Agkr3w Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 We all love Hoglander and his cost effectiveness, but Kakko could shine outside of NYR and Trouba can bounce back and is as nasty or nastier than Big Z. Former 2nd overall choice with Kakko and you would hope one day Kakko and Raty gel and become a line. just thoughts, what do you guys think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil_314 Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 Why would we help the Rangers like that? Trouba is at $8.8 million for 2 years, and Kakko's got one year at $2.4 million while not even being that good. Meanwhile we're giving up a young, cost-controlled and effective forward with upside. Rangers would need to retain heavily if they want to move Jacob IMO, let alone tack on Kakko when we would need to fill a couple spots still and have much less cap space to do so. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKSR Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 1 hour ago, Agkr3w said: We all love Hoglander and his cost effectiveness, but Kakko could shine outside of NYR and Trouba can bounce back and is as nasty or nastier than Big Z. Former 2nd overall choice with Kakko and you would hope one day Kakko and Raty gel and become a line. just thoughts, what do you guys think? 37 minutes ago, Phil_314 said: Why would we help the Rangers like that? Trouba is at $8.8 million for 2 years, and Kakko's got one year at $2.4 million while not even being that good. Meanwhile we're giving up a young, cost-controlled and effective forward with upside. Rangers would need to retain heavily if they want to move Jacob IMO, let alone tack on Kakko when we would need to fill a couple spots still and have much less cap space to do so. There is some merit to this... Trouba could be an instant stop gap solution to transition to Willander in a couple years. It would solidify our D group as well for this competitive window. Hoglander to Kaako is a downgrade though IMO... plus the cap hit is higher. So not sure I like that part of the deal. Hughes-Hronek Soucy-Trouba UFA-Myers Juulsen 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agkr3w Posted June 30 Author Share Posted June 30 2 hours ago, Phil_314 said: Why would we help the Rangers like that? Trouba is at $8.8 million for 2 years, and Kakko's got one year at $2.4 million while not even being that good. Meanwhile we're giving up a young, cost-controlled and effective forward with upside. Rangers would need to retain heavily if they want to move Jacob IMO, let alone tack on Kakko when we would need to fill a couple spots still and have much less cap space to do so. That cap is very high.... I just am trying to think of project players that would blossom under this management. I do think Trouba would do very very well here. and Kakko has to be better outside of NYR , end of the Day the 10 million would have to be exchanged or 30/40% of Trouba's contract eaten. honestly I like our team and don't think we have much bad cap anymore to move anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanisleryan Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 Is this just a trade to get another Doctor to BC because I don’t see any other reason why we’d do this 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBatch Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 (edited) 11 hours ago, Agkr3w said: That cap is very high.... I just am trying to think of project players that would blossom under this management. I do think Trouba would do very very well here. and Kakko has to be better outside of NYR , end of the Day the 10 million would have to be exchanged or 30/40% of Trouba's contract eaten. honestly I like our team and don't think we have much bad cap anymore to move anyone. Trouba could have been part of a Mikheyev cap dump trade. That's done so, we have no bad cap left to trade for a massively overpaid Trouba. Luke Schenn brought 80% of what Trouba brings to the table, at league min for us. Trouba isn't going to "blossom" playing for Vancouver. Kakko is a tweener project, let NYR deal with him. Doesn't have to be better either. Bust maybe. Edited July 1 by IBatch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drakrami Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 14 hours ago, Phil_314 said: Why would we help the Rangers like that? Trouba is at $8.8 million for 2 years, and Kakko's got one year at $2.4 million while not even being that good. Meanwhile we're giving up a young, cost-controlled and effective forward with upside. Rangers would need to retain heavily if they want to move Jacob IMO, let alone tack on Kakko when we would need to fill a couple spots still and have much less cap space to do so. Because the UFA market to upgrade our team has dried up. This is an interesting proposal that upgrades our defense and adds Kakko who has high potential to our top6. Develop Kakko or develop Hoglander. I'd take develop Kakko. Not opposed to some Trouba salary retention, but this is the idea behind this proposal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwijjibo Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 This is a trade a rebuilding team makes to aquire assets. Vancouver isn't a rebuilding team. At his cap hit Trouba is no more valuable to Vancouver than he is to NY. The real asset is cap space and you're handing it over to NY 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrJockitch Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 I thought Trouba was pretty clear about not wanting to play in Canada when he left. Most of the Trouba trade talk came because he struggled so much at the end of year and in playoffs because of undisclosed knee injury. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil_314 Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 5 hours ago, Drakrami said: Because the UFA market to upgrade our team has dried up. This is an interesting proposal that upgrades our defense and adds Kakko who has high potential to our top6. Develop Kakko or develop Hoglander. I'd take develop Kakko. Not opposed to some Trouba salary retention, but this is the idea behind this proposal. That reeks of such desperation, just like in free agency, making lopsided reactionary trades to help a team out by bailing them out of a cap situation (trading for a big cap hit, even with retention) and for a project (Hoglander is also high potential) does not sit well with me. Of course in hindsight we've made a bunch of moves so this seems even less likely, but if the Rangers retained big time on Trouba (or better yet, bought him out) I'd be down to add him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drakrami Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 2 minutes ago, Phil_314 said: That reeks of such desperation, just like in free agency, making lopsided reactionary trades to help a team out by bailing them out of a cap situation (trading for a big cap hit, even with retention) and for a project (Hoglander is also high potential) does not sit well with me. Of course in hindsight we've made a bunch of moves so this seems even less likely, but if the Rangers retained big time on Trouba (or better yet, bought him out) I'd be down to add him. How is adding Kakko and Trouba desperation lol? Have you checked out the players we are talking about? They are quality pieces. Trouba is a very good defenseman still, if NYR retained 2 mil, there would be a line of teams wanting in. They are trying to trade Trouba because they can't afford to have an 8 million dollar defenseman playing 2RHD behind Fox. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agkr3w Posted July 2 Author Share Posted July 2 It was clear PA/JR were going after size, I prob like low cost Desharinds and Frobert. So management had this corner pegged but cheaper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.