SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

TrueCanuck

Roster Architect
Membre depuis
19 mars 2021
Messages dans les forums
2643
Messages par jour
2.3
Forum: Armchair-GM1 avr. 2022 à 20 h 35
Sujet: What
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>TrueCanuck</b></div><div>Ah yes. &amp; that’s what everyone on this stupid site said about moving Ritchie’s contract &amp; looked how that turned out..

Mrazek is a serviceable NHL goalie (whether idiots on here wanna admit that or not doesn’t change it). He’s struggled this season - but when you look at his career this is a trend. Good season followed by a bad one then followed by a good one and so on. He’s not a starting goalie but he’s a tandem option. His contract is actually not that bad. $3.8M cap hit with $4.2M in actually cash owed in each of the next 2 seasons. But it’s a contract structure that’s similar to Ritchie’s and can easily be bought out for much cheaper - if bought out this summer it turns to a $1.03M, $833K, $1.43M, $1.43M over the next 4 seasons. &amp; if bought out after next season, it’s only the last 2 on that list that account for the cap. On top of that, Chicago is desperate for a goalie for next season and they’ve already had interest in him at the deadline so the fit is there. Worst case, they add him and take a chance on him while they rebuild, they could easily restore his value and move him for other assets or they keep him for a year and if not liked that much they can buy him out at a very cheap cost.

Bottom line, it’s absolutely not going to cost a 1st round pick to move Mrazek if that’s the path Toronto chooses to go. Just because you don’t like him as a fan, doesn’t mean that a team has to severely overpay to do something. There’s value to him, he played better after the deadline. Take things for what they are instead of just your bias fan opinion.</div></div>

💯!

Think you hit the nail on the head.

The real concern is the groin. But there was genuine jnterest. Chicago was one, have to think Buffalo is another (like, who WANTS to go to Buffalo right now)
Forum: Armchair-GM21 févr. 2022 à 22 h 9
Sujet: It couldve been this
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>TrueCanuck</b></div><div>Whether people agree with it or not - it was the right decision. Hindsight is always 20/20.

Part of that move was to sway Seattle away from Kerfoot, that paid off pretty well that no one mentions.

Leafs are looking for a top 4 right handed defenceman to add before the deadline (have been looking for a bonafide one for over a decade), letting Holl go for nothing only makes the need for 2 right handed defenceman even more. Something that would cost through the roof to get - if they had to get 2 top 4 defenders this year it’d cost at least Amirov, Robertson, Knies, and a 1st.. something that threatens the future.

Relax.</div></div>

There’s also the part where if they planned on exposing Holl they would’ve protected Kerfoot. Meaning the need for McCann wasn’t there.
We might never have acquired him.

Everyone likes to pretend they’re geniuses.
Hindsight has that effect (I still don’t know the difference between affect and effect. Don’t flame me for my grammar lol).

Edit: I couldn’t agree with you more.
Forum: Armchair-GM20 févr. 2022 à 21 h 10
Sujet: Realistic Deadline
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Buffalove</b></div><div>Sabres decline
ZERO INTEREST in Koskinen- NONE

If we were looking to acquire someone’s Cap dump of a goalie,
we’d have done it when we had 4goalies injured
NOT when they’re getting healthy again

Maybe the pick makes it worth it?
But idk that we’d see a 3rd as a good enough reason to pay the remaining of Koskinen’s salary
My guess would be no

I do know we are willing to take on Cap dumps at the deadline,
but we want 1sts for doing so
I know we wouldn’t get that for taking on Koskinen,
so i don’t think this trade would happen</div></div>

I think we would. Eakin &amp; Dell are pretty bad, and Koskinen is up at the end of the year. Your essentially trading for a 3rd, and in return giving away nothing of valuable. That personally sounds good to me.
Forum: Armchair-GM18 févr. 2022 à 17 h 23
Sujet: who says no
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>pharrow</b></div><div>no they can't be. Because Dumo is actually a defensive defenseman.
Dumo isn't a turn over machine, At no point in his whole career has he been a point producer.

Their whole argument is Brodie is now a "defensive defenseman" ...well that's BS. He isn't and never was. At best you could say he was a 2 way guy.
which gets to the point at the production dropping. And nothing but excuses.</div></div>

"Looking at Evolving Hockey’s data, we can see how strong TJ Brodie has been defensively. Ranking in the 78th percentile according to their player cards, Brodie has been among the league’s best defensive players. He ranks 22nd in the league among defencemen in Evolving Hockey’s xGAR at even strength defence. He also ranks 35th among league defencemen (with a minimum of 500 minutes played) in xGA/60 with 2.02. Needless to say, TJ Brodie is pretty good at defending at 5v5."

BrOdIe IsNt a DeFeNsIvE dEfEnCeMaN
Forum: Armchair-GM18 févr. 2022 à 16 h 16
Forum: Armchair-GM18 févr. 2022 à 15 h 37
Forum: Armchair-GM13 févr. 2022 à 18 h 54
Sujet: Severson based on Muzzin trade
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Ledge_And_Dairy</b></div><div>Durzi was drafted that previous summer and put up 37 points in 35 games as a defenseman. Grundstrom was over a PPG in the AHL (small sample size), producing well in the SHL, and the year prior was a PPG in WJC Hirvonen has similar WJC and Liiga production to Grundstrom.

I really don't think these prospects are that far off</div></div>

It's important to note that Durzi was drafted in his second year of eligibility. The following year was his 20 year old season and that production, while encouraging of course, was not all that meaningful or out of the ordinary - anything much less would have been disappointing, frankly. His standing at the time of the trade was no where near Niemela's, that's just the way it is.

Hirvonen in comparison to Grundstrom, however, is much closer (though Grundstrom wasn't a P/G player in the A). Hirvonen's got the edge in positional versatility and the higher ceiling, but Grundstrom was pretty much a guarantee to be a player. A bottom of the lineup player, but still. I could see having a preference for either.
Forum: Armchair-GM10 févr. 2022 à 18 h 47
Sujet: Signing Jack Campbell
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>OldNYIfan</b></div><div>You have an interesting concept of who is of similar value to Jack Campbell.

To begin with, your initial objection to Campbell was that he is “on the wrong side of 30.” Then, as comparables, you list Marc-Andre Fleury (37), Cam Talbot (turns 35 in the off-season), Jonathan Bernier (turns 34 in the off-season), Antti Raanta (turns 33 at the end of this season and has an injury history), and Jake Allen (turns 32 during the off-season). Signing them long-term, which was your first complaint, would seem an even worse idea than signing Campbell long-term, if you are correct in your objection.

Second, as I said in my Team Explanation, the object of this exercise was to find a long-term solution to Edmonton’s chronic goalie problem. Citing Semyon Varlamov and Cam Talbot, who are signed for only one more year, as long-term solutions seems . . . short-sighted. And Talbot’s lack of term would seem to rule Kappo Kahkonen out as a trade target.

Third, if you accept the premise that Campbell has now shown his on-ice capability, I don’t see how you can consider Allen, Bernier, Driedger or Georgiev – all career backups so far – the solution to Edmonton’s need for a long-term starter. Now the criticism that it’s very dangerous to use a small sample of games as an indication of permanent future success is an absolutely valid one, and that is the obvious and admitted risk of signing Campbell to any contract.

Fourth, contending that any of your proposed trade targets would be necessarily cheaper than signing Campbell for free overlooks the fact that real assets would have to be spent to acquire them, and there would be a further cost to replace the assets so spent.

Finally, going from acquiring one goalie to a tandem seems to be changing the subject, inasmuch as it would be hard in some instances to create such a tandem or stay under your $7 million figure.

I readily concede without reservation that I could be wildly off in my estimation of what figure and term Campbell will command on the open market. I tried to hit an upper number to illustrate that signing him is not beyond Edmonton’s reach, but I’m persuaded by comments from reasonable fans like tkecanuck341 and aadoyle and MatthewsFan that he will get less than I have suggested here. Subconsciously, I’m sure that I was trying to dial a number which I knew to be above Toronto’s capability.</div></div>

I’m certainly not saying your wrong, that’s exactly the type of term and AAV that it would take the lure Campbell away from TOR. And if there was one organization willing to give a 31 year old goalie with only two seasons of being a #1 6 years at 6.5 it’s EDM and it’s GM.

But realistically on the <strong>high</strong> end I say Jack gets somewhere near 5.5 AAV and <strong>low</strong> end of 4.8AAV. Term being anywhere from 3-4 years. Can’t see him going for 2 and IMO no team is giving him 5 (without some serious regret if they do).

I obviously do not own a crystal ball and only confident that he will resign in TOR due to his connection with Dubas dating all the way back to the Soo, he loves TOR, and the Leafs are a perennial playoff team. I’ll be very surprised if he leaves. Dubas and Co will make the necessary trades to fit him in.