Johnson, Addison, Hallander, 1st, 2nd for Zucker, Brodin.

Pass. Far too much for the Pens to give up.

Zucker is not a difference maker, he doesn't help the Crosby era Cup chase as much as Wild fans want you to believe. Brodin probably wouldn't last past 1 year in Pittsburgh so he doesn't help that much either.

Addison, Hallander, 1st are far too much futures to give up for far too little "win now" help.

Your opinion takes on Zucker are very bad. He is very good. He's a legitimate top 6 winger with speed, ability to put up 30+ goals, and has excellent defensive numbers. He's also signed long-term at a reasonable rate.

Brodin is legitimately elite defensively.

Yeah, legit top-6, 30+goals, great contract... that's why he is in rumors. Good players on good/term contract don't constantly appear in rumors.
UFAs do. (Kreider) <- doesn't apply
Bad contracts do. (Kovalchuk in LA) <- oop
Players that don't perform to their contracts do. (Guess who's name goes here) <- oh geez...

If one is to believe Zucker apologists then there is ZERO reason for the Wild to trade him. Age, ability, contract are all supposedly great according to them. Yet... here we are. There are a lot of bad takes on Zucker, but they aren't from me.

He has scored 30+ goals once

That's horrible reasoning. Minnesota has one of the top LW prospects in the league coming up next year and has stated they want to trade someone to make room.

If a team wants to trade a good player, you try to get him. You have gone from "he was meh the one game I watched him" to saying "he can't be that good if he's in trade talks".

Remember when the Penguins won a cup with a leading scorer they acquired the previous offseason that his old team wanted to trade?

If you are going to make an argument against Zucker at least use reasoning and good faith arguments.

And he's played in Minnesota without playmaking elite centers. He drives play and is very good defensively.

No, That's not what I said at all. Not even close. I even explained it more clearly when you messed up your interpretation earlier and you still got it wrong. Reading comprehension not a strong point for you?



Also not what I said.



You mean Kessel? Who had the ability to be a ppg player? Who had a lot of baggage? Who had a lot of bad blood with Leaf management? Who the Leaf's retained $1.2M on? You literally just supported my side of the discussion, thank you.

Maybe you need to Google "reasoning"...

Those were your precise points. They are very bad.

This doesn't fit the cap. There is no argung that either.
Guentzel isn't on LTIR for cap reasons.
That's all there is to that.
They have bonus to pay, they don't want it going over into next year and having to deal with that going forward as they have enough cap issues as is.

A Galchenyuk trade could easily clear some cap space.

Also, the actual cap space available is higher than the number shown here because of the space accumulated over the season.

If you go to individual teams, CapFriendly gives an estimate of the deadline space available. They have the Penguins at $8,853,651. It's going to be lower than that but $4-5 million is a reasonable estimate.

You don't get it. The bonus comes out of the cap space, and it is not accumulated.
So that number doesn't really mean anything.
There is potential 3+ million in bonus due.
Most of it obtainable.
Which is why this team is not spent to the cap and why they had to move Gudbranson earlier in the year to clear space.
So you can say there is 8+ million in cap space all day, but that simply is not true.
If the cap works like you think it does, they would have put Crosby, Dumo, Jugs and every other penguins who got hurt for more than 2 weeks or whatever on LTIR.
But it does not work that way.

"If the cap works like you think it does, they would have put Crosby, Dumo, Jugs and every other penguins who got hurt for more than 2 weeks or whatever on LTIR"

No, you only need to do that if you are going to exceed the cap space while the players are injured. Being on LTIR doesn't help you unless that's the case.

First of all, if Galchenyuk is traded everything you are talking about is moot.

Secondly, it's not the end of the world if you go over with bonuses and have them the next year. You can throw Guentzel on LTIR if you acquire too much salary. You are making too big of a deal about the bonus thing. We also don't know the exact conditions for Kahun or Marino.

Also, they had to move Gudbranson because they had too many D and couldn't carry an additional forward. Bonuses were not the motivating factor.

Yes, you're LTIR takes effect if you exceed the cap.
That does not prevent teams from banking LTIR time.
Any team above or over the cap can put a player on LTIR for future cap reasons.
They didn't due to the cap and the bonuses. I don't know why you are trying to argue it. Jake would be on LTIR right now and the other players would have been there a long time ago if this is the way they were doing things.
And the whole point is, they aren't going over the cap to use LTIR because they would have to pay the bonus next year and they can't do that.

Again, you don't have to do that if you trade Galchenyuk. And again, we don't know how much that number that would be, particularly with his Chicago signed contract. They give out a ton of performance bonuses to their players ever year. Most of it isn't met. But yes, they could just pay it next year.

I also don't understand why you want to keep talking about LTIR.

Nope. The only thing bad there is your reading comprehension.

You realize we literally read what you wrote if you don't go back and change it, right? There's no reason to lie about it.

" Good players on good/term contract don't constantly appear in rumors." Is what you said to imply that he can't possibly be that good if he's in trade rumors. It's what you said. And it's a terrible argument.

There's no need for you to pretend that's not what you said. It's sad.

I stand by the comment that you quoted above. I also did not deny saying that.

Are you going to go back and quote me on how I said that I only watched one game of Zucker based off of the "he was meh the one game I watched him" line that you dropped above? Which is what I said that I didn't say, not the "Good players on good/term contract don't constantly appear in rumors" line that you switched to when you realized that you were wrong. Or are you just going to admit that you don't comprehend what you read and move on?

You realize we literally read what you wrote if you don't go back and change it, right? There's no reason to lie about it.

You wrongly commented that I said I only watched one Zucker game. I said that I didn't say that. You went back and realized that you were 100% wrong. You then changed your direction to the trade rumors comment to try to fave face. Fail.

Try again. Try harder.