SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

Campa96

Rational Fan(atic)
Membre depuis
30 nov. 2016
Équipe favorite
Canadiens de Montréal
Messages dans les forums
389
Messages par jour
0.1
Forum: Armchair-GM25 janv. 2018 à 14 h 54
Sujet: Realistic Trades
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Spanky227</b></div><div>Lets be real, vegas is the top team in the NHL right now, Perron and Neal are off the market. Hoffman, Kane, Pacioretty and Galchenyuk are all going to return more than a first round pick. Grabner has more goals than every single player there, plays penalty kill and has a tremendous performance level on it (direct quote from an article "In fact, Grabner has an average of 0.324 powerplay goals against in ~5000 minutes of shorthanded ice time. The next player with a PPGA less than or equal to this has played 1000 fewer minutes shorthanded."). Teams like WPG that have poor penalty kills will give up a first round pick for him rather than overpay for another player.

I'm not gonna mention vanek because he is not as valuable than grabner lets be real here</div></div>

Tough to rationalize giving up a first for a penalty killer with 15 non EN goals and 4 assists. Can't see a team willing to give up that much for a penalty killing rental who doesn't actually generate offense (evidence being his meager 4 assists).

As for Vanek, he is in the same class as Grabner: rental who will probably not be re-signed. Vanek generates plenty of offense and has over 0.7 points/game both this season and last season. For reference, Grabner has never reached that level in his career. Vanek's powerplay prowess is close if not equal to Grabner's PK prowess, and generally teams pay more for the powerplay than they do for the PK. The last argument is age, and Vanek is 4 years older than Grabner, but this doesn't matter because they are both rental players
Forum: Armchair-GM23 janv. 2018 à 23 h 55
Sujet: Weber to TOR?
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>palhal</b></div><div>Sure as heck sounds like you're just begging for some team (and it's always the Leafs) to take Weber off your hands. If he's that good as you profess, maybe the Habs should keep him.
And what is this nonsense about "reaching the cap floor". Trying looking at a Leaf roster on CapFriendly, the Leafs are close to the top of cap, not the floor. More nonsense, about the Leafs haven't won a Cup in 50 years, it's the next 10 that's important to current Leaf fans. And realistically the Leafs aren't contenders till at least 2019/20. By the way, the Habs, haven't won in 25 years, so you might not have even see that.
But that contract for Weber, how's this idea. Leafs wait a few years and then want to sign a UFA. Most cost 9m (and opposed to Weber's 7.8m. Leafs should be able to fit that in the cap (you did say they were at the cap floor) and they get to keep Marner. Cap problems? Sign that 9M UFA, and trade Marner for future assets. Leafs would be miles ahead instead of doing a Marner and Weber trade.</div></div>

I think you misread. Weber through a rebuild was related to the Habs reaching the cap floor, not the Leafs.

If I were begging the Leafs to take him, I'd be talking to Shanahan. This is just a discussion around the fallacy that Weber's age and cap hit make him undesirable. I didn't even get into value, I'm simply stating that he is, and will likely continue to be valuable for a number of years.

Not winning the cup in 50 years is just a fact, it's not a barb against the Leafs. The implication I'm making is that, if the Leafs are serious about contending sooner rather than later, that Weber is worth consideration. I straight up said that if they don't think the next 5 years is the right time, DO NOT trade for Weber.

You don't have to beg someone to take Weber. If the Habs go into a rebuild and make him available, there will be suitors. If they aren't rebuilding, they will happily keep him.

Waiting for a defenseman to become available in free agency is another valid approach. Top D men don't hit the market with regularity or predictability however. If they do manage to hit the market, they go wherever they want, and that may not include Toronto.
When you trade for a player, you get them immediately and under contract. It's the only guaranteed way to pick up a top defender and have term and cap certainty.

Wait for Doughty or Karlsson for example, and you could be on the hook for $10M for seven years. You might also fail to sign either one.
By then you've already had 2 playoff appearances, and are potentially in no better shape for the 3rd.

If it were as simple as waiting and filling needs with free agents instead of trading for players, nobody would ever trade any players of significance.
Teams would also draft based on need rather than value. The whole point of drafting the best player available, is that you can move that player to fill a position of need if it is required.

Let me reiterate. Weber for Marner is only something that should be <strong>considered</strong>. It's not the only possibility, it doesn't have to be done, and the chances of <strong>either team</strong> wanting to make that trade are low. It <strong>is</strong> however, worth thinking about.

Edit: For the record, Weber retained for Marner is not a good trade for the Habs, unless they go full rebuild, then it's a consideration, but not with that kind of retention. For $3M x 8 years, you're adding a few high picks or prospects. That's ridiculous from both sides.
Forum: Armchair-GM23 janv. 2018 à 23 h 31
Sujet: Weber to TOR?
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>palhal</b></div><div>Sure as heck sounds like you're just begging for some team (and it's always the Leafs) to take Weber off your hands. If he's that good as you profess, maybe the Habs should keep him.
And what is this nonsense about "reaching the cap floor". Trying looking at a Leaf roster on CapFriendly, the Leafs are close to the top of cap, not the floor. More nonsense, about the Leafs haven't won a Cup in 50 years, it's the next 10 that's important to current Leaf fans. And realistically the Leafs aren't contenders till at least 2019/20. By the way, the Habs, haven't won in 25 years, so you might not have even see that.
But that contract for Weber, how's this idea. Leafs wait a few years and then want to sign a UFA. Most cost 9m (and opposed to Weber's 7.8m. Leafs should be able to fit that in the cap (you did say they were at the cap floor) and they get to keep Marner. Cap problems? Sign that 9M UFA, and trade Marner for future assets. Leafs would be miles ahead instead of doing a Marner and Weber trade.</div></div>

Sure sounds as heck like a salty leafs fan who got a little upset at a habs fan saying they haven't won in 50 years..

He was responding to someone saying Weber gets in the way of a rebuild when discussing the cap floor. I totally agree they need to pay some players and Weber would be amazing to have for young defenseman coming up (everyone who has ever played with Weber is better because of it). I would hate to see Weber go to the leafs there is no doubt in my mind he would make them serious contenders.

Sorry for calling you out but ricochettii's post was one of the most reasonable things i have ever read so i dont know why you took an exception to it.. he literally said "if you dont think you can win in the next 5 years don't trade for Weber, if you think you can it's worth considering." It can't get any more reasonable than that.
Forum: Armchair-GM23 janv. 2018 à 22 h 45
Sujet: Weber to TOR?
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>littlejerryseinfeld</b></div><div>weber will be 33 before next season and has a terrible contract that stands firmly in the way of a montreal rebuild. Marner is 20</div></div>

Chara was 33 when he captained the Bruins to a Stanley Cup. He had almost a $7M cap hit. He was 35 when he again lead them to the finals. Still at a $7M cap hit.

At 40 years old (41 before the end of the season), he remains a solid contributor, and is still anchoring the top pairing with McAvoy, after also mentoring Carlo previously.

Neither does Weber's contract get in the way of a rebuild. If anything, he helps reach the cap floor while also mentoring the young defensemen that would be coming up through the system.

If you don't think trading Marner for Weber is a good idea, that's fine, but his age and contract are not the primary factor. Whether he helps a team that hasn't won a cup in 50 years is what matters most.
If you don't think you can win a cup in the next 5 years, don't trade for Weber.
If you think you can win a cup in the next 5 years,
he's worth considering.
Forum: Armchair-GM23 janv. 2018 à 16 h 3
Sujet: Pacioretty's actual value to the Blues
Fine then don't trade for him then! That isn't going to stop people from making AGM's the way they want......This is a fantasy site at the end of the day. People who are not qualified to make these real decisions IRL are being given a chance to do what they think is right. What'd you expect?

People need to start looking at these AGM's as trade <strong>offers </strong>, not done deals. Nothing more. Its an offer, you can choose to accept, decline or continue negotiating to something you like better.

If you think GM's in the NHL start off by making an offer that is really close to full value off the bat, you are wrong. Negotiating 101: Aim high and negotiate down from there.

The whole process of negotiating is completely lost on this site so people go straight for the full value with an extra cherry on top.
Forum: Armchair-GM21 janv. 2018 à 18 h 28
Sujet: fixing stuff
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Campa96</b></div><div>I honestly think the opposite. This is a terrible trade for Montreal. Shaw and Nelson are quite similar, and even if you think they're not, the upgrade is not worth giving up our best goaltending prospect and our second best defensive prospect after Mete. I may be underrating Pulock, but I don't see him as anything more than a third-pairing defenseman, and with the 2nd rounder you basically have a small chance of drafting a prospect as good as Juulsen or Lindgren.</div></div>

I didn't say it was good for Montreal either. Lol. My take is this Nelson/Shaw have similar value. Pulock/Juulsen similar value. Personally i’d rather have the Isles 2. Nelson/Shaw flip a coin it’s personel preference.. Pulock was better in jrs, a couple years older, and NHL ready which NYI needs especially on the right side. Lindgren has been great in his brief NHL tenure. Small sample size. But he was an undrafted FA out of college that has been average in the AHL. I do believe he is capable of becoming a #1 in the NHL. That being said i don’t think he carries a 2nd round value right now. Go look at what Ben Bishop has been traded for during his career. Goalies don’t have the kind of trade value they should. And he’s no Bishop. if NYI feels like i do and they like the other 2 better than they aren’t going to give full value on Charlie in order to even it out.

I appreciate your opinion and input. Not saying you are wrong. After all these are opinions. Just explaining mine. Cheers..