Can't see Sanheim making sense unless Krug is going the other way with alot less retention than you have him going to Florida for. You're effectively paying Sanheim 8.75m for 3 years with this sort of movement.

I also wouldn't move a lotto pick for him.

I think I could see the rationale if it were one of our 2nds instead of the 1st for him. And could see the reasoning for being ok with the larger cap hit in the near term because it would assume we would draft a defenseman to come in the next 2-4 years on an ELC.

The way I envision it in this scenario (doesn't have to be Sanheim but Army clearly wanted him last year, but a similar LHD contract), is we pay the higher AAV for 3 years with retention on Krug plus Sanheim's contract to get a better 2 way defenseman that can play top 4 minutes. Krug at this point needs to be very sheltered on defense and load up on PP time. Within 2-3 years, I'd hope that one of Lindstein/Loof/Buchinger can develop into the other top 4 LHD to replace Leddy - otherwise likely need to sign another UFA.

It’s not an awful plan for what they’re trying to do. I just wouldn’t attach the 1st without a significantly better player/contract coming back or Krug going the other way and another piece coming back.

I would understand something like Sanheim + Laughton for Krug + 16. I’d imagine that was the basis of a deal last season when the reports came out about Laughton and a first. I think they had said we had a prospect attached there as well. Would have to guess that would’ve been like a Kaskimaki or Robertsson.

Fair enough. I just don't see PHI jumping at that deal. I don't want to give up 16 but also at some point need to move assets if we ever want to move from re-tool to competing. Also, Krug already rejected PHI - really don't think he will change his mind. Maybe could swing Faulk but then need another top 4 RHD because I refuse to believe Kessel will be more than a 6/7 defenseman (similar to Bortuzzo role)