Assumes Sharks will then trade Vanecec for at least a 2nd round pick.

I know the NJ 2nd could become a 1st if NJ makes ECF. But chances are it's a late round 2nd.

Can we like idk get new material instead of the same ole terrible goalie trades for no reason. Once again DARCY WON A CUP WITH A 902. All the devils need is schmid and vitek to have atleast 900%.

Devils accept. That 2nd turns back into a 1st when Ullmark carries us to the ECF. We will replace Holtz with Duclair or Buchnevich.

Edit: Have to think the Sharks decline for that same reason unless there are a new set of convoluted conditions on this trade. Vanecek is not worth a potential 1st to a rebuilding team like them.

In this scenario, we get a goalie upgrade and probably a 1st round pick for just Holtz. We can then immediately replace Holtz with Duclair or Buchnevich.

Sharks get a young sniper who needs more time to develop and a legit starting goalie but lose a likely late 1st round pick and Coutures vet leadership, it’s not a bad deal but I’m not 100% sold on it. Especially with another retention slot being tied up for 4 years

This trade makes sense in terms of adding a proper 1A goalie to a franchise that has suffered from bad goaltending for years now. It does seem that Couture may look for a trade in the offseason, but we'll be out of retention slots given we're already on the books for Burns and EK65. This is fair for all sides to be clear, but the loss of a likely 1st rounder and losing flexibility over retention wouldn't be the best outcome for SJ's side.

What type of value do you think Couture has with his age and remaining contract? Hes 34 with 4 more years at $8m AAV. Frankly those are the bad years of the contract when you signed him at 30 to keep him.

Would the Bruins be better off trading Ullmark for a prospect or pick and having 3 years, $24m to offer in free agency? There is value this year to having Couture. How does his game age?

My assumption is the Sharks are retaining the difference between their salaries? My guess is Grzelcyk would be involved to balance salaries instead

Yes. In this trade the Sharks are retaining the difference between Couture and Ullmark's salaries. Taking Grezelcyk instead might be better for the Sharks. However the Sharks have too many D already and are currently claiming 3 of them are injured in order to give Thrun NHL experience and avoid exposing Knyzhov, Okhotiuk, or Burroughs to waivers.

Since it's NJ's 2024 2nd, it can't turn into NJ's 2024 1st. NJ only gets one 2024 1st. The benefit to NJ is to avoid SJ having their 2024 2nd or 1st.

I know I don’t watch the Sharks as much as you do, but I can say when I’ve watched them … that backline is one of the least cohesive units I watched all last year. Maybe trading Karlson who has to be used in a very specific way will help, but there were a few players I’d throw over to the AHL with the hope of never seeing again if I were a Sharks fan.

If the Sharks were to retain $3m of Couture’s salary to make him a $5m player through ages 34 and 38, it would be more interesting for the Bruins I would assume. That said, the Bruins will likely be in a position to add an 8 to 11 million dollar player in free agency if they choose and part of me values that flexibility over taking Couture’s contract though I can see the rationale. I believe Boston is one of the sneaky options for Nylander next year if he makes it to free agency

Part of me wonders if this construct works with
substituting Hertl for Couture adding Lysell / Grz to San Jose with zero retention. My guess is no, but I suspect that Sweeney would turn down the original deal as outlined.

Lysell has struggled a bit since the WJC, but I know San Jose liked him in his draft year and you don’t teach his speed, puck handling, and willingness to drive. Plus his first half in the AHL was super promising. Hes been passed by Poitras, but he’s still got value. Whether it’s enough to do this deal is a question.

That's what I meant

Got it. Sorry I misunderstood.

Agreed that Sharks could send some D to the AHL and be fine if the were lost to waivers: Simek, MacDonald, maybe Burroughs. Even Vlasic, although that would be insulting given what he did for SJ in his prime.

I'm sure Boston would prefer Hertl to Couture. If it were Hertl I'd ask for Swayman instead of Ullmark, and I'd keep him instead of trading him to NJ. Hertl (no retention) for Swayman.

Lysell would be of interest to SJ. Do you think he's available?

While the original idea is well thought out and reasonable, I don’t see Boston saying yes to it. I think there is a general struggle with trades surrounding players around 35. They have more value to their existing teams and the age piece adds a higher risk. Couture at $5.2m from 34 to 38 is likely going to be a bad contract by the end, but there is a path where he could play solid through 38. It’s tough to predict, but asking for a player not to regress after 35 is tough.

My preference is Hertl and I am wondering how they could make up the value consideration here. Tried to do that by adding Lysell with Ullmark and removing the retention piece by adding an expiring. Doubt that is enough, but it should atleast be something to consider.

Ulmark, Lysell, and Grzelcyk for Hertl seems like a fair trade depending on what you can get for Ullmark. I can understand why San Jose would say no to it or yes to it.

Lysell is interesting. I know some fans are down on him after the preseason and my guess is his valuation would be all over the place. His talent is obvious as are his flaws. He has elite skills, but he needs to let his teammates create for him as opposed to trying to do the spectacular. Until he does that, he’s going to struggle. When he does it, he could make a more immediate impact.