Quoting: Wqrrior
I'm not sure if this is an effort to throw something at a wall and see if it sticks, or if this is a true and tried gameplan....
I get your arguments with NY... But would Krieder? Man has a NMC and seems pretty satisfied to be a ranger. Most of those left shot RWs prefer RW anyways. Throwing back two more left shot wingers only really adds to it. Not sure that McCann is the center they are after since he's better on the wing.
Still, my biggest surprise comes in the McGinn deal... he's a versatile forward, absolutely - but I don't think he's in the same tier as Hyman. People were calling for Benning's head (like always) over the Pearson deal -- this is way over the market for a less fiesty version of Brandon Tanev. (I was handing Brock 2.5x4 to 2.6x3 and in that mid 2s range at small/mid term)
These just don't seem like Burke / Hexstall moves. I like the uniqueness, but I must say it doesn't work this time.
I agree Kreider has to agree, I pointed that out. It's more the idea. Maybe it's not NY, maybe it's another team where you package together the two for a LW. That's why I said not necessarily NY.
But I think the move works. Because I don't see NY moving a younger forward. NY also gets a center and Zucker ends in 2 years. You are better off telling Zucker he's the 3LW than Kreider. Who I don't think is going to be ok with that. But it's just an idea.
As for McGinn, I paid him that so people wouldn't instantly say, you under paid him. I think Hyman has a lot of help and will get more than he's worth.
Quoting: Bdawwwgy1
I think Seattle is basically gonna be able to demand almost whatever they want in exchange for taking Matheson like contracts. IMO it will cost more
I don't see the Seattle deal as a problem and it's probably already worked out. Your underlying assumption here is that "Matheson like contracts" is just not true. He's not a bad player. This sort of thinking needs to end. They are probably getting more here than what they would actually get. The reality is, ZAR is probably gone for cap reasons so I just threw him in.
Quoting: Imagine875948
Why would PIT do that rangers trade? McCann/Zucker > Kreider value wise
Can we say that though. McCann is stuck in the mud in 5v5 play. He has a lot of potential but it's not coming through. But he's a capable 3C at a low cost. Zucker has not clicked here.
Kreider gives them a big bodied forward with speed and scoring ability in their top 6. It's a fair trade value wise. Yes the Kreider deal is long. It won't matter for the penguins down the road. It's about right now.
Quoting: tkecanuck341
LA doesn't want Carter back. They've moved on and don't have space for him anymore.
Carter isn't going to retire and give up $2M. Pittsburgh is free to buy him out, but he's not going to hang them up voluntarily.
LA could perhaps be incentivized to buy him out, but that would cost Pittsburgh an asset.
Look at the Bjugstad trade to MIN.
I have often wondered this. When the penguins sent their first for Zucker, was he part of the deal?
Was that deal already in place and the penguins wanted him for the playoffs and ship him off from there.
This is where we get to the Carter trade. Is that already part of the deal. If he doesn't retire is LA taking him back.
These are the inside deals we don't know about. But it's very likely. For both the player and the team. He could be a rental. That is what it is.