Salary Cap: Trade Thread # LXVI: Well..... Were waiting!?!?

[SEALBound]

@Gurglesons, what is your opinion on getting Boeser? And then if we can't get Boeser, is Garland an acceptable consolation prize or would you rather stand pat and not make a trade?

That said, I get that there would be other potential trades available, but just keeping it to Vancouver.

 

[Empoleon8771]

I think it needs to be clarified that getting Boeser and getting Garland are 2 different levels of acquisitions, IMO. Acquiring Boeser would be targeting a high upside player that is way different than the rest of the team, but at the cost of way more in assets and way more in terms of cap. Boeser would be a difference maker here, but you're obviously going to have to pay for it and he doesn't come without his flaws.

Acquiring Garland would be targeting another similar player to who the Penguins have targeted over the years, but he still brings unique traits to the table and would be much cheaper to acquire. Acquiring Garland would basically be trying to have a do-over with what JR was trying to do with the Kapanen trade, but he would still bring some different traits as compared to their other guys.

I would rather go after Garland because it seems to be a much easier path to pull off Garland than Boeser, but my opinion may change on that after I see what Boeser is willing to sign for and how much more expensive he'd be to acquire. If Boeser is willing to sign for something like 6.5x6 and he would only cost an additional 2nd or so, I would go for Boeser.

 

[Peat]

My point is more so about per 60 numbers rarely having effective translation to bigger roles. Especially considering Garland wouldn't likely see a bump in his 5v5 minutes being moved here.

Garland plays 13:30 a night as of the last two seasons which is pretty much exactly what our highest wingers outside of GCR do. He'd get the exact same minutes as the last two seasons.

Also... if he's not seeing a bump in minutes, how it's a bigger role?

 

[SEALBound]

I think it needs to be clarified that getting Boeser and getting Garland are 2 different levels of acquisitions, IMO. Acquiring Boeser would be targeting a high upside player that is way different than the rest of the team, but at the cost of way more in assets and way more in terms of cap. Boeser would be a difference maker here, but you're obviously going to have to pay for it and he doesn't come without his flaws.

Acquiring Garland would be targeting another similar player to who the Penguins have targeted over the years, but he still brings unique traits to the table and would be much cheaper to acquire. Acquiring Garland would basically be trying to have a do-over with what JR was trying to do with the Kapanen trade, but he would still bring some different traits as compared to their other guys.

I would rather go after Garland because it seems to be a much easier path to pull off Garland than Boeser, but my opinion may change on that after I see what Boeser is willing to sign for and how much more expensive he'd be to acquire.

Fair. In addition to that, perhaps some of that could come down to Rust resigning as well. I think you move Zucker or Petts out, you can fit Garland and a resigned Rust. If it's Boeser, I have my doubts but I did do an Armchair GM team that was compliant with both Rust and Boeser here, assuming both took a 6x6 and you could move both Pettersson and Zucker.

 

[Gurglesons]

Yea, how about you read it, and get back to me on how McGinn is big and then find some quotes implying that he’s really stressing size. I would like Garland to be bigger but 5 on 5 he almost certainly plays bigger than Boeser who isn’t exactly a giant.

McGinn is bigger comparatively to our bottom six. Boeser is a legitimate goal scorer.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Fair. In addition to that, perhaps some of that could come down to Rust resigning as well. I think you move Zucker or Petts out, you can fit Garland and a resigned Rust. If it's Boeser, I have my doubts but I did do an Armchair GM team that was compliant with both Rust and Boeser here, assuming both took a 6x6 and you could move both Pettersson and Zucker.

Honestly, I'm at the point where I'd rather just not re-sign Rust unless he's coming in at way lower than I expect. If he's still willing to do 6x6, I would definitely sign him. But with how he's playing this year, I can't see him signing for below $7 million in free agency.

If you bring in Boeser, you shouldn't even consider re-signing Rust. If you bring in Garland, you should only bring back Rust if it's a deal that makes sense for the Penguins.

 

[Gurglesons]

Garland plays 13:30 a night as of the last two seasons which is pretty much exactly what our highest wingers outside of GCR do. He'd get the exact same minutes as the last two seasons.

Also... if he's not seeing a bump in minutes, how it's a bigger role?

That's my argument. He'd produce around what he has the last few years. Around 20 goals and maybe 30 assists. He'd be like Zucker.

 

[Empoleon8771]

That's my argument. He'd produce around what he has the last few years. Around 20 goals and maybe 30 assists. He'd be like Zucker.

I mean I don't really see the issue with that for $5 million?

That's basically what I was hoping Kapanen would do, and had Kapanen done that, I would have happily paid him $5 million a year.

 

[AuroraBorealis]

were these not the same numbers you were using to prove Kapanen would be a regular 50-60 pt player and a 70 pt player with better usage?

Figured you'd go there for like the 50th time. Low hanging fruit. I'm so bored of this.
I never said Kap "would be". I said it's in the realm of mathematical possibility based on last season, and I explained how the numbers work.
You know this though, yet wilfully ignore it to troll me.

This is a 4 year, 219 game sample size for Garland, not 40 games like with Kap last year.
The odds of him continuing to play well 5v5 are strong.

 

[Gurglesons]

I mean I don't really see the issue with that for $5 million?

That's basically what I was hoping Kapanen would do, and had Kapanen done that, I would have happily paid him $5 million a year.

I don't really have a huge problem with Zucker at 5.5. Just saying why I don't think we will do it.

 

[Gurglesons]

@Gurglesons, what is your opinion on getting Boeser? And then if we can't get Boeser, is Garland an acceptable consolation prize or would you rather stand pat and not make a trade?

That said, I get that there would be other potential trades available, but just keeping it to Vancouver.

I don't like the idea of getting smaller, speedier and feistier. Especially given that Malkin has a history of not really succeeding in terms of my eye test with those types of players (McCann, Sheary, Rodrigues, etc.)

 

[Empoleon8771]

I don't really have a huge problem with Zucker at 5.5. Just saying why I don't think we will do it.

I don't really see how Zucker is super relevant here. If Zucker was on pace for 20 goals and 50 points, I wouldn't really be complaining about him either.

$5 million for a 20 goal, 50 point winger is totally fair. If Kapanen and/or Zucker were doing that, I would be happy with both of them. But neither of them are doing that.

 

[Peat]

That's my argument. He'd produce around what he has the last few years. Around 20 goals and maybe 30 assists. He'd be like Zucker.

Fair enough then, but I absolutely don't see the problem with that for a 2nd line winger who's not on PP1. In fact, if we actually got a winger for Malkin that actually did this and kept doing this, I'd be delighted. It's all I ask for.

I don't really see how Zucker is super relevant here. If Zucker was on pace for 20 goals and 50 points, I wouldn't really be complaining about him either.

$5 million for a 20 goal, 50 point winger is totally fair. If Kapanen and/or Zucker were doing that, I would be happy with both of them. But neither of them are doing that.

Yeah, if Zucker/Kapanen were doing that, this whole trade deadline talk would be wildly, wildly different.

 

[Gurglesons]

Figured you'd go there for like the 50th time. Low hanging fruit. I'm so bored of this.
I never said Kap "would be". I said it's in the realm of mathematical possibility based on last season, and I explained how the numbers work.
You know this though, yet wilfully ignore it to troll me.

This is a 4 year, 219 game sample size for Garland, not 40 games like with Kap last year.
The odds of him continuing to play well 5v5 are strong.

I'm not trolling. I just think it's weird that you're defaulting to something that has been shown to be incorrect.

I use point per game arguments. So I agree there is some value in the stat.

 

[Empoleon8771]

This return seemed light to me, but Helleson looks like a pretty legit prospect. 2nd rounder from 2019 that has 25 points in 32 NCAA games as a defenseman.

 

[Gurglesons]

I don't really see how Zucker is super relevant here. If Zucker was on pace for 20 goals and 50 points, I wouldn't really be complaining about him either.

$5 million for a 20 goal, 50 point winger is totally fair. If Kapanen and/or Zucker were doing that, I would be happy with both of them. But neither of them are doing that.

Fair enough then, but I absolutely don't see the problem with that for a 2nd line winger who's not on PP1. In fact, if we actually got a winger for Malkin that actually did this and kept doing this, I'd be delighted. It's all I ask for.

I just don't really see the point of spending assets on a player that is going to be a 20 goal 30 assist guy at best. It seems we can plug and play slightly worse results for no assets and cheaper term / salary.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

This return seemed light to me, but Helleson looks like a pretty legit prospect. 2nd rounder from 2019 that has 25 points in 32 NCAA games as a defenseman.

Seems like the Pens' equivalent would be something like POJ + 2nd.

 

[Gurglesons]

This return seemed light to me, but Helleson looks like a pretty legit prospect. 2nd rounder from 2019 that has 25 points in 32 NCAA games as a defenseman.

Avs fans gonna be pissed. They love Helleson. And Manson is a rental lol.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Seems like the Pens' equivalent would be something like POJ + 2nd.

The pick was actually a 2nd, so I think it might be even a bit more than that. Helleson's a good prospect.

I just don't really see the point of spending assets on a player that is going to be a 20 goal 30 assist guy at best. It seems we can plug and play slightly worse results for no assets and cheaper term / salary.

The "assets" I want to spend on getting that is adding POJ on top of Kapanen to get Garland. POJ is a good prospect, but he's redundant enough in the organization that I don't really see a problem with spending that.

You're basically paying POJ to swap a struggling Kapanen for a guy who plays at a level that Kapanen should be at.

 

[Gurglesons]

The pick was actually a 2nd, so I think it might be even a bit more than that. Helleson's a good prospect.



The "assets" I want to spend on getting that is adding POJ on top of Kapanen to get Garland. POJ is a good prospect, but he's redundant enough in the organization that I don't really see a problem with spending that.

I guess I'm just not sold on Garland being any different than our top nine wingers. He's a little better on the forecheck and kind of a prick, but I dunno.

 

[AuroraBorealis]

I'm not trolling. I just think it's weird that you're defaulting to something that has been shown to be incorrect.

I use point per game arguments. So I agree there is some value in the stat.

P60 is more fair than point per game, since some players get f***ed with usage. Blueger's a fine example.

It hasn't shown to be incorrect either, since (I have to say this yet again because you don't read) I NEVER SAID HE WOULD DO IT.

What I actually said is I hoped his 2.80 P/P60 would fall to 2.00 and he'd continue to be a strong winger for Malkin.
Kap has fallen to 1.51, and his play away from the puck has declined heavily as well. That's why there's a problem.

I am talking about a player in Garland that has always been good 5v5. Always.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

I guess I'm just not sold on Garland being any different than our top nine wingers. He's a little better on the forecheck and kind of a prick, but I dunno.

He's a better pure shooter. Though his size concerns me considering that's one of the areas I already have concerns with our forward group overall.

 

[Empoleon8771]

I guess I'm just not sold on Garland being any different than our top nine wingers. He's a little better on the forecheck and kind of a prick, but I dunno.

If Kapanen was playing well this year, I probably wouldn't be that interested in Garland, yeah. Like I posted above, adding Garland is adding another similar to what the Penguins have added over the years. But the reason I'd do that now is that Kapanen has gone to absolute shit, and the Penguins don't have the luxury of waiting to see if Kapanen can figure it out.

To me, Garland is what Kapanen is supposed to be. Using a redundant but valuable trade chip in POJ to go from a struggling Kapanen to a normal Kapanen is something I have no reservations about doing. If Kapanen wasn't struggling, there would be no reason to make the trade. However, with him struggling, they need to get a guy who can be performing near Kapanen's expected level.

If Kapanen was performing at the level I expected him, which is a 20 goal, 50 point 2nd line winger, I wouldn't want to add a Garland caliber player and I would be happy to give Kapanen the same contract that Garland got. But with Kapanen struggling and the Penguins needing to have better now, I don't see a problem with using Kapanen and a trade chip like POJ to get a guy who is at that 20 goal, 50 point 2nd line winger level.

 

[Gurglesons]

He's a better pure shooter. Though his size concerns me considering that's one of the areas I already have concerns with our forward group overall.

Is he really though? He's not a better pure shooter than our healthy top six outside of Kappy.

 

[AuroraBorealis]

I guess I'm just not sold on Garland being any different than our top nine wingers. He's a little better on the forecheck and kind of a prick, but I dunno.

More numbers, less feelings.
Who cares if he's no different if he boosts scoring? Our problem is depth scoring on L2 and cohesion with Malkin

It's not rocket science.

Garland's my 3rd choice out of the 3 players we've shown interest in with Vancouver, but he's still formidable.