Speculation: Trade & Free Agency Talk XXXIII

[Digitalbooya]

It's not Laine in a vacuum. It's Laine vs. Dumba. People not being all gung-ho about that isn't a massive slight against Laine; it's a pretty big Dumba compliment.

Ding ding ding!

 

[nt3005]

I would trade away any other player/asset for Laine. Just not Dumba.

 

[absolute garbage]

Everyone except Dumba and the vets with NMCs should be on the block. Goal being trying to get more talented upfront, especially in the middle of the ice.

 

[Mickey the mouse]

Everyone except Dumba and the vets with NMCs should be on the block. Goal being trying to get more talented upfront, especially in the middle of the ice.

The only way to get someone in the same caliber as Laine is to give up Dumba, Spurgeon or Brodin + Ek, Donato, Greenway or Kunin

 

[DeagleJenkins]

The only way to get someone in the same caliber as Laine is to give up Dumba, Spurgeon or Brodin + Ek, Donato, Greenway or Kunin

and for laine id be fine giving up brodin + a young gun on our current roster.

 

[Uberdachen]

We all complain and gripe how we have no firepower but the minute one becomes potentially available its always the same old "I wouldn't touch him with a 10ft pole too many issues" or "Too one dimensional" or "(Insert Wild Player) is better because of their two way play". Well I for one am sick of this mild roster which has absolutely no killer instincts. Piss or get off the pot.

You seem to be upset that many people don't want to trade a guy with firepower, who has already withstood the "too many issues" and "one dimensional" trials, and who has killer instincts. We're mid-piss and you're telling us to switch pots.

 

[2Pair]

The only way to get someone in the same caliber as Laine is to give up Dumba, Spurgeon or Brodin + Ek, Donato, Greenway or Kunin

The chance to get anything of value for Spurgeon has passed.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

Nah, there'd still be ways to do it*, but he definitely doesn't belong in the Laine discussion. Neither does Brodin+ for that matter.

*All in theory though, because of the NMC.

 

[2Pair]

Nah, there'd still be ways to do it*, but he definitely doesn't belong in the Laine discussion. Neither does Brodin+ for that matter.

*All in theory though, because of the NMC.

Would you say that Spurgeon's trade value increased, decreased, or stayed the same after he signed his extension?

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

Would you say that Spurgeon's trade value increased, decreased, or stayed the same after he signed his extension?

Stayed the same, at worst.

 

[2Pair]

Stayed the same, at worst.

OK

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

OK

What was his value as a 1 year pending UFA, and what is his value now? You can be as general as you'd like and use terms such as (blank) round draft pick, (blank) level prospect, etc... Let's just get a baseline reading here.

 

[AKL]

His value definitely stayed the same at worst. No way he has more value as an impending UFA than he does with a contract that’s maybe a year or two too long.

 

[Wabit]

Would you say that Spurgeon's trade value increased, decreased, or stayed the same after he signed his extension?

His trade value became no-existent with the full NMC.

If we pretend the NMC isn't there it still took a hit. There isn't the option to retain salary on his rental, and that longterm, high pay contract is something a lot of teams can't or won't touch.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

His trade value became no-existent with the full NMC.

If we pretend the NMC isn't there it still took a hit. There isn't the option to retain salary on his rental, and that longterm, high pay contract is something a lot of teams can't or won't touch.

I think GMs generally see the player before the contract. Not to say that they discount the contract, but they also don't flip out like fans do if a guy might be the equivalent-of-a-JT-Brown-contract-overpaid for maybe year too long. They'll see the top pairing defenseman first.

But yes, its a pretty moot un-answerable question with the NMC in place.

 

[Wabit]

I think GMs generally see the player before the contract. Not to say that they discount the contract, but they also don't flip out like fans do if a guy might be the equivalent-of-a-JT-Brown-contract-overpaid for maybe year too long. They'll see the top pairing defenseman first.

But yes, its a pretty moot un-answerable question with the NMC in place.

A GM that doesn't look at the contract is a bad GM. I mean I'd love (so would any GM) to have Tavares, Marner, EK as players; but once you add their contracts in then it's a no to all of them. For the Wild if Parise and Suter had an AAV of $1m even with the term they have GMs would be standing in line to trade for them. The contract is as improtant, if not more so than the player when the money and term are added in.

Heck Ennis was bought out last year just to save ~$1m, over just sticking him in the AHL. That doesn't even add in the cost of a player to replace him. Pommer was a year too long and ~$1m overpayed and the Wild had to pay to get rid of him.

 

[2Pair]

A GM that doesn't look at the contract is a bad GM. I mean I'd love (so would any GM) to have Tavares, Marner, EK as players; but once you add their contracts in then it's a no to all of them. For the Wild if Parise and Suter had an AAV of $1m even with the term they have GMs would be standing in line to trade for them. The contract is as improtant, if not more so than the player when the money and term are added in.

Heck Ennis was bought out last year just to save ~$1m, over just sticking him in the AHL. That doesn't even add in the cost of a player to replace him. Pommer was a year too long and ~$1m overpayed and the Wild had to pay to get rid of him.

Very well said. The contract is every bit as important as the player

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

A GM that doesn't look at the contract is a bad GM. I mean I'd love (so would any GM) to have Tavares, Marner, EK as players; but once you add their contracts in then it's a no to all of them. For the Wild if Parise and Suter had an AAV of $1m even with the term they have GMs would be standing in line to trade for them. The contract is as improtant, if not more so than the player when the money and term are added in.

Heck Ennis was bought out last year just to save ~$1m, over just sticking him in the AHL. That doesn't even add in the cost of a player to replace him. Pommer was a year too long and ~$1m overpayed and the Wild had to pay to get rid of him.

To people like us maybe, who have no actual skin in the game (besides maybe our feelings) about whether the team wins or loses.

If Spurgeon was only a $5 million dollar caliber player, then yeah, teams would stay away because if he was only worth that much, he wouldn't be a top pairing defender. He'd be a 2nd pair player making top pair money. Of course you wouldn't want that. But teams aren't going to quibble about $750k and an extra year 8 years down the road to add a player of his caliber.

You don't go from a "fair contract" to "untradeable boat anchor" in a matter of a few hundred thousand dollars and an extra year.

Back in June, a Spurgeon trade would've gotten us a 1st round pick in 2nd half of the 1st round and a team's prospect in maybe the 3-6 range, plus maybe another smaller piece (2nd or 3rd round pick). If Spurgeon went on the market today, we'd get that at minimum.

 

[2Pair]

To people like us maybe, who have no actual skin in the game (besides maybe our feelings) about whether the team wins or loses.

If Spurgeon was only a $5 million dollar caliber player, then yeah, teams would stay away because if he was only worth that much, he wouldn't be a top pairing defender. He'd be a 2nd pair player making top pair money. Of course you wouldn't want that. But teams aren't going to quibble about $750k and an extra year 8 years down the road to add a player of his caliber.

You don't go from a "fair contract" to "untradeable boat anchor" in a matter of a few hundred thousand dollars and an extra year.

Back in June, a Spurgeon trade would've gotten us a 1st round pick in 2nd half of the 1st round and a team's prospect in maybe the 3-6 range, plus maybe another smaller piece (2nd or 3rd round pick). If Spurgeon went on the market today, we'd get that at minimum.

You're not getting anything more than a very late 1st for Spurgeon and his new contract.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

You're not getting anything more than a very late 1st for Spurgeon and his new contract.

Ok

 

[AKL]

You're not getting anything more than a very late 1st for Spurgeon and his new contract.

A 29 year old top 30-40 defenseman in the league locked up long term? Come on now. You're better than this.

 

[Wabit]

To people like us maybe, who have no actual skin in the game (besides maybe our feelings) about whether the team wins or loses.

If Spurgeon was only a $5 million dollar caliber player, then yeah, teams would stay away because if he was only worth that much, he wouldn't be a top pairing defender. He'd be a 2nd pair player making top pair money. Of course you wouldn't want that. But teams aren't going to quibble about $750k and an extra year 8 years down the road to add a player of his caliber.

You don't go from a "fair contract" to "untradeable boat anchor" in a matter of a few hundred thousand dollars and an extra year.

Back in June, a Spurgeon trade would've gotten us a 1st round pick in 2nd half of the 1st round and a team's prospect in maybe the 3-6 range, plus maybe another smaller piece (2nd or 3rd round pick). If Spurgeon went on the market today, we'd get that at minimum.

The player is more important than the contract to the fans. It's not our money or having to make the cap work now and in the future. Giving long term deals to older players don't seem to work out well for most signings.

One of the things I like about how the Blues front office works is that they move on from players instead of re-signing them to long and expensive deals.

 

[Wabit]

A 29 year old top 30-40 defenseman in the league locked up long term? Come on now. You're better than this.

He's 29 now and in 2 months he'll be 30. The new contract doesn't kick in until next season, so the last year of it he'll be 37. What's not to like about that deal?

Afterall he must have gotten all the injuries out of the way already, so he shouldn't ever miss a game the next 8 years; right?

 

[AKL]

He's 29 now and in 2 months he'll be 30. The new contract doesn't kick in until next season, so the last year of it he'll be 37. What's not to like about that deal?

Afterall he must have gotten all the injuries out of the way already, so he shouldn't ever miss a game the next 8 years; right?

And he'll be a top pairing defenseman for most of that.

Again, no one is going to let a couple of years in 5-6 years deter them from paying for a top 30-40 defenseman in the league.

Justin Faulk just signed for 7 years for 6.5. That takes him to what? 34? 35? I'd take Spurgeon over that 10 times out of 10.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

Spurgeon will be the better player, between the two of them, during every year of their respective deals.