewer situation, because Carle still eats a ton of ES minutes for Cooper even though he's on the third pairing most nights. ...But he is on the third pairing. ...And he's making a loooot of money.

 

[DFC]

Part of my thinking is that if we get a guy like Michalek, we can pair him with Hedman. I'm hoping that transforms him into last year's Hedman.

A big problem will be solved if we can just find a way to play Stralman with Hedman again. Hedman's been in the babysitter role this year, when the truth is he still kind of needs a babysitter himself. That sounds a lot worse than it really is. It's true for a lot of high scoring Dmen.

Now that Hedman's in more of a conservative role, playing with Sustr, he's looking eerily similar to the Victor Hedman we saw prior to last season.

 

[CarpeNoctem]

A big problem will be solved if we can just find a way to play Stralman with Hedman again. Hedman's been in the babysitter role this year, when the truth is he still kind of needs a babysitter himself. That sounds a lot worse than it really is. It's true for a lot of high scoring Dmen.

Now that Hedman's in more of a conservative role, playing with Sustr, he's looking eerily similar to the Victor Hedman we saw prior to last season.

You took the thought right out of my head. The 2014-15 Hedman is a big reason our PP is in the bottom third of the league, because he's not dynamic enough to spark offense from the back end like he was last season.

 

[Todd1a]

I don't think you do rentals I think you try for yandle if it fails! Then you try for yandle again at the draft. I'd rather stand pat then make a deal for a rental as I think better options will be there this summer to upgrade the defense. We need a core top 4 defenseman that can play top 4 for at least 5 seasons. Don't waste the draft picks on rentals keep them and keep building this team long term.

 

[DFC]

I don't think you do rentals I think you try for yandle if it fails! Then you try for yandle again at the draft. I'd rather stand pat then make a deal for a rental as I think better options will be there this summer to upgrade the defense. We need a core top 4 defenseman that can play top 4 for at least 5 seasons. Don't waste the draft picks on rentals keep them and keep building this team long term.

I'm not sure if you realize what you're asking for with Yandle. I agree that he's a great player, and, if the price is right, I'd be in favor of picking him up for a year. But he doesn't make our defense better. He could actually make it worse, in terms of goals against. What Yandle does is score points. It would be like Matt Carle, probably worse, probably closer to Barberio, with much better offense. If we picked him up we'd still need to shore up the right side.

 

[Brie]

 

[Todd1a]

I'm not sure if you realize what you're asking for with Yandle. I agree that he's a great player, and, if the price is right, I'd be in favor of picking him up for a year. But he doesn't make our defense better. He could actually make it worse, in terms of goals against. What Yandle does is score points. It would be like Matt Carle, probably worse, probably closer to Barberio, with much better offense. If we picked him up we'd still need to shore up the right side.

What i'm thinking is get yandle then move carle in the summer and add a stay at home replacement for matt carle in FA or trade.

 

[The Macho King]

What i'm thinking is get yandle then move carle in the summer and add a stay at home replacement for matt carle in FA or trade.

Just "move Carle". Carle isn't going to be easy to move - he has a bad contract with too much term for not a very good player. We can't make a move right now with the expectation that we can move him.

 

[LightningStrikes]

Dallas might join the teams looking to sell. Any interest?

 

[nhljohnson]

Just "move Carle". Carle isn't going to be easy to move - he has a bad contract with too much term for not a very good player. We can't make a move right now with the expectation that we can move him.

Precisely.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: everybody should get comfortable with the notion that Carle is going to be around for a significant portion, if not the entire duration, of his contract.

A) You're almost certainly not going to see the team add dead cap space by buying him out

B) The remaining term and $$$ make him particularly difficult to move him in-season and would prove difficult to arrange in the off-season without retaining a portion of the salary and cap hit (which, again, is a highly undesirable outcome given the team's financial situation moving forward)

C) Carle, with contractual protections in place, has plenty of leverage and, though he might be talked into, at some point, heading elsewhere, it's unlikely he'd accept a move just anywhere and a limited list of agreeable destinations--with most, if not all, being contenders up against the cap--means it's more likely any talks will hit impassable complications

Unless Yzerman is hell-bent to remove him from the scene, it's just very unlikely Carle is donning any other crest for the next few seasons.

 

[chasespace]

Dallas might join the teams looking to sell. Any interest?

We can take that scrub Klingberg

 

[TheDaysOf 04]

Yzerman on 620wdae earlier this morning

http://lightningshout.com/tampa-bay...man-talks-about-the-road-trip-and-trades.html

 

[2020 Cup Champions]

Just "move Carle". Carle isn't going to be easy to move - he has a bad contract with too much term for not a very good player. We can't make a move right now with the expectation that we can move him.

Precisely.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: everybody should get comfortable with the notion that Carle is going to be around for a significant portion, if not the entire duration, of his contract.

A) You're almost certainly not going to see the team add dead cap space by buying him out

B) The remaining term and $$$ make him particularly difficult to move him in-season and would prove difficult to arrange in the off-season without retaining a portion of the salary and cap hit (which, again, is a highly undesirable outcome given the team's financial situation moving forward)

C) Carle, with contractual protections in place, has plenty of leverage and, though he might be talked into, at some point, heading elsewhere, it's unlikely he'd accept a move just anywhere and a limited list of agreeable destinations--with most, if not all, being contenders up against the cap--means it's more likely any talks will hit impassable complications

Unless Yzerman is hell-bent to remove him from the scene, it's just very unlikely Carle is donning any other crest for the next few seasons.

There are teams who could use him (I'm thinking specifically of Colorado here, but I'm sure there are others).

 

[nhljohnson]

Depends entirely on the price. There's no way we even approach Desert Dawg's price. But if it's a reasonable price, the fact that Yandle's contract comes off the books is actually a good thing, particularly if we could find a way to move Carle. It allows us to re-assess at the end of next year.

If we could acquire a guy like Yandle for a price that's unlikely to hurt us in the long-term, then the fact that Yandle might walk at the end of his contract is pretty much meaningless. Having him and losing him is better than never having him at all. If the price is too high, then obviously we don't do it.

Therein lies the dilemma. There's no way any team is prying Yandle away for mere pennies on the dollar. Arizona is no doubt eager to save actual dollars by moving him but is going to want to want substantial, inexpensive returns.

But if you're saying having Carle for 3 more years makes more financial sense than having Yandle for 1, then I'm not following the logic.

Carle requires zero assets to hold onto and gives you cost-certainty for the next several seasons while being versatile enough to eat up a healthy share of pretty effective, all-around minutes. So, yes, trying to add Yandle for a single season would be unconscionably dumb on Yzerman's part, especially when you're merely upgrading an option for a power play that is dysfunctional not because of the talent available but because of its design and execution.

 

[nhljohnson]

There are teams who could use him (I'm thinking specifically of Colorado here, but I'm sure there are others).

Sure, so could Edmonton. That doesn't necessarily mean Carle will be willing to accept a trade there or that these other clubs won't instead roll with alternative options less difficult to facilitate.

You have to keep in mind the specter of the possibility of the salary cap ceiling again not rising much. Being close to a cap-team, the Lightning obviously benefit from a significant spike as it would give Yzerman extra flexibility in exploring ways to off-load Carle, if he was so inclined to--which, again, we don't yet have reason to believe that's actually the case.

 

[nhljohnson]

Really, the focus on Carle is kind of curious when, if TB decides it needs to cut bait with one of its pricier defenders, Garrison is the easiest to justify and, with an invalidated no-trade clause due to accepting a trade to the Lightning, actually shop around.

 

[The Macho King]

Really, the focus on Carle is kind of curious when, if TB decides it needs to cut bait with one of its pricier defenders, Garrison is the easiest to justify and, with an invalidated no-trade clause due to accepting a trade to the Lightning, actually shop around.

Umm... the biggest reason to keep Garrison is because Garrison is very good.

Also, we don't know if the terms of the trade invalidated the NTC - sometimes the NTC travels, and sometimes it doesn't. If he waived for Tampa, it may have been with the specific provision that the NTC comes with the rest of the contract.

 

[DFC]

Umm... the biggest reason to keep Garrison is because Garrison is very good.

Also, we don't know if the terms of the trade invalidated the NTC - sometimes the NTC travels, and sometimes it doesn't. If he waived for Tampa, it may have been with the specific provision that the NTC comes with the rest of the contract.

Yeah, Garrison's making $4.5 as a #3. I think we're all fine with that. The fact that Garrison's fit in so well is probably the biggest reason why so many more people have joined the "move Matt Carle" bandwagon. He's our highest paid defenseman and he's on our 3rd pairing. It's hard not to think our cap wouldn't be better structured with him removed.

With all this talk of adding a #4 RHD, that would make Carle a #5. Suddenly we're back in Brewer territory. Carle's better than Brewer, but he's making a lot more money.

 

[DFC]

So, yes, trying to add Yandle for a single season would be unconscionably dumb on Yzerman's part, especially when you're merely upgrading an option for a power play that is dysfunctional not because of the talent available but because of its design and execution.

Ok then, if it would be dumb on Yzerman's part to add a player to help with the PP because the problem is design and execution, is it not dumb on Yzerman's part to allow the PP to remain dysfunctional based on design an execution? Is the entire organization dumb or just too soft-spoken to step in and tell Cooper and company that they're screwing something up?

I doubt it's that simple. And while I don't think adding a proven QB to the PP would magically make things fine, it would definitely help.

I'm not saying this to make a case for acquiring Yandle. I'd only go after him under very specific circumstances, i.e. a reasonable price and the option of moving Matt Carle. (Bolded for skim-protection.) We'd still need an RHD, which is the exact position we're in now, except for the next year we would have one of the better offensive D weapons in the game. That brings more to the table than Matt Carle does right now, and, if the price is reasonable (something along the lines of Namestnikov + a 1st + ), it might even be worth it just to get Matt Carle off the books and better prepare us for Stammergeddon in 2016. Hell, to be honest, I'd like to replace Matt Carle with almost any LHD signed only til the end of next year.

I realize this is hypothetical and with growing cap uncertainty it's getting less and less likely we can get Carle off the books regardless. But it's not because he's such a great player that we shouldn't move him. It's because he has a NTC and the teams most likely to take him are teams for whom he'd never play.

 

[nhljohnson]

Umm... the biggest reason to keep Garrison is because Garrison is very good.

Garrison being good is fine and dandy, but if he holds up over the next couple seasons, it's also what will make him attractive to other clubs. I should have been more clear that I am talking at least a season, and more likely two, down the road.

Also, we don't know if the terms of the trade invalidated the NTC - sometimes the NTC travels, and sometimes it doesn't. If he waived for Tampa, it may have been with the specific provision that the NTC comes with the rest of the contract.

Yes, and that doesn't seem to be known in Garrison's case. I thought I remembered reading he had waived it but I am unable to find any reference to that actually happening.

 

[HoseEmDown]

If we don't get anybody at the deadline I can't see us being too aggressive in the offseason for a defenseman. Koekkoek will hopefully have finished the season healthy and helped carry the Crunch deep. DeAngelo will hopefully carry SSM to a Memorial cup. We can ride with Hedman/Garrison/Carle on the left with Koekkoek ready for a call up. If we need offense DeAngelo will also be able to come up to get a look, if we play him sheltered with some PP time we can get by. Players like Nesterov/Sustr/Witkowski hopefully improve as well as Gudas getting healthy. Bringing in another vet is just going to block one of our youth from playing important development minutes, rather go rental this year and again next if the kids haven't cemented a spot.

 

[nhljohnson]

Yeah, Garrison's making $4.5 as a #3. I think we're all fine with that. The fact that Garrison's fit in so well is probably the biggest reason why so many more people have joined the "move Matt Carle" bandwagon. He's our highest paid defenseman and he's on our 3rd pairing. It's hard not to think our cap wouldn't be better structured with him removed.

With all this talk of adding a #4 RHD, that would make Carle a #5. Suddenly we're back in Brewer territory. Carle's better than Brewer, but he's making a lot more money.

I think you're a wee bit caught up with numbers and roles that are more fluid rather than entrenched.

When Hedman was injured for a significant stretch earlier this season, who did Cooper pair with Stralman at evens? Carle, not Garrison. In fact, Stralman is the skater Carle has accrued, up to the point of his injury, the most (334 of 771) 5v5 minutes with. Was that Cooper protecting his "#5" or because he, and the organization as a whole, views Carle a lot more favorably than a lot of posters here seem to?

Is Garrison spending essentially half his 866 5v5 minutes with Sustr (361) and Gudas (172)--who is Carle's second-most common partner--a clear-cut sign of an elevated status in the d-corps or is he the "#5" when the team is healthy?

Or are they both valued more or less quite similarly by the organization?

 

[DFC]

I think you're a wee bit caught up with numbers and roles that are rather more fluid than entrenched.

When Hedman was injured for a significant stretch earlier this season, who did Cooper pair with Stralman at evens? Carle, not Garrison. In fact, Stralman is the skater Carle has accrued, up to the point of his injury, the most (334 of 771) 5v5 minutes with. Was that Cooper protecting his "#5" or because he, and the organization as a whole, views Carle a lot more favorably than a lot of posters here seem to?

Is Garrison spending essentially half his 866 5v5 minutes with Sustr (361) and Gudas (172)--who is Carle's second-most common partner--a clear-cut sign of an elevated status in the defensive corps or is he the "#5" when the team is healthy?

I don't have a pitchfork out for Carle. I've said a number of times that I think the coaching staff still has a lot of faith in him.

But Garrison > Carle. At least this year. I don't even think Carle's biggest supporters would argue that.

 

[nhljohnson]

But Garrison > Carle. At least this year. I don't even think Carle's biggest supporters would argue that.

If that is so abundantly clear, doesn't that just serve to make Garrison, with his lower cap hit, the preferred target of the two for any potential trade partner?

Again, if clearing salary from the backend becomes paramount at some point in the next couple of seasons, Garrison would make just as much sense as Carle to try and find a taker for, and even more so if his NTC with the Canucks is no longer applicable.

 

[DFC]

If that is so abundantly clear, doesn't that just serve to make Garrison, with his lower cap hit, the preferred target of the two for any potential trade partner?

Again, if clearing salary from the backend becomes paramount at some point in the next couple of seasons, Garrison would make just as much sense as Carle to try and find a taker for, and even more so if his NTC with the Canucks is no longer applicable.

If at all possible, why not keep the better defenseman who's making less $? I realize it might not be possible to do that, but I don't see how that wouldn't be Option A. Trade Carle if we can, Garrison if we must. (Although, really, Garrison's caphit is no problem. Even if we're in cap trouble, I don't think he'd be anywhere near the top of the trade list.)