But Really, How Good Is Bread?

[Jdog99]

2 hours ago, Valriera said:

It's not a gamble on Kakko at this point, since we've seen three seasons of nothing but below average everything. It's wishful thinking. 

Im sure theres a pretty little long list of very good, even top tier nhl players who werent showing much at the end of 3 seasons. Mika Zibanejad is one...pavel buchnevich, another.

Edited April 25, 2022 by Jdog99

[BrooksBurner]

18 hours ago, Long live the King said:

Kakko has nothing to do with keeping Copp and Strome.

 

15 minutes ago, Long live the King said:

 

I already have forgotten about keeping more than one of them, because if we do then we're back to where we were before the TDL.

That’s fine, but that contradicts your initial comment that started the discussion.

[Keirik]

5 minutes ago, Jdog99 said:

Im sure theres a pretty little long list of very good, even top tier nhl players who werent showing much at the end of 3 seasons. Mika Zibanejad is one...pavel buchnevich, another.

At the end of both Ziby and Buch’s third NHL season they were 20 goal scorers trending up. I, not sure those are good examples to use. 

[BrooksBurner]

9 minutes ago, Pete said:

 

No one is offer-sheeting him for the same reason we're having this discussion now.

 

KK got sheeted after a very solid run to the Finals. If Kakko has a solid run, this whole convo changes.

The pros about Kakko’s game that people are raising are good and valid points (good defensively, pretty responsible, still has plenty of upside, etc.). These are good reasons for a team with cap space, and not much to lose, to take a stab at an offer sheet. I would want my team to offer sheet Kakko in that scenario. Those teams don’t have a Cup-competing team or the prospect of losing two players (Strome and Copp) who fit the team like a glove, are clearly much better players than Kakko and likely to be better for the next few seasons.

[Long live the King]

Just now, rmc51 said:

 

That’s fine, but that contradicts your initial comment that started the discussion.

 

No it doesn't.  Giving Kakko a $1.5 million dollar raise isn't the issue.  You sign Strome and Copp ro deals with any term and not only are you losing Kakko now, you make it hard to sign Key and Laf in 23, and Schneider in 24. 

 

So no.  Kakko has nothing to do with signing Strome and Copp.  Overall depth and keeping any of your young players are the reasons you cant sign both.  You just can't tie up another $11m for the next 5 years.  

 

 

 

Now, if you want to forget and Strome and Copp, and send Kakko in a package for PLD, then I'm on board.  

[BrooksBurner]

17 minutes ago, Long live the King said:

 

No it doesn't.  Giving Kakko a $1.5 million dollar raise isn't the issue.  You sign Strome and Copp ro deals with any term and not only are you losing Kakko now, you make it hard to sign Key and Laf in 23, and Schneider in 24. 

 

So no.  Kakko has nothing to do with signing Strome and Copp.  Overall depth and keeping any of your young players are the reasons you cant sign both.  You just can't tie up another $11m for the next 5 years.  

 

 

 

Now, if you want to forget and Strome and Copp, and send Kakko in a package for PLD, then I'm on board.  

It is quite literally the issue. Signing Kakko for that much does not leave enough room next year to sign Copp and Strome.

There’s also enough cap for Laf/Miller in ‘23 even with Copp (~4.5) and Strome (~5.5) taking $10M of it. The expiring dead cap money (3.5M) moving off should cover Miller’s bridge deal. Lafreniere is the wild card, but not looking too expensive either, though more expensive than Kakko will be. Maybe about what Miller gets. Not worried about Schneider in ‘24 at all. He’s not going to play nearly enough behind Fox and Trouba to command much of a raise.

 

The next cap crunch would be Summer ‘25 when Igor’s contract is up. I couldn’t care less about cap problems 3 years down the road when we are fielding a 108+ point team now.

[Keirik]

10 minutes ago, rmc51 said:

It is quite literally the issue. Signing Kakko for that much does not leave enough room next year to sign Copp and Strome.

There’s also enough cap for Laf/Miller in ‘23 even with Copp (~4.5) and Strome (~5.5) taking $10M of it. The expiring dead cap money (3.5M) moving off should cover Miller’s bridge deal. Lafreniere is the wild card, but not looking too expensive either, though more expensive than Kakko will be. Maybe about what Miller gets. Not worried about Schneider in ‘24 at all. He’s not going to play nearly enough behind Fox and Trouba to command much of a raise.

 

The next cap crunch would be Summer ‘25 when Igor’s contract is up. I couldn’t care less about cap problems 3 years down the road when we are fielding a 108+ point team now.

By that time, a few of our bigger contracts have modified trade options so Trouba, Kreider, Goodrow all are options to clear cap space. Also flat cap world  should be a thing of the past hopefully. 

[Long live the King]

30 minutes ago, rmc51 said:

It is quite literally the issue. Signing Kakko for that much does not leave enough room next year to sign Copp and Strome.

There’s also enough cap for Laf/Miller in ‘23 even with Copp (~4.5) and Strome (~5.5) taking $10M of it. The expiring dead cap money (3.5M) moving off should cover Miller’s bridge deal. Lafreniere is the wild card, but not looking too expensive either, though more expensive than Kakko will be. Maybe about what Miller gets. Not worried about Schneider in ‘24 at all. He’s not going to play nearly enough behind Fox and Trouba to command much of a raise.

 

The next cap crunch would be Summer ‘25 when Igor’s contract is up. I couldn’t care less about cap problems 3 years down the road when we are fielding a 108+ point team now.

 

Here.  No Kakko.  You're over the cap, have a rookie on D and a rookie on the 3rd line.  You replace Chytil with another ELC and the team is even worse.  This is not 108+ point team. Additionally, the $5.1m you get from Reaves and the buyouts in summer 2023 is not enough to resign Laf, Miller, Jones and Reaves replacement.

 

 

[BrooksBurner]

20 minutes ago, Keirik said:

By that time, a few of our bigger contracts have modified trade options so Trouba, Kreider, Goodrow all are options to clear cap space. Also flat cap world  should be a thing of the past hopefully. 

And to your point, they are all very movable contracts in summer ‘25. Kreider and Goodrow only have 2 years left. Trouba 1 year.

 

 

[BrooksBurner]

1 minute ago, Long live the King said:

 

Here.  No Kakko.  You're over the cap, have a rookie on D and a rookie on the 3rd line.  You replace Chytil with another ELC and the team is even worse.  This is not 108+ point team. Additionally, the $5.1m you get from Reaves and the buyouts in summer 2023 is not enough to resign Laf, Miller, Jones and Reaves replacement.

 

 

Yeah, I posted something similar the other day. You have Copp coming in at $500K more than I do, but similar enough scenario. You either need to do a 21 man roster or you have to also trade Chytil. But the theme is the same: Kakko has to be out in order to do it.

 

If they trade Chytil here as well, they can shift Goodrow to 3C and use an ELC winger (Cuylle, Trivigno, Othmann, Kravtsov if it works, etc.).

 

Our team had a junky bottom 6 all year. Still a 108+ point team. We shored up at the deadline and didn’t even use that much of all the cap we had available. We could do so again next year at a slightly higher trade cost to get retained salary and fill the same holes. 

[Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc]

Why not keep Kakko (let's say 2,8m). You trade Chytil, play Goodrow C and Kakko 3RW. Trade Reaves and sign Rooney to 1.2m. Rooney 4C, Brodz 4RW? That would be the same scenario cap wise and I take Kakko & Rooney over Chytil & Reaves everyday of the week.

[Long live the King]

2 minutes ago, rmc51 said:

Yeah, I posted something similar the other day. You have Copp coming in at $500K more than I do, but similar enough scenario. You either need to do a 21 man roster or you have to also trade Chytil. But the theme is the same: Kakko has to be out in order to do it.

 

If they trade Chytil here as well, they can shift Goodrow to 3C and use an ELC winger (Cuylle, Trivigno, Othmann, Kravtsov if it works, etc.).

 

Our team had a junky bottom 6 all year. Still a 108+ point team. We shored up at the deadline and didn’t even use that much of all the cap we had available. We could do so again next year at a slightly higher trade cost to get retained salary and fill the same holes. 

 

I already have Cuylle in there.  So Cuylle-Goodrow-Hunt and Trivigno-Brodz-Reaves is a terrible bottom 6 that includes 2 rookies.  Worse than the beginning of this year.

 

Soooo, Kakko isn't preventing them from signing Strome and Copp.  That can't do it anyway if they want any sort of depth.

 

This team has a lot better balance and still has $1.3m to up grade a veteran 6/7 D to replace Tinordi.

 

[BrooksBurner]

6 minutes ago, Long live the King said:

 

I already have Cuylle in there.  So Cuylle-Goodrow-Hunt and Trivigno-Brodz-Reaves is a terrible bottom 6 that includes 2 rookies.  Worse than the beginning of this year.

 

Soooo, Kakko isn't preventing them from signing Strome and Copp.  That can't do it anyway if they want any sort of depth.

 

This team has a lot better balance and still has $1.3m to up grade a veteran 6/7 D to replace Tinordi.

 

It doesn’t matter what you think of the bottom 6. Kakko re-signed mathematically prevents it from happening unless you have a 21 man roster. Your original comment was simply incorrect.

 

Who said Hunt on the 3rd? You’re forgetting Blais, who will be 500k more than ELC and may start on IR, so it doesn’t change the picture too much other than he can be 3rd line or potentially complement Zib, and move Laf back to 3rd to provide more depth there if he can carry a line more next year.

 

What you’ve done in your alternative scenario is significantly weakened the “2nd line” in exchange for upgrading the bottom 6. It’s a reasonable way to go, just a difference of opinion. I’d rather have what amounts to two 1st lines and go through the process of constructing the bottom 6 again as necessary.
 

I don’t think Motte signs for 1.3 btw. I’m pretty sure I read somewhere he was looking for 2 which is why Vancouver traded him.

 

[Long live the King]

Sure.  Doesn't matter what I think of the bottom 6.  Let's sign 5 $750k forwards, a $750k D, and a $750k backup goalie.  Then mathematically you can afford Strome, Copp, and Kakko.

[Pete]

I said this in another thread, but you're not keeping Strome and Copp and Vatrano. Or 2 of those 3.

 

This is one kick at the can. Then we go back to managing a flat cap and hoping the ELC's contribute.

[BrooksBurner]

1 minute ago, Pete said:

I said this in another thread, but you're not keeping Strome and Copp and Vatrano. Or 2 of those 3.

 

This is one kick at the can. Then we go back to managing a flat cap and hoping the ELC's contribute.

[Valriera]

3 minutes ago, Pete said:

I said this in another thread, but you're not keeping Strome and Copp and Vatrano. Or 2 of those 3.

 

This is one kick at the can. Then we go back to managing a flat cap and hoping the ELC's contribute.

 

So many keystrokes wasted by people trying to make up an alternate reality where the deadline deals weren't just rentals. Sad.

[Pete]

32 minutes ago, rmc51 said:

[Capt]

Came back to this thread thinking it was about Panarin.  Guess not

[BrooksBurner]

14 minutes ago, Capt said:

Came back to this thread thinking it was about Panarin.  Guess not

It is. The discussion has been about who fits best with Panarin moving forward. It’s a pretty big question to be answered in the upcoming offseason. The playoffs will probably just deepen the conversation.

[Valriera]

I actually think the overarching point with Panarin is that it doesn't matter who his winger is, he's actually that good, and we need to just fit the economical guy there

[BrooksBurner]

4 minutes ago, Valriera said:

I actually think the overarching point with Panarin is that it doesn't matter who his winger is, he's actually that good, and we need to just fit the economical guy there

Hunt was and is terrible with him, so I guess I disagree with that point

[Scott]

2 minutes ago, rmc51 said:

Hunt was and is terrible with him, so I guess I disagree with that point

right and if I remember correctly he didn't want to play with Kakko so it does kind of matter.  Last I checked Strome hasn't signed anything so I understand why there's a discussion.  One of those rentals has also thrived so I also think that has to do with why this conversation continues. 

[Phil]

10 minutes ago, Valriera said:

I actually think the overarching point with Panarin is that it doesn't matter who his winger is, he's actually that good, and we need to just fit the economical guy there

 

But, it does. He's good enough to make due, but Copp is proof positive that it very much matters who that winger his. His inclusion has taken that line from like a 6.5/10 (with Hunt) to a 9/10 (with Copp).

[Jdog99]

5 hours ago, Keirik said:

At the end of both Ziby and Buch’s third NHL season they were 20 goal scorers trending up. I, not sure those are good examples to use. 

Maybe not the perfect example, but i recall lots of buch doubters over the course of his first three seasons. And zib may have shown himself to be a competent middle 6 centerman, but certainly not in the same league as what he later became with nyr.