Sorry, I didn't mean to sound as acerbic as I came across. I realize you were trying to work with the deal proposed, which is both awful and unnecessary. As I said to my esteemed colleague @BeterChiarelli , Boychuk and a 50% retention plus Dal Colle for Gagner and Manning is fair.

Yes, that would then require moving Hickey.

So now the crystal ball is so good it not only predicts numbers, it predicts term, too? How right were you on Kevin Labanc?

All of this is mindless speculation until we see what Marner, Point and Rantanen get this year.

Look, I love Barzal and the kid right now is the face of the Franchise, but he hasn't done nearly enough to warrant 10m coming off his ELC. He had a great year putting up 85 points his first year and won the Calder, but he was on an offense first team. Last year, when the team shifted to D he put up 62 points. Should he put up somewhere in between, I can see him coming in at 8-8.5m on an 8 year deal. Gotta remember Lou is our GM, he will shell out big bucks for Panarin (already an established scorer), but he's not going to give Barzal off his ELC that big of a raise. Here is what I predict for Barzal, Pulock and Toews...

Barzal: Either 8.8.5 or a bridge of 3x6.5... the bridge deal would allow the Leddy, Boychuk and Ladd contracts (assuming they aren't moved) to expire before Barzal cashes in big. The only way I see Barzal getting 10m is if someone offer sheets him, but I have a feeling Lou will get him locked up long before that becomes a possibility. The kid loves playing here and wants to do here, what JT was never able to do... win a Cup.

Pulock: 8x6 - He will get a Trouba-lite deal, same term, but less AAV... Unless of course he breaks out this year and puts up 50+ points.

Toews: 6x4 - This deal would be max assuming he has a solid first full season.

Lou has already stated (I can't remember where I saw/read this) that Barzal will get Term and AAV, while Pulock and Toews will get more term than AAV... I believe it was in an interview he did and it sounded like he had already talked with and had an idea of what these 3 guys were looking for.

are you assuming LL won't be making any upgrades to the top 6?

well you are predicting numbers and using that as a reason why we don't need to move boychuk. Who knows, Barzal can have a career year and put up 90 + pts and end up asking for 10.5-11 - it is all speculation but it's not unrealistic.

No worries man, I didn't take any offense. I was just pointing out why I chose to have Benning as the 7th D and not bury him in the minors. I apologize if it came off as harsh or anything like that.

My only issue, and partly why I included Ho-Sang in my proposal, is that I don't know how keen EDM is to move Gagner. Everything said when they picked him up was that they loved him in EDM, so I figured that's what the sweetener would be for, to get them to part with Gagner to save some CAP.

I personally think a Boychuk (50% retained) for Benning would be a good deal for EDM. They get a veteran RHD to play the 3rd pairing for only 3m per. I could even see adding in a 3rd round pick going to EDM if that was needed to get it done. Since, if it wasn't for Dobson progressing like he did, I wouldn't even be looking to move Boychuk right now.

I agree with you on pulock , but if toews has a big year with an increased role and PP1 time , I could see him getting the Girard deal.

Barzal will be interesting - I could see him getting 10 mill if he has a big year.

Lou has gotten all his resigns to sign for less than anyone thought, so I'm betting on that continuing to happen hence Toews getting a year and 1m less per than Girard, but even if he got a Girard deal the extra 1m is doable. Lee could have easily gotten 8m per on the open market, same with Nelson (especially after that awful Hayes deal) and Eberle could have probably gotten between 6 and 6.5m in FA as well. These guys want to be here and feel they have something special with this team. I wouldn't be surprised if that trend continues with further contracts.

As for Barzal, I think he'd have to have a Marner-esque year to get the conversation to even come close to 10m per. It's obviously possible given what he did his rookie year, but with Trotz' system it won't be easy for him.

I'm also gonna say, and this is purely speculation on my part, but with the way this team has bonded since JT left, I can see one or more of these guys taking less money (similar to Kucherov) to allow the team to remain competitive for the duration of their contracts.

Listen I hope you’re right haha. LL did a great job with the Nelson and eberle contracts. He had to give Lee more term but that’s a deal that had to get done.

Yeah, I'm confused about the Lee situation, everything being said during the season was that Lee and the team were far apart on term, with Lee wanting more than the Isles were willing to offer. But since he signed, both Lee, Lou and Lee's agent have said the deal has been pretty much agreed upon before Free Agency, which is why Lee didn't bother interviewing with any other teams, even though rumors suggest Chicago was willing to offer him 7 years and 8-9m AAV, he knew he was coming back, so I'm not sure what to believe on that one.

My only guess is that maybe if they signed Panarin for 12.5m, Lee might have lowered is AAV to accommodate that big of a CAP hit?

Yeah I have no clue - the contract is front loaded and there are no signing bonuses the last 2 years , so it can be bought out without a problem. Everything doesn’t add up between what LL, Lee, and his agent have said so i don’t know what to think lol

I think it just goes to show, you LL in charge no one but his inner circle really knows what's going on lol. I didn't realize that about his contract (haven't actually looked at the breakdown), so now I'm wondering if they originally had a 5 year deal in place and when Panarin chose the Rangers and other teams were willing to offer 7 years and higher AAV, they Isles tacked on 2 more years at straight AAV to keep Lee in the fold.

No, you didn't sound like that at all. I'm the only one who needed to apologize. Thanks for the well-reasoned dialogue.