Salary Cap: Salary Cap & Roster Building: Stanley Cup Champions Summertime Blue's...

Status
Not open for further replies.

Riptide

Registered User
Dec 29, 2011
38,887
6,520
Yukon
You don’t think Trouba is worth 7.5 mil?

Just saw your post. Crazy. In 2019 Trouba is easily with 8-9 mil.

So you'd have no problem paying a player 8-9m after his first season exceeding 33pts? He had 24pts the year before (35pt pace). Paying him 8-9m is just asking for trouble. I'd pay Subban 9m before paying Trouba anything close to that... and I f***ing hate Subban.
 
  • Like
Reactions: molon labe

Giskard

Registered User
Jun 20, 2008
1,828
568
Alps
I really hope that GMJR sticks to the trade market, because the last times he tried something "big" in the Free Agency we end up with Ehrhoff, Hunwick and Johnson.

Trade all you want, but don't sign big money UFA, please.
 

WayneSid9987

Registered User
Nov 24, 2009
30,053
5,676
I really hope that GMJR sticks to the trade market, because the last times he tried something "big" in the Free Agency we end up with Ehrhoff, Hunwick and Johnson.

Trade all you want, but don't sign big money UFA, please.

Agreed.
Perhaps Phil saying no could turn out to be a blessing.

The reality is if he did have the cash, he should be pursuing. Edler, MoJo or Nyquist and thats about it, imo.

ETA: Trade wise, I'd mix it up/bounce ideas off the cap strapped teams if i were JR. Tampa, TOR and Vegas(who'd be ok trading some good players).

Miller
Palat
Killorn
Kapanen
Johnsson
Haula

Alot there to like.
 
Last edited:

Turin

Registered User
Feb 27, 2018
21,871
25,274
So you'd have no problem paying a player 8-9m after his first season exceeding 33pts? He had 24pts the year before (35pt pace). Paying him 8-9m is just asking for trouble. I'd pay Subban 9m before paying Trouba anything close to that... and I ****ing hate Subban.

Trouba is a top pairing defenseman who doesn’t get much powerplay opportunity. He’s not Doughty/Karlsson/Letang/Hedman but he is worth an 8 million dollar gamble to a team like New York.
 

Peat

Registered User
Jun 14, 2016
29,288
25,205
Agreed.
Perhaps Phil saying no could turn out to be a blessing.

The reality is if he did have the cash, he should be pursuing. Edler, MoJo or Nyquist and thats about it, imo.

ETA: Trade wise, I'd mix it up/bounce ideas off the cap strapped teams if i were JR. Tampa, TOR and Vegas(who'd be ok trading some good players).

Miller
Palat
Killorn
Kapanen
Johnsson
Haula

Alot there to like.

The Minnesota deal would have given us very little cap relief - nowhere near enough to make us FA players - but it would have given us that little extra bit of cap that could have us getting involved with the trade targets you mention. That doesn't look like a blessing to me.

Or maybe his options were limited by Trouba and his willingness to sign a long term contract elsewhere? Wouldn't be the first time that's happened. He has 2 RFA seasons left before he's a UFA. So while he doesn't have total control, he has enough power to limit things.

And in addition while I don't think all that highly of Poink, he is an RD who over his NHL career (101 games), has played at a 32pt pace and is seen as a PMD. For someone who's 24 and who's only played 2 years of pro... there's definitely some potential there. And he's going to be cheap to sign. Odds are good that he signs for less than 3.5m a season over a year or two (I'd guess 2). That like with the Maatta deal holds some value in and of itself when you have expensive contracts to sign.

I don't think that deal reflected a "will sign long term" deal price at all. Probably could have beaten it with another offer for him as a one year rental. I think it means they really rate Pionk and we'll see if they're right.

I think anybody blaming anybody but Brassard and Brassards injuries for how that turned out is looking at it like a child.

Even as someone who was sceptical about the idea of paying a big amount of assets for a scoring 2C to be a do it all 3C, I think I'd mostly agree with this. I thought it mightn't work, I didn't think it'd get that bad.

Yzerman's running the show now. Can't imagine he'd be the type to take JJ on.

He did take Girardi tbf.

I will turn back to my uber positive self and agree with JR about one thing. Speed/puck pressure is equal. If you have speed but you are that annoying gnat on the puck buzzing all over, then your speed is worthless. So I think JR is figuring that out. Or at least he's saying the right things...

I'm going to take one cautiously optimistic step forward. Anyone with me?

Who are you and what did you do with Cole?

...

Ok, nah, I don't think that's gonna change my mind just yet. Saying the right things is worthless without doing the right things and he's got a long summer ahead of him there. And while it is a long summer, I think he's currently pointing at not solving the two biggest issues I have with the team, and that's a pretty unhappy scenario.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ColePens

WayneSid9987

Registered User
Nov 24, 2009
30,053
5,676
The Minnesota deal would have given us very little cap relief - nowhere near enough to make us FA players - but it would have given us that little extra bit of cap that could have us getting involved with the trade targets you mention. That doesn't look like a blessing to me.

I'm under the impression now that JJ/Rask wasn't a part of it.
If you combine that move with Olli and a potential Rust/Jarry one, he'd have around 5-6M for FA'y.
 
Last edited:

Turin

Registered User
Feb 27, 2018
21,871
25,274
I'm under the assertion now that JJ/Rask wasn't a part of it.
If you combine that move with Olli and a potential Rust/Jarry one, he'd have around 5-6M for FA'y.

Impression* and that WAS for a fact part of the deal. Then Bobby Mac reported like a week after it fell through that it could be revisited but without that component. I don’t know why, except I am disgusted at the thought that there are people in the org who might value JJ more than Maatta.
 

Peat

Registered User
Jun 14, 2016
29,288
25,205
I'm under the impression now that JJ/Rask wasn't a part of it.
If you combine that move with Olli and a potential Rust/Jarry one, he'd have around 5-6M for FA'y.

Without JJ/Rask, its 1.3m of relief. Given that the Olli money will just about cover RFA raises (hopefully...), that doesn't get you very far. Now if you add Rust - Jarry offers zero cap relief, he was never going to be on the roster - that's... 4.8m? I guess that's enough money to get into trouble with, but that's dependent on moving Rust, not Kessel.
 

Peat

Registered User
Jun 14, 2016
29,288
25,205
Does Jarry even have any trade value?

Probably yes. Back-up goaltenders aren't worth a huge amount* but its not unusual to see them go for a mid-rounder, or for a roster player of roughly equal importance.

*Unless they're absolutely ready to take a shot at being a starter, in which case they've probably got late 1st value.
 

Empoleon8771

Registered User
Aug 25, 2015
80,382
77,968
Redmond, WA
Does Jarry even have any trade value?

I think you get a 3rd rounder for Jarry from someone like Toronto or Anaheim. That doesn't reflect the kind of value he has as much as it does the market for goalies right now. A lot of teams are well set in net.

What if Kessel nixed the Minnesota deal because he doesn't want to be around Jack Johnson? :laugh:

The original Kessel deal apparently didn't include Johnson, and seeing how they had to move Johnson or Maatta for cap space, I'm inclined to believe that.
 

Turin

Registered User
Feb 27, 2018
21,871
25,274
The original Kessel deal apparently didn't include Johnson, and seeing how they had to move Johnson or Maatta for cap space, I'm inclined to believe that.

Where are people getting this? Stop it. It did include Johnson, widely reported as fact, then MacKenzie said it could be revisited but without that component. Implying, no, out right saying that the original deal WAS Kessel and Johnson for Zucker and Rask.
 

Empoleon8771

Registered User
Aug 25, 2015
80,382
77,968
Redmond, WA
Where are people getting this? Stop it. It did include Johnson, widely reported as fact, then MacKenzie said it could be revisited but without that component. Implying, no, out right saying that the original deal WAS Kessel and Johnson for Zucker and Rask.

JR flat out said in the Fan interview that it didn't include Johnson and McKenzie later was saying that he didn't think Johnson was necessarily involved in the first place. He said that in the same podcast where he said it could be revisited.
 

WayneSid9987

Registered User
Nov 24, 2009
30,053
5,676
I was under the impression(JJ wasn't involved) cuz JR said it wasn't part of the deal in one of these speaking outs he's done the last several days(online/radio).
I'm inclined to believe MacKenzie over JR tho. Heh.

ETA: Yea, what Emp said.
 

Turin

Registered User
Feb 27, 2018
21,871
25,274
There is literally no reason for the Johnson for Rask swap to get out there by both Russo and Yohe (and implied by Rossi beforehand the news leaked) if it wasn’t a thing. There is reason why JR might want to lie about it after it was nixed.
 

JRS91

Registered User
Jul 4, 2010
2,056
1,005
I said months ago they'd move Maatta before Johnson.

Maatta had more value and made more and the Penguins aren't too keen on moving players who just signed contracts. Hunwick and Fehr were exceptions. If I recall correctly, Hunwick asked for a trade or it was at least speculated as such. I think people are going to be pretty upset at the likelihood of Jack Johnson still being a Penguin in October. I think they'll be even more upset when he's on the second pairing with Schultz.
 

Peat

Registered User
Jun 14, 2016
29,288
25,205
I said months ago they'd move Maatta before Johnson.

Maatta had more value and made more and the Penguins aren't too keen on moving players who just signed contracts. Hunwick and Fehr were exceptions. If I recall correctly, Hunwick asked for a trade or it was at least speculated as such. I think people are going to be pretty upset at the likelihood of Jack Johnson still being a Penguin in October. I think they'll be even more upset when he's on the second pairing with Schultz.

It was Fehr who asked for a trade, not Hunwick.

And the Pens have traded Sheahan within a year of him signing at UFA, and Brassard and Oleksiak within a year of being acquired, and Pearson within six months of being traded for, Perron didn't last long... Rutherford's had no issues moving guys quickly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Riptide

molon labe

Registered User
Jul 13, 2016
4,565
2,933
Florida
I said months ago they'd move Maatta before Johnson.

Maatta had more value and made more and the Penguins aren't too keen on moving players who just signed contracts. Hunwick and Fehr were exceptions. If I recall correctly, Hunwick asked for a trade or it was at least speculated as such. I think people are going to be pretty upset at the likelihood of Jack Johnson still being a Penguin in October. I think they'll be even more upset when he's on the second pairing with Schultz.

I'll be upset that the little TV I watch goes out the window.

Highly unlikely I waste another year (paying a premium for NHL.tv) watching this team with Jack Johnson on board. Genuinely painful to see our players struggle as a direct result of a player who has no business on the team. It was tough enough to watch Kunitz botch dish after dish from Sid, but at least he had history to sort of forgive him some. Johnson? Inexcusable contract and will be even more inexcusable to see him here next year. I don't care if it takes our 1st, or Rust - get him gone.
 

JRS91

Registered User
Jul 4, 2010
2,056
1,005
It was Fehr who asked for a trade, not Hunwick.

And the Pens have traded Sheahan within a year of him signing at UFA, and Brassard and Oleksiak within a year of being acquired, and Pearson within six months of being traded for, Perron didn't last long... Rutherford's had no issues moving guys quickly.

Fehr was waived.

Different situation. Perron, Oleksiak, Sheahan, Brassard and Pearson were all acquired in trades. There's a different kind of commitment when you sign a guy in free agency. Especially on a five year deal.
 

Peat

Registered User
Jun 14, 2016
29,288
25,205
Just on trading the 1st - just seen this bit from Molinari

"“Let’s put it this way,” he said. “I don’t intend to move it, but if we move it, it’s going to be for a good player who’s going to come and help us immediately. I’m not going to move it for a 30-year-old. If somebody offers us somebody under 24 or 25 who’s going to be here for at least five years and he’s a good player, you might have to say, ‘Well, maybe we should do it.’"

Fehr was waived.

Different situation. Perron, Oleksiak, Sheahan, Brassard and Pearson were all acquired in trades. There's a different kind of commitment when you sign a guy in free agency. Especially on a five year deal.

Sheahan came back on a UFA deal. And Fehr definitely requested a trade prior to it happening.

And I think you're creating more of a difference there than exists in Rutherford's head, particularly as he's traded away recent UFA signings at Carolina too. It's not like there's a gigantic difference between signing a guy on a long RFA deal and long UFA deal, and he's getting pretty merciless on the latter too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Riptide
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->