PHR Mailbag: Ullmark, Rangers, Trouba, Marner, Tkachuk-Huberdeau Trade, Laine, Holl

Topics in this edition of the PHR Mailbag include Jacob Trouba’s future with the Rangers, Patrik Laine’s situation in Columbus, and much more.  If your question doesn’t appear here, we’ll have two more of these columns between now and next weekend so watch for it in one of those.

@JJFlip1995: What is the likelihood that the Bruins trade Ullmark and what is a likely return from said trade?

GM Don Sweeney has made it clear that he’d love to keep both netminders.  I think he’s speaking truthfully about that desire.  But I would be absolutely stunned if it actually happened.  Jeremy Swayman is heading for a pricey long-term contract which would push Boston’s spending on goaltenders near the top of the NHL.  Given that they have some needs to fill while having some rare spending flexibility this summer, I’m not sure that spending big between the pipes is the best way to do it.  It’ll help during the regular season but come playoff time, we saw how little having Ullmark as a high-end second option mattered.

As for a return, I don’t think it’s going to be a huge one.  With what’s believed to be multiple other veteran starters available this summer, the market isn’t going to be too strong beyond the top option (and that’s not Ullmark).  I don’t see the high-end picks being in play over the next couple of weeks.

A lot will depend on if the Bruins are taking a contract back as part of the swap.  If they’re just moving him straight up, they might get a late first-round pick and even that might be on the high side if other dominoes fall first.  I think their preference might be to try to swap Ullmark for a skater to fill one of their other holes with a minimal cap effect.  At that point, you’re probably looking at a second-pairing defender or a second-line winger.  If they can do that and then back-fill with Brandon Bussi taking over behind Swayman, that would be a solid outcome for them.

@RamonesFan41: Who will the Rangers buy out? Trouba, Goodrow, or someone else???

Can I pick none of the above?  I don’t think they buy out anyone, to be honest.

I’ll talk a bit more about Trouba shortly but a buyout costs them $4MM for the next two years and then $2MM for two more years after that.  Can the Rangers get a better defenseman for $4MM or less?  I don’t think they can.  So if you’re not able to upgrade that position, why buy him out and make the team worse?  He didn’t have a great playoff showing but he can still be a contributor so I don’t think they even consider the possibility of a buyout for him.

As for Barclay Goodrow, you could sell me on the idea, at least.  The buyout price tag isn’t crazy.  They’d have a cap credit next season of $200K followed by a $1MM cap charge in 2025-26 before ballooning to a $3.5MM charge in 2026-27.  From there, it’s a little over $1.1MM for three more years.  If they need extra money now, they could buy him out and pre-spend some of the expected cap increase in 2026-27 to cover the higher cost at that time.

But Goodrow is coming off a strong postseason showing where he was one of their leaders in goals with six.  He’s a player who is more effective in the playoffs and I think some might suggest they need more of those players, not less.  I wouldn’t be shocked if they bought him out but I’m leaning no right now.

Looking at the rest of the roster, I don’t see a viable candidate.  If they have reservations about Filip Chytil being able to stay healthy moving forward, they could try to buy him out at one-third of the cost but with the concussion issues he had, I suspect that’s a grievance waiting to happen.  That’s really about it for options so I don’t expect them to go that route in the next couple of weeks.

met man: Do the Rangers stand pat or make moves to improve the team via trades or free agent signings?

With a little over $9MM in cap room per CapFriendly, New York has enough cap space to re-sign Ryan Lindgren and Braden Schneider and round out the roster so they don’t have to necessarily do anything.  They wouldn’t be able to do much else but starting next season with the bulk of this core intact isn’t a bad way to go.  We are, after all, talking about the team that had the most points during the regular season so it’s a good group.

Kaapo Kakko feels like a possible trade chip even with his new deal.  Maybe there’s a winger at a similar price tag that they feel is a better fit on the roster or if they want a free agent in that price range, perhaps you look at moving him for a draft pick.  I wouldn’t be shocked if they looked at some lower-cost free agents as well.  In general, I expect a fairly quiet offseason from them.

But if it were up to me, I’d look to try to go into next season with a couple million in cap space.  They have some waiver-exempt players who could be shuffled back and forth on off days to add to that amount.  Maintaining that to the trade deadline is worth around $9MM to $10MM in full-season salaries, giving them the ability to add multiple players.  If they make a move now, it probably caps them out.  I’d rather try to get two pieces in-season than one during the summer, especially on a team that is already somewhat of a contender.

Schwa: Do you see the Rangers moving on from Trouba? What could you see as the additional assets given to get him off the books?

Maybe a team like Utah could be a fit given they have no D under contract for next season. $8MM for two seasons isn’t too bad for a team to get a physical player who offers leadership. They need to spend some money and he likely won’t provide a cap crunch for them by the time the contract expires.

Let’s talk about Trouba a bit more now.  As I already noted earlier, I don’t see a buyout happening.  It’s fair to say that he underachieved this season and that doesn’t help his short-term trade value.  Neither does an $8MM price tag.  Yes, two years remaining makes it more manageable but how many teams can realistically afford that?  Perhaps more importantly, how many good teams can afford that?

You identified Utah as a possible landing spot and your logic is certainly sound.  That’s definitely a team that could benefit from a shorter-term veteran add to try to stabilize things and they can certainly afford the contract.  But they’re not a playoff team.  Trouba has a 15-team no-trade clause as of July 1st (with a full no-move before then).  Personally, I think it stands to reason that he’d have some non-playoff teams on that list which probably takes Chicago and San Jose, other weaker teams with ample cap room, off the table as well.

If you look at the list of playoff teams this year that can probably afford to take on an $8MM contract without it materially affecting what else they might try to do this summer, Nashville comes to mind.  The problem is they might be the only team on that list.

Without many viable options for a cap dump, they might have to look at trying to move him for another player.  But in doing that, they’re mitigating the cap savings and if I’m being honest, I don’t think they’d get the best player in the move.  If you’re a contender, how much is it worth it to take a lesser player back (one that won’t log 20-plus minutes a night on the right side of the back end) and only get a bit of cap savings?  That doesn’t seem like a great idea to me.  Never say never but I think he stays put.

frozenaquatic: Panarin straight up for Marner. NTCs notwithstanding, who says no? Fills organizational holes for each, and opens up first-line LW for Lafreniere. Panarin’s a little better but Marner is a little younger. Similar contracts.

Trouba to Hockey Club Sibir Novosibirsk Oblast for two pucks and a mouthguard. Who says no? The mouthguard?

I think we’ve covered Trouba more than enough by now but let’s talk about the first proposal.  In a vacuum, I don’t dislike the offer for either side; your quick logic makes sense.  I do think both sides would say no, however.

From Toronto’s perspective, the idea of trading Mitch Marner would be to change up the composition of their roster.  Maybe it’s for a prominent blueliner, a power forward, a future center to possibly replace John Tavares, or a combination of the three.  Artemi Panarin does none of that.  He gets them an extra year of club control at a slightly higher price tag which isn’t nothing but that’s not the type of roster shakeup I think they’d be looking to do.

Meanwhile, for the Rangers, while they save a bit of money for next season, it could cost them considerably for 2025-26.  If they can’t re-sign Marner, then they’ve lost a year of a player who just put up 120 points.  And if they can re-sign him, it’s probably going to be at a price tag that’s higher than Panarin’s which could be notable as they potentially look to reshape their roster.  Having said that, I think they’d be the likelier of the two teams to say yes even though I think they’d say no in the end.

PyramidHeadcrab: Since hindsight is 20/20, who won the Tkachuk-Huberdeau trade? I gotta imagine Florida wins that one by a mile, but can we prove it with numbers? I distinctly remember the Florida fanbase having an absolute meltdown, “Tkachuk is just a mid power forward without Gaudreau!” But in watching this guy the past couple years, I personally think he’s become my favourite player since Paul Kariya.

Still gotta get me a Kariya #9 Ducks jersey…

And speaking of the other casualty of Calgary’s cap crunch, what does Johnny Gaudreau need to be successful going forward in Columbus?

Right now, it’s Florida by a considerable margin in that trade.  Matthew Tkachuk has outscored both Jonathan Huberdeau and MacKenzie Weegar combined since the swap (197 points to 190) and makes $7.25MM less.  I think that’s all the numbers that are really needed.

Tkachuk has proven himself to be a legitimate top-line power forward whose style fits in perfectly with a grittier group that the Panthers have.  And while a $9.75MM price tag certainly isn’t cheap, he’d get considerably more than that if he was hitting the open market next month.

Meanwhile, Huberdeau has struggled immensely under two different head coaches now over his first two years in Calgary.  He’s one of the highest-paid wingers in the league and is producing like a second-liner with two years of a little over 50 points.  That can’t be spun as a positive.  They need a whole lot more from him and barring an influx of offensive talent, I’m not sure he can be counted on to produce anywhere close to the level he was with Florida.

I will say this, however.  Weegar had a great season, scoring 20 goals and 52 points while logging nearly 23 minutes a night.  He’s a legitimate top-pairing player and at $6.25MM on a long-term deal, they’ll get some good value out of that for a while, either with the Flames or as part of a trade if they opt for a rebuild.

It’s hard to say Florida will lose this deal, especially if they’re able to close things out against Edmonton.  Right now, it looks pretty lopsided but if Huberdeau can return to a top-line level, Calgary could still do relatively well here.

As for Gaudreau, he needs higher-end linemates.  Boone Jenner is a very good center, one of the more underrated ones even.  But he’s not a true top-line option, especially offensively.  A well-rounded offensive middleman to play off of would make a big difference.  I think they have that in their system, it’s just a matter of getting Adam Fantilli more development time.  In an ideal world, a big winger on the other side to do some of the board work would also help.  So, too, would a more free-flowing system.  In other words, Gaudreau needs a lot to go right if he wants to get back to the point-per-game level.

W H Twittle: What is Patrik Laine’s future? Will he be traded? Is Laine’s contract a negative value? If so, will Waddell need to add a sweetener to trade Laine? Or, will Laine’s contract get traded for a better yet still not very good contract plus a sweetener (for example: Josh Anderson plus Struble)?

With word coming out this week that the Blue Jackets and Laine are in agreement that a change of scenery would be best, I think it’s safe to say that a move is likely going to happen.  I took a look at his case in some detail last month so I won’t go as detailed here.

In that mailbag, I discussed the three scenarios – give him away (I don’t think he’s in true negative value territory) for the cap and salary relief, retain and get some positive value back, or find another pricey short-term contract to try to swap him for.  Your scenario with Montreal falls toward the latter category and I tend to agree that it’s the most realistic.

Laine’s trade value isn’t great right now.  I’d go as far as saying that it’s never been lower.  An $8.7MM AAV for someone who has missed more games than he has played the last two years is on the high side so teams won’t be coming in with great offers.  But if they can take back an underachieving higher-priced contract, they might be able to get a secondary piece out of it.  That’s a far cry from what they gave up to get him but sometimes, you have to take whatever the best you can get is and go from there.  This feels like one of those times.

decaguard: What would it cost Detroit to move Holl?

This was a contract that had a lot of people scratching their heads when it was signed.  While I think Justin Holl is a serviceable third-pairing defender, you generally don’t see teams giving three years at $3.4MM per year to a serviceable third-pairing defender.  Not surprisingly, that had him out of the lineup quite regularly.

Before talking about a trade, let’s look at the other option first for context, a buyout.  Since the salary is the same each year, the structure is nice and simple; it’d be $1.133MM for each of the next four years.

PuckPedia has a cap relief calculator that provides an estimate of what the required incentive would be for a team to take on Holl’s contract.  For a team taking on the full freight, it suggests a late first-round pick would be required.  They don’t exactly have that.  At 50% retention, their second-round selection is around the recommended value.  Speculatively, there might be a scenario where their second rounder plus another pick is enough to clear the contract.

But here’s the thing.  Is that a better option than a buyout?  With 50% retention, you’re losing a pick and taking on a higher cap charge the next two years to avoid the dead money in 2026-27 and 2027-28.  I don’t think coughing up two decent picks to clear the full contract is any better either.  I think the buyout is a better play here compared to a trade.

Photo courtesy of USA Today Sports Images.