PHR Mailbag: Red Wings, Sharks, Blues, Rangers, Canadiens, Wild

Topics in this edition of the PHR Mailbag include the possibility of San Jose moving their top pick this year, offseason planning for the Blues, and much more.  If your question doesn’t appear here, check back in last weekend’s column.

gowings2008: What are the Red Wings offseason plans? Trade and draft targets? Will they shed some bad contracts? Seems after today that the players expect more from management than what they’ve gotten recently.

I have to think it’s going to be more of the same from Detroit this summer.  They’re going to operate as if they’re trying to make the playoffs which will have them looking to add multiple veterans, just as they did last year.  With GM Steve Yzerman generally believing in a longer-term development path, I’d be surprised if they’re penciling in a bunch of their top youngsters on the NHL roster next season.  More likely is that most of them start in Grand Rapids.

I don’t see them being particularly active on the trade front in terms of trying to trade for impact talent, short of trying to find a change of scenery trade for someone like Vladimir Tarasenko, a move that would likely see them getting a similarly-priced underachiever coming back the other way.  I’ve said before that I think there’s a trade option out there for Ben Chiarot in a similar type of swap and if they wanted to retain money, I suspect they could get a better return than expected.  The only bad contract I think they’ll shed would be Justin Holl; he’s the only true buyout candidate I think they have.

While you didn’t ask about free agent targets, I expect they’ll be in on pretty much every top-four defenseman that actually gets to the open market but that list is getting pretty small as it is.  Up front, I suspect they’ll look at the top center options available but those will probably price themselves out of what Detroit can afford, sending them toward wingers.  For some reason, Nikolaj Ehlers stands out as a target, someone who can add some secondary scoring.  Like Yzerman said in his presser this week, I expect them to get something done with Patrick Kane to keep him around as well.

Draft-wise, they sit 12th right now heading into next week’s lottery.  Assuming they stay there, defenseman Radim Mrtka feels like someone they’d consider.  Roger McQueen could be a candidate to slide given his injuries while Carter Bear could go in that range as well.

tucsontoro1: Lots of chatter about San Jose moving their #1 draft pick if they win the lottery. Seems counter-productive to a rebuild??

It feels like we get this type of chatter more regularly now but a lot of it is just that, chatter.  It’s fun to dream up scenarios about a team trading for the number one selection but the reality is that it doesn’t happen very often.  More recently, the last time it happened was 2003 and that was a trade-down from one to three.  In theory, the Sharks could do that, land an asset of some note, and still get a high-quality prospect.  While their prospect pool has certainly improved, it’s still not the deepest given how bare the cupboards were when GM Mike Grier took over.  In the right scenario, a move like that would be defensible.

I suspect that’s not the context you were asking with though; I imagine you were talking about trading the pick outright.  Generally speaking, that would run counter to a rebuild but it depends on who you were getting in return.  If San Jose could get a high pick from the last couple of drafts that’s established already that fits in with the age group of their young core that’s willing to sign a max-term deal when their current contract is up, it could make some sense.  Having said that, I’m not sure there’s a player like that available which is why a move is unlikely to happen.  And in terms of trading that pick for a more established star with only a few years of control remaining, that wouldn’t make sense for a team like the Sharks that’s still a few years away from contention.

vincent k. mcmahon: Looking at the Blues FA’s this year (Faksa, Suter, MacEachern), do you see them potentially bringing any of the three back or moving on from all three?

Also, is there anyone you see the Blues potentially buying out (Faulk, Leddy, Joseph, etc)?

I think at the right price point, they’d be interested in keeping Radek Faksa and Ryan Suter.  Faksa has been overpaid these last few years as his offense never came around but he’s consistently above-average on faceoffs, has good size, and can kill penalties.  If he took something around half his current price tag of $3.25MM, that might work.  As for Suter, he’s still a serviceable depth defender and accepted something with a base salary of the minimum last summer with some bonuses.  Something with that structure could be appealing again.  Perhaps not on the opening day of free agency but as most of the options come off the board, that’s something they could pivot back to depending on what else happens.

Before looking at the buyout question, let’s look at their cap situation.  As things stand, they have around $6MM in cap space, per PuckPedia, with Joel Hofer needing a new contract as an RFA.  Beyond that, they already have enough players signed to ice a full team.  A two-year bridge deal around the $2.5MM range for Hofer sounds about right so let’s give them $3MM in cap room, assuming Torey Krug is able to return next season.  Otherwise, he’d be LTIR-eligible again, opening up some extra wiggle room.  With that money, they don’t necessarily have to do anything to create more space.

With two years left on his contract, I think there would be a trade market for Justin Faulk this summer.  The UFA crop is weak and considering he’s a right-shot option, there should be teams willing to accept a small premium on the cap hit ($6.5MM) in exchange for a shorter-term agreement.  His full no-trade clause goes away in July so I don’t think a buyout is going to be needed if they want to move him.

I’d put Nick Leddy in the maybe column.  He only has one year left and they can drop the cap hit from $4MM to $2MM with a buyout next season while adding a $1MM charge in 2026-27.  He has struggled since returning from injury so he’s definitely on an above-market rate.  On the other hand, if they waived him and sent him down, he’d carry a $2.85MM cap charge next year with no hit the following year.  Is it worth taking $1MM in dead cap charges in 2026-27 to save $850K next season?  Maybe.

As for Mathieu Joseph, he’s also in the maybe column.  He hasn’t exactly provided much value on his contract ($2.95MM through next season) after being acquired from Ottawa.  A buyout would save $2.2MM next season and add a $1.1MM dead cap charge in in 2026-27 so the same question with Leddy largely applies here as well.  After receiving a third-round pick to take on his contract last summer, I wonder if they could try to make a similar move and clear the full money that way.  With more money in the system and a higher spending floor, I think we’ll see a few more of those moves in the coming weeks.

I’ll give you one other buyout option, Alexandre Texier.  He’ll be 25 so it’s only a one-third cost, not two-thirds.  If management feels it just didn’t work out, they could buy him out and save $1.75MM in space for next season while taking on a $350K dead cap charge in 2026-27.  If they want to open up a roster spot and a bit of room, that might be the easiest route to take.

Schwa: Predictions for NYR this offseason…

– Option on 1st round pick?

– Notable UFA/RFA decisions?

– Can the team retool, or do they need to rebuild? If the latter, will they?

Thanks!

There were a few other questions originally but they’ve either been covered recently or have been answered as Chris Drury will remain as GM while they wasted little time deciding their coaching situation, letting go of Peter Laviolette and bringing in Mike Sullivan as their new bench boss.

As a refresher, the Rangers moved their 2025 first-round pick as part of the J.T. Miller trade, a selection that was flipped to Pittsburgh soon after.  However, the conditions on that pick say that if it falls within the top 13, New York can keep it and move their 2026 pick instead, albeit unprotected.  It currently falls at #11 heading into the lottery so it’s locked into a top-13 position.  My inclination is that Drury assesses that this is a playoff-bound team next season and keeps the pick, thinking that next year’s could land somewhere in the 20s.  It’s not without its risks given that many felt this was a playoff team this year but the hiring of Sullivan suggests they’re all-in on pushing forward with this core group.

In terms of free agents, there isn’t much of note with their UFAs.  The two they have with NHL experience are Nicolas Aube-Kubel and Calvin de Haan and it’s fair to assume neither will return.  K’Andre Miller and William Cuylle are the key RFA’s.  Miller likely winds up with a short-term deal and with New York’s cap situation, they’ll be pushing for a short-term bridge for Cuylle.  Adam Edstrom and Matt Rempe should re-sign for cheap while it wouldn’t shock me if Arthur Kaliyev is non-tendered.  I’m leaning toward guessing that Zachary Jones gets a qualifying offer but his arbitration eligibility and desire to play more could have them going in an opposite direction.

The Sullivan hiring means they’re not interested in rebuilding.  The good news is that this team can retool.  I don’t think they’re as bad as their record was this year.  If they brought this team back exactly as it was with a quality coach like Sullivan behind the bench, I’d probably pick them as a playoff team.  They’re not going to be able to do much given their cap situation but they might not have to either.  Chris Kreider could be a trade option to move to open up some flexibility and change up one top-six piece but I think this roster won’t have too many changes come opening night in October.

Jaysen: Kent Hughes stated that he is willing to overpay in a trade to get that 2nd line center. Mike Grier is willing to move the 1st overall pick… If you’re Kent Hughes, what would be three overpaying scenarios to get you that 2nd line center via trade?

Let’s look at Hughes’ actual quote, one that he had to walk back given that it was certainly interpreted differently than he intended:

We’re not going to go crazy in the free agent market and give out a big eight-year contract that we’ll regret the moment we give it. We’re probably more likely to overpay in terms of assets to give to acquire a player.

All that really says is that given their situation, they’d prefer to part with an extra asset to acquire a player (under some cost control) over handing out a max-term pricey deal in free agency.  That’s not really saying much, to be honest; most teams would probably say that in a salary cap environment, pay more to get a guy who costs less on a more desirable term.

I have to admit, I have a hard time thinking of three trade scenarios as I’d be surprised if three top-six centers get traded this summer.  Maybe Bo Horvat if the new Islanders GM decides to rebuild with the foundation of the offer being something like Kirby Dach, Logan Mailloux, and at least one of their two first-round picks.  That would be more than New York gave up to get him and with five years left instead of the hypothetical eight that Hughes suggested, that might be more palatable.  Something like that feels like the type of package they’d be looking to move for any established top-six middleman, in general.

I actually wonder if his quote was a bit of a smokescreen and that they’re going to try to overpay on a short-term free agent deal which is what they tried to do last summer.  There are some older centers on the market (Claude Giroux, Mikael Granlund, and even John Tavares should he get there) that won’t require long-term contracts.  Montreal has enough short-term cap flexibility to overpay that way and I think that might be their preferred route as the type of center they’d like to get (one that’s closer to the age group of their young core) probably isn’t available.

As for Grier’s comments about being willing to move the number one pick, that’s not exactly what he said.  Here is his actual quote:

I’m not gonna say no. Someone wants to make a really good offer of established young players – it’s not something I’m gonna close the door on. Last year, I probably shut the door on everything that came my way. You never know. If there’s a Ricky Williams, Herschel Walker-type offer up, I think we’ll listen.

Last year, they automatically said no to everything.  This year, he won’t automatically say no if someone wants to drastically overpay.  That shouldn’t be construed as willing to move the pick which, as covered a few questions ago, doesn’t make much sense unless the perfect situation arises which probably won’t.

Zakis: The Wild have had a consensus top 5ish farm system but the Iowa Wild have been consistently bad. Is there a correlation between having a good group of prospects and minor league team and overall player development? Watching Hershey and Coachella being competitive makes me wonder.

I don’t think there’s a great correlation between the two.  AHL champions tend to be older groups.  If you look at Hershey’s roster from last year, how many prospects were in their top ten in scoring?  The year before was largely the same thing although Connor McMichael was there at least.  Chicago won the year before with a veteran-laden squad as well.  Even Coachella Valley’s roster the last couple of years has a lot of veterans to compensate for a still-growing prospect pool.  They have at least more of an optimal mix between the two though.

Generally speaking, it’s hard to find the right balance.  More veteran-laden groups tend to win more but there isn’t necessarily a bunch of prospect development.  Younger teams get more development but don’t typically win a lot.  It’s when you don’t have either situation as has been the case in Iowa lately that it hurts.  They don’t have the top-end veterans but a lot of their prospects didn’t have a great showing.  To me, that’s more of a coaching or player development coaching issue.

My own personal preference is trying to find the best of both worlds where a team brings in a few higher-end veterans to serve as the anchors while having some prospects developing in the hopes that by midseason, they’re able to step up and play a bigger role.  In those circumstances, the team is usually well-positioned to make at least a solid playoff push.  Iowa will have some work to do to get to that level this summer.

Photo courtesy of Stephen R. Sylvanie-Imagn Images.