SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

pdunham

Member Since
Jun. 16, 2017
Favourite Team
Nashville Predators
Forum Posts
63
Posts per Day
0.0
Forum: Armchair-GMMar. 7 at 10:15 a.m.
Thread: Habs trade for lHeureux
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Jackaille</b></div><div>jsut to add, and I agree with you, Lebrun just came out saying Carrier is being shopped right now. Who would fill that role if Carrier is traded and Schenn goes on the 3rd pair</div></div>

I think Carrier is being shopped because they've not been able to come to terms on an extension. Carrier is well liked, and the organization has been clear that they want to keep him but aren't open to the possibility of a sought after asset leaving for nothing as a UFA. I think it just means that Tyson Barrie is back in the lineup and you move one of the AHL guys up as your 7D or you move Lauzon to RD (he is a lefty playing on the LD currently because we have too many RD) and you move up one of the AHL guys as your 3rd pairing LD. I just don't see the Preds being in the market for a D, especially a RD unless they can move both Carrier and Barrie.
Forum: Armchair-GMMar. 7 at 9:56 a.m.
Forum: Armchair-GMFeb. 25, 2021 at 2:37 p.m.
Thread: Deadline with Nashville
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>ON3M4N</b></div><div>few things to unwrap here:

Why does Boston have to rid themselves of Moore? His cap hit isn't cripple the team and if they really wanted they could send him through waivers to the Taxi squad and save around $1 million a year. His lack of cracking the line-up could be due to Boston being pretty deep on the LD. For years it was Chara, Krug and Grz. Now this year they have Lauzon, Grz, Zboril, Vaak &amp; Moore all trying to get playing time at LD.

As for Granlund, what he fetched 2 years ago is irrelevant. The guy was still a UFA roughly 2 weeks before training camp opened, so teams weren't banging down he door to sign him. A 2nd a prospects could be fair value, but that's not really how the trade breaks out here with Boston. Lets say the 3rd is to take Moore. That leaves Ritchie for Granlund. Ritchie is younger, cheaper (for now) and currently have a career year. Why does Boston trade Ritchie for Granlund?</div></div>

Boston doesn't have to rid themselves of Moore, but it's certainly not a great contract for a guy struggling to break into the lineup and Boston seems to be up against the cap, so I figured some relief to fit in other pieces at the deadline may be attractive.

Granlund's situation was a bit more complicated than nobody wanted him. He was in Europe and had issues getting back to north america due to visa status as a result of COVID. Also, we all know that it was a weird year for free agency, lots of guys took short deals, lower money, and signed late.

Also, I changed the trades to break them out a bit and changed some pieces.

Yes the 3rd is for Moore, Boston is poised to make a cup run so picks this year should be very late in the round. May still be an overpayment as you have suggested given Boston isn't desperate for cap space so it should probably be a later round pick if at all.

I'm using the Muzzin trade (Toronto traded a 1st, Grudstrum, and Durzi) as a comparable for Ekholm. My thought was 1st, Ritchie, and Vaak but I realize they are higher value than Grundstum and Durzi so I've added a 4th rounder coming back to Boston, but could also see Moore here if the Bruins want to try to save cap space.

Grunlund I change as well to late first round prospect of Beecher and a 2nd (conditional 1st if Boston makes conference finals). Again might be too much, maybe drop the pick a round or two?

Thanks for your feedback.
Forum: Armchair-GMFeb. 25, 2021 at 2:01 p.m.
Thread: Deez nuts
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Chopper02</b></div><div>Alec Martinez got two 2nd round picks. Think that's what Ekholm will go for.</div></div>

Ekholm is better than Martinez, is 2 years younger than Martinez when he was traded, is a lower cap hit than Martinez is, and helps fill a glaring hole left by the departure of Krug in Boston's lineup. Ekholm would be a first pairing D on just about every NHL team, he isn't on Nashville because he's stuck behind Josi. He still has played first pairing minutes because the Preds 3rd pairing has been pretty bad for several years. Muzzin trade is the better comparable (which might still be low considering both production and again a lower cap hit) and he got a 1st and 2 solid prospects.

From Boston I think Vaak (or similar prospect) and a first which should be a mid 20s overall pick at best is the absolute minimum Nashville would accept, and Boston will likely need to put another lesser prospect or depth forward in to make it happen. A big piece of this is Ekholm has a cap hit of just 3.75M. Are there potentially better LD on the market yes, but not with that cap hit which is a key factor for Boston. Not to mention Boston is going to have to outbid Philly, Toronto, and probably half a dozen other clubs to land him.
Forum: Armchair-GMFeb. 25, 2021 at 11:53 a.m.
Thread: Deadline with Nashville
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>ON3M4N</b></div><div>I'm not really sure how to breakdown this trade lol.

Ekholm = Zboril + 2nd + Kase
Granlund = Ritchie + Moore + 3rd

I'm just not sure why there are so many pieces involved here. I don't think Boston would have much interest in Granlund, nor are they looking to move Ritchie. Honestly if NSH were to target a d-man from Boston in an Ekholm deal, it's probably Vaak because he NHL ready and expansion draft exempt</div></div>

You're right, I thought Zboril was still on his ELC so the swap to Vaak makes sense as the Preds won't need to protect him from Seattle and will want to protect Josi, Ellis, and Fabbro.

I think Boston has to give up a 3rd just to rid themselves of the Moore contract, mind you it's likely to be a late 3rd. 2.75M for another 2.5 years for a guy that at this point barely cracks an NHL lineup and is likely a 7D isn't something a lot of teams are going to want to do.

Granlund fetched the 2014 #11 overall pick in Fiala just 2 years ago. I think the Preds will be looking for at least a 2nd and a prospect for him.
Forum: Armchair-GMFeb. 23, 2021 at 6:53 p.m.
Thread: If I Could Turn Back Time and then add Eichel
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>ItWasIn</b></div><div>Jones for Johansen- you got a trip to the Cup Finals out of it, something that shouldn't be taken lightly for a franchise that had previously won a total of 3 playoff series. If Johansen wasn't injured, you can argue they won the cup, he was playing at such a high level. Seth Jones was also behind Weber and Ellis at RD, wasn't much opportunity for him in Tennessee.

Turris trade- this wasn't a panic trade by Nashville. Turris was very good in his first season with the Preds, 42pts in 65 games. Like Jones, Girard was behind Josi and Ekholm at LD, there wasn't going to be much opportuntiy for him as the Preds were looking to win.

Nashville also got Forsberg for Erat. If you're gonna undo every bad trade NSH has made, only fair if you undo that one for WSH</div></div>

Not arguing a trip to the finals was had, but still no ultimate prize. Johansen played well but there were tons of role players that played above their normal level, we had game winning goals from Pontus Aberg, Vern Fiddler and Cody McLeod, Watson scored 4 goals, Sissons had a hat trick, Frederick Gaudreau scored his first 3 NHL goals in the finals. There are so many things that fell into place that played into that playoff success it's really difficult to say it's because we had Johansen. Management bought in too hard on the win now mentality for a team that way over-achieved, we were the 8-seed for a reason that year. Also, we turned around shortly after the Johansen trade and traded away Weber because we all knew his contract had potential to turn into an albatross, and yes it has held up better than expected but it still has 6-years left on it. Could we have just traded Weber for Johansen and never had Subban and kept the younger D in Jones?

The Turris trade was a panic move in that after Johansen got injured in the finals combined with the retirement of Fisher, management felt we didn't have center depth in the event of another injury. It was rumored all along that we wanted Duchene and what we got was 2nd prize. Turris never was a player to drive the play, he is much too passive in his play style. Yes he was decent his first year but we put him with Fiala and Smith, we then traded Fiala away and Turris was never the same for us. Both Fiala and Smith were high energy guys that tried to drive play so it worked well for Turris year 1 with the Preds. We knew with Johansen that Turris would be our 2C and there was no chance we'd be able to put talent on the wings that he had as a 1C in Ottawa and by placing him with Granlund who is a great passer it just wasn't going to work, nobody wanted to shoot the puck on that line. Simply put the Preds overpaid based on where he fit into our lineup and then made a bad choice of play style pairings. He was propped up by players that generate their own offense at a high level in Ottawa, and the Edmonton experience is going even worse than the Preds one did.
Forum: Armchair-GMAug. 2, 2019 at 5:36 p.m.
Thread: Rocco and Shattenkirk
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>rja</b></div><div>What if Irwin and Weber were just sent to the minors, and one of the younger RHD in the Preds farm was added in a trade for a LW with size and scoring ability (a clear need for the Preds)?</div></div>

It's absolutely possible Irwin and Weber are just sent to the minors as well. The problem with a trade for a big bodied winger for the bottom 6 is that given the cap situation in Nashville it likely means moving an existing roster player which I think GMDP is adverse to doing right now. I think Watson fills that role adequately assuming his off the ice troubles don't keep him out of the lineup again going forward. While still unlikely I think it is more plausible that the Preds bring Boyle back on a 1 year $1-1.5m deal if they think they need more size at the bottom of the lineup.
Forum: Armchair-GMJan. 30, 2019 at 1:43 p.m.
Thread: Ferland to Nashville
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>ForsbergForVezina</b></div><div>Kinda tough to say but it depends on what you're looking for. Nashville dropped a first on Ryan Hartman; maybe they'd be willing to do it again? If it's young forwards you want though, they have some decent guys in the NCAA, but I'm not sure you could get anything worthwhile off their roster.</div></div>

Given that Ferland is currently on injured I think the Canes get a 2nd rounder out of Nashville as he was borderline on getting a 1st prior to the injury. If the trade comes with an extension they get the 1st. The comparison to the Hartman trade last year is fair but the Preds paid a premium trading within the division plus Hartman is 2 years younger, and was an RFA and not a UFA at the end of the season. I think the ideal scenario for both teams is Ferland with an extension in the 3.5-4 million AAV range for a 1st and a mid-level forward prospect.

Also, the comments about Watson are really unnecessary. The man has an issue with alcohol and it seems as though the Preds and the NHL are taking the appropriate steps to get him the help he needs and he shouldn't return to the ice until it is dealt with. He is far from the first player to have an issue like this and there is no need to kick him while he is down.
Forum: Armchair-GMJan. 24, 2019 at 1:33 a.m.
Thread: 19-20 results of deadline deals
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>gmgb</b></div><div>Sissons probably gets $2.25-2.5 mil on a contract with term. I think you're really underselling Smith here. He's had 20-25 goals in 4 of the last 5 seasons, and is on pace to do it again. Signed for another 2 years at a reasonable cap hit too. His trade value is a lot higher than this.</div></div>

You guys are dead on with the Sissons contract, I have adjusted upwards. Based on performance this season and last I think he and Hartman get similar contracts.

Agreed that Smith could get more but in this case it was to clear cap space so I undersold a bit. Do you think Preds are better off not pursuing Stone and keeping both Fiala and Smith long term or has the patience with Fiala run its course in Nashville? Or do you go with option 3 if Fabbro is clearly ready for NHL action and move Subban for picks and prospects in the offseason to clear cap space to keep Smith while adding both Stone and Ferland?
Forum: Armchair-GMAug. 15, 2018 at 12:48 p.m.
Thread: Ellis for life
Sure Seattle can take a UFA but that is usually a tactic they will implore on a team that doesn't have anyone they really want and don't want money on the books. Long time Preds fans will remember that they took a UFA goalie by the name of Mike Richter, a guy you could begin to build a franchise around much like Josi, from the NY Rangers and he promptly turned around a few weeks later and resigned with the Rangers. Probably not a move Seattle is going to make unless they know someone is unhappy with their current team, but all it really does is give them a few weeks of negotiating time prior to the beginning of Free Agency. No guarantee they ever play a game in Seattle. Given that Josi is the captain of the team I think he understands what kind of maneuvering needs to be made and that a deal will be in place for him to sign in Nashville after the expansion draft, probably something along the lines of 7x7 would be my guess. I also agree that if Hartman and Tolvanen continue to develop and another winger such as Simmonds can be added that it is possible that Smith could get moved for picks or a prospect, but just as likely they hold onto him for a cup run knowing they probably won't be resigning him. Simmonds may only get 5 years but I figure he gets a deal close to what James Neal just got. Also don't forget that if Fabbro chooses to forgo his senior season at BU he could be on the third D pairing with Hamhuis.