SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

FlySharks2006

Member Since
Feb. 28, 2023
Favourite Team
San Jose Sharks
2nd Favourite Team
Vancouver Canucks
Forum Posts
23
Posts per Day
0.0
Forum: Armchair-GMJun. 12 at 1:04 p.m.
Thread: CF Sellouts - Caps Suck
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Boltsbeathabs</b></div><div>TB doesn't have the cap space . Crozier was a salary cap casualty last season to quote Jon Cooper " Max would've been up all year were he not waivers exempt."so Max Crozier making &lt;900k takes that spot over 2.75 million Rutta ZERO CHANCE TB DOES THIS!!
It also takes away the right hand faceoffs guy easy easy no Glendening isn't the guy nor is Rutta at his cap hit.</div></div>

Waivers exempt does not equal salary cap casualty. If they really wanted the guy up, they would have found a way. Also, there is no way coach and management, with aspirations of another run, are going to trust a new guy with the same responsibilities as a veteran who’s been there before. Sorry to hurt your feelings, but they absolutely will take Rutta over Max ten out of ten times.

You’re putting too much stock into RH faceoff guy.
Forum: Armchair-GMJun. 12 at 12:12 p.m.
Thread: CF Sellouts - Caps Suck
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>SNipeSHowInc</b></div><div>You’re missing quite a bit in the Leafs trade, very very very easy pass lol</div></div>

People, particularly Leafs fans, are under this delusion the Leafs have any leverage whatsoever. Management has openly said they don’t want him, he has a NMC, and he has a prohibitively high cap hit for all but a few teams. Treliving will be required to add after trading Marner, so it can’t be a salary for salary swap. No one is giving up a first or any significant other asset for a cap dump who’s going to walk in FA if he stays with the Leafs. Leafs management is in love with Ferraro. They consider him to be a big part of the fix, bringing a multitude of qualities Marner lacks. If Marner goes it’ll be something very commensurate to this trade.
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 22 at 11:18 a.m.
Thread: Fix the Canucks
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Rob32sjsharks</b></div><div>First moving quality prospect for rentals during a rebuild is how you end up like Ottawa! Now if it was a long term guy under 27 like Necas I change my tune but a 30 something rental is absurd. Insulting my intelligence to get me to agree is gaslighting and I’m not stupid enough to fall for that.</div></div>

lol. No it’s not. Ottawa literally didn’t trade away any prospects! They acquired them! Like in the Eric Karlsson trade. They are still bad! Why? Because they never learned how to win because they never surround their most promising prospects with quality NHLers right from the get go. FFS, this isn’t that hard of a concept, idk maybe it is for some people.

Bystedt isn’t a quality prospect. He’ll top out at a 3C and the Sharks are full of those kinds of players. I would rather give up a player that the Sharks know isn’t going to turn out to much than a draft pick. The Sharks will still be a bottom 10 team and continue to acquire prospects who are better than Bystedt will ever be.

Garland isn’t a rental, just stop saying that.

I’m not insulting your intelligence, you’ve done that all by yourself. I’m just providing objective evidence trying to get you to reconsider your absurd take. Just stop, you’re bad at this.
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 21 at 11:22 p.m.
Thread: Fix the Canucks
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Ktownchef</b></div><div>Hronek's agent is asking for and hasn't moved off of getting 8 million per year. Because of his production, ice time and arb rights he's going to get over 7 million on a one year deal. He isn't taking less then that especially long term.</div></div>

His production, etc are that of a $6m ish defenseman. That isn’t how money works. In a shorter deal they make less money because the cap rises over time. That’s why he’s projected to make that on a 4 year deal. An 8 year deal he only gets slightly above 7. (He won’t get an 8 year deal)

Arbitration is statistically more likely to favor the team than the player since it’s data driven. He better settle prior to arb or he’s likely to get a one or two year deal in the 4-5 range.

You should probably get the fundamentals of how the business works before commenting on business things.
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 21 at 11:11 p.m.
Thread: Fix the Canucks
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Rob32sjsharks</b></div><div>No the sharks next year should be better but moving assets so soon for pieces that won’t be part of the contending team is crazy. Sharks need to add but 26/27 is where the sharks should start moving out assets to fill voids not now. This year and next the focus is keep adding prospects and assets for down the road. Not moving top 10 prospects (top 10 teamwise not nhl wise)</div></div>

How do you expect the Sharks to get better? Just magically? They will make one or two FA signings, but anyone that can improve the Sharks enough to make a difference will not be signing there in FA. They are going to have to move some assets, just like last year, in order to acquire talent. Moving Bystedt, a bottom 6 prospect and a duplicative asset, is a perfect example of how quality teams start to dig themselves out of their rebuilds while still continuing to acquire prospects through the draft over the next few years. They have plenty of draft picks remaining. You’re focusing on a single line of thinking. You’re lacking critical thinking and again your approach would doom the Sharks to an Ottawa and Buffalo type rebuilds. When players learn to lose, they will continue to do so, no matter how many prospects you acquire. There’s a reason why your opinions aren’t well respect by intelligent people within the Sharks fan base (like on TTUSA, etc.)
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 21 at 11:14 a.m.
Thread: Fix the Canucks
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Rob32sjsharks</b></div><div>They are about the same cost about the same size about the same production and age.
And last this the sharks should do is start giving away young talented players for rentals. Yes we got Celebrini but we are still very much in a rebuild and there are cap strapped teams that will
Need to shed salary and will be willing to pay to move guys to do it. That’s the type of deals sharks need to be pet of.</div></div>

Sigh. Age and points aren’t measures to determine if players are similar. Granlund is a primarily a playmaker, who carries the puck into the zone. Garland is primarily a shooter, who likes to dump and chase. Garland is much more physical than Granlund.

Garland is a rental or maybe he isn’t. The Sharks at some point need to stop tearing it down and be a respectable team. That is this year, now that they have Celebrini. If he’s coming to the Sharks (and all signs point to yes) you absolutely cannot have him grow up in a still bottoming out team, END OF STORY. A great way to do that is to have spare parts shipped off for established NHL players, which is what assets are meant to be used for…

Your way would have the Sharks be in a perpetual rebuild like the Sabres or Sens. Please feel free to continue to advocate for that approach.
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 21 at 10:10 a.m.
Thread: Fix the Canucks
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Ktownchef</b></div><div>I can't begin to tell you how much I hate that Meier trade. Giving up our future #1 goalie and a potential top 6 sniper and picks. No thanks.

Canucks need cheap contracts for the OEL and Mikheyev buyouts.

Hronek is not resigning for 5 mil, sorry.</div></div>

To win now you have to give something up. Canucks window won’t be open when Silovs becomes you’re number 1 (no guarantee of that either, weird to think yall are willing to base that on a small sample size in the NHL).

Lekker is going to be a middle six, a third line W most likely. Again, if he does turn into something, it’ll be 3-4 years from now and the Canucks window will be closing.

You’re right. I was being hopeful Hronek would take a discount to help the Canucks because he likes playing with Quinn. He’s projected to make $6M. I should have just gone with what he’s likely to make.