Penguins and Coyotes

[SlackJack]

C Denis Malgin, $0.5m (P-18/19)
2020 1st Round Draft Pick, Vegas

For

G Mike Smith, $20m (2018-2019)
$20m Cash 2018-19

A short Russian and a far-off pick for a starter on the back-side his career. Nobody is pretending that Smith is young, but Calgary will be fun to watch this year and he's the undisputed #1. Thanks to Brian for the deal. :toast:

[Brian]

Vegas agrees I get a goalie I still has a few yrs left to build my team around and 0 cost for a draft pick and a young c

[snugerud]

I need a bit more clarification on this deal.  Is your plan to extend Smith next year?  Smith at 35/36 years old is more of a rental IMO and if he wasn't why not sign him yourself as you had the cap?

For a team at 17th/20 teams , buying a one year rental goalie seems like putting the cart before the horse as this move alone wont get you a championship let alone into the playoffs.  I would think your team needs another season or 2 before making a deal like this.

Maybe I am missing the bigger picture on this.
 

[dedreger]

Ditto what Snug said.  I don't understand the strategy behind a team that is not currently near playoff contention trading away young/future assets for an old goalie on an expiring contract (and, if Smith will be re-signed, the extension rules will require giving that old goalie a significant new contract in terms of both the number of years and salary).

[WestCoastExpress]

I get a goalie I still has a few yrs left to build my team around

Just going to add-on to what the others have mentioned so far, mostly regarding the above quote.

Mike Smith will be 37 next off-season when he would have to be re-signed. His minimum re-sign will be $5.7m per year, and as per our rules that extension would have to be for a minimum of 4 years.

I'm not sure that is the best move to make for a team, as others have said, realistically don't have a shot at playoffs this year or next.

As Snug said, if Smith was valued very highly by LVG, he could have been won in FA for the same per-year price as his re-sign will be ... Without giving up young assets.

[snugerud]

I need a bit more clarification on this deal.  Is your plan to extend Smith next year?  Smith at 35/36 years old is more of a rental IMO and if he wasn't why not sign him yourself as you had the cap?

For a team at 17th/20 teams , buying a one year rental goalie seems like putting the cart before the horse as this move alone wont get you a championship let alone into the playoffs.  I would think your team needs another season or 2 before making a deal like this.

Maybe I am missing the bigger picture on this.

24 hours, no reply.  I will  :veto:  to get the ball rolling.   

[dedreger]

 :veto:

[SlackJack]

Okay boys to be clear I don't care about the trade, so sure let's veto it. But let's not kid ourselves that this is anything other than a public referendum on a GM rather than any kind of trade analysis.

Brian has a history of making odd trades and isn't as competitive as the GM's who have so far deemed to comment. I'm not saying that as an indictment against anyone, but it does seem a poor rationale to judge hockey trades by.


 

 

[snugerud]

Okay boys to be clear I don't care about the trade, so sure let's veto it. But let's not kid ourselves that this is anything other than a public referendum on a GM rather than any kind of trade analysis.

Brian has a history of making odd trades and isn't as competitive as the GM's who have so far deemed to comment. I'm not saying that as an indictment against anyone, but it does seem a poor rationale to judge hockey trades by.

I actually think its a great rationale and probably my only rationale when I judge trades.  If its two knowledgeable and competitive GM/teams I don't care if one losses and one wins. Trade committee(IMO) is there to protect "at risk franchises".  The team in question is already low in terms of competitiveness so I think you will see a trade committee that is a bit more judgmental or critical in those cases.   GM transaction history is also taken into account. 

[SlackJack]

I actually think its a great rationale and probably my only rationale when I judge trades.  If its two knowledgeable and competitive GM/teams I don't care if one losses and one wins. Trade committee(IMO) is there to protect "at risk franchises".  The team in question is already low in terms of competitiveness so I think you will see a trade committee that is a bit more judgmental or critical in those cases.   GM transaction history is also taken into account.

Fair points, but how then do we determine when a franchise is at risk? Is an "at risk franchise" something we should note publicly so that GM's know there is an entirely different rationale behind the judging of trades?