--

I'd prefer if it didn't

I was thinking hopefully not!

Btw no chance Marner takes a 1.9 million dollar pay cut even with the tax incentives. Phil Esposito said when he was a GM agents would say give us the money we'll worry about the taxes.

Maybe if you didn't include Sheary. As is, they're not eating all that cap for a 26 1st.

Would do it. It’s 2 years of virtually keeping Hayes and standing pat for a 1st.

Wanting Hayes as a 2C on a competitive team is something I did not think I’d see.

No, it's basically two years of paying Sheary 3.75M plus Hayes for free. I'd rather get less to not take Sheary.

I'm confused. It's virtually a keep the contract but swap players between Hayes and Sheary. Hayes is making like 3.6m, Sheary 2m. The 1.75 of retention pretty even. Yes, that retention slot is occupied, and no you cannot move that money. But you are acquiring a 1st probably at a better time frame anyways to have a Tampa 1st.

Hayes isn't an integral part of turning the team around. And losing 3.75m for 2 years when you admittedly are looking for solutions from within or internal growth as it was phrased isn't the worst thing in the world. The only issue that arises is we are already weak at center. This would pretty much mean 2 of Buch, Schenn, Dvorsky are going to have to be in your lineup next season unless you sign a vet to a PTO or a smaller scale UFA.

Well, first of all, obviously a new C will be brought in. So you can add that to the tab on the deal. I get all your ideas, I just think there's a more suitable Hayes deal out there that doesn't cost so much for a three drafts from now hit and hope. It's time to be surgical. If Army is still up for it.

I get looking for a better deal. But I can't imagine too many teams would line up to fork over a first for Hayes. I also don't necessarily care where the first lands. That would fit in the perceived time frame where it would give us more ammo to go out and bring in a core guy to supplement our core or it would give us an option to bring in an ELC as these guys start to get paid. Not necessarily looking at it as an impact to build to what we're building but more of a supplement as Hayes isn't really too important of a piece.

You keep saying 1st as if it's not three drafts away, and more importantly as if it doesn't also include taking on 7.5M in cap burden. These things cost.

It's not a 1st for Hayes. If it was, I'd be all over it. And if it was a 24 1st, I'd be all over it with the retention and Sheary. This is a different, not so appetizing or rewarding thing.

A 1st 3 drafts away is still a 1st. It’s a 1st in 2026. It’s still a pick in the 1st round of that draft. Is it less ideal because of the non instant gratification? Sure. But in terms of dead money, how much more of dead money is Sheary than Hayes? I wouldn’t imagine too much.

Well, with retention, he's exactly the same amount. For a less useful player/minor trade chip. There's no need to rashly offload anyone right now. That was made eminently clear today.

I can get behind that if the argument is there’s no reason to make a move now. I just don’t see any feasible timeline when you get a 1st out of a transaction when Hayes is the main piece. He’s notably a place holder. He isn’t having a large positive contribution towards the team. His redeeming quality is how great he is in the locker room which isn’t nothing. He’s still serviceable, but he’s not really a positive impact on the game. It may be a better option to wait a year and not rush into anything with a prospect. But I don’t necessarily see Hayes having too much success with us with Bannister under the helm when his production dropped off a cliff in my memory when Bannister took over. He wasn’t put in the best situation being saddled with Kapanen, but he doesn’t necessarily make alot of players better with his play style.