Hmm.. if that is the case, what if we switch up Jones with Pulj and focus on boosting your forward prospect depth instead.

That has got to be enticing at the very least.

LD/Talbot/Pulj for Pesce/Teravainen.
- EdmHockeyMan

No.

LD/Talbot/Jones for Pesce/Teravainen as the centerpieces?

Edit: Bear was changed up for Jones.
- EdmHockeyMan

No.

No thank you.
- BINGO!

Yikes... that's a steep price to pay
- Reveen.

I think not. The cap flexibility that those two give, coupled with how it boosts the defense of the team.

Pesce, it think, will be getting better and better, even though is a great player already. Teravainen is already a fantastic player too.

It comes down to whether or not adding Pulj is too much, but IMO, I think if it allows this deal to go through, it'd do it.

I think not. The cap flexibility that those two give, coupled with how it boosts the defense of the team.

Pesce, it think, will be getting better and better, even though is a great player already. Teravainen is already a fantastic player too.

It comes down to whether or not adding Pulj is too much, but IMO, I think if it allows this deal to go through, it'd do it.
- EdmHockeyMan

Since he signed his contract extension after the game vs Edmonton he has 4 goals, 9 points in 6 games.

I think not. The cap flexibility that those two give, coupled with how it boosts the defense of the team.

Pesce, it think, will be getting better and better, even though is a great player already. Teravainen is already a fantastic player too.

It comes down to whether or not adding Pulj is too much, but IMO, I think if it allows this deal to go through, it'd do it.
- EdmHockeyMan

No, I think it comes down to whether or not you want to trade the NHL's 7th leading scorer and 3rd leading goal scorer.

No, I think it comes down to whether or not you want to trade the NHL's 7th leading scorer and 3rd leading goal scorer.
- MaximumBone

To get Pesce and Teravainen for LD/Pulj is worth it IMO. Including Talbot gives them some time to see if he can be that goalie for them since it seems that he has fallen out of favor with us.

Why would you say no though?

I’d think you would consider it due to what it brings to this team in terms of both ends of the ice and in terms of cap implications.

Since he signed his contract extension after the game vs Edmonton he has 4 goals, 9 points in 6 games.
- BINGO!

And me thinks he has it in him to average out as a ppg player in the long run. He is that good imo.

That's... that's certainly tempting.
- BINGO!

So... is that a yes?

And me thinks he has it in him to average out as a ppg player in the long run. He is that good imo.
- EdmHockeyMan

I dunno about that, he IS 24 years old now, but his production has improved every year and he's on pace for 70+ points this season.

He just keeps getting more and more assertive as the years go on. It's very cool to watch.

I dunno about that, he IS 24 years old now, but his production has improved every year and he's on pace for 70+ points this season.

He just keeps getting more and more assertive as the years go on. It's very cool to watch.
- BINGO!

that is exactly why I think he will cap out as a ppg player

To get Pesce and Teravainen for LD/Pulj is worth it IMO. Including Talbot gives them some time to see if he can be that goalie for them since it seems that he has fallen out of favor with us.

Why would you say no though?

I’d think you would consider it due to what it brings to this team in terms of both ends of the ice and in terms of cap implications.
- EdmHockeyMan

I mean, cap wise it's a neutral move as Draisaitl's 8.5 plus Puljujarvi's next contract (~1.5) is pretty close to Teuvo's 5.4 and Pesce's 4.1 so the cap savings don't do much for me. Next, I'd enjoy adding Pesce but our backend already costs too much and I'm not all that worried about it. Draft the right guys (I like Byram so far) and give it a couple years and we'll be well off. Lastly, my aim is to get two lines to ~55% GF territory where we can have waves of dominance (ala Pittsburgh) and I'm unconvinced that Teuvo-Nuge could do that and since making that trade all but guarantees we can't pursue Stone, then that's not a solution I pursue.

I think my aim is securing a 3rd elite forward that can drive the play and bring an element we otherwise don't have. Nuge saws off well but doesn't typically outproduce while Stone can help boost Draisaitl's 2nd line to 55% GF territory. Then, I'd aim to bring in skilled but lower-cost wingers to help McDavid. Signing a Johansson and either keeping Puljujarvi or using him to acquire a Coyle (or ideally Zucker) would facilitate that.

MoJo*- McDavid- Zucker
Hintz- Draisaitl- Stone
Khaira- Faksa- Marody**

* Benson can work toward that spot as MoJo would be short term
** Yamamoto can fight for that spot

I don't know about you, but even that 3rd line looks pretty solid. Unspectacular, but two quietly effective big bodies and an offensive winger to push results more in positive favour. Acquire Copp and the 4th line is gorgeous, too.

I think my aim is securing a 3rd elite forward that can drive the play and bring an element we otherwise don't have. Nuge saws off well but doesn't typically outproduce while Stone can help boost Draisaitl's 2nd line to 55% GF territory. Then, I'd aim to bring in skilled but lower-cost wingers to help McDavid. Signing a Johansson and either keeping Puljujarvi or using him to acquire a Coyle (or ideally Zucker) would facilitate that.


- MaximumBone

I see where you're going with this. Your perspective would bolster this team too. That top 6 is good and the lines after are fantastic too. You bring up some good points with regards to advanced metrics and opposition. LD-Stone would (frank) any team up honestly. That offensive corps as a whole would look great.

However, I think I should clarify on a few things. By cap implications, I am not just refering to the cost savings in the long run, but the flexibility we gain. Paying Teravainen, who is on pace for at least 70 points this season, 5.4 for the next 5 years is a bargain. The crazy thing is he has been only getting better and better as each year goes by and has yet to cap out. Then you have Pesce who is establishing himself as a great defender, who I think is literally going to cap out as a replica version (or better one) of Larsson. He will be paid 4.1m ONLY for the next 6 years! That's one hell of a good deal. Acquiring those two gives us cap versatility.

I also disagree with your statement that we cannot pursue Stone. It all depends on how we play our cards. You have 3.1m and 2.2m locked up in Spooner and Manning. If we can get rid of that prior to the deadline (structure deals around picks), followed by buying out Sekera or possibly managing to trade him, that should give us just enough wiggle room to sign Stone, even after we sign Khaira, a backup, and possibly Chiasson. Not to mention we won't need to worry about signing Pulj if he gets traded.

I also want to shift on reconstructing this team from the defense out. I want to actually follow Nashville's model. I've realized that banking on defenders, in the long run, is what propels a team with options due to their value. Acquiring Pesce does so much for this team defensively as it does offensively due to how defense leads to offense (more defensive stability, more easier it will be to move the puck, thus more offensive probability/chances).

A defensive core of:
Klefbom-Larsson
Nurse-Pesce
Russell-Bennings

Then you have Jones & Bouchard developing in the minors/AHL. That is a fantastic d-corps to build upon. Pesce and Nurse are only going to get better as well. It gives you a lot of options down the road as well with regards to asset management.

Offensively, you'll have a top 6 surrounded by RNH, McD, Teuvo, and Stone if we play our cards right (get rid of the Spooner/Mannings contracts, buyout Sekera or try to trade him, and possibly go with that idea you mentioned about doing a Lucic compliance buyout with another team to split the cost). The offensive corps isn't going to be as good as your's, but I think the defense makes up for that.

Tl;dr:
-Your perspective is valid and makes sense for the best interest of this team
-Getting Pesce & Teuvo is more than just cap savings, it's also about cap versatility and flexibility, not to mention both deals are bargain deals
-I still think getting Stone is possible even if a Pesce/Teuvo based deal is made. All depends on how we play our cards with regards to trades and buyouts
-I'm trying to build from the backend and out. I'm eying the Nashville model. Defensive assets tend to show that they always have more value, provide better options, are affected less by fluctuations in terms of value, and are always in high demand, based on historical analysis.
-Our perspectives are different in terms of the outlook of this team, but I think that either or would still lead to a far better team than what we have now.

I
I think my aim is securing a 3rd elite forward that can drive the play and bring an element we otherwise don't have.


- MaximumBone

Let me ask this btw.

If we could still acquire Stone even after getting Pesce/Teuvo for LD/Pulj/Talbot, would you make that deal?

I don't think it is as impossible as you say it could be, it would just take some creativity. That Lucic compliance buyout with another team splitting the costs is ingenious IMO. If we can shed Spooner and Mannings salaries, which I don't think is impossible, that helps a ton. Send Spooner to a contender looking for depth during the deadline, and then try to trade Mannings for whatever comes up.

It'll be tough as (frank) to manage and do, but isn't that why GM's get paid bank anyway? To figure poop out?

-I'm trying to build from the backend and out. I'm eying the Nashville model. Defensive assets tend to show that they always have more value, provide better options, affected less by fluctuations in terms of value, and are always in high demand based on historical analysis.
- EdmHockeyMan

I'm also pursuing this, just in a different way. Note how my trade with Carolina would bring Bean with it and how I've to date (subject to change) set Byram as my draft target. A D pool of Bouchard, Byram, Bean, Bear, Berglund (the B corps, apparently), Jones, Lagesson, Samorukov and future additions is my method of approach as I think refining our development system is just as important- maybe more so.

A defensive pipeline like that might be the best in the league and would bring reinforcements to Klefbom, Nurse and Larsson in short order.

Klef/Nurse- Larsson
Byram- Bouchard
Jones- Bean/Bear

Let me ask this btw.

If we could still acquire Stone even after getting Pesce/Teuvo for LD/Pulj/Talbot, would you make that deal?

I don't think it is as impossible as you say it could be, it would just take some creativity. That Lucic compliance buyout with another team splitting the costs is ingenious IMO. If we can shed Spooner and Mannings salaries, which I don't think is impossible, that helps a ton. Send Spooner to a contender looking for depth during the deadline, and then try to trade Mannings for whatever comes up.

It'll be tough as (frank) to manage and do, but isn't that why GM's get paid bank anyway? To figure poop out?
- EdmHockeyMan

I don't think I would. The value I'd get out of the Nuge trade is riskier, I'll admit. Wallmark could never develop more, Kuokkanen and Bean could bust and the 1st and 3rd could amount to nothing but I'd be prepared for such a possibility. If we're assuming losing Puljujarvi and signing Stone are done in both scenarios, then we can negate them. I view a rank ordering of the remaining possible assets value as follows:

1st) Draisaitl
2nd) Nuge
t-3rd) Teuvo
t-3rd) Pesce
4th) Carolina's 1st (climbs based on possible lottery results)
5th) Kuokkanen
6th) Coyle
7th) Bean
8th) Wallmark
9th) 3rd
10th) Talbot

I think I get added value in my scenario as Spooner is already dealt as part of my follow-up trade involving Puljujarvi (for Coyle) which might otherwise cost another pick and I get to retain Talbot to be sent elsewhere for an extra pick. So, that's an extra net gain of (possibly) two low mid-round picks.

I don't think I would. The value I'd get out of the Nuge trade is riskier, I'll admit. Wallmark could never develop more, Kuokkanen and Bean could bust and the 1st and 3rd could amount to nothing but I'd be prepared for such a possibility. If we're assuming losing Puljujarvi and signing Stone are done in both scenarios, then we can negate them. I view a rank ordering of the remaining possible assets value as follows:

1st) Draisaitl
2nd) Nuge
t-3rd) Teuvo
t-3rd) Pesce
4th) Carolina's 1st (climbs based on possible lottery results)
5th) Kuokkanen
6th) Coyle
7th) Bean
8th) Wallmark
9th) 3rd
10th) Talbot

I think I get added value in my scenario as Spooner is already dealt as part of my follow-up trade involving Puljujarvi (for Coyle) which might otherwise cost another pick and I get to retain Talbot to be sent elsewhere for an extra pick. So, that's an extra net gain of (possibly) two low mid-round picks.
- MaximumBone

Pulju for Coyle might not require another pick... see the Nino for Rask trade

I'm also pursuing this, just in a different way. Note how my trade with Carolina would bring Bean with it and how I've to date (subject to change) set Byram as my draft target. A D pool of Bouchard, Byram, Bean, Bear, Berglund (the B corps, apparently), Jones, Lagesson, Samorukov and future additions is my method of approach as I think refining our development system is just as important- maybe more so.

A defensive pipeline like that might be the best in the league and would bring reinforcements to Klefbom, Nurse and Larsson in short order.

Klef/Nurse- Larsson
Byram- Bouchard
Jones- Bean/Bear
- MaximumBone

Ah, I see. You're focusing more on the development system and building up from there.
But were you not the same person though that said we shouldn't be selling our top assets for hopefuls and bank on them to succeed? It can work out, but we'd be banking a whole lot on development in this case.
For me, I just don't want to do that. I want proven NHL'ers that can come in and do their thing. Getting Pesce/Teuvo does just that. It sets up the defensive corps into one that could be considered top 10 in the NHL from the very moment that trade is made. Then you have Bouchard and Jones developing. We could still end up drafting Byram as well.

For me, I'd rather go into next year with:
Klefbom-Larsson
Nurse-Pesce
Russell-Bennings

and then you have Bouchard, Jones, and Byram developing soundly. Once they are ready, it gives this team so many options. Not to mention Nurse and Pesce still have time to grow their game. By even as early as next year's Christmas break, this defensive corps has the potential to crack into the elite based on how players develop. Not elite because we have a player like Karlsson/Doughty/Hedman type of player, no, but rather due to how well-balanced, effective, and deep it could be.

I don't think I would. The value I'd get out of the Nuge trade is riskier, I'll admit. Wallmark could never develop more, Kuokkanen and Bean could bust and the 1st and 3rd could amount to nothing but I'd be prepared for such a possibility. If we're assuming losing Puljujarvi and signing Stone are done in both scenarios, then we can negate them. I view a rank ordering of the remaining possible assets value as follows:

1st) Draisaitl
2nd) Nuge
t-3rd) Teuvo
t-3rd) Pesce
4th) Carolina's 1st (climbs based on possible lottery results)
5th) Kuokkanen
6th) Coyle
7th) Bean
8th) Wallmark
9th) 3rd
10th) Talbot

I think I get added value in my scenario as Spooner is already dealt as part of my follow-up trade involving Puljujarvi (for Coyle) which might otherwise cost another pick and I get to retain Talbot to be sent elsewhere for an extra pick. So, that's an extra net gain of (possibly) two low mid-round picks.
- MaximumBone

That's the key word right there though; riskier. Sure you'll get a few more low mid-round picks, but to me, that just doesn't cut it considering the amount of risk involved, as you mentioned.

Also, how would you be prepared for such a possibility if your prospects and picks go south? If they turn out bad, don't develop as well as you'd think they would, or bust, there is very little that you can do IMO.