What's the deal with Pesce?

[gsharpe]

Is he being resigned? What is the hold up? I assume he wants 6 mil but does het not deserve it?

I'd love for the Canucks to land the big fish but I'm assuming most every team would like that.

Just curious what the rumors are out of Raleigh.

Click to read more...

 

[Tryamw]

Hes dead Jim and currently an own rental

 

[Nikishin Go Boom]

Pesce is quitting

Edit:

But in all seriousness the M-NTCs, pool of interested parties, and teams will to trade a roster forward we would keep long term is very close to 0 at this point. Until a team meets our needs we’ll roll with the best defense and plenty of cap to add a top 6 player at the deadline.

 

[Big Daddy Cane]

Not being re-signed by now isn't a good sign. He's earned a big contract. Management is just skittish about giving players of that age exactly that; they've been less inclined to do what other teams would do in a similar situation.

They don't have to move him for cap reasons. If the market is squeezing, own-renting him is realistic.

 

[Negan4Coach]

This whole concept of "own-rental" is completely infuriating to me. It is just a series of mental gymnastics and rationalization to justify doing nothing at the trade deadline. The team is what it is going in to the year. If you don't add to it, fine, but just say so. Don't be like "Oh, wait, wait- we have an own-rental so its all good"

 

[Nikishin Go Boom]

This whole concept of "own-rental" is completely infuriating to me. It is just a series of mental gymnastics and rationalization to justify doing nothing at the trade deadline. The team is what it is going in to the year. If you don't add to it, fine, but just say so. Don't be like "Oh, wait, wait- we have an own-rental so its all good"

So not having to pay for a player we already have is infuriating? We should trade pesce and then use most of the futures gained to trade for another RHD that has never played in the system just so we can say we did something at the deadline? Seems like odd gymnastics to check a box.

 

[DaveG]

This whole concept of "own-rental" is completely infuriating to me. It is just a series of mental gymnastics and rationalization to justify doing nothing at the trade deadline. The team is what it is going in to the year. If you don't add to it, fine, but just say so. Don't be like "Oh, wait, wait- we have an own-rental so its all good"

I mean, unless we're getting a legit top line quality player for him I see no move we could make involving him that wouldn't make the team worse than currently constructed. Bank cap heading towards the playoffs and actually do a rental this year, we're very much in a position to do that effectively.

 

[Navin R Slavin]

This whole concept of "own-rental" is completely infuriating to me. It is just a series of mental gymnastics and rationalization to justify doing nothing at the trade deadline. The team is what it is going in to the year. If you don't add to it, fine, but just say so. Don't be like "Oh, wait, wait- we have an own-rental so its all good"

Relax.

 

[Raleighpig]

Relax.

Frankie?

 

[bleedgreen]

I’ve never been a fan of the “own rental” phrase myself. Not in a violent way mind you, just never made any sense to me.

 

[AhosDatsyukian]

This whole concept of "own-rental" is completely infuriating to me. It is just a series of mental gymnastics and rationalization to justify doing nothing at the trade deadline. The team is what it is going in to the year. If you don't add to it, fine, but just say so. Don't be like "Oh, wait, wait- we have an own-rental so its all good"

I don’t think the concept of “own-rental” has anything to do with the deadline though, it’s just highlighting the decision to keep a player who will walk for what they offer you that year rather than getting something for him in a trade so he doesn’t walk for nothing. Letting players walk for nothing isn’t good in the mid/long term but can be beneficial in the short term. That needs to be balanced and there is no easy or correct answer. Personally I like how the borg has walked that line of now vs future.

Do I want a Cup soon? Absolutely, but I also see the risk in going all in and do want to se the team remain a contender for a long time. The Red Wings of the 2000s are an example to strive for. We have time to win a Cup or more than 1 with this core, I don’t believe we need to make drastic moves chasing an immediate Cup. I may feel differently in 2-3 years, but I’m incredibly happy with how the last 5 years have gone overall. Yes some disappointments have come with higher expectations but we’re probably the fan base who has it best outside of Tampa, Vegas, Colorado, St Louis. Boston is similar but now their future is bleak while ours is extremely bright.

 

[hblueridgegal]

He made it back onto their socials

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

I don't mind the term "own rental", but I think "own rental" has kind of gone from one thing to a broader meaning of "own rental". Originally, I viewed an "own rental" as a guy that was injured/not available, but coming back later in the season/near the deadline. So instead to trading for a true rental at the deadline, you are adding this player that is coming back from injury that you already have on your roster, thus "own rental". I've heard RBA use "own rental" that way a few times in the past and probably what Negan is referring to with his objection to the term "own rental".

More broadly, "own rental" is now used pretty much for anyone you might lose to UFA in the off-season even though that guy isn't really a 'rental' in the sense that most people call guys picked up at the deadline a rental. For example, even though Pesce has been with Carolina for 8 straight seasons (thus not really a "rental"), some call him an "own rental" simply because he might leave as a UFA at the end of the season. Possibly losing him for nothing is the reason he's called an "own rental".

What's the point of this post about "own rentals"? Maybe it's just to see how many times I can use the term "own rental" in a post.

 

[A Star is Burns]

I've always hated the term own rental. It's just always annoyed me for some reason. But as far as keeping a guy like Pesce and then letting him walk next summer, it makes sense if we can't get a trade that makes sense.

 

[AD Skinner]

I’m not sure there’s a trade out there that actually makes out forwards so significantly better that it makes up for losing Pesce and/or skjei. There may be but I think the Borg is content for now to just roll with having the clear cut best d corps in the game and see what happens

 

[Lempo]

More broadly, "own rental" is now used pretty much for anyone you might lose to UFA in the off-season even though that guy isn't really a 'rental' in the sense that most people call guys picked up at the deadline a rental. For example, even though Pesce has been with Carolina for 8 straight seasons (thus not really a "rental"), some call him an "own rental" simply because he might leave as a UFA at the end of the season. Possibly losing him for nothing is the reason he's called an "own rental".

I think "own rental" is conjecture to that if the player was traded at the TDL for a pick/prospect he would be rental to that other team.

Own rental might therefore be taken as a term of endearment that the player at the end of his SPC is worth more than the regular price you woulf get for a rental at the TDL or the off-season before the final year of his SPC.

Not that it makes much sense for a playoffs team to be selling anyone at the TDL. But, we're keeping this guy for his last year as opposed to try and score some other guy at the TDL.

 

[Svechhammer]

I don't mind the term "own rental", but I think "own rental" has kind of gone from one thing to a broader meaning of "own rental". Originally, I viewed an "own rental" as a guy that was injured/not available, but coming back later in the season/near the deadline. So instead to trading for a true rental at the deadline, you are adding this player that is coming back from injury that you already have on your roster, thus "own rental". I've heard RBA use "own rental" that way a few times in the past and probably what Negan is referring to with his objection to the term "own rental".

More broadly, "own rental" is now used pretty much for anyone you might lose to UFA in the off-season even though that guy isn't really a 'rental' in the sense that most people call guys picked up at the deadline a rental. For example, even though Pesce has been with Carolina for 8 straight seasons (thus not really a "rental"), some call him an "own rental" simply because he might leave as a UFA at the end of the season. Possibly losing him for nothing is the reason he's called an "own rental".

What's the point of this post about "own rentals"? Maybe it's just to see how many times I can use the term "own rental" in a post.

Own rental has become team-speak for "we aren't signing this guy at the end of the year, and we likely aren't going to trade him now, either"

 

[MrazeksVengeance]

ANGRY NOISES.

 

[Cardiac Jerks]

So the consensus seems to be that we don’t like the term “own-rental”.

But which bbq style is best?

 

[Stickpucker]

He's getting traded for JT Miller of course!

 

[Stickpucker]

Is he being resigned? What is the hold up? I assume he wants 6 mil but does het not deserve it?

I'd love for the Canucks to land the big fish but I'm assuming most every team would like that.

Just curious what the rumors are out of Raleigh.

I can see the Nucks wanting Pesce...they have the 1c, the 1d, the 1g and some good supporting pieces they just need to upgrade that D further and they're a playoff team.

I'll try and be real...I don't think the Canucks make a good trade partner. If the Nucks are trading for Pesce they want to compete so most likely not sending back what the Canes want a NHL ready or existing top 6 forward with a good shot.

I'd rather trade with Buffalo who have plenty of picks and young/ready forwards to try and pluck. I guess a world exists where the Nucks offer enough in futures to make the trade worth it for the Canes and they can use those futures to get a F spec....but I think there are better fits out there.

 

[CandyCanes]

I’d imagine the Canes would entertain a Pesce for Kuzmenko deal. But still don’t think there’s a deal there that overall makes sense.

 

[Negan4Coach]

I've always hated the term own rental. It's just always annoyed me for some reason. But as far as keeping a guy like Pesce and then letting him walk next summer, it makes sense if we can't get a trade that makes sense.

I guess you need to "relax" too

 

[Negan4Coach]

I mean, unless we're getting a legit top line quality player for him I see no move we could make involving him that wouldn't make the team worse than currently constructed. Bank cap heading towards the playoffs and actually do a rental this year, we're very much in a position to do that effectively.

I completely agree with that. I'm just saying- if there is no suitable deal to be had, people shouldn't think that his remaining on the team until his UFA is some kind of bonus. It's like when people are all thrilled when they get a tax refund at the end of the year.

 

[LakeLivin]

Rental: trading for a pending UFA at with the understanding that you may have him for only one season, or a fraction thereof.

Own rental: holding onto a pending UFA (who you are unlikely to re-sign) for an entire season with the understanding that it will cost you whatever return you could otherwise get in a trade.

Both describe situations where you forego assets in exchange for a potentially limited term of a player in order to maximize your chances of winning now. From that perspective it seems like the term "own rental" can be seen as somewhat analogous to the generally accepted term "rental". Regardless of that, "own rental" clearly describes that particular situation in two words. I'm curious: for those who dislike the term, is there another you'd replace it with that is just as clear and nearly as succinct?