Which Defenseman do we target throughout the Season (Discussion)

[EastCoastExpress]

I think we should target Juulson.

Just saying.

[IBatch]

14 hours ago, Reznor said:

I think it's going to be difficult to get anyone high profile at all. Especially if we need to sign another goalie. There just isn't cap space available, even considering Poolman's LTIR. 

 

Now, if we were able to move out someone with a mid salary, that'd help a ton.  But who would we possibly move out? Garland? Already tried that and the price is too high. We wouldn't move anyone we just acquired or signed, nor anyone holding an essential roster position - so that leaves extremely limited options. 

 

Oddly, I can almost see the best play being trading the goalie we may sign to fill in for Demko to start the season. But if my math is correct they couldn't cost any more than 2.6m or so, and even the full 2.6m of vacated cap space simply doesn't get you that great of a defenseman. We'd have to get a team to retain, and then give them a draft pick or two to make it worth their while. 

In the end, I bet if we do get another defenseman it'll be someone relatively washed up but still good enough to contribute in more of a depth role. All this talk of Weegar, Pelech or Pettersson is unlikely - at least without severely hampering our future drafts. 

 

Garland didn't have any interest when they considered, but he sure does now.   The question is, should we be messing with our third line?    He's the guy that makes it click.    Maybe if Sprong works out we could consider something like that without borrowing from Peter to pay Paul.    Who knows with Allvin though.   Believe he plans to accrue cap space, and make an add for the team when the team needs it, like he did with Zadarov last season.     Also don't think Garland is going anywhere.    

[IBatch]

On 8/6/2024 at 11:23 PM, Provost said:

Trouba with cap retention.

 

Maybe as the season goes on he will be more willing to move for the last few months before his wife finishes her residency.  Especially if we can get out to a hot start and look like a winning team again.

 

I think someone is needed to ride shotgun with Hughes in the playoffs to stop players from taking liberties.  I also think Hronek is more effective with someone watching his back, he definitely played a lot more tentatively once the intensity ramped up.

 

Hughes-Trouba

Soucy-Hronek

Forbort-Myers

Juulsen-Desharnais

Why would Trouba not just stay with the Rangers?   They are and have been a top team in the East for a few years now.     Plus he's from Michigan.   What's the pull in Vancouver?      Captain for the Rangers.   Seems like a fantasy.   Sign me up though. 

Edited September 10 by IBatch

[Provost]

4 hours ago, IBatch said:

Why would Trouba not just stay with the Rangers?   They are and have been a top team in the East for a few years now.     Plus he's from Michigan.   What's the pull in Vancouver?      Captain for the Rangers.   Seems like a fantasy.   Sign me up though. 

The Rangers don’t want him and he only has a limited NTC.

 

It has been in the news and rumours all offseason.  He nixed a trade to Detroit as they were on his list.

[IBatch]

27 minutes ago, Provost said:

The Rangers don’t want him and he only has a limited NTC.

 

It has been in the news and rumours all offseason.  He nixed a trade to Detroit as they were on his list.

Yep.   And why would Vancouver be on his list?    Like Burke said(says) the first 7 teams are the Canadian teams, when it comes to US players, one can make the short leap.   Not saying it's impossible, unlikely yes.

As for Burke "you can bet the first 7 teams on any  NTC are Canadian", he's been saying this for a very long time.   One of the only media guys brave enough to shine a proper light on this issue.   It's a trade issue and it's a UFA signing issue.   I do agree Trouba would be a great partner. 

 

And do the Rangers really not want him?  Or is this just another media case as the player isn't playing to his cap hit scenario.   Why haven't they stripped the C and given it to Zib or Panarin? 

Edited September 10 by IBatch

[Provost]

1 hour ago, IBatch said:

Yep.   And why would Vancouver be on his list?    Like Burke said(says) the first 7 teams are the Canadian teams, when it comes to US players, one can make the short leap.   Not saying it's impossible, unlikely yes.

As for Burke "you can bet the first 7 teams on any  NTC are Canadian", he's been saying this for a very long time.   One of the only media guys brave enough to shine a proper light on this issue.   It's a trade issue and it's a UFA signing issue.   I do agree Trouba would be a great partner. 

 

And do the Rangers really not want him?  Or is this just another media case as the player isn't playing to his cap hit scenario.   Why haven't they stripped the C and given it to Zib or Panarin? 

They literally made a trade that he vetoed, so yes they want to trade him.  They have cheaper options so want to have cap to use elsewhere.

 

He has a 15 team no trade list, so every team can’t be on it.  Detroit was on it even though he has a connection to the area and it isn’t that far from New York.  That would suggest that he doesn’t want to go to non playoff teams and bottom feeders.  Making a generalization like that Burke quote just doesn’t seem supported by reality.  Top players sign in Canada all the time, so every player isn’t avoiding the country.

 

 

[IBatch]

13 hours ago, Provost said:

They literally made a trade that he vetoed, so yes they want to trade him.  They have cheaper options so want to have cap to use elsewhere.

 

He has a 15 team no trade list, so every team can’t be on it.  Detroit was on it even though he has a connection to the area and it isn’t that far from New York.  That would suggest that he doesn’t want to go to non playoff teams and bottom feeders.  Making a generalization like that Burke quote just doesn’t seem supported by reality.  Top players sign in Canada all the time, so every player isn’t avoiding the country.

 

 

They might trade him.  Or they might keep him.   Burke literally said the past year, and he did run  both the Canucks and CAL, that the first 7 teams on all (exaggerated maybe but it's his words, and don't for a second doubt it) MNTC is the Canadian teams and it's gotten worse over the years.  He went on to say that until they do the cap based on net tax, no Canadian team will win the cup.   It adds up.   Says it makes it much harder to attract and sign UFAs, and harder to sign RFAs to reasonable deals.     Bobrovsky takes home more than McDavid.   Silly right?  And it's worse in Vancouver/WNP/OTT/TO and MTL. 

Alvin and Tochett have their work cut out.    Tocchet will need to get more from less.   At least we have the Swedish competitive advantage. 

 

 

  Noticed  this myself and have been saying it for years, players do consider the tax brackets (and why not? it's the 500k per 5 million compared to most US teams)... All the time.  People say Dubas signed for too much, and well we will see about EP.   And QHs.   Don't think it's a coincidence that they made EPs deal net pay line up with MT.  His agent literally said that is where his next deal would be going.   And well NET pay is virtually identical. 

 

 

At least the NYR are also in a jock tax state so it won't be that much of a hit (just 7% ) and Trouba is used to it.    Still think it's a fantasy, he's a US player.    And was happy to leave WNP.   

 

Id say top players sign for more to play in Canada, especially free agents.   EP just did.  Tagged on an extra 600k or so.   Mathew's did too.  So did Draisaitl.    Tavares.   Stamkos last deal was offered the moon in TO, signed for much less, funny thing though, his take home in TB was the same deal.    Net.   That's when I started noticing this.   Now he's playing in NSH on his next deal.   So years.    Yes there are outliers, but can say if I was playing in the NHL and had a limited time to make bank, for sure i'd be considering taxes. 

 

As for Trouba, that's a great target with double retention.   

 

Edited September 11 by IBatch

[Reznor]

On 9/10/2024 at 6:45 AM, IBatch said:

Garland didn't have any interest when they considered, but he sure does now.   The question is, should we be messing with our third line?    He's the guy that makes it click.    Maybe if Sprong works out we could consider something like that without borrowing from Peter to pay Paul.    Who knows with Allvin though.   Believe he plans to accrue cap space, and make an add for the team when the team needs it, like he did with Zadarov last season.     Also don't think Garland is going anywhere.    

Oh,I agree. I think we have one of the most effective 3rd lines in the NHL. But that's exactly my point. We don't really have anyone holding cap value we'd really want to move out in order to have the space for a really good defenseman. I've read the idea is for the first time in a long time to have cap space available and not dip too much into Poolman's LTIR. Frankly, I feel that's the most likely scenario as well, then use that accrued space (however that works...) at deadline. I also feel we have enough 7-8 level defensemen to provide enough depth through the main season that we really don't NEED to bring in anyone else at this time.

[IBatch]

1 hour ago, Reznor said:

Oh,I agree. I think we have one of the most effective 3rd lines in the NHL. But that's exactly my point. We don't really have anyone holding cap value we'd really want to move out in order to have the space for a really good defenseman. I've read the idea is for the first time in a long time to have cap space available and not dip too much into Poolman's LTIR. Frankly, I feel that's the most likely scenario as well, then use that accrued space (however that works...) at deadline. I also feel we have enough 7-8 level defensemen to provide enough depth through the main season that we really don't NEED to bring in anyone else at this time.

Yep.   That's pretty much exactly what I see happening too.   We will just have to make do with what we have, until it's time to pull the trigger on a deal.   Nobody is going to enjoy playing against us that's for sure.    We've assembled a meat grinder.