Éditer l'avatar
  • png, jpeg
  • La grandeur minimale recommandée se veut de 800px par 800px
  • Grandeur maximale: 1MB
Glisser l'image pour repositionner
Sauvegarder
Annuler

JTrades

Membre depuis
1 nov 2016
Équipe préférée
Maple Leafs de Toronto
Messages dans les forums
312
Messages par jour
0.2
Sujets de discussion
34
Forum: Armchair-GM21 fév à 20 h 25
Sujet: Forsberg
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>gmgb</b></div><div>Thanks for sharing that! It's not a blog that I normally read, so it wasn't on my radar. It was an... interesting read.

My two biggest problems with his take are:
1/ The author admits TOR underpaid for Muzzin, and that Forsberg carries more value than Muzzin (I believe the gap is greater than he infers, but comparing forwards and defensemen isn't an exact science), but he doesn't account for either of those in his proposal.

2/ The author acknowledges that NSH would need compensation for retaining salary on Forsberg, but offers Kerfoot as that compensation. Need aside (NSH has too many 3C's as it stands, all on more attractive contracts than Kerfoot's), Adding his salary adds to the burden of retaining on Forsberg - not the other way around. If NSH is going to spend $6M on one player, why would they choose a redundant role player over a the kind of highly skilled star they don't have enough of?

Now your proposal here does have a Liljegren who would be a addition to NSH, and a 2nd, but you're also asking for Jarnkrok, more $ retention, and sending Engvall who doesn't have value to NSH. I guess both your proposal and the one from hot stove are about equal value-wise, but neither is anything close to what NSH would need.

If TOR is hell-bent on trying to acquire Forsberg (no retained salary) without one of Robertson or Sandin being part of the return, I think multiple 1sts would have to be a feature of the package. The Preds aren't going to move Forsberg without giving themselves at least a chance to land a guy of his skill one day. The more salary TOR needs NSH to retain or the more undesirable to NSH contracts they want to include (Kerfoot, Engvall, Vesey, etc), the more that drives the price up. If someone like Kerfoot is worth a 2nd-late 1st as the article suggests, I'd like the Leafs find that trade, then add that return to this offer. I'm not a fan of the "if they don't want this guy, they can just flip him for such and such a return" proposals. I guess I see way too many of them on these boards, but I just find that argument lazy.</div></div>

Thanks for reading and for the thoughtful response. If the leafs trade kerfoot for picks instead of inserting him into the trade, what picks would need to go in the trade? Aside from the first and second already in the trade
Forum: Armchair-GM11 sep 2020 à 21 h 31
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>gretzkyghosts</b></div><div>No Sabre AGM commented, so I will be the first.
First:
While many doubt this Ristolainen is Buffalo top defenseman.
Many may laugh and say so what, the whole defense sucks.
Well this defense that is suppose to suck gave up fewer 5 on 5 goals than all but 8 NHL teams last year.
They did this with a blind GK and an offense that could not keep the puck out of the defensive zone.

Second:
Please stop sending Johnsson to Buffalo.
Buffalo has Skinner, Olofsson, Johansson and Girgensons all had more goals than Johansson, why would Buffalo need a fifth LW.

Third:
Hutton has no trade value now.
To start the season he set a Sabre record for the most saves to record a shut out.
Then he went blind and could not see the puck and lost 12 games in a row while recording a +4.00 GA %
So yes he has negative value.

Fourth:
Kerfoot has 113 points over the last 3 seasons while Ristolainen has 117.
Ristolainen is a top pairing defenseman (on a team that did well to stop 5 on 5 goals). Kerfoot is a #3 Center.
Kerfoot does not KP, and gets very limited PP time (even the not needed Johansson got nearly double the PP time he)
I would not trade Ristolainen one for one for Kerfoot, I would need more coming back and that is not Johansson.

So Leaf fans can bemoan that this not a fair trade for them, it does nothing for Buffalo.
Johansson would be our fifth LW, in case that does not sink in, that means press box.
Kerfoot would be the Sabres 3rd center when Buffalo needs a #2 Center.
Then I need to add draft picks for players (who have value) that do not fill needs for Buffalo.
This is a very easy pass for Buffalo.

There that is my rant of the day, Stay tuned tomorrow for my next one. :laugh</div></div>


Thanks for the well thought out response! In my mind resto needs a change of senior but can still be a very good defence man. He is a bit of a risk though. I think Kerfoot is worth less because he is a forward. I think Johnsson is not a need for Buffalo but they did trade for Frolik. As a non Sabers fan it seems like they need more forwards. I truly think Johnsson would be an upgrade for Buffalo but not their biggest need. I didn't know about the eye think for Hutton or his current health but to me he seems like is has negative value but could bounce back, health reasons aside. My thinking was because of this a 2 for 2 trade with similar money going each way might make sense
Forum: Armchair-GM 6 sep 2020 à 19 h 36
Forum: Armchair-GM23 aoû 2020 à 21 h 00