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'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 suppose these moves don't make sense. I wouldn't give so much money and term to McGinn. Right now, we should be looking for one-year deals for risky players, just like we did with Ceci before this season. Changing a bad contract in Matheson for a horrendous-looking contract in Kreider doesn't seem to be a good idea.

Why would PIT do that rangers trade? McCann/Zucker > Kreider value wise

Agreed.. But by protecting certain players we can limit who they take - can leave Matheson unprotected and they won't take him (but leave Petterson unprotected and we can get rid of him). Same with forwards - may be in our interest to leave Zucker exposed, and they may bite on that. Desmith too, not sure the goalie situation for expansion but he may be their pick, still 29 and always consistent as an NHLer

Deal for sure

DeSmith won't get picked unless there are a lot of other deals out there. There are a lot of good goalies that will be available to Seattle.

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.

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.



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.



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.



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.

Why would LA or Pittsburgh agree to do that? You can't contractualize that ahead of time, so that's a pretty big risk that Hextall would be taking by taking Blake at his word. All Blake has to do is say "no thanks" this summer when Hextall calls back, unless he's calling with a sweetener attached.

The Kings have several young forwards looking to make the jump next season (some will be coming up in the remaining games this season). They no longer have room for Carter.

A. guys don't do that. If they have a deal they have a deal. You don't back out of it, it makes you look bad. As far as why they do it, part of the deal. LA has cap space. That's not an issue and a guy like Carter is a good mentor to the younger guys. It's 1 year. It's not huge issue for LA to take him back.

This is an idea, it's floated out there. There is a possibility this happens. Is already agreed on. His return probably benefits both teams.

Floated out there by whom? I haven't read anything that suggests that he will get sent back to LA.

The cap space isn't the problem, the roster space is. LA will have several players losing waiver eligibility this summer, plus they're going to want to bring kids like Byfield, Kaliyev, ****emo, Kupari, etc. up into the NHL. They'll have to either lose someone to waivers or leave one of the NHL-ready kids down in the AHL. Additionally, AEG has been especially hard hit by the loss of entertainment revenue from the pandemic. They're very happy to not be on the hook for the $2M that Carter is owed next season.

The Kings have already said their goodbyes to Jeff Carter. There's no chance he's coming back.

I disagree, Zucker has been playing great same with McCann. Kreider is not the player pens should target.

Ron Francis has already said it will cost a top prospects + 1st to dump bad contracts. Matheson isn't a good player. Most teams are gonna want to work some type of deal out of either "take this player please" or "leave this player alone and let us keep him", so the asking price is gonna be more than a 2nd and bottom 6 player for sure

Again, Matheson isn't a bad player. Watch games don't listen to capfriendly.
B. I'm sure every GM in the league is hearing a different story. Especially the ones that helped Seattle owner group get a franchise.
C. I'm pretty sure RF isn't trying to screw over ML. If anything, he's probably giving him a fair deal.

We are done here.

I watch the games and pay close attention to analytics. Check mate

and that's fair, but they need improvements in 5v5 play and McCann isn't giving it to them.
While Zucker's production hasn't been bad at 5v5 play, he's bleeding goals.
You can't blame that on Malkin either because he isn't. Malkin didn't take off till given a real RW. Which means Zucker and him weren't able to get it done.

If they don't win this year expect turn over. You swap McCann and Zucker here for Kreider and McGinn. The team gets a little better here. Kreider probably plays better here than Zucker. You hope to get more out of McGinn than what you got out of McCann.

I don't think you do. If you did you'd realize he's not a bad player. In league with a huge shortage of defensemen. You're the same kind of person who walked around and said Gudbranson is awful, no one will take that contract and it costs more than a 1st to move him.
But yet he was traded 4x and no one paid up anything to move him.
Get over it, there is value there.

Check mate.

Roster space isn't the issue, believe me. You are trying to rush guys up who probably aren't playing.
They have roster space, and cap space. They picked up a pick, dropped some salary, for a guy who would have been there anyway.
That deal might not have been done without it. We don't know. At which point they would be stuck with him, had to pay him the remainder of this season and no pick.
See how easily that fits. You act like they are "taking something on" when in reality, they were already carrying it, which is exactly the point I was making. It could be part of the deal was just that. Much like part of the Zucker deal might have been the agreement to take on Bjugstad in the offseason. We don't know. But we can speculate. Much like I did here.
As I said, this is an idea floated out there. The whole thing.

I again ask you, floated out by whom? I'd appreciate a link if you have one, because I have seen exactly nothing on this topic, and I generally scour the internet for Kings news. You're welcome to say that this is a hypothetical that you just came up with, but I'm skeptical that this has been "floated" by anyone outside of prohockeyrumors or Eklund.

Roster space is 100% the issue. There was talk among the LAK talking heads (Bernstein, Hoven, etc.) that Carter might be bought out this summer if they couldn't find a taker for his services, just to open up the extra roster spot. Again, guys like Lias Andersson and Blake Lizotte aren't going to be waiver exempt next season so unless they want to risk losing them for nothing, they'll have to carry them on the NHL roster. Other waiver exempt guys like Kupari and ****emo are currently in their 4th and 3rd professional years, respectively, and have been tearing up the AHL this season. They're looking for permanent spots in the NHL. Additionally, if Byfield doesn't make the NHL out of camp next season, the Kings will have to return him to the OHL. After getting a freebie in the AHL this season, that's not going to be a desirable solution.

All of the statements made by the Kings PR department thus far, and all of the interviews with Kings coaches and players have indicated that this separation was/is permanent. If they had a handshake agreement in advance to return Carter to LA after the season, they wouldn't have put the air of finality on the interviews that they have so far. Carter is not coming back to LA.

I told you, i'm just floating this out here, how hard is that to understand?

Roster space is not an issue, you are over here panicking about Lias Andersson. Think about that for a moment.
Byfield should return to the CHL, he's not NHL ready. He doesn't have the foot speed to make the jump to the next level. If you rush him, he'll be a bust you'll want to refuse to admit.
Space isn't the issue here. This is not some stacked deep team. Stop with that nonsense. FFS this team can't even make the playoffs. They got 38 points on the year. It's not like it can't make space.
You could very easily put a handshake agreement on this. If he doesn't retire you take him back....ok done. End up sending a low round pick back so the NHL doesn't scream.
Maybe LA buys him out after he returns. whatever. It doesn't really matter.

What are you even talking about with Gudbranson? Lmfao WHAT?!?

This is the first time that you said that it was you that floated this idea. All of your other statements made it seem like someone else suggested it and you were just running with their idea.

Have you watched Byfield play this season? Footspeed is not his problem. He's one of the quickest players on the ice. His defensive reads need some work and he could stand to fill in his lanky frame a bit, but aside from that, he plays a pretty complete game. He's made significant strides this season. The AHL has been good for him. Returning him to the OHL would be a major step back and a huge mistake.

The team is coming out the other end of a rebuild. No one expected him to make the playoffs this season. Most neutral analysts had LA pegged for 28th or 29th in the league. The fact that they're still competing for a playoff spot is incredible and indicative that they're closer to the end of the rebuild than most expected.

Your hypothetical doesn't make sense. There is no benefit to LA paying to get Carter back, even if it is only for a 7th round pick. Let's say that LA sent Pittsburgh a low pick and then bought Carter out. Both teams would immediately be investigated by the NHL since there is no reason why the Kings would pay Pittsburgh for the privilege of buying out his contract other than a handshake (i.e. illegal) agreement between GMs at the time of the deadline deal.

Something that could possibly make sense is for Pittsburgh to send another pick to LA for them to take him back. Maybe LA returns the conditional 2022 4th in exchange for Carter and the upgraded 2022 3rd that LA would have received if Carter played 50 games with the Pens next season. Then LA would get an upgraded pick as incentive to buy him out. That could potentially make some sense.

i'm sure you could say the Bjugstad deal is illegal too. But the reality that it happened and the two appear to have a connection.
Which is what I was getting at here.

Byfield is slow. I seen him play against his peers, he looks slow.
I'm not the only one with that opinion. Most people watching WJC came to the same conclusion. It is what it is. Point being, he's not NHL ready and rushing him would ruin him.

Space isn't a reason for this not to occur. Which is the point I was making.
LA seems like a possible deal here. Bother Carter is settled there, the team would have had his cap anyway, but they get a pick for playing along while saving some cash this year.
If that was the difference between say Carter going there or someone else, it shouldn't surprise anyone that it could have been part of it.
This whole thing is hypothetical.

it's the same effect. People on here get these ideas of value that are detached from reality. The Matheson valuation you are putting up is one.
He's a better player than Guddy ever was. By far. This idea he has no value or someone would have to pay a fortune to move him is pure bs.
The contract means nothing, he's still young and he's playing well.
A 2nd and a good bottom 6 guy is an overpayment to move him. But you are acting like it's not.
You are talking about a league so strapped for defensive help Jack Johnson got another contract. Lets not pretend it costs a 1st and top prospect to move Matheson.