doublem24

DoubleM24
Member Since
Oct 12, 2016
Favourite Team
Pittsburgh Penguins
2nd Favourite Team
Nashville Predators
Forum Posts
73
Posts per Day
0.05
Forum Threads
25
Forum: NHL TradesAug 30 at 10:42
Forum: Armchair-GMAug 28 at 11:32
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Yojimbo</b></div><div>Staal, Fleury for Murray, Joseph, Bjugstad ($1M ret)

This is near troll level.

A few hours ago someone posted Staal, Reimer, Fleury for Murray, Bjugstad, Simon and it was a no from Pittsburgh. You removed Reimer, replaced Simon with Joseph (making it considerably worse for the Pens), and added $1M retention on Bjugstad. You took a bad trade for the Pens and made it much much worse. Joseph should not be anywhere near this trade. The retention is on the wrong side.

Rutherford wants to get younger.

Staal will be 32 next month. His offense is less than Bjugstad's (especially when considering time on ice). $6M
Fleury is basically Ruhwedel, only left handed.

Using the players that you put in:
Staal ($2M ret), Fleury for Murray, Bjugstad
Joseph is out, fully. This still isn't that great of a trade for Pittsburgh other than it solidifies the 3C.

Maybe even go with Trocheck instead of Staal.</div></div>

This trade isn't that far off and yes, it was in reaction to the previous post about bringing Staal back.

I don't think suggesting it and asking questions for how it could work is trolling, but... ok.

Bringing in Staal at the end of his career isn't that far off base. I think he would shine in a 3rd line roll despite being pretty expensive. The best parts of Staal's game are defensive and he's masterful on the faceoff. Isn't that exactly what Pitt needs? A center who can establish possession, kills penalties and matches up against top lines so Crosby and Malkin can exploit mismatches?

The salary retention is for 1M and it's for one year, pretty straight forward. Pitt will have to move salary to bring him in and I don't think they have long term plans for Bjugstad. I agree that Staal's value is declining but 2M retained on their side is 6M total, so that seems very unrealistic to me.

Also, I'm all for removing the prospect, that'd be great for Pitt, but it seems like Carolina fans are saying Staal is worth more than you're giving him credit for and I agree.

Do you think this is realistic?

Staal for Murray and Bjugstad.

If not, do you think Carolina needs to retain salary? Send a pick back? I'd be interested to hear what Carolina fans think of that too.
Forum: Armchair-GMAug 28 at 11:24
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Claebom</b></div><div>Sens decline. Retained, he brings zero benefit. The best and only thing he offers is that he can bring back a sweetener as a cap dump. If he's no longer a cap dump, he's just a bad player signed for too long. Why would they intentionally want a bad player on their roster? That's for JR to deal with.</div></div>

Fair point.

My perspective is that there are a few options for what can be done with JJ.

1. Nothing - sadly this seems like what will happen

2. Trade - nobody wants him, because he's terrible. If they trade him, they have to give up an asset and most likely retain salary. Of course the team who gets him isn't going to use him, he's terrible, but trades like this happen a lot. The asset that's given has to create the balance. The value of the asset can decrease with the less salary thats transferred (retention). So, the question is, how high does the asset value need to be? Seems like a 2nd or 3rd round pick is the only option Pitt has.

3. Buyout - highly unlikely, Pitt has never done this and it would be elongating the period of cap penalty. This is the main reason for trading him away with retention, you hold a penalty but its tenure is much shorter.

With all these options understood, I think a trade with retention is the best and only plan for how to handle JJ. Of course the team is he's going to isn't gonna value him, he's terrible, but if they have the ability to do it and gain an asset it's not completely pointless.
Forum: Armchair-GMAug 27 at 5:39