Baggins

How could they try to do it before giving OEL the chance at a bounce back season? I said move a forward for the immediate cap relief as we have some depth there. Give OEL next season for a rebound. It's not like we'll be a contender next year anyway. A decent rebound and he could be moved with max, or close to it, retention. If he didn't, you buyout next year with a lower cap hit that ends a year sooner. I don't see the negative in waiting a year.

Garland is virtually a world class speed skater compared to Boeser. And I think you meant to say "Brock plays along the boards with or wiithout the puck being anywhere near". Boeser's skating and defensive play has improved since being drafted, but nobody is going to call him fast or good defensively. Boeser threw the same amount of hits per 60 minutes as Garland, neither is a physical force out there, but Garland also plays a more aggressive style. Garland also drives opposition players crazy with his shifty play drawing 28 penalties (only Petey drew more) and took 10. While Boeser drew 7 penalties and took 12. Boeser's -5 in penalties drawn to taken was the worst among all our forwards last season. Add in Boeser not being very fast, physical, or defensive and you may be confusing who is a liability. Personally I'd take the small annoying aggressive player over a player with size who doesn't use it.

I would rather have Lucic than Kassian and I don't want Lucic. Lol

Yes, a year shorter plus lower dead cap. Not to mention if OEL had a decent bounce back year we could possibly trade him with 3m or even 3.5m retained. I'd rather 3m retained for 3 years than two years at 4.7m plus another 5 years over 2m. I would have preferred waiting a year and move one of Boeser, Garland, or Beauvillier to solve the immediate cap problem. We do have some forward options on the farm in Hoglander and Karlsson as a replacemt plus greater opportunity for Podz. Then add moving Myers after his bonus is paid for another 6m cap space. We'll see what happens but for now I don't like the timing of the buyout.

GM's are the misinformation specialists. "Ask the tough questions" as if any GM is going to give honest answers, assuming they answer it at all. At best you'll get vague wishy washy answer that don't really answer the question. There are always inner working questions GM's won't honestly answer regardless of who is asking. Often for obvious reasons. For example, when Virtanen was suspended during the sexual assault investigation during a presser reporters kept asking Benning about it knowing full well he wasn't going to answer those questions. In one interview he was asked three times in a row by three different reporters who simply reworded the question. Benning finally said, "You can word it any way you want but I'm not talking about an open investigation". I get annoyed at reporters asking questions they know won't be answered. Having an in house reporter simply allows the GM to put information out without the nonsense questions reporters know won't be answered anyway. That's not really misinformation, it's just putting information out there in an interview format that they want the public to know. You may want meat and potatoes in interviews but all you'll ever get from a GM, regardless of who is asking, is corn.

"At the time" there are always people thinking whatever is questionable. It's still just hindsight. I couldn't count the times I saw Shinkartuk called our future top line winger. The same was said when traded for Granlund. The "we traded a future first liner for a nobody" had me laughing at the time. Forsling was a late bloomer in the end. Full stop. Late bloomers don't often get to bloom with the team that drafted them. Waivers tend to get in the way. Still, he wasn't "given up on" as many like to say here. You want something you need to trade something. The something you move needs to be something the other team actually wants. Forsling was still a long shot when traded. Chicago traded him because he ran out of time. Did they give up too soon.? He was claimed off waivers after the trade. That's the reality of late bloomers. Forsling for Clendening was moving a decent longshot years away for a big young d-man with good AHL numbers now. Chicago was moving Clendening for the same reason they moved Forsling years later. Neither was going to make their team and neither was very likely to clear waivers. Both took too long, one eventually did bloom in the NHL. The problem is, given how long they've had, you don't actually know if they will bloom. That's hindsight. I don't recall McCann even being invited to the world junior team. It doesn't matter, a decision needed to be made and imo it was the logical choice. A power forward has more value than a meh center. You go with what you know at that time. Sutter & Sedins? I don't recall that ever being an extended option. Here and there but not a line for any extended priod. I think you're clutching at straws there. Sutter was without a doubt at least in my mind, a better overall center than Bonino.

Who was on Bonino's wing? We didn't have a Kessel and more to put on his wing here. The following season he had 7 pts in 21 playoff games. Cherry picking one playoff does change the quality of the player over two seasons. Juolevi blah blah blah, whine, whine, whine. Chicago took Cam Barker 3rd overall. Crap happens. Forsling was a longshot. Period. He was so high skill with a such high ceiling he was claimed off waivers before playing a full NHL season.That's the reality. I could absolutely understand keeping Virtanaen over Mccann pre-crystal ball. Both were party boys, but a fast skating power forward has more value than a nothing special center. What happened afterward is irrelevant to the reality of the time a decision needed to be made. The rest is just hindsight.

I wouldn't credit their GM for other GM's panicking to keep players. I thought what some teams were doing was just crazy. A half trained monkey could have gotten those deals. Then add in getting more players in the expenasion draft than a full roster, with added value from panicking GM's, plus a top draft pick as an expansion team. That adds up to some pretty decent moveable assets. Benning got an aging out declining team with a bunch of ntc's, no prospects on the farm, and one roster player under 27 worth keeping. I'd take the Vegas starting point any day, any year. At least GM's learned from the new expansion draft rules when Seattle joined. But even Seattle had a better starting point than Benning did.

Bonino is overrated here for some reason. Likely because of winning a cup in Pittsburgh as if he was the big factor in that rather than the addition of Kessel. Bonino had better wingers in Pitts and yet similar production to Sutter. The knock on Bonino here was his skating and not having 2nd line production, but he was cheap. I didn't think he was slow, but he wasn't particularly fast either. Sutter was a better skater, better defensively, and a good pk'er as well. Simply put, Sutter was a better overall center of the two. When Bonino's cheaper contract expired two years after the trade he got pretty similar money to Sutter, and never hit 40 points himself. Again, overall Sutter was the better player and for that two years Bonino's cheaper contract, cap wasn't exactly a big concern for us. It's a shame covid ended Sutter's career. He wanted to be here and showed it signing for 1.125m. He'd likely still be our best 4C option and a solid addition to the PK. That trade never bothered me. Btw, Forsling finally made it after being claimed off waivers. He was traded for a player further along in development rather than waiting years and years on a longshot 5th rounder. McCann has finally achieved success with his fifth freaking team. I'll never understand people whing about these two players being traded. It's well known McCann was something of a problem child here. It took three more teams after that trade to find success.

Burroughs is a young guy? He'll be 28 next month. Definitely young compared to me, not exactly young by NHL standards. He's a bottom pair fringe player at 28. Bear is a definite bottom 4 d-man. Given his injury and recovery time, I'd offer a one year deal at the same pay, or a small increase at most. He's worth what he's paid, but making it a "let's see" deal and still be RFA again next year. His injury won't be helpful as a ufa.

It sure would be nice to build like Las Vegas. But I don't think GM's will let us just take a player from every team...

He could have a renaissance season like Karlsson just had. Although he may need to go down to the crossroads and sign a deal with the Devil...

Evidence other than message board Alfsumptions?

Nope. There was even dead silence when Pettersson's name was called at the arena draft party. I said "who" when he was selected because I hadn't even heard his name mentioned. Heard Glass and Vilardi a bunch though.

Going by Hronek's Detroit stats (60 gp) in hits per 60 minutes he'll be the most physical in the top 4 on our team as things stand. D-men that out-hit him per 60 minutes played here last season were Schenn (gone), Juulsen (12 gp + ufa), Burroughs (ufa), and Stillman (gone). He was more physical in Detroit than either OEL or Myers here. He was also more physical in Detroit this past season than Hamhuis or Bieksa in 10/11.

Remember when most here wanted Glass, with Vilardi the second option, when they took Pettersson? There's a reason every team has their own scouting department. Doesn't mean they'll always be right any more than the outside scouting services getting it right.

OEL has a NMC. He can't be sent to the minors or anywhere else without agreeing to it. Plus doing that only saves 1m in cap. Pointless.

I'd be surprised if Rathbone cleared and shocked if Hoglander did. Why wouldn't a rebuilding team give either a shot when there's no cost in acquiring them. Hoglander making the team will depend a great deal on offseason moves. Even then he'll need to earn his spot in preseason. Over the years there's been some clearing that surprised me but also those I was surprised were claimed. Woo and Stud I'd toss a coin on. Both play physical, have decent size, and are young. They wouldn't be the first claimed for their physical play. I wouldn't be surprised if claimed (or shed a tear), but also wouldn't be surprised they cleared.

I should have been clearer. I'm fine with retaining cap on contracts expring next year. I don't like the idea of carrying dead cap for several years. I'd rather add a sweetener to be rid of the full amount. Retaining for one year at this point wouldn't concern me.

Personally I have no problem using waiver elligible players that may not make the team as sweeteners to move contracts. For example, after Myers bonus is paid I'd be fine with moving Myers plus Rathbone for a 4th round pick. Or Myers plus Hoglander for a 3rd round pick. If there's doubt these players will make the opening roster it's better to move them than lose them to waivers.Will Woo, Studnicka, Rathbone, or Hoglander clear waivers if they don't make the opening roster? What are the chances they all make the opening roster? It's fine to say "too early to give up on them" and you'd be right. But waiver elligibility gets in the way of keeping players until they are good enough to be NHL regulars. And gifting them a spot they haven't earns could well mean losing somebody else to waivers. At this point I wouldn't buy out OEL or even look to move him. As to retention, I'd be fine with some retention for one year only. Just as I'm fine riding out a contract expiring next spring rather than buying it out. It's unlikely we're competing for the cup next season so it's pointless going to extremes to create cap space. But limited retention or minor sweeteners for cap space I'm 100% fine with.

Kassian cleared waivers. Nobody wanted him for free. He was negative value when traded. I said at the time of the trade we could have got Prust for a 7th round pick as the Habs just wanted to dump his contract. We needed to make it a 5th to get them to take Kassian. First thing the Habs GM said to him was, "you're getting one chance here, don't screw it up". He screwed up before even playing a preseason game and cleared waivers again.

Good picks = Bracket Bad picks = Benning Based entirely on the damning evidence of opinion.

Name a team that hasn't traded draft picks to fill a need.