Ryan Wilson: Injury updates for Evgeni Malkin and Carl Hagelin Injury updates for Evgeni Malkin and Carl Hagelin

fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurst

So I was bored and asked myself a simple question: What if the Blues are legit super interested in MAF? If the Blues actually value MAF, then there's a chance if we add to the pot enough, we might be able to rent Shattenkirk for the season, because presumably, a long term starting goalie is more valuable to a team in the market for one than a low first + from a contender which is what rentals get. I then asked myself if it was possible to make Shatty work long term with the Pens. I then once again asked myself if we did that, could we trade for T. Johnson's RFA rights during the off season as Boyd suggested and make him work long term as well? So I went to cap friendly and came out with this:

https://www.capfriendly.c...m/armchair-gm/team/257548

A couple things:

1) I did not consider the expansion draft. For arguments sake we can say we struck a deal with Vegas to take Fehr and that's where Fehr disappeared to.

2) This assumes no cap growth, and I think its reasonable to expect some cap growth.

3) I may have been generous to the Penguins when it came to the Shatty trade. BUt we have all our draft picks so we can easily make that second into a first if we wanted to, and I think MAF, a 1st, and DP as a throw in for one year of Shattenkirk is fair for St. Louis. This trade also assumes that my extension for Shatty is in place at the trade.

4) Blueger and Bengston are place holders that I don't expect to make the team next year. We should be able to sign a 6th D and a 4C from the garbage heap to vet minimum deals. Those two positions are easy to fill.


Verdict: This surprisingly works. Even though the cap is really tight with my final roster, there's so much that can happen to make this work, and it will probably happen organically due to the expansion draft. The cap will probably go up which will give us the necessary wiggle room. If not, we could trade Maatta and sign a 4LD for cheaper in UFA. There should be someone available. Or if we want to keep Maatta, then we'd have to protect 4D, which would mean we lose either Hagelin or Hornqvist to expansion and alleviate 4 mil in cap right there.

I think if we really wanted to we could do this and we'd still have Sprong in the pipelines waiting to take over a top 6 RW spot for cheap within the next two or so years.. The Pens would be set for the remainder of the Crosby/Malkin era.
- Victoro311

Just wanted to bring this over from the last blog, lifes a female dog when RW posts a new blog right after a thought out post.

So I was bored and asked myself a simple question: What if the Blues are legit super interested in MAF? If the Blues actually value MAF, then there's a chance if we add to the pot enough, we might be able to rent Shattenkirk for the season, because presumably, a long term starting goalie is more valuable to a team in the market for one than a low first + from a contender which is what rentals get. I then asked myself if it was possible to make Shatty work long term with the Pens. I then once again asked myself if we did that, could we trade for T. Johnson's RFA rights during the off season as Boyd suggested and make him work long term as well? So I went to cap friendly and came out with this:

https://www.capfriendly.c...m/armchair-gm/team/257548

A couple things:

1) I did not consider the expansion draft. For arguments sake we can say we struck a deal with Vegas to take Fehr and that's where Fehr disappeared to.

2) This assumes no cap growth, and I think its reasonable to expect some cap growth.

3) I may have been generous to the Penguins when it came to the Shatty trade. BUt we have all our draft picks so we can easily make that second into a first if we wanted to, and I think MAF, a 1st, and DP as a throw in for one year of Shattenkirk is fair for St. Louis. This trade also assumes that my extension for Shatty is in place at the trade.

4) Blueger and Bengston are place holders that I don't expect to make the team next year. We should be able to sign a 6th D and a 4C from the garbage heap to vet minimum deals. Those two positions are easy to fill.


Verdict: This surprisingly works. Even though the cap is really tight with my final roster, there's so much that can happen to make this work, and it will probably happen organically due to the expansion draft. The cap will probably go up which will give us the necessary wiggle room. If not, we could trade Maatta and sign a 4LD for cheaper in UFA. There should be someone available. Or if we want to keep Maatta, then we'd have to protect 4D, which would mean we lose either Hagelin or Hornqvist to expansion and alleviate 4 mil in cap right there.

I think if we really wanted to we could do this and we'd still have Sprong in the pipelines waiting to take over a top 6 RW spot for cheap within the next two or so years.. The Pens would be set for the remainder of the Crosby/Malkin era.
- Victoro311

Personally I think you lowballed TB for Johnson, I think it would require DP+Sundqvist+1st (which I do in a heart beat.)

I'm also not sure Fleury+DP+1st gets the Pens Shattenkirk AND Hutton.

Ya think Bleuger and Bengsston are ready for the show?

There is also zero wiggle room for injury callups. That is cutting it REALLY close. I would MUCH rather have Shatts than Schultz, but I think Schultz cap hit will be 3mil+ less than Shatts, giving the Pens flexibility for the 4c and 6d spot. I like where yo heads at though

Here's an honest question, what is the reason behind everyone trying to exaggerate the value or hindrance of MAF's contract by constantly saying it's close to 6M instead of just using the actual figure of 5.75M. I've seen others do this as well not just RW and it really doesn't make make sense, if anything it makes me want to discredit the opinion given because it gives the feel of bias.

Here's an honest question, what is the reason behind everyone trying to exaggerate the value or hindrance of MAF's contract by constantly saying it's close to 6M instead of just using the actual figure of 5.75M. I've seen others do this as well not just RW and it really doesn't make make sense, if anything it makes me want to discredit the opinion given because it gives the feel of bias.
- jaydogg1974

Dunno, but I also don't consider it a big deal either

Yay no Malkin!!!

We're still probably going to lose anyways tho...

I think i'd keep that 4th line in tack and move Cullen, whos pretty versatile, and Khun around a bit. Put Rust on the 3rd line and Horny up on the 1st.

Yay no Malkin!!!

We're still probably going to lose anyways tho...
- Flamin_Irishmin

You're excited that one of the games best wont be on the ice for you to watch?

I don't see the Blues wanting MAF. Sure he'd improve their tending right now, but they've already given Allen a sizable contract. Plus, is MAF really going to make them a top tier contender? Maybe, but I doubt it.

Personally I think you lowballed TB for Johnson, I think it would require DP+Sundqvist+1st (which I do in a heart beat.)

I'm also not sure Fleury+DP+1st gets the Pens Shattenkirk AND Hutton.

Ya think Bleuger and Bengsston are ready for the show?

There is also zero wiggle room for injury callups. That is cutting it REALLY close. I would MUCH rather have Shatts than Schultz, but I think Schultz cap hit will be 3mil+ less than Shatts, giving the Pens flexibility for the 4c and 6d spot. I like where yo heads at though
- j.boyd919

My main problem with this; theres no reason to think of shat and fleury deals as one deal. They would essentially be two separate trades. A long-term reasonably paid goalie trade who has mixed trade value with a big issue of figuring out cap hits versus a fairly normal pending UFA rental.

Honestly its easier to value and discuss the trades individually. There is no reason to connect the deals. Simplicity is easier to discuss than complexity. The simpler trade proposal is more productive to analyze. Granted they could end up happen in one big deal; but negotiating wise theirs no good reason to connect them.

My main problem with this; theres no reason to think of shat and fleury deals as one deal. They would essentially be two separate trades. A long-term reasonably paid goalie trade who has mixed trade value with a big issue of figuring out cap hits versus a fairly normal pending UFA rental.

Honestly its easier to value and discuss the trades individually. There is no reason to connect the deals. Simplicity is easier to discuss than complexity. The simpler trade proposal is more productive to analyze. Granted they could end up happen in one big deal; but negotiating wise theirs no good reason to connect them.
- sditulli

Sooo...

DP+1st for Shatts

Fleury for Hutton

that what your thinkin?

If I'm STL, I say no way. Shatts will bring in more. And I think the Pens would have to add to dump Fleury.

6.8 is probably about the right cap hit on shatt; but as a UFA signing you better believe he's going to get silly term. I would assume his next deal takes him to 35. I'm guessing 6-8 years.

Sooo...

DP+1st for Shatts

Fleury for Hutton

that what your thinkin?

If I'm STL, I say no way. Shatts will bring in more. And I think the Pens would have to add to dump Fleury.
- j.boyd919

That is how I would analyze it. I agree shatts worth more than a 1st and DP; but probably not drastically more. Big question is whether they can get a 1st plus a high potential winger prospect like sprong. I wouldn't be shocked if Shatts return is basically a 1st + sprong.

Fleury for Hutton seems fair. Its just a matter of someone wanting to pay Fleury 5.75 a year. Fleury is fully paid which means not much trade value. He's not overpaid; but he's also not cheap. If he was UFA after this year I think someone would sign him in the 5-6.5 range.

The fleury for shat trade is just putting a huge value on fleury which no one thinks he's worth right now. If we offered them that deal they would be smarter to just counter with a 2nd round pick for fleury and then they can get a huge return on shat elsewhere. I'm pretty sure we would jump at dumping fleury for a 2nd right now.

Exactly why are we looking at Bishop as a comparison right now? He's never won anything & he's playing like hot garbage in the year he's looking to get traded/a UFA contract. Yes, last year he was great but he's been mediocre at best all this season.

While Flower has 1 ring as a started & another as a backup (in a year where he was essentially the MVP for 40-some games until he got hurt & lost his starting gig). He's also been very very good all year with only a few minor hiccups & he's at a reasonable price for a goalie of his caliber.

I think MAF will bring more than people think. I actually trust GMJR

Exactly why are we looking at Bishop as a comparison right now? He's never won anything & he's playing like hot garbage in the year he's looking to get traded/a UFA contract. Yes, last year he was great but he's been mediocre at best all this season.

While Flower has 1 ring as a started & another as a backup (in a year where he was essentially the MVP for 40-some games until he got hurt & lost his starting gig). He's also been very very good all year with only a few minor hiccups & he's at a reasonable price for a goalie of his caliber.
- ScienceJesus

Because him and Fleury are pretty similar numbers wise over the past 3 years.

EDIT: Oh and he actually hasn't been very good this season, like.. at all.

Tatar

Because him and Fleury are pretty similar numbers wise over the past 3 years.
- j.boyd919

But again... one is playing like hot garbage at the time teams are showing interest & another is playing solid hockey. The NHL has always been a "what have you done for me lately" league & lately, Bishop has been doing a whole lotta nothing & Flower has been playing competent goaltender since the opening night of the season. And that makes for a significant difference when looking at assets to give up.

Especially when the one playing poorly is a UFA & you can't even consider the idea of "they'll bounce back next year" since it's unlikely you'll have them.

Wait... who hasn't been very good this season? Flower? If so, we have nothing else to discuss because you're obviously high.

But again... one is playing like hot garbage at the time teams are showing interest & another is playing solid hockey. The NHL has always been a "what have you done for me lately" league & lately, Bishop has been doing a whole lotta nothing & Flower has been playing competent goaltender since the opening night of the season. And that makes for a significant difference when looking at assets to give up.

Especially when the one playing poorly is a UFA & you can't even consider the idea of "they'll bounce back next year" since it's unlikely you'll have them.

Wait... who hasn't been very good this season? Flower? If so, we have nothing else to discuss because you're obviously high.
- ScienceJesus

Bishop is less of a long term commitment which is better in this comparison.

But again... one is playing like hot garbage at the time teams are showing interest & another is playing solid hockey. The NHL has always been a "what have you done for me lately" league & lately, Bishop has been doing a whole lotta nothing & Flower has been playing competent goaltender since the opening night of the season. And that makes for a significant difference when looking at assets to give up.

Especially when the one playing poorly is a UFA & you can't even consider the idea of "they'll bounce back next year" since it's unlikely you'll have them.

Wait... who hasn't been very good this season? Flower? If so, we have nothing else to discuss because you're obviously high.
- ScienceJesus

They've both been below average all season, but Bishop may actually playing better than Fleury.

Bishop is less of a long term commitment which is better in this comparison.
- Feds91Stammer

Long term commitment is only a consideration if both players are playing at a similar low level at the time of a deal. The 2 aren't.

I hope you can see the massive amount of double-speak on this "contract status vs assets given up" issue.

How much have we heard that with Shattenkirk, teams aren't willing to give up assets because he's a rental, so his price is lower & would raise in the event a sign-and-trade can be worked out. Teams want to negotiate prior to a deal or only offer conditional picks because he's not locked up.

But with a goalie that's been an above average started with 2 rings and has not shown the ups & downs that the other comparable goaltender on the market has shown that has never won anything, that same locked up status is a negative?

If offers are low because of uncertain contracts. But they're also low because of certain contracts. Exactly when do offers go high? It's ok... I'll wait.

Long term commitment is only a consideration if both players are playing at a similar low level at the time of a deal. The 2 aren't.

I hope you can see the massive amount of double-speak on this "contract status vs assets given up" issue.

How much have we heard that with Shattenkirk, teams aren't willing to give up assets because he's a rental, so his price is lower & would raise in the event a sign-and-trade can be worked out. Teams want to negotiate prior to a deal or only offer conditional picks because he's not locked up.

But with a goalie that's been an above average started with 2 rings and has not shown the ups & downs that the other comparable goaltender on the market has shown that has never won anything, that same locked up status is a negative?

If offers are low because of uncertain contracts. But they're also low because of certain contracts. Exactly when do offers go high? It's ok... I'll wait.
- ScienceJesus

What season have you been watching where Fleury as been above average? You watching replays of 2008?

Long term commitment is only a consideration if both players are playing at a similar low level at the time of a deal. The 2 aren't.

I hope you can see the massive amount of double-speak on this "contract status vs assets given up" issue.

How much have we heard that with Shattenkirk, teams aren't willing to give up assets because he's a rental, so his price is lower & would raise in the event a sign-and-trade can be worked out. Teams want to negotiate prior to a deal or only offer conditional picks because he's not locked up.

But with a goalie that's been an above average started with 2 rings and has not shown the ups & downs that the other comparable goaltender on the market has shown that has never won anything, that same locked up status is a negative?

If offers are low because of uncertain contracts. But they're also low because of certain contracts. Exactly when do offers go high? It's ok... I'll wait.
- ScienceJesus

Must have been quite the super bowl party because it appears you are still drunk.

Long term commitment is only a consideration if both players are playing at a similar low level at the time of a deal. The 2 aren't.

I hope you can see the massive amount of double-speak on this "contract status vs assets given up" issue.

How much have we heard that with Shattenkirk, teams aren't willing to give up assets because he's a rental, so his price is lower & would raise in the event a sign-and-trade can be worked out. Teams want to negotiate prior to a deal or only offer conditional picks because he's not locked up.

But with a goalie that's been an above average started with 2 rings and has not shown the ups & downs that the other comparable goaltender on the market has shown that has never won anything, that same locked up status is a negative?

If offers are low because of uncertain contracts. But they're also low because of certain contracts. Exactly when do offers go high? It's ok... I'll wait.
- ScienceJesus

Rentals usually have very high trade value. They essentially allow a team to add cap that they couldn't in the offseason since its prorated and the team trading the rental can usually afford to retain.

Here is how I'd list trade value:
1. Cost controlled at good rate - I'd put Taylor Hall in this category, but he didn't bring much back, but typically these are the best assets.
2. Rental
3. Fairly paid asset - Fleury. Kessel was sort of in this camp until they retained.