SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

OutCold13

Hockey Fan13
Member Since
Oct. 2, 2019
Favourite Team
Minnesota Wild
2nd Favourite Team
San Jose Sharks
Forum Posts
3938
Posts per Day
2.3
Forum: Armchair-GMThu. at 6:37 p.m.
Thread: Mock Rossi trade
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>OutCold13</b></div><div>Rumor is a larger forward actually. Wild have 4 or 5 D men in the system they expect to eventually be NHL defenseman ranging in ceiling from too pair guys to just a guy.</div></div>

I actually like that Boston fans are interested in Rossi. When I hear what Billy G wants this team to look like, it's the Bruins. Big, fast, physical, gritty and frustrating to play against. I think there are pieces here for a trade. I'm not sure what the trade looks like. BG did say a player in the similar place as Rossi is. 21-22 and has contributed at the NHL level. I'll be the first and say I like a Knies/Guenther trade above all else. I do think if we were open to retooling the back line and Lohrei would fit the bill. I don't think BG wants an unknown prospect and pick. Think about the Gauthier and Drysdale deal. Something along those lines is what he spoke about. If the Wild move D-Men I could see a trade like that.
Forum: Armchair-GMWed. at 9:53 a.m.
Thread: 2 sides of a Marner trade
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>WN88</b></div><div>HORRIBLE</div></div>

You aren't getting much for Mitch, lets be honest. He's shown to fade in the playoffs, he is going to want a raise and a team has to extend him before he even plays a game otherwise he could walk. I've listened to the SDPN a ton and they all agree you would be glad to get out of that contract. I'm not saying you get future considerations, but you aren't getting a Faber, Rossi and a 1st for him. And the teams that can afford to acquire him aren't going to give up their futures for him. I don't even want him on the Wild period, let alone giving up Faber, Rossi and 1sts that you are thinking. We have our own players that haven't shown up in the playoffs we don't need to add to the list.
Forum: Armchair-GMWed. at 9:42 a.m.
Thread: 2 sides of a Marner trade
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Hawksguy81</b></div><div>Yep. That Jones to Toronto trade is beyond stupid. Literally nothing beneficial in that deal for the Hawks.</div></div>

I know you are on the same page and have heard and/or agree with all of this, as well. But for the MIN fan who may not be familiar with the situation, I am going to rant here.

I think a lot of non-CHI fans, and even some CHI fans, are still holding onto the JFresh and Sportsnet stuff, among others, from two plus years ago about Jones having "the worst contract in the NHL." But it just isn't true. He is a good defenseman on a bad team. Overpaid? Sure. Did CHI spend too much acquiring him? Yes. But there are plenty of players who are overpaid and teams spent too much on. There are also MUCH WORSE players, with much worse contracts. Not to mention CHI has no need to move him, especially for nothing, and they shouldn't have any need to do so for the duration of his contract. Having him around is a positive for CHI. He brings stability, leadership, experience, and helps get us to the cap floor. Even if Jones asks out, if CHI isn't receiving good value for him, CHI has no reason to oblige the request, especially if teams want us to sell insanely low or even pay them to take him. It just isn't happening. I think, as CHI gets better, people will start to recognize Jones for what he is, a bonafide 1RD. If his contract becomes a problem in the last couple years, it should be more than manageable at that point.

So, sure it wouldn't have taken much to figure out CHI would decline this trade, but you also can't exactly blame fans of other teams for not understanding the situation.
Forum: Armchair-GMWed. at 1:22 a.m.
Thread: 2 sides of a Marner trade
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>WN88</b></div><div>D can be addressed regardless if we decide to keep Marner or not.

I find that all these Marner trades emphasize the idea that just freeing up 11 million is worth getting rid of him or provides some certain value. Any player in the NHL can be overpaid. The same way Marner can , at times, not live up to 11 million dollars. So I’m not sure what I’m supposed to do with this extra “6.5 million” in ur hypothetical.</div></div>

Hypothetically I'm looking at it like (I did my quick math wrong initially):

Option 1: Marner ($10.9M)

Option 2: Rossi, Gustavsson, 13 OA (which is likely traded for help), ~$3M retained on Marner + 3.289M in cap space. Montour seems like an obvious target for Toronto, and you'd have the cap to sign him.

I'm just saying, this addresses 3-4 areas of need with quality NHL players that have serious upside, at the expense of a winger who seems to be a universal trade target. I'd at least consider it for Toronto.
Forum: Armchair-GMWed. at 1:12 a.m.
Thread: 2 sides of a Marner trade
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>WN88</b></div><div>D can be addressed regardless if we decide to keep Marner or not.

I find that all these Marner trades emphasize the idea that just freeing up 11 million is worth getting rid of him or provides some certain value. Any player in the NHL can be overpaid. The same way Marner can , at times, not live up to 11 million dollars. So I’m not sure what I’m supposed to do with this extra “6.5 million” in ur hypothetical.</div></div>

However, I will admit that there can be concerns with Marners game when he’s completely Removed from talent. Playoffs have shown that he does need time/space to do his thing. I do think, though, teams that acquire him understand this, but also realize that the potential in having him with elite finishers is immense.
Forum: Armchair-GMWed. at 1:11 a.m.
Thread: 2 sides of a Marner trade
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>CaseyFlyman</b></div><div>As a fan of the team that signed Johnny Gaudreau: I'm skeptical. Without support, it's too easy for NHL defenses to swarm one player, especially if they're undersized and primarily a playmaker.

Marner is an incredibly valuable player, and Minnesota probably gives you the best potential package just because they're looking for another elite talent to go alongside Boldy/Kaprizov. But the return really comes down to three things:

1) If the Leafs are going to make changes to the core four, he's the one. Matthews and Nylander aren't going anywhere, and Tavares is a $6M player making $11M; you're likely giving him away if you want to get rid of the whole contract. The Leafs wanting to move Marner is the worst kept secret in hockey, so teams are looking to take advantage of that.

2) If you do move Mitch, not many teams can take an $11M cap hit, so you're either retaining or limiting the number of suiters, which would decrease a potential return.

3) Mitch has a full NMC. He's not going to waive that and just say "send me wherever you get the best package", he's going to use that to pick his spot and force Toronto to trade him to one of a select few locations (like when Kaberle was traded, the list was: Boston...and that's it).

If I'm honest, I think Minnesota has to make that pick this year's 1st (13 OA) if they're going to have Toronto retain even ~$3M, but if you get Rossi, Gustavsson, and 13OA...take that and run. A starting-caliber goalie that's only 25 and locked up to a reasonable deal, a potential 2C of the future (which Toronto desperately needs if Tavares regresses), and 13OA? Use the pick, or the extra ~$6.5M in cap space and free agency, to fix the D.</div></div>

D can be addressed regardless if we decide to keep Marner or not.

I find that all these Marner trades emphasize the idea that just freeing up 11 million is worth getting rid of him or provides some certain value. Any player in the NHL can be overpaid. The same way Marner can , at times, not live up to 11 million dollars. So I’m not sure what I’m supposed to do with this extra “6.5 million” in ur hypothetical.
Forum: Armchair-GMWed. at 1:03 a.m.
Thread: 2 sides of a Marner trade
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>WN88</b></div><div>I guess that's reasonable under the assumption that you're taking a risk. Perhaps this is a bit far-fetched, but I think, hypothetically, any team Marner would waive for would also likely be a team he'd extend with. I can't really speak on the trade rumours. All I can say is it's incredibly sad to see just how many "fans" and people in the media want to see the destruction of a team.

I've watched just about every game of the Matthews/Nylander/Marner era. I can assure you that Marner would be a 100-point player away from Auston Matthews. I mean, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying you could put him with borderline fourth-liners, and he'd still reach that mark. But I'm certain that you could expect at least 90-100 points if you slid him into just about any team's top-6.</div></div>

As a fan of the team that signed Johnny Gaudreau: I'm skeptical. Without support, it's too easy for NHL defenses to swarm one player, especially if they're undersized and primarily a playmaker.

Marner is an incredibly valuable player, and Minnesota probably gives you the best potential package just because they're looking for another elite talent to go alongside Boldy/Kaprizov. But the return really comes down to three things:

1) If the Leafs are going to make changes to the core four, he's the one. Matthews and Nylander aren't going anywhere, and Tavares is a $6M player making $11M; you're likely giving him away if you want to get rid of the whole contract. The Leafs wanting to move Marner is the worst kept secret in hockey, so teams are looking to take advantage of that.

2) If you do move Mitch, not many teams can take an $11M cap hit, so you're either retaining or limiting the number of suiters, which would decrease a potential return.

3) Mitch has a full NMC. He's not going to waive that and just say "send me wherever you get the best package", he's going to use that to pick his spot and force Toronto to trade him to one of a select few locations (like when Kaberle was traded, the list was: Boston...and that's it).

If I'm honest, I think Minnesota has to make that pick this year's 1st (13 OA) if they're going to have Toronto retain even ~$3M, but if you get Rossi, Gustavsson, and 13OA...take that and run. A starting-caliber goalie that's only 25 and locked up to a reasonable deal, a potential 2C of the future (which Toronto desperately needs if Tavares regresses), and 13OA? Use the pick, or the extra ~$6.5M in cap space and free agency, to fix the D.
Forum: Armchair-GMWed. at 12:20 a.m.
Thread: 2 sides of a Marner trade
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>OutCold13</b></div><div>I am not making the trade under the presumption of a pre signed extension. I have the Wild taking a risk here, so yes it plays into it. Is any one sure what Marner is if he isn't with Matthew's. He is still good no doubt but probably not a 100 point producer in most situations. The rest of your argument I really don't have a rebuttal for other than Friedman saying the Leafs may be willing to lose the Marner trade for the sake of changing the team up.</div></div>

I guess that's reasonable under the assumption that you're taking a risk. Perhaps this is a bit far-fetched, but I think, hypothetically, any team Marner would waive for would also likely be a team he'd extend with. I can't really speak on the trade rumours. All I can say is it's incredibly sad to see just how many "fans" and people in the media want to see the destruction of a team.

I've watched just about every game of the Matthews/Nylander/Marner era. I can assure you that Marner would be a 100-point player away from Auston Matthews. I mean, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying you could put him with borderline fourth-liners, and he'd still reach that mark. But I'm certain that you could expect at least 90-100 points if you slid him into just about any team's top-6.
Forum: Armchair-GMApr. 20 at 5:09 p.m.
Thread: second attempt
Can we NOT trade for Brady, please.

He's never has been or played a single second of time at RW on his off-hand side for the entirety of his career. He's strictly a LW.

So playing him there is asinine.

Boldy on the other hand IS and always has played RW whenever he wasn't being experimented at center. RW is his NATURAL position.

Furthermore, Boldy is quite literally in the same class of player/tier as Brady, with similar levels of production over the last three years and damn near the same PPG. Brady just hits more. Well good for him. BOLDY COSTS $1.2M LESS, FOR TWO YEARS LONGER.

Even if this were to happen. That's not a trade I'd consider, as it'd strictly be a 1v1, so throwing BOTH Lambos AND Rossi into the deal for a VERY late 1st is questionable at best.

We're much much better off keeping both Boldy and Rossi, and their combined future production, than packaging them in a gross overpay for a player we neither need or should want over what we already have.
Forum: Armchair-GMFeb. 12 at 9:14 p.m.