Proposal: Trade Rumours/Proposals PART XVI

[h2]

You either don't read much or have acutely delicate sensibilities. You also probably said the same thing about Karl.

There is a deal you would take for Tkachuk for futures. Mentally insert it as you see fit. Thirteen first overall picks, if you like. A busload of Pintos hauling a camper of Norrisses, with Trevor Zegras Skitching off the back bumper? Done. Whatever you want.

Because my point wasn't to propose a specific trade.

It was about asset management strategies and how to get the right spending mix on the lineup to compete within the realities of a budget-restricted team.

I'm suggesting some very big boy choices here to try to make sure that, year after year, we are growing our asset pool and have the strongest intake of star young players in the entire league.

Even if it means trading awesome players like Brady.

That strategy is still a horrible idea. BondraTime did a good job destroying that idea a few posts above.

You're essentially advocating for a repeat of 2019 when we trade any potential expensive player for a future package. That's not a recipe for becoming a Stanley Cup contender.

Lastly, you come across as quite arrogant with that first sentence in that reply. Learn to debate without being overly emotional. We've all posted dumb ideas on forums before.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

it is rare that when a star is traded another star player is part of the return. Everyone will point to dubois/laine (which is really the roslovic deal but whatever) but thats the exception not the norm

It’s USUALLY the exception. But with Eichel skinner the the flames looking to shake shit up the predators looking to shake shit up. Teams would rather trade their stars for other stars rather than a surprise box. The Sabre’s, flames and predators don’t want to rebuild.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

You either don't read much or have acutely delicate sensibilities. You also probably said the same thing about Karl.

There is a deal you would take for Tkachuk for futures. Mentally insert it as you see fit. Thirteen first overall picks, if you like. A busload of Pintos hauling a camper of Norrisses, with Trevor Zegras Skitching off the back bumper? Done. Whatever you want.

Because my point wasn't to propose a specific trade.

It was about asset management strategies and how to get the right spending mix on the lineup to compete within the realities of a budget-restricted team.

I'm suggesting some very big boy choices here to try to make sure that, year after year, we are growing our asset pool and have the strongest intake of star young players in the entire league.

Even if it means trading awesome players like Brady.

This is like having karlsson stone Hoffman but trading them as soon as they looking like they were gonna be good instead of trading them when they were 28. I’m sorry I just don’t understand it.

 

[Hale The Villain]

Team would be better off trading upcoming UFAs but re-signing RFAs, as a general rule.

UFAs generally get paid more than they are worth, RFAs usually get paid less than they are worth.

As a budget team we will absolutely have to make some hard choices and trade some players that could help the team in the short-term, if it means avoiding a potential bad contract and adding young assets.

Having said this, if we happen to be a contender at some point than this goes out the window. That's when it makes sense to go all-in and mortgage the future for the present.

 

[Hale The Villain]

I don't agree with trading Tkachuk, but I think it's worth noting that his value to the organization will never be higher than it is right now, even if he's only 21.

The past 3YRs he's provided 2nd line production at a cost of 0.925M a year. He's basically been underpaid by at least 3-4M a year relative to his on ice play.

His performance relative to his cost will be much worse after this year when he'll get a big contract (probably in the 6-8M range). If we end up overpaying him based on potential and he doesn't blossom as an offensive player, it could even end up being negative.

This is why draft picks are so valuable to a budget team, even if they aren't guaranteed to end up producing NHLers. Between Chabot and Tkachuk, Melnyk has probably saved 20M+ over the past 3-4YRs due to their play on 3YR ELCs compared to if he had to pay FMV to a UFA or trade acquisition to perform at the same level.

Which is why it's so maddening when we throw away draft picks for stupid things like acquiring Stepan or paying Brassard's bonus. Young NHLers on ELCs are gold to a budget team and it's crazy no one has been able to get Melnyk or Dorion to understand that.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

Team would be better off trading upcoming UFAs but re-signing RFAs, as a general rule.

UFAs generally get paid more than they are worth, RFAs usually get paid less than they are worth.

As a budget team we will absolutely have to make some hard choices and trade some players that could help the team in the short-term, if it means avoiding a potential bad contract and adding young assets.

Having said this, if we happen to be a contender at some point than this goes out the window. That's when it makes sense to go all-in and mortgage the future for the present.

I legit would have a system where you treat players well off their ELC/short bridges. And that’s their last contract with you. Just like we did with chabot. Usually, signing 28 year olds u til their 35 is a bad move. So you know when the high patrol years are and when the low payroll years are. You know when rebuilds are coming. So from 3-4 drafted you get 5-6 years with all of them. And then slowly they go out. Now you’re hoping someone then are legit super stars that can still carry you to the playoffs in those tweeter years. But that’s what I would do as a budget franchise

 

[dumbdick]

You need star talent to win. Nobody wins a cup with a bunch of good players.

Every single team that has won a cup over the past 20 years (with the exception of Carolina who still had an 100 point Staal) had multiple star players who were surrounded with multiple Norris’s and Pinto’s (better than both in reality).

We shouldn’t be trading our potential stars for more of what we already have, that’s a quick way to get stuck in a loop of mediocrity, which is better than what we have been in the past 3 years, but is in no means what this rebuild is trying to achieve.

I'm not actually proposing a team without stars. I'm proposing a small core of players surrounded by top ELC talent, and churning that talent into futures before they graduate into their first or second big contract. Those trades aren't quantity for quality, necessarily, but rather trades that cost us now but make us better later. Teams do this during rebuilds, I'm just suggesting we do it as a regular thing to keep growing our total stock of assets as we come out of this rebuild.

It's worth noting that there's nothing in this strategy that says you also have to ice crap. The leafs could adopt this strategy around their current awesome core. Trade Nylander for a top pick and replace him with a UFA. Trade the UFA at the end of his contract. When the Nylander pick matures trade him for more futures. Bring in another UFA. Trade those other futures when they mature. Do all this around your core of Matthews, Marner, Tavares, etc., and it's a recipe for a dynasty.

 

[bert]

It’s USUALLY the exception. But with Eichel skinner the the flames looking to shake shit up the predators looking to shake shit up. Teams would rather trade their stars for other stars rather than a surprise box. The Sabre’s, flames and predators don’t want to rebuild.

The writing was on the wall for the Flames to rebuild, I suggested it on the main board and got torched... Their best player is 37 years old, Monahan and Gaudreau while very good players arent good enough to be your go to guys but all still carry terrific value. Doubling down on Markstrom and Tanev was a terrible decision.

If I am the flames I start the rebuild now, they have some great core pieces to build around in Tkachuk, Dube, Valimaki, Anderson etc. They have very valuable pieces they really dont have the horses now and it was obvious.

So I agree with your premise that these teams would rather deal with one another and I think its the right move for the Sabres and Nashville. I think Calgary should go in another direction personally.

 

[dumbdick]

This is like having karlsson stone Hoffman but trading them as soon as they looking like they were gonna be good instead of trading them when they were 28. I’m sorry I just don’t understand it.

So trading karl as an upcoming RFA that put up 78 points that year? Stone as an RFA coming out of a 64 point season?

Hoffman before he met his girlfriend?

Those returns would have been magnificent. Just kidding about Hoff. Those were bound to suck whenever we dealt him.

 

[aragorn]

I'd rather have a team of guys roughly making around the same amount of money which corelates to their talent being fairly similar than having a couple of elite guys making most of the money like Edmonton & not enough money left over to build the rest of the team. I'd trade Chabot before I'd trade Tkachuk, IMO he is the most important player on this team by far, at least at this time.

 

[Ice-Tray]

So trading karl as an upcoming RFA that put up 78 points that year? Stone as an RFA coming out of a 64 point season?

Hoffman before he met his girlfriend?

Those returns would have been magnificent.

But we didn’t trade EK at 21. There would have been no way for that deal to turn in our favour.

Stone was more mid prime and was traded with a massive extension, so we hurt more from that one, which doesn’t help your point.

In the end both players wanted to explore other options so a trade was necessary regardless so we had to made due. Again, different situation from trading young quality for quantity.

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

I legit would have a system where you treat players well off their ELC/short bridges. And that’s their last contract with you. Just like we did with chabot. Usually, signing 28 year olds u til their 35 is a bad move. So you know when the high patrol years are and when the low payroll years are. You know when rebuilds are coming. So from 3-4 drafted you get 5-6 years with all of them. And then slowly they go out. Now you’re hoping someone then are legit super stars that can still carry you to the playoffs in those tweeter years. But that’s what I would do as a budget franchise

This guy gets it.

When you're a very low budget team, you have to have a bold overall strategy rather than just operating as if you're a normal franchise. Leveraging ELC's as much as possible and making hard decisions earlier on to maximize asset value is the key to their success imo.

It needs to be handled as though there is no "window" or loading up, but rather a factory line of ELC's in and players dealt on a timeline that would be considered premature for other franchises, so that you're never selling low like we did on the UFA's last time. This would mean some years don't go as planned, but also would assure there's not another 4 or 5 years of last place finish, scorched earth type rebuilds required.

 

[Alf Silfversson]

So trading karl as an upcoming RFA that put up 78 points that year? Stone as an RFA coming out of a 64 point season?

Hoffman before he met his girlfriend?

Those returns would have been magnificent. Just kidding about Hoff. Those were bound to suck whenever we dealt him.

What do you mean by magnificent returns? Like we might get players that would possibly end up as good as EK and Stone.

I appreciate that you're trying to think outside of the box but trading star players rarely gets a good value return. Surely it's better to maximize their value playing for you for 8-10 years before getting the inevitable weak return.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

So trading karl as an upcoming RFA that put up 78 points that year? Stone as an RFA coming out of a 64 point season?

Hoffman before he met his girlfriend?

Those returns would have been magnificent. Just kidding about Hoff. Those were bound to suck whenever we dealt him.

Yeah but then you would have dealt those magnificent returns ...not as much when those players seemed alright

 

[Burrowsaurus]

This guy gets it.

When you're a very low budget team, you have to have a bold overall strategy rather than just operating as if you're a normal franchise. Leveraging ELC's as much as possible and making hard decisions earlier on to maximize asset value is the key to their success imo.

It needs to be handled as though there is no "window" or loading up, but rather a factory line of ELC's in and players dealt on a timeline that would be considered premature for other franchises, so that you're never selling low like we did on the UFA's last time. This would mean some years don't go as planned, but also would assure there's not another 4 or 5 years of last place finish, scorched earth type rebuilds required.

Well I would be planing on at least a couple lottery picks. We need them to be competitive in the contending years.

 

[Mingus Dew]

I legit would have a system where you treat players well off their ELC/short bridges. And that’s their last contract with you. Just like we did with chabot. Usually, signing 28 year olds u til their 35 is a bad move. So you know when the high patrol years are and when the low payroll years are. You know when rebuilds are coming. So from 3-4 drafted you get 5-6 years with all of them. And then slowly they go out. Now you’re hoping someone then are legit super stars that can still carry you to the playoffs in those tweeter years. But that’s what I would do as a budget franchise

I like the sound of this.

Treat everyone like a star running back in the NFL. OK to give them a big second contract (i.e., the contract after their ELC or bridge deal, as applicable), but after that second contract cut bait.

Seems like the best way to run a franchise on a shoestring budget. If you just trade everyone after their ELCs you'll never be competitive enough to win.

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

Well I would be planing on at least a couple lottery picks. We need them to be competitive in the contending years.

Hopefully those would be attainable through moving on from players early while they still have some term and more value.

I don't know that I see an opportunity for such a low budget team to have true "contending years" as if it would be any sort of sustainable thing. It will be a yoyo because of the very low operating budget. Just look at so many of our previous years, we were a couple pieces away from being more of a contender on multiple occasions, but the reality was the budget wouldn't allow it even if they could acquire such players.

It's a necessity thing because of their financial situation more than any sort of ideal route, but I think it's their best option ultimately.

 

[h2]

Hopefully those would be attainable through moving on from players early while they still have some term and more value.

I don't know that I see an opportunity for such a low budget team to have true "contending years" as if it would be any sort of sustainable thing. It will be a yoyo because of the very low operating budget. Just look at so many of our previous years, we were a couple pieces away from being more of a contender on multiple occasions, but the reality was the budget wouldn't allow it even if they could acquire such players.

It's a necessity thing because of their financial situation more than any sort of ideal route, but I think it's their best option ultimately.

Just to add to the bolded, I think the whole premise of this recycle assets idea is also very hit and miss. Trading a star off his ELC or bridge contract for a top draft pick is either going to work or not work at all. It could be the next Stutzle or the next Yakupov. How do you recover moving on from Thomas Chabot to the draft pick which selected Ryan Murray 2nd overall? The cycle ends there. The opposite could also happen, but I'm not sure any fanbase wants to be there for this yoyo.

I think it's easier to describe in theory than actually pulling off perpetually restocking the cupboard. I think it could be pulled off to some degree, but that also requires having the right GM, which I don't think Dorion is.

 

[BondraTime]

Best thing to do would be to get your core, keep them together, add to it through draft and trades, and never, ever commit term and dollars to replaceable players.

Greening and Zack Smith? 15 million dollar deals each for something that a UFA like Tyler Ennis could do for 900k. That's 26 extra million to play with over a 4 year period.

Nate Thompson? 3.5 million dollar deal that could be done for 750k from any prospect in the system or UFA. 2 million extra bucks over a 2 year period.

Alex Burrows? 5 million dollar deal that could be done for 750k by any prospect in the system or UFA. 3.5 million extra bucks over a 2 year period.

Derek Stepan? 2 million dollars that could be replaced by any 750k guy in our system. 1.25 extra million over the year.

Connor Brown and Chris Tierny should be phased out next season, would save the team 11 million the next 2 seasons, and could be replaced pretty adequately through a simple trade, short term signing or ELC. Neither guy is more than a replaceable role player, they should be treated as such. Nick Paul, should he be a guy we sign to a 3+ year deal worth 9 million, or would that money be best invested elsewhere? Zub is a guy that looks as though he should be a fixture on our right side, and with his little track record in the NHL, should be up for a 3/4 year extension < 3 million, a perfect deal for the Sens.

Rule of thumb should be spending less than 3% of the cap on guys who are not in your top 6 (with exceptions to guys like Pageau), and spending the bare minimum on guys who could be in.

Bloated UFA contracts, stay away unless able to get a very good player. Don't pay a premium for guys likely to decline ion the next year or two. End up with a Lucic, Ryan or Eriksson. A team in the financial hardship of the Sens can't deal with this.

Sign our core guys off their ELC's to 7/8 year deals. Ride them until they are 27/28, make a decision the summer before if they will resign. If a contract extension isn't signed in the summer prior to the seasons starting, start the bidding war, don't wait until the trade deadline.

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

Just to add to the bolded, I think the whole premise of this recycle assets idea is also very hit and miss. Trading a star off his ELC or bridge contract for a top draft pick is either going to work or not work at all. It could be the next Stutzle or the next Yakupov. How do you recover moving on from Thomas Chabot to the draft pick which selected Ryan Murray 2nd overall? The cycle ends there. The opposite could also happen, but I'm not sure any fanbase wants to be there for this yoyo.

I think it's easier to describe in theory than actually pulling off perpetually restocking the cupboard. I think it could be pulled off to some degree, but that also requires having the right GM, which I don't think Dorion is.

For sure it is hit or miss and could be problematic. I just struggle to see any other plausible route. The numbers don't seem to lie in that you need to spend to win in this league, so I don't see how they build a perennial contender on a shoestring budget, especially with Dorion being fairly loose with it on non needle movers. As a fan, I'd rather they try something bold like that than to pretend they can compete financially in a league they clearly can't.

 

[h2]

For sure it is hit or miss and could be problematic. I just struggle to see any other plausible route. The numbers don't seem to lie in that you need to spend to win in this league, so I don't see how they build a perennial contender on a shoestring budget, especially with Dorion being fairly loose with it on non needle movers. As a fan, I'd rather they try something bold like that than to pretend they can compete financially in a league they clearly can't.

Fair take.

Ideally, Melnyk sells and the budget is irrelevant.

 

[dumbdick]

That strategy is still a horrible idea. BondraTime did a good job destroying that idea a few posts above.

You're essentially advocating for a repeat of 2019 when we trade any potential expensive player for a future package. That's not a recipe for becoming a Stanley Cup contender.

Lastly, you come across as quite arrogant with that first sentence in that reply. Learn to debate without being overly emotional. We've all posted dumb ideas on forums before.

Haha. Those are good points. Thanks.

 

[h2]

Haha. Those are good points. Thanks.

All you did was reinforce my last point, thanks.

PS. You're welcome, bud.

 

[BonHoonLayneCornell]

Fair take.

Ideally, Melnyk sells and the budget is irrelevant.

BondraTime also had some great input on their last post there.

My main point is just that it can't be business as normal like other teams, there has to be a specific plan for trying to compensate for being a low (and very low at that) budget team.

 

[h2]

BondraTime also had some great input on their last post there.

My main point is just that it can't be business as normal like other teams, there has to be a specific plan for trying to compensate for being a low (and very low at that) budget team.

The idea that BondraTime just presented that you're referring to is exactly how I see we need to operate with our restraints and I have no problem with that. I think the alternative idea presented by others earlier is a little extreme and sounds good in theory but difficult to pull off (and like I said earlier, I don't think Dorion is the guy that can actually do it). I'm in agreement with your main point.