Its gonna cost you Juulsen for sure and another top prospect like Poehling to even possibly get Tuch. Clarkson doesnt have negative value

"Clarkson doesnt have negative value" You can disagree with my trade but Clarkson his negative value. Not like Lucic because he can be put on LTIR but I think vegas would prefer not having him than having him c'mon...

Vegas thanks you for the concern. Declines. Replace Tuch with Reilly Smith and something can be worked out.

Does Marchessault have more value than Tuch in your eyes ?

Both are non starters, neither will be moved.

Yeah Idk what that guy's talking about, Clarkson absolutely has negative value.

As for the trade it'll take more than Petry to get Tuch I think. You'd probably have to give up Drouin to get him but the problem is Vegas can't take on cap, so that leaves one of your young talented prospects, probably Poehling (who I don't think Bergevin wants to move) with additional pieces. You're going to have to overpay for Tuch...

I dont want to be salty here but you did not answer my question . Lets says we offer you KK and Caufield. Would you say Tuch has more value than Marchessault in your eyes (age, contract, pts etc..)

Thanks for your answer. I know tuch as more value than Petry that is why I retain 2m of Petry salary (add a bit of value). Still I understand that is not enought

Similar trade value, personally i’d put Tuch a bit higher, younger, longer term, RH shot, power forward.

That mean a lot because Marchessault is a really good player ! I think Vegas should put Tuch on the top 6 next season.

Clarkson's negative value is more like Clarkson+6th for a 7th to Vegas. They do not care about the actual salary and with LTIR they do not care about his cap either. They could probably even shift him to one of the cap floor teams for a small profit, Clarkson for a 7th.

I kind of agree with you but it seems to simple. If Clarkson for a 7th (in ottawa) seems legit, why does Vegas asn't move him yet.

Because they don't have a reason to.

(Not a perfect analogy but just blur the eyes a little and it will work) Think of something that you have in a closet at home, something that you don't use, know that you will never use. It's not really in the way. A couple times you have had to shift it to put something else in the closet, or to look for something... but other than that you haven't touched it in two years. Why don't you throw it out? Or put it in Craigslist? or take it to a flea market? Because, meh... it's not really in the way and you don't want to be bothered with someone coming to the house (if sold on craiglist) or driving to a flea market... Sure, you could make $20, but, yeah, it's fine where it is. It will literally vanish in a year anyway (when the contract expires).

the negative value is more then this at least a second
to a team like Ottawa or other team close to the floor
but if Vegas keep him who they will send down to be under the cap on day 1 that guy will have to go trough waivers

ahahah I enjoy your analogy ! But If tradeClarkson offer them more flexibility for the rest of the summer I do thing they should trade him !

The only GM that seems to have a history of excessively micromanaging his roster is Chayka in Arizona. More seemingly meaningless moves than any other 5 GMs combined.

I would like to know what is the Chaykaplan. Trading a 7th pick overall when you are rebuilding. Trading domi for Chucky. 1 year late, trade Chucky + their 2017 1st pick for 33 years old Kessel. Strome and Perlini to CHI. I'm not saying all his move are bad, but they are often hard to get (like when Chiarelli sign koskinen that was an "hard to understant move" for exemple). Their is more involved than pure logic.