lol. Zero chance CHI does that.

I think that $8 million in retention costs more than a future third. Maybe Petry would like to play in The Windy City?

Start by taking Barabanov out of the deal. Pittsburgh has enough trouble putting together a sufficient package for Karlsson with big retention, never mind a 0.75 PPG forward too; you might get a prospect or some window-dressing but not Barabanov. O'Connor is a fourth-line forward with limited trade value and Poulin hasn't shown that he's an NHLer yet, so he has virtually none; Mike Grier isn't sitting in his office saying "Boy, I sure would like to land Pierre-Olivier Joseph" or "Boy, I sure would like to land Jeff Petry."

You, nor anyone on this board, has any concept of leverage or lack thereof.

Wrong

Yeah, no way Davidson is tying up a retention spot and 8 mil in cap over 4 years for a 3rd. They got a 2nd for taking less than half that cap and didn’t burn a retention spot doing it.

You are the one who is wrong with thinking that Chicago will use a retention slot and pay $8million for anything less than a 1st+ Pittsburgh has no leverage in this deal, the Hawks have all the leverage to say no, if their price is not met.

Maybe try Arizona...

No, you're wrong and it will be proven so in the near future. You're welcome.

Oh and you are such an expert? Are you Kyle from Chicago? Probably some 12 year old keyboard warrior that likes to quote failed Presidents...

You're all wrong because everyone on this board screams about what it costs to retain and EVERY SINGLE time you're all wrong. It's been proven time and time again. Everyone thinks it will costs 1sts and major prospects, when in reality it costs generally 3rd, sometimes a 2nd in a major situation.

Barabanov is a wish on my part, but the guts of what's moving in these deals are very close to what will go to SJ if the Pens do in-fact land EK. In fact, the Pens will likely be moving much less than this.

People arguing about the prospect packages are clueless on every level because they don't understand the lack of leverage SJ has right now. This is not a typical trade situation. SJ is not going to make a killing from any team.

Maybe for a single year I would agree... however this is for 4 years, so would be 4 3rds and that's just the use of the retention slot. Now for the accumulated 8m > 5m is usually a 2nd to a first, depending on the situation for a cap dump. So you need to add it all up, and it's more like a 1st and 2nd ( or multiple 2nds and a 3rd) to take that 4 year 8m part of the contract.

And Pitts has no leverage... all SJS and CHI...
Pittsburgh is the wanting team, SJS is the seller, but not forced seller, they could just play EK....

LOL You have no clue what you're talking about. The leverage is all on whichever teams lands EK. SJ has none what-so-ever and that's why this is taking so long. Grier is trying to save as much face as possible because he knows no matter which teams lands him has him over a barrel. The CHI part will cost at most a 2nd, but likely a 3rd and change.

Obviously you are the one with no clue, Pitts has no leverage at all... and I'm done with this troll...

No, I'm not trolling and you're wrong. PIT, CAR, etc... which ever team EK decides he prefers has all the leverage. You have no idea what you're talking about and you know you're wrong. You're just being stubborn now because you lost this argument.

🤣🤣🤣

Repeat after me, A 3rd team involved in a EK deal won't be retaining cap, rather taking on Petry

WTF man are you 12 years old? You've been owned multiple times by multiple people on here that clearly know more than you. Give it a rest and stop acting like a little child!

Lmao. No I'm not. I promise you that.



If you don't consider $2M of retention for FOUR YEARS a "major situation", then you are delusional. There is no way CHI does that without a 1st included, or something equivalent. And no, we haven't been wrong. CHI fans were right about McCabe's price with retention. we were right about the cost of third party retention on Kane at the deadline. We were right about the cost of VAN dumping Dickinson. And we will be right again about this one, maybe not EXACTLY right, but I can tell you with absolute certainty that a 3rd round pick is not even coming close to getting you 4 years of retention at $2M.

This is awful for Chicago.

@garak
@oldnyifan
@jk74


So yeah, CHI wasn't part of it, but leverage my friends.

The Pens moved Granlund, Petry, Rutta, 1st, 2nd and a bum prospect like Legare. So we dumped three contracts that EVERYONE said NOBODY WANTED and we'd need to give all these picks and prospects in order to trade. Oh yeah, We don't have the PROSPECTS ANYONE WANTS TO MAKE THESE DEALS.

So again, NONE OF YOU have any idea what leverage means and Dubas not only did that, he got a 3rd out of it and a decent depth forwards to boot.

EDIT: Oh my bad, DeSmith too. NOBODY WANTED HIM!!!!

I don't think you have any idea what that trade really is or what the value is of any of those moving pieces and what they mean to the deal. I could break it all down for you, but I don't want to rain on your parade. Everyone just traded their cap dumps and addressed their positional needs marginally. Then SJS bit the bullet and didn't get anywhere near as much as they thought they would for EK, and they still had to retain, take back three cap dumps, and send out a compensatory 3rd round pick. As I said many times previously, if you can find a team with a need at Granlund and/or Petry's positions, then that team might be willing to take on their contracts for less, but that team was never going to be CHI.

PIT had to give up a 2nd + a decent prospect + retain on Petry to move him, and convince SJS to take all that cap back. Pretty much everything is a wash, and the main part of the trade is PIT getting EK with retention and SJS getting a late 2024 1st and a bunch of scraps. Also, I still think EK is a mistake that PIT is going to regret. But, we'll see. Personally, I hope not, and I hope they can get one more cup out of the Crosby/Malkin/Letang era.

My general argument of what you guys think the Pens would have to give up vs. what I felt the Pens would have to give and the arguments you guys were using.

Dubas had all the leverage and used it. These arguments about what we'd have to give up to move all these players out + what we'd have to give up to get EK, I was quite correct based on the leverage. I mentioned all of you, not because you all said the same thing, but elements of what I said would come to pass, not in exact pieces, but in what the Pens would actually have to let go of and it wasn't a lot.

A top-ten protected 1st, 2nd and a crap prospect along would have been worth just to get Petry, Granlund, Rutta and DeSmith off the books. Instead we got EK, a 3rd and a decent depth winger back.

I edited my last comment, btw.

PIT certainly won the trade. But, the main premise of the entire thing was just swapping cap dumps. EK wasn't worth anywhere near as much as SJS fans thought, as I have said many times since all the EK rumors started swirling, and PIT had to pay to move out cap to make the trade work. Don't forget about what PIT paid for Petry in the first place only one year ago, from the same team they sent him back to but with retention.

It's just all the arguments people made against me on why none of this would happen or what we'd ultimately give up, was wrong. This specific scenario I posted was clearly a bit of a wishful thinking one wanting Barabanov, but the arguments that some used as to what we'd have to pay to make things happen was just so wildly off.

Aside from Carter, Dubas erased the Hextall era from this team and paid little to make it happen. To me that's all that matters moving forward. We only lose one 1st and 2nd over the next three years, so we're able to start re-stocking our pipeline.

At this point, all we need to hope for is health of our players. If our big guys, including Jarry, stay relatively healthy, and we don't see any major regression with Sid or Geno, this team has a very good shot about getting one more cup IMO.