Peeke for Brodie makes no sense.

Leafs decline. Hard pass from the Caps.

I actually think this is something the Caps would consider. It frees up some money and Roslovic is a pretty good player and a bit younger. I don't hate this at all

for CBJ:
- adds a veteran LHD (position of need)
- adds a ton of flexibility (can play RD with werenski or LD to partner with a young RHD like boqvist or jiricek)
- adds a quality player to a position where they've had injuries
- only costs them a guy who they're likely to move anyway
- frees up $5.5m in cap over the following two years

i know it doesn't address the 'logjam' but it doesn't have to – it makes them better at a reasonable price. they can clear the logjam elsewhere, unless the logjam is unable to be cleared this offseason anyway, in which case it's a straight-up upgrade that helps clear the logjam the following season.

for TOR:
- gets them a player they like
- gets them a player with term at a low cost
- helps fix the cap crunch without costing them nylander



wasn't it reported that no one was willing to offer them anything significant for kuzy? it's a hard contract to move. this deal would move that contract, give them two flippable expiring assets who can contribute this year, and save them nearly $8m in cap the following year.

both bean and roslovic are former first-round picks who have shown the ability to produce in the NHL, but haven't consistently put it together. WSH is flush with guys like that who they've turned around – strome, milano, etc.

I don't think we need to trade Kuznetsov. The potential of keeping him and getting a bounceback season is better than what Roslovic could bring. He's claimed that he didn't necessarily request a trade, so why not just hang onto him?

The trade isn't terrible, so "hard pass" was probably excessive, but I'd rather have Kuzy than Roslovic.

Brodie is a RD and it would just mean we are scratching one of Brodie or Boqvist instead of Peeke or Boqvist. He also costs almost double of Peeke, so it would limit us on what other moves would be possible. We essentially get an older and more expensive replacement for Peeke, when what we need to do is move Peeke or Boqvist for picks, prospects, or a position of need. Like i said it just makes no sense for us and we would be better off keeping Peeke.

brodie is a left hander. capfriendly arbitrarily lists him as a RD for the same reason it lists blankenburg as a LD – because both guys played their off-side out of necessity.

unlike peeke, he's a guy who they can play in any of the six d-man spots. peeke can't play on the left and can't play on the top pair. he's fighting for the second or third pair RD spot, but the other guys in that equation either have higher upside (boqvist, jiricek), are better right now (blankenburg) or are more expensive/harder to move (gudbranson).

he's a shutdown guy who can also get the puck out of the zone and handle big minutes, so you could either put him with werenski:

werenski - brodie
provorov - severson
bean - blankenburg/gudbranson/jiricek

or let him be a safety blanket for one of the young guys:

werenski - severson
brodie - boqvist/jiricek
provorov - blankenburg/gudbranson

in the roster build above, jiricek stays in the AHL, gudbranson is the 7D, and the jackets have three balanced pairs that can be very effective and all handle 20+ minutes a night if needed.

the short-term cap is fine, and it buys them more cap room in the following two seasons when they'll need it a lot more.

It lists Blanks as both cause hes played both. It lists Brodie as a RD, cause thats what he plays. Im not sure Peeke is fighting anyone for his spot. I think he has the 2RD slot fairly locked down, Babcock has called him out by name in his interviews/press conferences. Blanks is 7D, he wont be in the starting lineup. Jiricek would be a surprise to be anywhere other than the AHL this season, at least to start. I just dont think a Brodie rental maximizes the value from Peeke. I would rather get like a 3rd round pick that could bring value down the line rather than waste his value on a rental that we dont need.

brodie improves the team and increases the likeihood that they can make the playoffs.

if they make this move and they're in a playoff spot come deadline time, it's worth it.

if they make this move and they're not in a playoff spot come deadline time, a rental brodie at 50% retention will fetch a lot more what peeke would fetch right now imo.

And if we miss the playoffs, which is most likely, and Brodie gets hurt so we cant trade him? then we basically gave peeke away for free. We are not in a position to be thinking of taking on rentals. Maybe next year, but i dont think we are there yet.

the thing about the "what if we acquire this player and then they get hurt and we miss the playoffs" thing is that you can say it about literally any player. it's such an unlikely hypothetical that it shouldn't be part of the decision-making process. it's not like peeke couldn't also suffer a major injury – but they'd still owe peeke for the following years while having no place for him on the roster.

besides, you even said that you'd take a third-round pick for peeke. brodie is an upgrade over peeke. if they're sellers, and he's healthy, he'll bring back more than that. in the unlikely even that he's not healthy, they'd only be missing out on a third round pick, but saving $5.5m in cap over the next two seasons anyway, so… they still come out ahead?

The scenario of the getting hurt only really matters when its a rental. We have no use for rentals and we are not cap strapped so the cap savings arent that big of an incentive. I said a 3rd cause that has value beyond a year where we are likely going to miss the playoffs anyway. Peeke is not a cap dump, we dont need to move him for cap space. The only reason we would move Peeke is for roster space, which adding a RD as the return negates that and makes the move useless. the only teams that should be trading for rentals are ones that either want to resign that player or they want to push for a cup, neither of those apply to the Jackets.

The scenario of the getting hurt only really matters when its a rental. [/quote]

it's still such a remote possibility that it's not worth considering. they are trying to compete this year, this makes them more competitive. in fact, injuries are actually a compelling argument for having another lefty who can handle top four minutes – if werenski or provorov miss time, the top four is going to take an enormous hit. if they have brodie, they're in better shape.



you just said a few comments ago that brodie being more expensive this year was a problem! next year they'll have new deals for johnson, marchenko, sillinger, chinakhov and texier!



i never said peeke was a cap dump; in fact, in this example, he's being moved for a better player on a team that needs the cap space.

this move would make the jackets better, so by definition it is not useless. it doesn't free up immediate roster space, but that's not a prerequisite for every move – they can either free up roster space by other means, risk losing someone to waivers, or send down a young guy.

let's say they swap peeke for brodie. they're a better team immediately for it. they then have 9 defensemen (werenski, brodie, severson, provorov, boqvist, bean, blankenburg, gudbranson).

the logical next step is to try to move boqvist or bean. if they can't, they can send blankenburg down and/or risk losing jake bean to waivers. but at that point, you already have a replacement/huge upgrade over bean in brodie.

yeah, there are a lot of forwards, too, but you don't pass on a major roster upgrade because it means you might have to expose one of jake bean/justin danforth/matt olivier to waivers.

Sure Brodie is left handed but has always been a RD. He has only played a hand full of games as LD. He only played LD for Toronto due to injury to a LD and was no where as effective as he is playing RD.