theo5789

I can't imagine Chiarot looking for a 1 year deal. Not sure if he makes it to day 2 UFA either. I wouldn't be opposed to signing Chiarot as a Hutton "replacement", but if Edler does walk, I'd prefer to have both Hutton and Chiarot splitting the hard minutes left by Edler while Hughes runs the offense. Kronwall is certainly a step or two below Edler. He might do a one year deal, but I'm not sure if the Red Wings are stepping away from him as I imagine he would like to stick with his long time team especially for the season that should take him over 1000 games. It's simply a do what we can in a bad situation type move and it would certainly be a downgrade in the grand scheme. I just don't see Puljujarvi being all that needed at the point to make the deal until we at least have Edler locked up first. We have too many forwards as it is, and it would simply be adding to it and he's in the Goldobin limbo right now.

The point is Green trusted him when he got desperate over any other option that could've taken the opportunity to step up. My response was towards the idea of trading Hutton regardless of whether Edler signs or not may not be the best course of action. I don't believe Hutton to replace Edler, but signing a lesser UFA considering the market may only work with Hutton still in the lineup. I'm not saying Hutton is a long term solution, but without Edler and Hutton and replacing them with either our young players or day 2 UFA is a major downgrade on both players at least for the season in which we may as well write off unless we plan on trying to outscore the opponent in which case we are not built for either.

Yes we will have to make do with the situation, but having Edler, even with a partial season, will be much more of a successful season than not when compared to what scraps are available as UFA and on day 2 to boot. I guess the rumours of the Canucks looking into Gardiner is probably a ploy to suggest we have other "options" beyond Edler if he chooses to not sign here. With that said, I was commenting on the fact that we shouldn't deal Hutton until we sort out whether or not Edler returns or not. At least with Hutton, we have a guy that Green trusts to average over 22 minutes a night, so it'll be easier to take on some depth filler until Juolevi or other younger depth can demonstrate that they can step up.

This will only be the case if he's beaten out of his spot. Currently, if not traded, I'm projecting him to be on a line with Pearson and Horvat to boost his value or try and rejuvenate his offense. That or maybe even have Virtanen on that line and LE is back in his respectable shut down line role.

Not a lot of options and maybe even less on day 2. If not taken, the best options after Edler are Gardiner or 38 year olds in Kronwall or Hainsey. Hutton would have to take on a lot more minutes if Edler walks, so if we deal him (for a project winger that we don't really need and we have an overabundance of wingers as it is) then we will really be hurting on the left side.

But it's a chance to play with the great McDavid. I'm sure if they get Gretzky and Messier to give him a call then he will waive for sure.

The part where you have to send clarification of a Reddit post started by "RustyNipples35"?

I would think that's slightly overpriced, but given the market if this is a new benchmark, then I'd take him at 11 as well. Hopefully now as a 7 year deal versus a sign and trade 8 year deal. If we can lock in Panarin at 10 million for 8 years, I'd surely give up the 2nd to make it happen.

We won't have the cap space at that point to "weaponize". Hopefully because our young guys are outstanding and also maybe we have signed someone like Panarin who at 10 million should be worth his contract.

I know he got 40 goals last season, but his career best is 63 points. And considering he doesn't provide much else to his game, 9 million a season is very steep. I would say 2 million too much and that's even at a UFA value. Add in the term and a full NMC (did he take a discount for this clause?) for the entire contract and this deal is going to be one of the worst in the league. I really hope the league understands that Buffalo is simply desperate to keep their talent, but we all know the agents are going to smell blood on this one. I hope the players are planning on what they'll do for the imminent lockout especially if RFAs are also getting these outrageous contracts as well.

Keep in mind the Sabres are a terrible team (sorry @SabreFan1) and you have to overpay to keep players around. This is similar to us needing to overpay a bit to bring in the likes of Beagle and Roussel. If Buffalo didn't offer this, he was going to walk. Certainly an overpayment and hopefully it doesn't affect all the future signings. I expected Panarin to get around 10 million anyway (I was hoping for a shade below 10, but this probably nixes that).

I'm not so sure of this. We had some great stretches when our D was healthy (and even some when they weren't because Markstrom was lights out and Sautner-Schenn held their own). Adding someone like EK is an instant boost, but might not be realistic. Tryamkin could make a return at the end of the season and he will add an element we are missing on our D. The main thing is we don't have Pouliot anymore who had some dismal games. Addition by subtraction here. So it's already an upgrade by having Hughes replace him (maybe some defensive adventures still, but at least Hughes has the offense that we had hoped Pouliot would bring). Edler and Tanev need to stay healthy, but that's going to be tough. Hutton and Stecher handled some bigger minutes quite well. Schenn and Biega will rotate in that bottom pair RD role. We could add one more guy to add to the depth, but I would like to leave some space for our guys internally (eg Juolevi, Sautner, Brisebois, Chatfield, Teves, Rafferty, etc) to get looks as well. Edler - Stecher Hughes - Tanev Hutton - Schenn Sautner (if we keep 8 dmen up) - Biega It's not a Cup worthy defense for sure, but I'm comfortable with that considering where we are in the rebuild. Especially with the potential to add Tryamkin this year, maybe signing a guy like Rathbone at the end of this year too should he choose so, and having someone like Woo in the system on top of the aforementioned depth. We need top end D more so than a major overhaul. Easier said than done, but hopefully this is where drafting comes into play or hopefully a guy like EK wants to be here.

Who has Stecher been paired with? Majority with Edler and Hutton. Stecher has played well indeed, but he doesn't need to have a defensive dman. No one has said to partner Hughes with Stecher, ever. This still doesn't explain why Gardiner is an example used. There are other UFAs and I would never consider Gardiner to be a bottom pairing guy (actually I'm opposed to signing him altogether). All I've said was I don't think Benn is "superior" to Hutton. If the goal is to improve defensively, then sure, but Hutton adds more "value" to his game that can be more useful should injuries to the top 4 guys occur. Edler would be that rock solid defender on the left side. If for some reason he doesn't sign, then it won't really matter about this whole situation as there's no one to sign other than EK that is going to possibly help out with that situation, but at least at that point I can see the need to find a solid defender like Benn. The situation you present with Hughes is more along the lines of us pairing him with a defensive D. How does having a defensive LD help Hughes defensively other than taking his minutes? Edler is the go-to PK guy and Hutton is just fine as a secondary one (remember 11th best PK in the league with him playing 2:18 average). I disagree with the projections of how far the prospects are. Juolevi might be in as early as this year especially if injuries arise (it was discussed that he was going to get time last season at the NHL level before he was injured), so if all goes well, he's full time after this upcoming season if not sooner. He needs to start in Utica, but he likely comes in later. Hutton is a perfect trade candidate for a mid-season deal unless we suffer another injury to Edler in which case Hutton has been trusted by Green to play 22+ minutes average. This sets it up for Juolevi to start as 3LD as suggested. There's no "minimum" timeline on players as you simply don't know who will suddenly be able to take that step (and some who don't). So let's be clear here. I'm not arguing against Benn here. I'm arguing the fact that I don't believe Benn is a significant improvement to Hutton that necessarily improves our defense. Hutton could be used to improve our team in some way in a trade and then Benn would be a fine option where Hutton would have left off. But guys like Kronwall, Hainsey or even Coburn could be had on a one year deal to "tide us over" for if/when Juolevi is ready. If it takes him an extra year, then we extend another year or look for another one year deal. Benn, at his age, will probably look for a bit of term which we don't need right now IMO. I'd also argue that Chairot would also be a decent lateral replacement for Hutton if dealt. As for RD, I would pick Stralman. Maybe Lovejoy. The UFA market is slim pickin's, so it's not a favourable route to take if we actually want to improve our defense. The only UFA that will make a difference is EK (Myers would as well, but not to the point of being worth his likely contract).

Just glad it said pick instead of d*ck. Otherwise people might be questioning what I'm watching...

I would make that deal with 50% retention without any pick in return. Like you said, they gain a shutdown C. They have Bear or Bouchard to take over Russell's spot at a cheaper cost. It allows them to play RNH in an offensive role which boosts their top 6 in itself. Russell doesn't affect our cap long term. Can basically take over Tanev's role if we decide to offload him. Basically taking on cap for Puljujarvi. Bounce Puljujarvi and Virtanen with Horvat's line (assuming Eriksson has also been moved otherwise he would be there to boost his trade value).

Considering how bad Ottawa looks, it's going to be a gamble even if they give up a 1st. This also goes against how Ottawa wants to operate by spending as little as possible until they are closer to being competitive again. Bennett has done very little to garner a big raise. Being generous, he might be able to get a 3x3. So if the speculation is true, that puts MT at 7-9 million. Ottawa would have to outbid that for them to consider not matching. Calgary needs a starting goalie, but it's not like there are many out there worth signing. They likely stick with Rittich again and sign a cheap stable backup if Smith doesn't want to return for cheap. Whatever salary they'll need to shed it'll be minor and they can deal with it after matching any offer sheet. So while the risk of offer sheet is there, I don't think they're in a position to worry too much IMO.

They have over 14 million in cap space with Tkachuk really being the only guy significant that needs to be signed. Doubtful that a team offer sheets him for more than 8.5 million and Calgary easily matches anything below. They aren't a team that is primed to be targetted with an offer sheet, so unlikely a team will try beyond creating bad blood for themselves with Calgary and maybe the league for upping the RFA value even more. Of course they'd prefer to sign him ASAP, but it's not quite so urgent.

I meant Hughes could use a partner like Benn, but they play the same side, so doesn't really make sense. Benn provides different value than Hutton, but it's arguable whether it's better. If say Hughes gets injured (knock on wood), then Hutton while certainly not the same is much closer to stepping into his role than Benn would be. If Edler goes down, Benn would fill in nicely for the PK duties, but Hutton isn't a bad option and has proven it. So Hutton has more "value" on our bottom pair that can jump into more minutes if needed as he showed he is capable of last season. Stecher isn't the type of puck mover that needs a stable defensive D partner as Stecher plays a well rounded game. He could partner well with most guys and he's demonstrated that. Gardiner is an extreme case and one that I am not in favour of signing either. Not sure why he is mentioned here. And like I've said, I'm not opposed to bringing in Benn, but not for the reason that he would be better than Hutton. It would be because there was a deal that involved Hutton that upgraded the team in some way and Benn would be an okay filler until maybe Juolevi starts fighting for an NHL spot or even a Rathbone. We have several players that can fill in a bottom pairing role currently, but Benn would provide NHL experience over them. I do feel like Sautner deserves a longer look though, but he's more of a 7/8 guy for me currently.

In an "improvement" sense, we might as well stick with what we have, but there are certainly better options out there if we do choose this route. However, not many choices that actually would "upgrade" the defense as a whole beyond a EK signing.

But your argument was McQuaid was a prominent figure on the PK for a playoff team in which he wasn't at all. He was prominent on a PK that was horrible and Columbus didn't feel he could take some minutes on the PK. He was a 3rd pairing dman in NYR that got PK time. He was a 3rd pairing guy for Columbus and didn't play PK because they had better players to do so. Columbus acquired him as depth and playoff experience, but he was not a factor at all for Columbus and he wasn't much in NYR either. Schenn will provide whatever needed from McQuaid, so it's redundant to have both and it's not much of an improvement. Benn plays a different game than Hutton. And yes Benn is more of a defensive dman, but we need puck movers with the game becoming more and more about puck support. Hutton is closer to that and even he's on the low end for it. Benn might help the PK, but it's not like the PK has been a sticking point for the team that needs a big boost. If we had a player like Hughes on the right side, then I would consider Benn more highly as a partner. But with the group that you've mentioned, there isn't much need for a guy like Benn other than to fill in some depth (eg if we trade Hutton in the offseason). I'm not disagreeing with you here in bringing him in, but not because he's more "superior" than Hutton.

Calgary isn't going to get the same back at this point. He's two years older now (turns 29 before the season starts), has a concussion to add since then and still remains a bit spotty on staying fully healthy. His play hasn't looked much better (maybe even dipped a bit offensively too) with a team that is stronger than his NYI days. And now the reason they are looking to move him is to create cap space, so he's viewed as a cap dump value. To those debating about DiPietro, well the only thing for me is that I do not want to fix their goaltending situation (whether DiPietro does not or not is debatable). Calgary is basically a goalie away from being a powerhouse and if DiPietro develops an inner Mike Vernon, then we will be facing this team right around when we should also be contending. I'll take Hamonic (assuming we will move Tanev with this acquisition), but I'm not going to offer much. Let's not forget he actually wanted to come out West for family reasons, so while he has no trade clauses in his deal, teams might be weary of giving up much for him since he will hit UFA after next season and may sign back out West (perhaps Edmonton or even Vancouver should we have room to do so).

Tkachuk is an RFA, they don't need to sign him by July 1st. Horvat signed in like September for reference.

McQuaid was part of the NYR PK for the majority of the year (averaging 2:14 a game) and they were 27th in the league. He was hardly used on the PK in Columbus and didn't even play in the playoffs (due to injury). He averaged 27 seconds a game in his 14 games with Columbus before going down (perhaps a playoff team knew better than to play him there). Meanwhile, the Canucks ended up 11th in the league on the PK during the regular season and Schenn featured in 1:19 per game on the PK in his 18 appearances. As for Benn, yes he was prominent in Montreal's PK that was decent (but below us at 13th). Hutton played an average of 2:18 of PK time per game and remember we were 11th in the league. Benn play 18:12 of ice time with Montreal while Hutton played over 22 minutes (well above what I would prefer him to play to be fair) and this is because Hutton adds some puck moving "offensive" skill to his game as well. As for the PK, also keep in mind Markstrom vs Price. I did suggest that if Hutton were to be moved that I would be okay with Benn as a filler. So with all that said, Benn and McQuaid are hardly "far superior" to Hutton and Schenn IMO. They might shake things up a bit, but there isn't enough improvement there (if at all) that is going to change up the defense.

Marginal improvement at best. Might as well give our own guys a look at the NHL level. Sautner fills in well in the bottom pairing role. Schenn is fine doing what McQuaid would provide, so have that extra spot either for a legit signing or give guys like Rafferty, Chatfield or maybe even Woo to try to win. I think we should hang on to Hutton (barring other moves) to have as a placeholder to move later on in the year if say a team needs some LD depth and we can bring up Juolevi if ready. We also have Teves as well. If there is a deal in the offseason to be made for Hutton, then I'm fine with signing someone like Benn very short term for the same reason to keep Hutton. Whatever the case, if we are actually expecting the D to "improve", then we would need to make more of a shake up.

I remember Polak getting a puck to the head and had a melon growing and was still smiling and laughing about it on the bench. Certainly tough as nails. Decent steady bottom pairing guy.