Shootica

Vegas is a really interesting option for Pietro. They could very realistically make it work by moving Fleury and Stastny. And again, I think Stastny would be an excellent option for a cheap stopgap 2C.

But then how do you explain trading ROR for scraps at the eleventh hour on the day before his signing bonus is due? I generally have had the same view of Terry, but I gotta say the ROR trade really has me questioning that view.

Honestly, I would expect them to run with 20 on the active roster as long as we're home next year, and have 21 or maybe 22 on road trips. Easy way to pinch pennies with Rochester an hour down the road. I guess that depends on what the AHL does about their season though. To my knowledge, no plans have been released there.

Figured I'd take a stab at it as well... https://www.capfriendly.com/forums/thread/363470?post_id=1742545 I bit the bullet and went for a Reinhart - Danault trade. Probably is an overpay on our end, but Danault is cheap this year and we'd have to cross our fingers and hope the team's financial outlook is better by the point when we'd be looking at re-signing him. And the rest of the lineup relies heavily on the young guys.

I really like Danault, and I think he would be a fantastic addition. I just fear that a trade and sign won't work with him. In my opinion, if the Habs trade him over Domi it's either because they get blown away with an offer, or because Danault has expressed that he doesn't want to sign there to primarily be a defensive 3C. I think the latter is more likely given his playoff usage, his comments, and the rise of Suzuki and Kotkaniemi. That's how I see him being traded. If we trade for him, wouldn't he see the exact same writing on the wall with Cozens? Eichel is obviously number 1, and most people are penciling Cozens into that long-term 2C spot. So that would leave him to shift into the same 3C role that he would be trying to get out of in Montreal.

Friedman was asked about this on a Calgary radio show yesterday and corroborated that Domi has not requested a trade. He says he specifically asked, and was told no. Additionally, he made it sound like Bergevin will be fielding offers on both Domi and Danault and will likely trade one or both of them depending on return. The takeaway I got was that they really aren't leaning towards moving one over the other. Link here, I think it's a good listen: https://www.sportsnet.ca/960/big-show/elliotte-friedman-vegas-goalie-situation-player-tracking-technology-ekman-larssons-future/

Is Miller for Kempny something that both Sabres and Caps fans are down for? I've seen that mentioned a number of times.

Going back to what @jsb was saying about just needing a temporary 2C, how does everyone feel about Stastny? Word is that Vegas is planning on locking up Lehner to a long-term deal, and it seems either Fleury or Stastny will need to be moved to make space (Knights fans seem split on which). He has one year left at $6.5, and a 10 team NTC which he'd obviously have to waive. He's older and certainly on the downturn of his career, but I like that idea better than giving a UFA like Granlund too much term. Bridge the gap to Cozens at 2C, and he'd be off the books when we have to pay Dahlin and Joker.

I would definitely expect most contracts this year (and most likely next) to fall short of Evolving Hockey's projections due to the uncertainty around earnings and the salary cap in the near future. Their model relies heavily on previously signed contracts for comparison purposes, which were all signed with the expectation that the cap will increase year over year. You can't say the same about this round of free agency.

Evolving Hockey's most probable projection for Sam is 8 x $8.75. They have 5 x $6.89 as the second most likely term. To those who are unfamiliar, Evolving Hockey calculates a projected AAV for each possible contact length (1-8 years for Reinhart), and then independently determines the likelihood of a contract at each length. So their algorithm determined that Reinhart is most likely to get an 8 year deal, followed by a 5 year deal. And those numbers are their estimated contract AAV at those lengths.

Solid stats perspective. I think the article comes across a little too narrow focused on his analytics and some bits seem suspect, but I do like the idea of Granlund at the right price. 7 years at $6.5 seems rich though.

To me, it all comes down to if we project Cozens as a long-term center or wing. I've heard people say both, and I haven't seen him play enough to judge myself. If we see him as a center, I wholeheartedly agree. Let's find a cheaper stopgap 2C, either someone on an expiring contract or someone who can easily slide down to 3C in a year or so. If we see Cozens as a wing, that's when I'd say it's worthwhile to break the bank or trade serious assets for a bonafide 2C.

I think that group is missing a center, but I agree that it is the framework for a productive third line. Put a Copp-esque center between two of them and move the other to a different line, and it's a stark improvement from our past 3rd lines. Big caveat there is that it all falls apart without finding a proper 2C and 3C.

If we actually get an Ehlers for Risto offer without considerable other assets added in, I don't think you can turn it down simply because we have a glut of LWs. You take that trade now, and figure out how to make it work later. That being said, I really don't think that's an offer that is or ever was on the table.

I can't shake the feeling that if Winnipeg was really interested in Risto, that trade would've happened last year.

Viewers get screwed too. No reason to put DAL/COL and VAN/VGK on the same night and force one into an awkward 1pm pacific start time when Saturday is wide open with no western games.

You're not, I've heard the same. And it's backed up by the fact that he's on his third team already and on the trade block again. Not a fan of this rumor.

That rumor apparently originated with Eklund, so I think we can safely call it nonsense. It honestly amazes me that this guy has made a career out of fabricating trade rumors and people still share everything he writes without fail.

Appreciate the insight, thank you! Your wording implies, to me at least, that it has gotten less likely/more complicated since you first mentioned this deal. Is that the impression you got or am I overanalyzing?

You're not the only one, and I'd do that in a heartbeat. Tuch is probably my favorite semi-realistic trade target right now. I absolutely love his game, he is exactly what this team is lacking at a position we need, is locked up long term at a reasonable rate, and is an upstate NY guy to boot. I was surprised to hear his name thrown around this year as a potential cap casualty for Vegas, and if that was true I hope his playoff performance hasn't fully taken him off the trade block.

Eh, personally I think Friedman is more well connected than that. If he says he's hearing a name being thrown around, I'm inclined to believe it is more than a couple schmucks saying it. That being said, completely agree that there's no way we let Montour walk for nothing.

I wouldn't even necessarily call it leverage. It's a test. If this theory is correct (and it makes the most sense to me), this it some other GM looking at a new, inexperienced GM and wondering if he can scare him into accepting a lowball offer by making the word on the street that Montour has little to no trade value. Obviously, this would be very easy for Adams to disprove as long as other teams are interested. But if only one team has a serious offer on the table, maybe he'd be pressured into taking something well below his ask. All speculation, but that makes more sense to me than Buffalo refusing to give him a $3.525M QO.