Also, to factor in. Simmer has been here through the thick and thin. I know he wants to win, and wants to win next to guys that were here with him from the start. The young guys are coming, and they are first in the metro. I can’t speak for him, but I think the area, winning, and decent salary/length would enough to stay around... Simmer is one of my all time favorites on and off the ice. I’d be sad to see him leave, but as stated, business is business.
Speculation: Wayne Simmonds
- Thread starter AdamParrot
- Start date
I don't know why people are so juiced up about the Tatar deal. A draft pick in three different years...I probably would have been interested at that price. He's signed through his prime on a relatively solid deal. I honestly don't think that is a crazy price to pay. A little much probably because it is on deadline day but I don't think we should look at that and think Simmer will get more (or less) at the draft. I still think he gets a first and a good prospect (or younger NHLer).
Like i said above - id love him on a team friendly 3 or 4 year. But that money would have to be below 5 million, otherwise its not really worth it. Simmonds also shouldnt consider that, unless he wants to be done at 35 as someone else alluded to above.
He's been underpaid for just about every year he was a flyer. Probably the best net front presence in the league, and while most of his points are on the PP, he's still a 60 point guy. He should be getting at least 6 Mil over 5 on the open market, and he should absolutely take it from whoever is going to give it to him.
hatcher
Registered User
yes a young player that can play now not 3 yrs from now. We are not last anymore boys. Time to get busy winning from now on in.
Why not two out of the three? Idk who will be interested but a first and a good prospect would be fine with me. It is unlikely you are going to get any seriously good young NHL player for him because why would someone trade a young player already producing in the NHL for a guy about to turn 30? The sole reason you trade for a guy like Simmer is because you have a hole to fill and no one to fill it any time soon. You wouldn't trade Konecny for an older version of Konecny on a contract that will expire soon, would you? If they get a young NHLer it will be a bottom six guy not a top six guy, which I wouldn't be upset about as long as you are getting a first rounder or an A prospect along with it.
LI Fly Guy
Registered User
I just put this together quickly with salary cap at 75 (it will go up by then, I assume). 4.1 left in space with about 8 coming off at end of season with Weise and Macdonald. Would be about a million less if we buy out Lethera. I think we’re fine if we keep him. Don’t even have Allison on this roster either. Just an embarrassment of riches.
Attachments
Interesting line up. I think Provorov is a little low, but probably balances out with a higher than expected Sanheim. - My concern there is that there is a lot of inexperience in the bottom 6.
I'd also be hard pressed to think Mrazek would accept less than his QO if we go on a playoff run, especially on a short term deal. Nicely done though.
Hiesenberg
Registered User
- Jul 2, 2013
- 15,576
- 1,875
Hornquist just got like 5.3MM a year, that's your neighborhood for Simmonds, I'd guess around 1MM more
JojoTheWhale
CORN BOY
- May 22, 2008
- 33,778
- 105,353
That's pretty reasonably safe on the numbers across the board if Simmonds decides he wants a discount. I doubt that many ELCs will be on the roster at once, but etc.
The only number I have absolutely no idea on is Hagg. What's the comp? He'll be 23 with one NHL season under his belt and basically nothing in the way of point production. Edmundson? Jake McCabe? He doesn't have the lingering 1st round value bump of a Ceci. Looks like you kind of split the difference there, which is probably a good approach to the napkin math.
BackWithaVengeance
Registered User
I disagree.
Our top-6 stands and we have plenty of prospects to round out the top-9. Try to buy low if u can but definetly sell high whenever possible.
Simmonds 5v5 play is easily replacable and Patrick just found a niche on the PP1.
We may have plenty of cap space come next season but that doesn't necessarily mean we have to use it on him.
Actually I believe we're at the point where Simmonds shouldn't be traded for picks, prospects. Instead I'd much rather see him packaged with one of our own prospects to get a top-4 RHD.
For example, package Simmonds and Morin and ask for Pietrangelo. This is just an example not looking at teams needs.
Next season our D could look like
Provorov - Ghost
Sanheim - trade (Simmonds +)
Hägg - Gudas
MacD
A proven NHLer is just what the doctor ordered for Sanheim. P. Myers would replace Gudas whenever he's ready.
BackWithaVengeance
Registered User
I know you said just an example, but thats absolutely terrible value-wise for Blues, even considering they do need a RHS RW.
BackWithaVengeance
Registered User
I think he definetly could and should.
The only way to sell Simmonds and not "annoy" the locker room is a hockey deal and not another accumulation of picks/prospects.
Konecny, Patrick and Provorovs steady development hopefully will take the team to the next level. Is next season not the time for an extern reinforcement? I'd say yes.
You're not getting anyone who is as good as Simmer if they are younger and cost-effective. Why would any team do that? An NHL player is possible, but you're looking at a bottom six guy not a top six guy.
BackWithaVengeance
Registered User
Lindberg
Bennyflyers16 get a life
- Oct 5, 2013
- 7,159
- 7,865
I've kinda come around on the idea of Simmonds. If he wants to stay and wants to sign a reasonable contract I'd consider it since I think this team is/has shown it can go places. I don't think they are a contender yet but next year might be a different story with hopefully Sanheim up, Lindblom having about a year of experience and maybe another prospect or two in the line up.
I dont think we're going to acquire a good enough top 4 RHD with Simmonds to make the trade worthwhile. Youd be looking more at a Zaitsev level player, and im not ok with that. Id rather just wait for Myers.
Your proposal also ignores the fact that, no matter how badly we all dont want it, if Andrew MacDonald is on this team and Hakstol is the coach, he's going to play top 4 minutes.
BackWithaVengeance
Registered User
This is why I want them to add and get a top-4 RHD.
The foundation of the team is set and we're picking again twice in the first round. Time to drop off the dead weight and pursue the missing pieces.
I don't want them to go all in but next season I believe is ideal to use ur expendable assets to fill needs.
BackWithaVengeance
Registered User
Unfortunately none of us can control Hakstols " 50 shades of Farmer love" but that's not on me. I am looking to maximize the worth of Simmonds, the hockey player.
...then trading for a defenseman isn't maximizing his value, since they wont play in the top 4, (Ghost, Provorov, Macdonald are already locks, with sanheim and Gudas Capable), and we'd be trading Simmonds for effectively a 3rd pairing d man.
BackWithaVengeance
Registered User
The last time I checked Hakstol followed Hextalls orders and not the other way around. Long talk, short sense I hope the GM see's it the same way, I couldn't care less for the coach.
I doubt you're getting a top 4 defender for him though, certainly not a young and cost controlled one.
Hextall sent Sanheim down because Hakstol wasnt playing him. If a GM steps in and tells a coach which players he has to play, hes not letting the coach do his job.
The GM decides the players the coach has at his disposal. How the coach uses them is entirely up to him, until the GM thinks hes doing something wrong. I havent gotten the sense from Hextall that he thinks Hakstol is doing anything wrong.
For the record - i dont agree with Hakstols decisions. But apparently Hextall does - or at the very least, hasnt shown any indication that he doesn't.
