Forums/Armchair-GM

Its very simple

Créé par: Pete
Date de création initiale: 13 août 2021
Publié: 13 août 2021
Équipe: 2021-22 Bruins de Boston
Transactions
1.
BOS
  1. Dvorak, Christian
ARI
  1. Coyle, Charlie
  2. Vaakanainen, Urho
ANNÉE DE REPÊCHAGERONDE 1RONDE 2RONDE 3RONDE 4RONDE 5RONDE 6RONDE 7
2022
Logo de BOS
Logo de BOS
Logo de CGY
Logo de BOS
Logo de BOS
Logo de BOS
Logo de BOS
2023
Logo de BOS
Logo de BOS
Logo de BOS
Logo de BOS
Logo de BOS
Logo de BOS
Logo de BOS
2024
Logo de BOS
Logo de BOS
Logo de BOS
Logo de BOS
Logo de BOS
Logo de BOS
Logo de BOS
TAILLE DE LA FORMATIONPLAFOND SALARIALCAP HITEXCÉDENTS Info-bulleBONISESPACE SOUS LE PLAFOND SALARIAL
2181 500 000 $78 260 674 $1 956 507 $125 000 $3 239 326 $
Ailier gaucheCentreAilier droit
Logo de BOS
Marchand, Brad
6 125 000 $
AG
NMC
UFA - 4
Logo de BOS
Bergeron, Patrice
6 875 000 $
C
NMC NTC
UFA - 1
Logo de BOS
Pastrnak, David
6 666 667 $
AD
NMC NTC
UFA - 2
Logo de BOS
Hall, Taylor
6 000 000 $
AG
NMC
UFA - 4
Logo de ARI
Dvorak, Christian
4 450 000 $
C, AG
UFA - 4
Logo de BOS
Smith, Craig
3 100 000 $
AD, C
UFA - 2
Logo de BOS
DeBrusk, Jake
3 675 000 $
AG
UFA - 1
Logo de BOS
Haula, Erik
2 375 000 $
C, AG
UFA - 2
Logo de BOS
Foligno, Nick
3 800 000 $
AG, C, AD
NMC
UFA - 2
Logo de BOS
Frederic, Trent
1 050 000 $
C, AG
RFA - 2
Logo de BOS
Nosek, Tomas
1 750 000 $
C, AG
UFA - 2
Logo de BOS
Wagner, Chris
1 350 000 $
AD, C
UFA - 2
Défenseur gaucherDéfenseur droitierGardien de but
Logo de BOS
Reilly, Mike
3 000 000 $
DG
UFA - 3
Logo de BOS
McAvoy, Charlie
4 900 000 $
DD
UFA - 1
Logo de BOS
Ullmark, Linus
5 000 000 $
G
NMC
UFA - 4
Logo de BOS
Grzelcyk, Matt
3 687 500 $
DG
UFA - 3
Logo de BOS
Carlo, Brandon
4 100 000 $
DD
UFA - 6
Logo de BOS
Swayman, Jeremy
925 000 $
G
RFA - 2
Logo de BOS
Forbort, Derek
3 000 000 $
DG
NTC
UFA - 3
Logo de BOS
Clifton, Connor
1 000 000 $
DG/DD
UFA - 2
Logo de BOS
Zboril, Jakub
725 000 $
DG/DD
UFA - 1
Laissés de côtéListe des blessés (IR)Liste des blessés à long terme (LTIR)
Logo de BOS
Moore, John
2 750 000 $
DG
UFA - 2

Code d'intégration

  • Pour afficher cette équipe sur un autre site Web ou blog, ajoutez ce iFrame à la page appropriée
  • Personnalisez les dimensions dans le code IFrame ci-dessous pour adapter votre site de manière appropriée. Minimum recommandé: 400px.

Texte intégré

Cliquer pour surligner
13 août 2021 à 18 h 56
#1
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: juin 2019
Messages: 26,022
Mentions "j'aime": 13,168
Coyle declines
13 août 2021 à 18 h 59
#2
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: janv. 2017
Messages: 14,968
Mentions "j'aime": 6,072
Ya it is. Coyle has an NMC and does not waive for a dumpster fire.

And Zona declined Debrusk/Zboril for Dvorak.

They want a 1st and a prospect, otherwise they keep him.
13 août 2021 à 19 h 3
#3
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: févr. 2019
Messages: 14,306
Mentions "j'aime": 17,373
Quoting: Gofnut999
And Zona declined Debrusk/Zboril for Dvorak.


Where did you see this?
13 août 2021 à 19 h 5
#4
Démarrer sujet
Pete
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: janv. 2016
Messages: 1,154
Mentions "j'aime": 136
Quoting: Gofnut999
Ya it is. Coyle has an NMC and does not waive for a dumpster fire.

And Zona declined Debrusk/Zboril for Dvorak.

They want a 1st and a prospect, otherwise they keep him.


Could anyone explain why Zona's approach has changed so drastically? Why are they suddenly reluctant to send Dvorak cheap after what they dealt with Canucks?
13 août 2021 à 19 h 9
#5
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: août 2021
Messages: 2,196
Mentions "j'aime": 754
Now you have to pay for Dvorak.
13 août 2021 à 19 h 11
#6
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: mai 2016
Messages: 9,929
Mentions "j'aime": 3,809
So trade Coyle to acquire a younger version of Coyle?
Pete a aimé ceci.
13 août 2021 à 19 h 16
#7
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: janv. 2017
Messages: 14,968
Mentions "j'aime": 6,072
Modifié 13 août 2021 à 21 h 0
Quoting: Pete
Could anyone explain why Zona's approach has changed so drastically? Why are they suddenly reluctant to send Dvorak cheap after what they dealt with Canucks?


That was to dump OEL’s contract.

Dvorak has trade value. They had to pay to get rid of OEL. They used Garland to do it and saved on payroll after this year significantly. It also pulled in the 1st after having to forfeit theirs and a 2nd next year. They have not given anyone away cheap, what they have done is stockpile draft picks to rebuild. Which is exactly what they want for Dvorak. They got a 1st and 2nd for Garland. They took 3 bad contracts that expire after this year to get rid of 6 years of OELs bad contract. If you call that cheap so be it, but nobody was paying to take OEL full 6 years at 8.25. They won that trade long term. It was addition by subtraction.
MisstheWhalers et KrispyBBQ a aimé ceci.
13 août 2021 à 19 h 26
#8
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: janv. 2017
Messages: 14,968
Mentions "j'aime": 6,072
Quoting: SevenLeg
Where did you see this?


NHLTradeRumors so take it for what it’s worth.
13 août 2021 à 20 h 49
#9
MisstheWhalers
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: janv. 2019
Messages: 17,747
Mentions "j'aime": 8,546
Both Coyle and the Coyotes decline.
13 août 2021 à 20 h 49
#10
MisstheWhalers
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: janv. 2019
Messages: 17,747
Mentions "j'aime": 8,546
Both Coyle and the Coyotes decline.
KrispyBBQ a aimé ceci.
13 août 2021 à 21 h 13
#11
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: juin 2021
Messages: 199
Mentions "j'aime": 69
Quoting: Gofnut999
That was to dump OEL’s contract.

Dvorak has trade value. They had to pay to get rid of OEL. They used Garland to do it and saved on payroll after this year significantly. It also pulled in the 1st after having to forfeit theirs and a 2nd next year. They have not given anyone away cheap, what they have done is stockpile draft picks to rebuild. Which is exactly what they want for Dvorak. They got a 1st and 2nd for Garland. They took 3 bad contracts that expire after this year to get rid of 6 years of OELs bad contract. If you call that cheap so be it, but nobody was paying to take OEL full 6 years at 8.25. They won that trade long term. It was addition by subtraction.


Perfectly put. Canucks trade was a win win for both teams, and if anything , I would say tho Coyotes may have won by a little but not drastically.
13 août 2021 à 22 h 57
#12
Démarrer sujet
Pete
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: janv. 2016
Messages: 1,154
Mentions "j'aime": 136
Quoting: Gofnut999
That was to dump OEL’s contract.

Dvorak has trade value. They had to pay to get rid of OEL. They used Garland to do it and saved on payroll after this year significantly. It also pulled in the 1st after having to forfeit theirs and a 2nd next year. They have not given anyone away cheap, what they have done is stockpile draft picks to rebuild. Which is exactly what they want for Dvorak. They got a 1st and 2nd for Garland. They took 3 bad contracts that expire after this year to get rid of 6 years of OELs bad contract. If you call that cheap so be it, but nobody was paying to take OEL full 6 years at 8.25. They won that trade long term. It was addition by subtraction.


Thanks for precise explanation, Gofnut999. It definitely makes sense although I disagree with it's evaluation. For me was Garland their no. 1 forward and his move absolutely unacceptable. Also OEL could stay and move to the 2nd pairing. So my personal opinion on the trade.
13 août 2021 à 23 h 2
#13
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: janv. 2017
Messages: 14,968
Mentions "j'aime": 6,072
Modifié 13 août 2021 à 23 h 11
Quoting: Pete
Thanks for precise explanation, Gofnut999. It definitely makes sense although I disagree with it's evaluation. For me was Garland their no. 1 forward and his move absolutely unacceptable. Also OEL could stay and move to the 2nd pairing. So my personal opinion on the trade.


They did not want to pay Garland and he was not staying there. He wanted out and would leave via FA first chance he got. And he was not their top FW by any stretch. He was their #2 trade asset. And they used him to get rid of their #1 problem and got two high end picks. Solid deal.

They did not want OEL on the books, had nothing to do with his role. He had to go. His contract was an albatross that would be a detriment to them for years. You are thinking like a fan as opposed to a GM or businessman. Easy to do when it is not your $.

They were in financial mess and lost a lot of $ the last 2 years.
13 août 2021 à 23 h 25
#14
Days of our Hawks
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: mai 2021
Messages: 4,902
Mentions "j'aime": 2,028
Don’t ever question why Forbort was 2nd pairing in Winnipeg 😉
 
Répondre
To create a post please Login or S'inscrire
Question:
Options:
Ajouter une option
Supprimer une option
Soumettre le sondage