I wouldn't say it's any closer to being resolved but as training camp plays out across the league, you might see activity pick up.
Connie is handling this very similar to Lindholm and I trust the process as we saw the result.
Teams are calling keep tabs on Ras (Not earth shattering news). No new offers as of yet.
Camp should show obvious roster issues:
I still think the Stars are going to get motivated fast, especially if Vegas is moving in on the same solution to the RD problem. I can't imagine the Stars want to run back a worse D group than last year when they admitted RD depth was a problem last playoffs.
If the Sharks do not want to suck again this year they HAVE to find a better RD than Klingberg for their top pair.
Carolina makes sense and have some assets to dangle.
Leafs would want Andersson but do not have much to offer the Flames.
Vegas does not make sense while we hold their 1st (and they do not have great assets to trade for).
Bruins, Red Wings, and Blue could all be interested too. I could see this group wanting to wait to see how the season starts before spending to fill their gaps, but of course that means they are starting the season in a weakened position... so how could they expect good results when you have a known issue in the depth chart??
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to Wolven For This Useful Post:
Just spitballing but wonder if there is a GM with the balls to try and go around the new double retention rules.
I think teams will definitely try to do it, but I don't see it being very likely.
It would no longer be a simple three way deal with the middleman taking on a percentage of the cap hit (and associated real money cost) for a mid-round pick while the bulk of the deal happens between the two main teams.
It would need to be two separate deals where the first team trading the player would want full value for the player at the time of the trade, and the second team would not only need to pay full value for the player, but need to get more than that in the second trade for it to make sense.
For example, look at the trade that sent Gourde from Seattle to Tampa last season.
Spoiler!
This is how it looked after all the deals were done...
TAMPA (Pays 25% of Gourde)
IN: Gourde, Bjorkstrand, Aucoin (unsigned), 2026-R5 from SEA
IN: Eyssimont, 2025-R2 from TBL, 2026-R1 from TBL, 2027-R1 from TBL
OUT: Gourde, Bjorkstrand, 2026-R5
DETROIT (Pays 25% of Gourde)
IN: 2025-R4 from TBL
OUT: Aucoin (unsigned)
For simplicity's sake, let's take the other players out and try to balance the deals...
Bjorkstrand and 2026-R5 from Seattle for Eyssimont and 2025-R2 from Tampa
2025-R4 from Tampa for the rights to Aucoin and Detroit paying 25% of Gourde's contract
2026-R1 and 2027-R1 from Tampa for Gourde and Seattle paying 50% of Gourde's contract
To work under the new rules, let's switch the third deal so it's a December trade of Detroit's 2026 and 2027 first round picks for Gourde and Seattle paying 50% of Gourde's contract.
Then, at the deadline, Detroit flips him (with another 25% retained) and Aucoin's rights to Tampa for Tampa's 2026 and 2027 first rounders and their 2025 fourth rounder.
On the surface, that looks like the same end result, except it's much worse for Detroit because they gave up their own 2026 and 2027 first rounders for Tampa's, and theirs are likely to be much better than Tampa's. Detroit also had to pay 50% of Gourde's contract for 75 days and Seattle did not.
The only way it would make sense for Detroit is if they were paying Seattle less in December than they'll get from Tampa in March, but then the question is why would Seattle make that deal?
I think the complexity of finding a deal that works for both teams makes it too hard for it to happen very often.
The other issue is that players who are involved in double-retention deals are usually older players making big salaries, which also means they likely have some kind of NTC and also a wife and kids to think about.
From the player's perspective, there's really no advantage to accepting a deal that's going to move you to a bad team (even though you're leaving a bad team too) for 2 and a half months before you get moved to a good team. Because it's a short term, it doesn't make sense to move your family, meaning you'll be alone living a "long term" hotel for those 75 days until you get flipped.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
I still think the Stars are going to get motivated fast, especially if Vegas is moving in on the same solution to the RD problem. I can't imagine the Stars want to run back a worse D group than last year when they admitted RD depth was a problem last playoffs.
If the Sharks do not want to suck again this year they HAVE to find a better RD than Klingberg for their top pair.
Carolina makes sense and have some assets to dangle.
Leafs would want Andersson but do not have much to offer the Flames.
Vegas does not make sense while we hold their 1st (and they do not have great assets to trade for).
Bruins, Red Wings, and Blue could all be interested too. I could see this group wanting to wait to see how the season starts before spending to fill their gaps, but of course that means they are starting the season in a weakened position... so how could they expect good results when you have a known issue in the depth chart??
Good list just wante to add to it:
LAK were interested in Andersson, and might come back to him as a rental once Ceci($4.5M x 4, Holland special lol) sucks.
OTT might be a dark horse. Their RD depth is Zub, who missed 23 games a season on avg over the last 3 seasons, and 35 year old Nick Jensen. Yakemchuk might make the jump, but that's somewhat risky for a team that's looking to become a consistent playoff team.
If NSH rebounds from last year, and that's a big if, then they would be looking for a RD. I believe their best RD is either Blankenburg or Barron, with Perbix rounding out the RD depth. They have a lot of vets that don't want a rebuild, and a GM in Tortz that made quite a few head scratching moves.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to gvitaly For This Useful Post:
I still think the Stars are going to get motivated fast, especially if Vegas is moving in on the same solution to the RD problem. I can't imagine the Stars want to run back a worse D group than last year when they admitted RD depth was a problem last playoffs.
If the Sharks do not want to suck again this year they HAVE to find a better RD than Klingberg for their top pair.
Carolina makes sense and have some assets to dangle.
Leafs would want Andersson but do not have much to offer the Flames.
Vegas does not make sense while we hold their 1st (and they do not have great assets to trade for).
Bruins, Red Wings, and Blue could all be interested too. I could see this group wanting to wait to see how the season starts before spending to fill their gaps, but of course that means they are starting the season in a weakened position... so how could they expect good results when you have a known issue in the depth chart??
The Stars make sense but they are a tough trading partner. Bourque is a mediocre return and just adds another middle meddling forward. Even with a high draft pick, it is likely to be very late in the round.
Would love to get Bischel but it makes no sense for the Stars to move him since he is cost controlled and already a formidable piece of their defense.
Outside of those pieces the Stars don’t have much of interest.
Does a package of Andersson (50%) + Coleman get Robertson? I would do that. If Robertson doesn’t want to sign move him at deadline retained.
I’ve heard there’s still a handful of teams with significant interest.
But with how close camp is, I’m not certain anything is done about it yet.
With that said I could see teams see how they shake out over the length of training camp and potentially make adjustments.
Personally however I think it makes far more sense to have brought him on before camp started…
The Following 17 Users Say Thank You to Royle9 For This Useful Post:
OTT might be a dark horse. Their RD depth is Zub, who missed 23 games a season on avg over the last 3 seasons, and 35 year old Nick Jensen. Yakemchuk might make the jump, but that's somewhat risky for a team that's looking to become a consistent playoff team.
Sens picked up Jordan Spence this year, and I would imagine they want to see what he can do with more opportunities before giving up anything for a trade.
As for the Preds, I think if they start off slowly and Stamkos and Skjei continue to regress, they're going to realize there's no way back for that roster.
The Stars make sense but they are a tough trading partner. Bourque is a mediocre return and just adds another middle meddling forward. Even with a high draft pick, it is likely to be very late in the round.
Would love to get Bischel but it makes no sense for the Stars to move him since he is cost controlled and already a formidable piece of their defense.
Outside of those pieces the Stars don’t have much of interest.
I disagree about it not making sense to move Bischel. There is no room for him in the organization to be anything other than a 3rd pair D. He is the 4th LD on the depth chart. Once Harley gets extended there won't be room for Bischel in the top 4 in the next 4-5 years.
They can definitely string him along during his ELC but he is going to want out very quickly to get to a team that has room for him in their top 4.
If Nill wants to address the needs of the Stars, he is going to need to move out assets to get what he wants (namely #1/2RD, #2LW, and cap relief over the next 2 seasons). C and LD are the two positions where he has depth to barter away.
My probem is that Bischel isn't enough and he doesn't address our primary organizational need (C).
Does a package of Andersson (50%) + Coleman get Robertson? I would do that. If Robertson doesn’t want to sign move him at deadline retained.
I doubt the Stars entertain that. After trading away Marchment, their LW depth is now Robertson -> Benn -> Steel?
I think the Stars should be looking to add a #2LW to move Benn down to the third line instead of destroying their LW depth. Coleman definitely works for that but you have to keep Robertson for Coleman to be #2.
Moving out Bicshel or one of their 6 centers makes more sense than Robertson.
