SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

OldNYIfan

Once a Kings Fan Too
Member Since
Jun. 23, 2018
Favourite Team
Anaheim Ducks
2nd Favourite Team
Los Angeles Kings
Forum Posts
40955
Posts per Day
19.0
Forum: Armchair-GM6 hours ago
Thread: I believe in PLD
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>JaredOfLondon</b></div><div>Except that PLD's contract is an absolute boat anchor and more a burden than anything marner has now or will get and the combined difference between him and marner and that horrible deal is more than clarke.</div></div>
And so now you want to be intellectually dishonest by moving the goalposts.

Your original statement was the absolute "That trade in no way benefits the leafs." "<strong>No way</strong>." Now you want to shrink backwards to "that trade is bad for the Leafs because they don't get enough value."

Why don't you try to surprise us all, including <a href="/users/Ryminister_92" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@Ryminister_92</a>, by occasionally making an intellectually honest, non-homer comment?
Forum: Armchair-GM11 hours ago
Thread: Big Trade
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>fangm</b></div><div>That a 100 point winger, top 10 goalie and top 10 LHD prospect that you are turning away for two middle 6 forwards (skilled but one dimensional), a one way high end RHD prospect (when you already have two solidified top 4 RHD including a 23 year old with the exact same skillset as Clarke) and a borderline waiver player (Turcotte can't clear waivers next year, are you really sure he'd make the Kings and won't just be given away?)</div></div>
Let's put aside the fact that the intentional mischaracterization of Kevin Fiala and Trevor Moore as "two middle 6 forwards (skilled but one dimensional)" is intellectually dishonest. You still seem incapable of grasping the reality proven by Toronto's last 6 years' experiment: a 100-point forward isn't more productive or beneficial than a 73-point forward plus a 57-point forward, and that's not the way to construct a winning roster, especially when the two top-6 forwards equal the cap hits of the 100-point forward and a minimum-level-contract player to fill the other roster slot.

No, Los Angeles isn't including Brandt Clarke in a Marner (or Nylander) trade despite your obsession (<strong>TWENTY-SIX</strong> out of your last 33 ACGMs have included such an effort!), Los Angeles isn't including Brandt Clarke in a Saros trade, Los Angeles isn't including Trevor Moore in a Marner or Saros trade, and Fiala's NMC precludes him from being included in a Marner or Saros trade (even if Nashville wants him back -- a point which you didn't seem to notice). If giving up so many current roster players for Marner and Saros is such a good idea, why don't you trade us Matthews and Nylander, too, for the rest of our good players so we can look exactly like the Toronto Maple Leafs of 2016 - 2024?
Forum: Armchair-GM12 hours ago
Thread: Unbiased on either side
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>RipNasty</b></div><div>Marner just is hated on this site eh?</div></div>
Oh, I don't think so. The only people I can recall speaking badly about him are Toronto fans who blame him for the latest playoff exit -- indisputably unfairly, in my mind.

I repeat what I've said before -- the main antipathy of other teams' fans to a Marner trade isn't because they think that his trade value is too low but that it's <strong>too high</strong> for their team to pay.

Let's assume that Marner came with an 8-year $100 million extension. What would his trade value from Anaheim be? Two of Zegras Gauthier Carlsson McTavish Terry Mintyukov 2024 first? No, thanks. (Never mind that it would cost more.) How about Los Angeles? Unless you're willing to take DuBois, a similar roster-stripping would have to occur.

Unless the return is commensurate with a rental (current first, A roster player, A prospect), I don't see a trade for Marner that benefits both sides adequately.
Forum: Armchair-GM19 hours ago
Thread: Delusion
Welcome to CapFriendly. Sometimes, it's not too friendly.

None of the big-ticket UFAs is going to sign a one-year deal; they're all going to ask for stability. As to amounts, the first three are okay, but the last three are all going to get quite a bit more. I expect Montour to get at least $6 million.

You'll be lucky to get a fifth for Reaves or a sixth for Timmins.

Buffalo isn't going to trade a productive young top-liner for one season of a declining expensive John Tavares. Make one of the picks a first and the Sabres still decline; make them both firsts and I still say that Buffalo wouldn't be interested.

Cap-stressed Vegas will keep the incredibly cheap Thompson as their backup rather than lose him for a more expensive bottom-6 forward that they don't need.

Don't be discouraged by criticism. We all had rocky starts. Keep on posting!