[Trade] Vegas trades Methot to Dallas for 2020 2nd and Dylan Ferguson

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by cannon7

Discussed to death, sure. But still plain wrong.

Vegas was never getting one of those guys.

if they could have, they would have.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I don't want to sound like a butthurt Flames fan that was hoping they would take the Brouwer contract off our hands but he would look pretty good in that forward group. Not sure why they wouldn't have picked him up seeing the money isn't really an issue for them. Maybe they had their sights on Oshie in free agency? Or maybe they just don't want to win many games next season but this roster is pretty awful. Did MAF realize how bad the roster was going to be? He's going to get lit up badly on a regular basis.

I don't think Treliving was willing to give up enough of a sweetner for them to take him.

It's not just a question of fitting him in this year, but Brouwer has 3 years left.

McPhee has made it very clear that he'll fill up his available cap space taking on contracts for a price.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by cannon7

Discussed to death, sure. But still plain wrong.

It is not, though. I don't understand why it is so difficult for people to understand how Anaheim and Minnesota played this out.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

I don't think Treliving was willing to give up enough of a sweetner for them to take him.

It's not just a question of fitting him in this year, but Brouwer has 3 years left.

McPhee has made it very clear that he'll fill up his available cap space taking on contracts for a price.

I think this is key here. As of today VGK has four contracts with term for more than two years, and one of those is David Clarkson's, which will likely spend its entirety in LTIR cap relief. The other three belong to players who are each only 26-years-old. Brouwer does not fit the model.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Vegas was never getting one of those guys.

if they could have, they would have.

There's a third option: They could have, but decided not to. They picked young bubble players (Theodore) and older vets, but steered clear of productive young players. Why would McPhee do this? I can think of a few reasons, none of them terribly compelling from a fan perspective, but clearly a long-term play. A combination of relationship management, squeezing additional assets out and focusing on players who were on the bubble but were being kept out due to the depth chart (Theodore, for example) or players who were likely on the way out anyway but still had something left in the tank. Did it make sense to pluck a Dumba, who was already a productive NHLer and have him toil on an expansion roster? Sure the fans would have loved it, but it didn't really do Dumba or the Golden Knights much good long-term. Again, I don't find this very compelling and would have taken a Dumba and flipped him if he didn't fit into my long-term plans instead. But I don't need to negotiate with NHL GMs on a daily basis, so there's probably more consequences to taking a productive young player from a team than are publicly known.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I don't want to sound like a butthurt Flames fan that was hoping they would take the Brouwer contract off our hands but he would look pretty good in that forward group. Not sure why they wouldn't have picked him up seeing the money isn't really an issue for them. Maybe they had their sights on Oshie in free agency? Or maybe they just don't want to win many games next season but this roster is pretty awful. Did MAF realize how bad the roster was going to be? He's going to get lit up badly on a regular basis.

I'm surprised they didn't take Stajan. That center depth is terrible! And vet centers always trade for something at the deadline.

Honestly, I think Vegas really blew the opportunity of the expansion draft on a lot of fronts.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

It is not, though. I don't understand why it is so difficult for people to understand how Anaheim and Minnesota played this out.

If Anaheim or Minnesota did what's claimed, then things start to look like collusion. Is that really the narrative we're pushing for why McPhee did what he did?

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

Treliving should've been on Methot instead or wait out Snow a bit. Maybe the price would've dropped a bit. This trade makes Hamonic look like an overpayment.

Hamonic is a better player though

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by cannon7

If Anaheim or Minnesota did what's claimed, then things start to look like collusion...

I don't see how. It would be nearly impossible to argue such in the one-time event of an expansion draft. The bottom line here is that given the options that Anaheim had to keep their top-four defense core intact, McPhee really did end up getting a better player than he would have otherwise outside of the trade.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Cleary there were better offer for Methot but LV is just stupid and took a lower offer! ��

whats the rush?

keep him until a better offer comes along...even wait for the deadline

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

I'm surprised they didn't take Stajan. That center depth is terrible! And vet centers always trade for something at the deadline.

Honestly, I think Vegas really blew the opportunity of the expansion draft on a lot of fronts.

Only if their goal was to be a middling team now.

It seems clear McPhee is planning for 2-4 years from now.

His strategy has been to position the team asset wise for the future. They need some superstars to win. They were never gonna get that from the expansion draft.

Once they've got a good group of youngsters he can use these future picks to do what BT has done for us. Trade them for good players, but not until they need those players push them over the hump.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by cannon7

There's a third option: They could have, but decided not to. They picked young bubble players (Theodore) and older vets, but steered clear of productive young players. Why would McPhee do this? I can think of a few reasons, none of them terribly compelling from a fan perspective, but clearly a long-term play. A combination of relationship management, squeezing additional assets out and focusing on players who were on the bubble but were being kept out due to the depth chart (Theodore, for example) or players who were likely on the way out anyway but still had something left in the tank. Did it make sense to pluck a Dumba, who was already a productive NHLer and have him toil on an expansion roster? Sure the fans would have loved it, but it didn't really do Dumba or the Golden Knights much good long-term. Again, I don't find this very compelling and would have taken a Dumba and flipped him if he didn't fit into my long-term plans instead. But I don't need to negotiate with NHL GMs on a daily basis, so there's probably more consequences to taking a productive young player from a team than are publicly known.

This is where you are wrong. If LV was going to take Dumba, Minny would have just traded him. So LV was NEVER getting Dumba.

So if they are ending up with the same player either way (The 2nd best player after Dumba) why would they not take ANY asset to leave Dumba alone? They are no worst off. All they could do is make Minny worst off, annoy the GM, and still end up with the same player

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by dino7c

whats the rush?

keep him until a better offer comes along...even wait for the deadline

You only have some many roster spots, and he costs real money.

And why are you certain his trade value improves? His numbers would be terribad on LV.

So you keep a player who doesn't want to be there, on a bad team, hoping his trade value as a rental is higher then it is before the season when a team gets him for all 82 games?

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Only if their goal was to be a middling team now.

It seems clear McPhee is planning for 2-4 years from now.

His strategy has been to position the team asset wise for the future. They need some superstars to win. They were never gonna get that from the expansion draft.

Once they've got a good group of youngsters he can use these future picks to do what BT has done for us. Trade them for good players, but not until they need those players push them over the hump.

But he didn't even pick the most flippable players in a lot of cases. In 2-4 years this team will still be terrible. They won't even be making the pick they got for Methot for another 3 years. He won't be at the flipping picks to push them over the hump stage at that point.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

I'm surprised they didn't take Stajan. That center depth is terrible! And vet centers always trade for something at the deadline.

Honestly, I think Vegas really blew the opportunity of the expansion draft on a lot of fronts.

Stajan has negative value.

McPhee would have canvased the league and asked if anyone had any interest in a middling #4 centre with a $3.5M cap hit.

I think we all know the answer to that.

Vegas took on salary for players with value or for a price.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by cannon7

There's a third option: They could have, but decided not to. They picked young bubble players (Theodore) and older vets, but steered clear of productive young players. Why would McPhee do this? I can think of a few reasons, none of them terribly compelling from a fan perspective, but clearly a long-term play. A combination of relationship management, squeezing additional assets out and focusing on players who were on the bubble but were being kept out due to the depth chart (Theodore, for example) or players who were likely on the way out anyway but still had something left in the tank. Did it make sense to pluck a Dumba, who was already a productive NHLer and have him toil on an expansion roster? Sure the fans would have loved it, but it didn't really do Dumba or the Golden Knights much good long-term. Again, I don't find this very compelling and would have taken a Dumba and flipped him if he didn't fit into my long-term plans instead. But I don't need to negotiate with NHL GMs on a daily basis, so there's probably more consequences to taking a productive young player from a team than are publicly known.

If they could have realistically had Dumba, they would have taken him.

He would have fit in short term, and long term.

I doubt very much that any GM would consider that Vegas was playing dirty pool by taking a young, good exposed player.

Vegas extracted a very good price for not taking Dumba.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

But he didn't even pick the most flippable players in a lot of cases.

We don't know this.

He had the chance to talk to all the other GM's about what they might want out of the expansion draft.

With us not being privy to those conversations, we really don't know.

And it's clear that there are quite varying opinions on the value of players on this board even.

Some value guys like Brouwer and Stajan as positive, and suggest they can be moved for value.

I assume if that was the case, Vegas would have picked one.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by cannon7

If Anaheim or Minnesota did what's claimed, then things start to look like collusion. Is that really the narrative we're pushing for why McPhee did what he did?

Collusion? MIN and ANA made trades to ensure they could expose whoever they wanted and not lose them. That's not collusion. That's how this expansion draft worked.

Did you not read about these deals?

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Vegas was never getting one of those guys.

if they could have, they would have.

This is the one that's tough IMO.

Could these teams really have done all the things they said they were going to do to be able to protect everyone?

Anaheim sure - it's feasible they buyout Bieksa and trade Vatanen.

Minnesota - Seems pretty unlikely that they are able to trade at least 3 of Brodin, Staal, Scandella, Dumba, or Haula.

Islanders - Same deal. Unlikely they find takers for at least a couple of Hamonic, De Haan, Hickey, Strome, Nelson, Pelech etc before the draft.

IMO they let Minnesota and the Islanders off the hook by accepting the trades that they did. Especially since they took a bad contract from the Islanders to do so anyways.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

In MIN's case I think VGK could easily view Haula + Tuch > Dumba and it's as simple as that

In ANA's case I think Theodore is about as valuable as Vatanen or Manson.

The Islander one doesn't make as much sense to me unless they don't like De Hasn and Nelson as much as a 1st. That one I find weird but the other two seem perfectly reasonable.