Clearly Rakell > Kapanen, if not by much. If you contend that Kapanen = Manson (= first round pick), then how can Rakell be worth only Timmins and a devalued second?

If Kapanen = Manson, then Rakell = Timmins and Colorado's 2020 first,

Colorado says yes

Timmins is worth more than a 1st round pick. The guy has legit top pairing potential but likely becomes a solid two-way #3 RHD (assuming he can stay healthy).

That said I think Colorado says yes to this trade. We'd have to acquire a RHD some other way though by the time Cole hits UFA.

Yeah, I see Timmins as one of the best RD prospects in the game right now, so his value is high. He'd also fill the Ducks largest need of a top RD prospect. This guy carries some serious value.

Significant undervaluations of Manson and Rakell. Pass.



How can you make such a claim? I've watched Timmins at the AHL level. He's solid, but doesn't wow offensively. Even if he could handle the faster pace of the game on D and the level competition at the NHL level, he'd be the weakest top pairing D-man in the league. IMO, he's got top 4 potential at best. That was his projection coming out of the draft and he hasn't done anything to change that. If anything, there should be concerns about repeat concussions following his most recent injuries.

I could see a team who really believes in Timmins paying a late 1st for him. The question is why is a 1st line winger with 2 x 30 goal seasons under his belt, on a sweetheart deal, in his prime years not worth 2 x late 1sts? Zucker got more than that he's older, more expensive, and less accomplished than Rakell.



You really think Timmins is the best RD prospect in the game? What, better than Lundkvist? Bouchard? Dobson? What are you basing that on? Yes, he'd fill a need, but why sell low on Rakell when you could get more. That's like saying "I traded the $100,000 diamond ring for a Toyota because I needed a car!". Timmins + 1st is the least I'd expect from a trade involving Rakell. Personally, I'd rather wait to see what happens at the draft before moving Rakell. If we win the lottery, the Rakell becomes a lot more expendable and I'd be more open to to a Timmins + 1st deal. Right now, however, I'd pass.

My first claim that Timmins is worth more (to Colorado) is based on the fact that: he's NHL ready; Colorado are in 'win-now' mode; and Avs depth at RHD is shallow. In vacuum he might only be worth a 1st, but in the real world Colorado won't trade him for that due to the 3 factors I mentioned.

My second claim is that Timmins "has legit top pairing POTENTIAL, but likely becomes a solid two-way #3 RHD (assuming he can stay healthy).", which is reasonably close to your assertion.

Note that at the 2017 draft he was alrady ranked around 25th, and got taken 32nd overall. Since then he had a dominant season in the OHL with more than PPG pace, along with near ppg-pace in the playoffs. He also had an extremely good WJC tournament as well. In the AHL he had a slow start (largely due to the fact that he was a bit rusty), but was a near ppg Dman after his slow start. All of which projected him as a top 4D.

Aside from his injury he has done very well since the draft and only raised his stock. The biggest question was his injury, but the fact that he played a full season this year without any concussion issues puts a lot of those concerns to rest (certainly when compared to where things were at 12 months ago).

Now, obviously Timmins isn't "the best" RHD prospects in the game, but that's not what the other poster said. What he said was that Timmins is "ONE of the best RD prospects in the game right now". And based on the evidence so far I don't think it's that unreasonable to claim that he's easily among the top 10-15 RHD prospects.

For the record, according to the Hockey Writers ranked Timmins 90th on their list of ALL prospects not in the NHL, whch makes him 15th on their list of RHD's (Seider, Boqvist, Bouchard, Dobson, Lundqvist, Soderstrom, Foote, Brook, Liljegren, Antoni Honka, Bernard-Docker, Addison, Lassi Thomson, Jett Woo, Conor Timmins). When you factor in the fact that Timmins missed 18 months of hockey I'd say that's a very solid ranking. You could also argue that he should be above a few of the names on that list as well.
https://thehockeywriters.com/nhl-top-100-prospects-ranking/

Looking at that list above, very few of those other guys are going to be trade bait by their respective teams. So if Timmins is made available then he would most certainly be absolutely be one of the most attractive young RHD's on the trade market.

As for Zucker, he didn't really get "more than 2 late 1sts" given that Galchenyuk was obviously included in the trade as a cap dump. Without Galchenyuk it's likely that Pittsburgh could have gotten Zucker for a 1st and a lesser prospect than Addison. Zucker was also traded at the deadline with 3 years term remaining, so Pittsburgh get 4 playoffs out of him; whereas an offseason trade for Rakell would only get you 2. There's also the general market to consider, as this offseason will be a buyers market due to the flat cap (but that arguably has limited effect due to Rakell's caphit).

Okay, so I think we pretty much agree. He came out of his draft year with top 4 potential, but with some concerns about his skating and offensive play that reduced the likelihood of him hitting his ceiling enough that he dropped out of the 1st round. However, his ceiling was still "top 4D". So why throw out that he has legit top pairing potential? He didn't at the draft and, unless you can show otherwise, has done nothing in his career since being drafted to increase his potential. I mean, look at Rasmus Sandin as an example. The kid was drafted late 1st round, but is clearly developing ahead of his curve and, thus, his potential has increased since his draft year. I don't see the same in Timmins.



I think he'd possibly get a late, late 1st or equivalent prospect. He's not a sure thing, has already sustained a significant and potential reoccurring injury, and, at best, becomes a top 4D. I don't think there would be a significant bidding war.



This is a misconception that people have about Galc in the Zucker trade. Just a quick look at his statistics and contract status and it's obvious Galc was never a cap dump. I mean, you're talking about a consistent 40-50 pt player, who posted 19 goals just last year, and who is on a reasonable, 4.9M per year, contract that runs out in a couple months. Why would he be a cap dump? Doesn't make sense. Galc never lived up to the hype given to him in MTL, but he's not a bust. He's a productive player. Okay, so he has bounced around a few teams, but consistent producers of 40-50 points and 20 goals are valued assets, not dumps.

So you've got Galc (solid middle 6 forward) + Addison (RHD prospect with top 4 potential) + 1st for Zucker who is older, less accomplished, more expensive than Rakell. Meanwhile, Rakell gets Timmins (equivalent to Addison IMO, although your list has him above Timmins) + 2nd. Just awful value.

Just for clarity, I like Timmins and would love to have him as an ANA prospect, but, for me, he doesn't get the ball rolling in a Rakell deal. Too risky and not enough of a reward IMO.

Dobson isn't a prospect any more. He's a rookie. Bouchard plays a different game... and I don't know much at all about Lundkvist. But I said "One of the best"... not that he is "the best"... though he could be. He still carries a load of value.

Rakell's value does rely heavily on his contract. He's leveling off as more of a 40 - 50 point guy, a 2nd liner, than the top liner he was projected to be. I think it's fair to compare Zucker and Rakell. Imo Zucker is better, and Rakell at 27 isn't really growing his game any more. But their value should be around similar... however Timmins to me is a better prospect than Addison

Fair... yeah, I misread your response. I agree that Timmins is "one of the best" RHD prospects out there. However, he still comes with significant risk and that isn't being considered in his valuation. Either that or you're criminally undervaluing Rakell.



I disagree. Rakell's value comes from his track record as a 1st line winger and his 2 x 30 goal seasons. His value is boosted by his sweetheart contract, but its not where the majority of his value comes from.

I don't understand your notion that he's "levelling off" as a 40-50 pt guy and 2nd line winger. Forwards don't level off at 27. These are his prime years, but he's stuck on a bad team. That doesn't mean he wouldn't thrive on a team at their peak. Pretty much everyone looks bad on ANA, even Gibson and Lindholm. I don't know why Rakell is being singled out here. Dylan Larkin had a down year this year. Is he also "levelling off" as a 50-55 pt C? Of course not! At this level, the good teams aren't just good because they have the best players. Chemistry, coaching, leadership, etc. all play a role and we are clearly lacking in those areas.

If we agree that Zucker = Rakell then you'll have to explain why Timmins >>> Addison to warrant the loss of a roster player (Galc) and the downgrade to a 2nd from the 1st that PITT gave up for Zucker in your proposed deal for Rakell. IMO, we should be getting equivalent value.

Zucker trade would have been physically impossible unless there was someone of similar cap. I don't think Galc was a cap dump, but his value was lower than a 4th. He was expendable from the start and PIT wanted him gone. They probably could care less if he was given for free... and he was not a member of that trade that stirred the pot in the trade. I think the Wild would have done it even without him in the return. For the sake of argument, consider him worth a 4th.

Addison, a first (late) and a 4th. The fourths would cancel, leaving Timmins and a mid/late 2nd for Rakell. I think Timmins more than is large enough an upgrade to warrant that difference in pick. Not to mention that everyone knows the Ducks need a RD prospect more than any other position of prospect, so they too would be more inclined.

I do think Rakell is heavily overvalued. I might be slightly low on him, but he has never had a full season and injury risk players don't often go at full price. His last two years were not that good. It's hard to argue that the team is of massive effect to that as his linemates have remained fairly steady. If this was one year in the 40 point range, it'd be different than 2.
Also it says a lot that he hasn't, because if he's supposedly your best guy, he'd do more to carry the team's production. He hasn't. He's not a top line player on any contender unless it's for the reasons of line balancing.

27 is usually a levelling off as it's establishing the rise of the younger years. His production has formed a parabola of sorts, starting decent, peaking, then returning to a decent level again. Usually up until 27 it's a gradual rise of production (best fit line) then levelling off by this time. They're considered prime years because you know what you are getting for a while and they won't fall.

Even on most other teams, I don't see Rakell as anything more than a solid 50 point guy. That's good of course, but that's far from the potential he had when he had those 30 point years. We're no longer paying for a 30 point scorer. Two years does that to you. They're selling him as a solid/above average 2nd liner.

Zucker trade is our closest comparable here... and I already explained why i think they're equal in value. Zucker to me is the better player, but they are equal in value due to the more stable cap of rakell... but he also has less term.

If the difference to you is a roster player, I'm sure COL wouldn't be all too upset to give up a Kamenev etc.

Fair enough. I think we just fundamentally disagree on values here (on both Timmins and Rakell). IMO, you're being extremely critical of Rakell and very easy on Timmins. Pointing out that Rakell has never played a full season (even though he's never had a serious injury and has pretty consistently played 70+ games i.e. not exactly injury-prone) whilst ignoring Timmins concussion history kind of exemplifies your bias. I mean, if you're low on Rakell, I don't see how you can fairly assess his value. We're not selling him as a solid/above average 2nd liner. He's our 1st line LW and has adequately played in that role for multiple seasons. Two down years doesn't change that. I mean, should we also trade Gibson as a 1A/B netminder following his two sub-0.920% seasons? Or should DET trade Larkin as a 2C because of his down year? I don't think so, but, according to your logic at least, they are clearly "levelling off" as weaker players than demonstrated in previous years when the teams they play for weren't complete trash... so....

In any event, you are of course welcome to your opinion. As a Duck fan, I wouldn't trade Rakell at that price. I think Timmins + 1st would be stretch too and probably something I'd pass on unless we won the lottery or something.