Jul. 20, 2021
Posts per Day
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Leafsfan98</b></div><div>Not talking about AZ… But from TO’s perspective, your top assets are (in order): Matthews, Marner, Knies, Nylander, Tavares, Lilly, 2024 1st etc.
Are you really giving up your 3rd, 4rth and 7th most valuable assets to get Keller? I don’t think he’s that much better than Nylander</div></div>
He's not, but I think he's close, and if the reports about Nylander's next contract a true, in a year Keller will be a lot cheaper. I'd rather have Keller at $7M than Nylander at $10M. That's the easy part for me. The difficult part is how much to value Knies. If he turns out to be a top-line winger, his two years on an entry-level contract will offset overpaying somebody like Tavares, making him more valuable to Toronto than Keller would be for those two years. (After that, they'll have to pay Knies what he's worth, but Keller will still be at $7M for 3 more years.) But we know how good Keller is. Knies may be Toronto's best prospect by far, but he's played only 10 NHL games, so we really don't know yet if he'll be as good as Keller.
What I like about this deal for Toronto is that it gives them a replacement for Nylander without having to pay significantly more than what they're paying for Nylander now, so it helps them for the future without weakening them in the present. Unless you think Knies is a key part of their present, in which case this trade probably would weaken them now, unless Soderstrom is still as highly rated as he was when Arizona traded up to pick him 11th overall in 2019.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>RecycleShark</b></div><div>This is pretty close to a good trade. Sharks might take it.
The Sharks would rather have Swayman than Ullmark due to age.
The Sharks don't need Debrusk at this stage of their rebuild. but he's flippable.
Swayman for Hertl
Ullmark for Couture
As the core pieces of a trade</div></div>
Either one of those changes would make the deal more attractive for San Jose, especially Swayman because he could be their goalie of the future, whereas they would probably keep Ullmark only until the 2025 deadline when they'd flip him for futures. In fact, with Swayman instead of Ullmark, San Jose wouldn't need Debrusk to make it work for them, but Boston might have to include him anyway to afford Hertl's cap hit, so maybe San Jose throws in their 2024 2nd-round draft pick to offset the late 1st they can probably get for Debrusk at the deadline if they don't sign him to an extension first. Boston should like that because they have no picks in the first three rounds of the 2024 draft.
Including Couture instead of Hertl would probably not add as much value for San Jose as including Swayman instead of Ullmark, because although Couture is much older than Hertl, he has only 4 years left on his contract compared with 7 for Hertl. I don't know what San Jose thinks their rebuild horizon is, but it might be more than 4 years before they come under cap pressure again. On the other hand, they need to give fans a reason to come to the rink in the meantime, and Hertl is still in his prime.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>evelutions2</b></div><div>Yeah, pretty sure the Canes will pass on that. Janmark doesn’t provide anything that isn’t already being provided on the roster or in the pipeline. And with guys like ZAR, Perlini, and maybe even Shore likely to land a 2-way deal off their PTO, as well as guys like Drury, Suzuki, Ponomarev, Rees, Robidas, and Gunler all competing for NHL roster spots this year, they have more than enough forward depth. Not to mention, the coaching staff really likes Chatfield, so I don’t see him getting moved. </div></div>
Chatfield proved last season that he is a solid third-pair defenseman even on a team like Carolina, but if they like him so much, why did they sign so many other defensemen? You're probably right that it depends on how well the PTO forwards and prospects work out, but as it stands now, they have a lot more depth on defense than forward, so if nothing changes then I think this trade makes sense for Carolina for that reason. I like it for all three teams.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>evelutions2</b></div><div>I really liked Coghlan during his time in Vegas, and was really excited to see what he could be with the Canes. But as it stands with the route the Canes have taken, he is now their 9th best dman. But his problem ending up being very similar to what drove Bear out of town. For Bear, Smith and Cole were able to elevate their game, and it drove him out of a roster spot, but with Coghlan, it ended up being Chatfield taking massive steps forward, with de Haan being more consistent in his performances, and the Ghost acquisition, that really blocked any chance for Coghlan to shine. When Coghlan would make a really good play or something of that sort, it would typically get outshined by some of the negative aspects of his game, and add in that whenever he was played on his offside (typically when de Haan sat and Rod ran a 3rd pairing of Coghlan-Chatfield) he was borderline unusable.
I guess what I’m saying is, he hasn’t gotten as much love since he really hasn’t earned it in Carolina. I mean, de Haan was not that good last year, but he ended up being a more usable option than Coghlan. Sometimes, certain players just end up being an experiment. I would imagine after the split squad preseason game, he either gets traded or claimed off of waivers.</div></div>
I have similar thoughts on Coghlan, but they re-signed him and gave him a 1-way contract, which seemed strange if they don't have a spot for him, so I thought that meant that they still see him as part of their future. On the other hand, since they can bury all of his cap hit there was no risk to signing him, and it was before they signed DeAngelo and Jones so he wasn't as far down the depth chart at that time.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Hobo</b></div><div>Bruins would likely say yes, not sure the Sharks would say yes - that being said the return they got for Karlsson was terrible, so you never know I guess.</div></div>
Actually, the trade sounds better to me for San Jose than it does for Boston, which doesn't mean I think it's bad for Boston, just that I can see it more clearly for San Jose. Hertl is signed for 7 more years and he'll be 30 shortly after this season starts, so by the time the Sharks are good again, that contract is probably going to look pretty bad. If I was them I'd probably jump at the chance to move it for positive assets. It's not a huge return, because Debrusk has only one year left on his contract and Ullmark has two, but if they won't sign extensions, they can probably flip them for some decent futures.
For Boston, it seems that Hertl would make them a better team now, which would help keep their win window open if they're willing to take on the risk of his contract turning bad down the road. The other risk is whether Swayman can handle being a clear #1, since I see Lankinen as only a backup there, not a 1A, though I thought he was pretty good in Minnesota so maybe he just needs a better team in front of him. I could see the Swayman-Lankinen combination working for them.
This is one of the more interesting and realistic trade proposals I've seen on this forum.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>NoVaSpartan</b></div><div>On the contrary, I don't think this even makes the top 15 most lopsided trades. Luongo to Vancouver, Thornton to San Jose, Marcel Dionne to the Kings, Phil Esposito to Boston, Brett Hull to St Louis, Eric Lindros to Philly, Gretzky to the Kings (obviously), Mark Messier to NYR, Taylor Hall to NJD, Filip Forsberg to NSH, and more are more lopsided.</div></div>
Lindros to Philadelphia? That trade was bound to end up heavily in favor of one team just because of the sheer size of it, and clearly that team was Quebec. However, before the salary cap, there was an old adage that whoever gets the best player wins the trade, and Lindros was the best player. Forsberg eventually surpassed him, but not until concussions and other injuries ruined Lindros’s career. For 6 or 7 years, he was the dominant player they thought he would be, winning a Hart trophy and taking them to the Stanley Cup final. It took several years before that trade turned in favor of Quebec, which by that time had moved to Colorado.
Quebec/Colorado used this trade to build their first two cup winning teams, but other than Forsberg, most of it wasn’t directly from this trade. It was from subsequent trades that they used to parlay those players and picks into even better players and picks. Some of those trades, which also included other pieces from Colorado, turned out heavily in Colorado’s favor, but I don’t think you can judge this trade by independent trades they made later. For example, one of the draft picks turned out to be Jocelyn Thibault who, 3 ½ years after the Lindros trade, was traded to Montreal with two other players that weren’t part of the Lindros trade for Patrick Roy. It would be a big stretch to say they got Roy for Lindros, and an even bigger stretch to say that Philadelphia could have had Roy if they hadn’t traded for Lindros.
One interesting thing about that trade is that it wasn’t the deal Quebec wanted. They accepted what they thought was a better offer from the New York Rangers, but an arbitrator ruled that the Philadelphia offer had been accepted first. The New York offer doesn’t look as good on paper now, but at that time it may have looked better because the roster players they were offering were better than Philadelphia’s. (Forsberg was still just a prospect playing in Sweden.) The Rangers won the cup not long after that. I wonder if that would have happened if their offer had been accepted. It’s hard to say because I don’t think we know exactly what the package was. Some reports say it included Mike Richter, whom they wouldn’t have won the cup without, but other reports say that the goalie they offered was John Van Biesbrouck. If Richter wasn’t part of it, I think the Rangers would have been even better with Lindros.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>CSStrowbridge</b></div><div>Definitely better than:
1 Anaheim Ducks
2 Chicago Blackhawks
3 Columbus Blue Jackets
4 San Jose Sharks
5 Montreal Canadiens
6 Arizona Coyotes
7 Philadelphia Flyers
8 Detroit Red Wings
Likely better than
9 St. Louis Blues
10 Washington Capitals
11 Seattle Kraken
Probably better than
12 Nashville Predators
13 Ottawa Senators
On par with
13 Buffalo Sabres
14 Florida Panthers
15 New York Islanders
16 Calgary Flames
17 Winnipeg Jets</div></div>
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>KSIxSKULLS</b></div><div>You a highly overrating them.
I put them in the 8-11 group (Add Detroit to that group). They aren't better than Nashville or Ottawa and aren't on par with those teams you mentioned.</div></div>
Interesting debate about how good Vancouver is, and whether there’s any hope of them making the playoffs. The last two seasons they started off badly but played like a playoff team after a mid-season coaching change, so it seems like the key to their success is to figure out how to play like they have a new coach all year. Demko staying healthy would help too.
On the negative side, they’ve lost Horvat and it looks like the two prospects they got for him aren’t ready to make an impact yet – only Beauvillier is likely to be a starter. They brought in Suter and Blueger, but they’re not going to replace Horvat. Pettersson is coming off a career year that he probably needs to repeat for them to be a playoff team. However, I think there’s a chance that the rebuilt defence could make up for what they lose on offence.
I think their playoff chances actually have more to do with what happens with the other teams in the conference. Are Calgary and Winnipeg going to sell off more of their pending free agents? (They’ve already said goodbye to Toffoli and Dubois.) If so, that should leave one wild-card spot up for grabs, so who’s likely to get it? Are the big changes in Nashville going to get them back into the playoffs? I think it’s more likely they take a step back before they get better. Was last season an aberration for St. Louis or are their playoff years behind them? I see no reason to think they’ll be a better team this season. Is Seattle going to regress, and if so, how much? With all the questions around the other middle teams in the west, I could see how Vancouver could have a chance to sneak in. They may not be better than any of Buffalo, Florida, Ottawa, Detroit, Washington or the Islanders, but they don't have to be to make the playoffs.