SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

cbjthrowaway

cbjthrowaway
Membre depuis
29 mai 2019
Équipe favorite
Blue Jackets de Columbus
Messages dans les forums
411
Messages par jour
0.2
Forum: Armchair-GM10 oct. 2023 à 15 h 1
Forum: Armchair-GM25 sept. 2023 à 15 h 3
Sujet: random idea
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Ross_Johnston</b></div><div>granlund and hoffman have negative value lol. barabanov has positive value.</div></div>

i personally don't think that granlund at 50% retention is necessarily a negative asset if the jackets were to send additional salary (in the form of younger, more useful players) to SJS. the jackets need to cull some of their roster, and if they keep the lines from last night they'll need some playmaking at LW3, granlund does kinda fit that bill.

peeke + roslovic for 50% retained granlund and a pick seems like it could work. that said, part of what columbus would be looking for in this would be for a guy who can be a primary puck carrier on that line and i'm very sure barabanov could do that. not sure if granlund would be able to do that.
Forum: Armchair-GM25 sept. 2023 à 14 h 49
Sujet: random idea
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Rob32sjsharks</b></div><div>You’re taking from a strength for the sharks and giving us one of our biggest weaknesses so I badly want to say yes but can it be anyone other than Barabanov. I love the guy and want him in SJ long term.

Duclair Granlund Hoffman or a pick!</div></div>


i personally don't want duclair back (he wasn't very good when he was here, granted it was under torts) and it's a hard pass on hoffman. wouldn't give up boqvist for any of those names.

that said… as much as granlund looked positively cooked last year, i think if he can bounce back a little bit he'd be a really nice fit for us as a playmaking veteran LW3 to support sillinger + marchenko.

would roslovic ($4m, 1 year left) + peeke (3 years at $2.75m) for granlund at 50% (two years $2m) work for you? SJS would be taking on salary short-term, but roslovic is pretty flippable and peeke could be a long-term RHD at a low price for y'all.
Forum: Armchair-GM28 août 2023 à 17 h 19
Sujet: pls do not yell at me
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>MitchJr</b></div><div>Buffalo, Detroit, Montreal for starters - all could offer competitive packages. And all have room to fit him in cap wise</div></div>

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>mv21227</b></div><div>Montreal, Carolina, and Detroit could beat this package. Other teams that could if interested (but aren’t necessarily likely to be interested) are Buffalo, New Jersey, Dallas</div></div>

what would the specific asks be for those teams, though?

the prospects in this cbj offer beat what montreal and dallas would be willing to offer. new jersey doesn't have the cap. carolina doesn't have the cap to do it this year unless vancouver wants to take back money/rentals. cbj's picks are far more valuable and make up the rest of the difference.

that leaves buffalo and detroit. i still don't think they'd offer enough to where cbj couldn't outbid without giving up jiricek/johnson, but then again, i still haven't seen a specific offer from those teams.
Forum: Armchair-GM28 août 2023 à 16 h 36
Sujet: pls do not yell at me
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Juiceman</b></div><div>How can you possible ask for Pettersson and not even include Jiricek or Johnson? I understand not including Fantilli, but not including Jiricek and Johnson immediately makes it insulting. Its quality&gt;quantity. While not a terrible package, not including at least one of those two makes it unrealistic</div></div>

i 100% get why this is the vancouver fan sentiment. yes, the ask would start with johnson/jiricek. that's not the point of this – the point of this is to show what CBJ would counter with.

even without johnson or jiricek… i don't know if there's a better offer out there? sillinger, marchenko and mateychuk are all equal to most teams' top prospects, the two firsts are valuable given cbj's problems in goal + the absurdly difficult metro division, and even peeke as a throw-in is a cost-controlled RHD with size.

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Vancity2196</b></div><div>Oh I will yell at you.
You're not getting Pettersson.
Both teams declined this trade.</div></div>

imo cbj doesn't decline this. it's a lot to give up, but the pettersson + fantilli foundation is worth it.

vancouver definitely asks for johnson or jiricek. the point of making this is seeing if cbj's counter to that would still be enough to outbid the field.

you can sit there all day and say "well, you're not giving up any of your top three prospects" – and i understand why! – but i'd counter that by saying that they'd be largely bidding against teams that couldn't match this kind of offer – both in terms of pick value and prospect quality/quantity.
Forum: Armchair-GM15 août 2023 à 17 h 46
Sujet: two moves
The scenario of the getting hurt only really matters when its a rental. [/quote]

it's still such a remote possibility that it's not worth considering. they are trying to compete this year, this makes them more competitive. in fact, injuries are actually a compelling argument for having another lefty who can handle top four minutes – if werenski or provorov miss time, the top four is going to take an enormous hit. if they have brodie, they're in better shape.

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>BoomerTheHero</b></div><div>We have no use for rentals and we are not cap strapped so the cap savings arent that big of an incentive.</div></div>

you just said a few comments ago that brodie being more expensive this year was a problem! next year they'll have new deals for johnson, marchenko, sillinger, chinakhov and texier!

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>BoomerTheHero</b></div><div> I said a 3rd cause that has value beyond a year where we are likely going to miss the playoffs anyway. Peeke is not a cap dump, we dont need to move him for cap space. The only reason we would move Peeke is for roster space, which adding a RD as the return negates that and makes the move useless.</div></div>

i never said peeke was a cap dump; in fact, in this example, he's being moved for a better player on a team that needs the cap space.

this move would make the jackets better, so by definition it is not useless. it doesn't free up immediate roster space, but that's not a prerequisite for every move – they can either free up roster space by other means, risk losing someone to waivers, or send down a young guy.

let's say they swap peeke for brodie. they're a better team immediately for it. they then have 9 defensemen (werenski, brodie, severson, provorov, boqvist, bean, blankenburg, gudbranson).

the logical next step is to try to move boqvist or bean. if they can't, they can send blankenburg down and/or risk losing jake bean to waivers. but at that point, you already have a replacement/huge upgrade over bean in brodie.

yeah, there are a lot of forwards, too, but you don't pass on a major roster upgrade because it means you might have to expose one of jake bean/justin danforth/matt olivier to waivers.
Forum: Armchair-GM15 août 2023 à 17 h 25
Sujet: two moves
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>BoomerTheHero</b></div><div>And if we miss the playoffs, which is most likely, and Brodie gets hurt so we cant trade him? then we basically gave peeke away for free. We are not in a position to be thinking of taking on rentals. Maybe next year, but i dont think we are there yet.</div></div>

the thing about the "what if we acquire this player and then they get hurt and we miss the playoffs" thing is that you can say it about literally any player. it's such an unlikely hypothetical that it shouldn't be part of the decision-making process. it's not like peeke couldn't also suffer a major injury – but they'd still owe peeke for the following years while having no place for him on the roster.

besides, you even said that you'd take a third-round pick for peeke. brodie is an upgrade over peeke. if they're sellers, and he's healthy, he'll bring back more than that. in the unlikely even that he's not healthy, they'd only be missing out on a third round pick, but saving $5.5m in cap over the next two seasons anyway, so… they still come out ahead?
Forum: Armchair-GM15 août 2023 à 15 h 49
Sujet: two moves
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>BoomerTheHero</b></div><div>It lists Blanks as both cause hes played both. It lists Brodie as a RD, cause thats what he plays. Im not sure Peeke is fighting anyone for his spot. I think he has the 2RD slot fairly locked down, Babcock has called him out by name in his interviews/press conferences. Blanks is 7D, he wont be in the starting lineup. Jiricek would be a surprise to be anywhere other than the AHL this season, at least to start. <strong>I just dont think a Brodie rental maximizes the value from Peeke</strong>. I would rather get like a 3rd round pick that could bring value down the line rather than waste his value on a rental that we dont need.</div></div>

brodie improves the team and increases the likeihood that they can make the playoffs.

if they make this move and they're in a playoff spot come deadline time, it's worth it.

if they make this move and they're not in a playoff spot come deadline time, a rental brodie at 50% retention will fetch a lot more what peeke would fetch right now imo.
Forum: Armchair-GM15 août 2023 à 15 h 26
Sujet: two moves
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>BoomerTheHero</b></div><div>Brodie is a RD and it would just mean we are scratching one of Brodie or Boqvist instead of Peeke or Boqvist. He also costs almost double of Peeke, so it would limit us on what other moves would be possible. We essentially get an older and more expensive replacement for Peeke, when what we need to do is move Peeke or Boqvist for picks, prospects, or a position of need. Like i said it just makes no sense for us and we would be better off keeping Peeke.</div></div>

brodie is a left hander. capfriendly arbitrarily lists him as a RD for the same reason it lists blankenburg as a LD – because both guys played their off-side out of necessity.

unlike peeke, he's a guy who they can play in any of the six d-man spots. peeke can't play on the left and can't play on the top pair. he's fighting for the second or third pair RD spot, but the other guys in that equation either have higher upside (boqvist, jiricek), are better right now (blankenburg) or are more expensive/harder to move (gudbranson).

he's a shutdown guy who can also get the puck out of the zone and handle big minutes, so you could either put him with werenski:

werenski - brodie
provorov - severson
bean - blankenburg/gudbranson/jiricek

or let him be a safety blanket for one of the young guys:

werenski - severson
brodie - boqvist/jiricek
provorov - blankenburg/gudbranson

in the roster build above, jiricek stays in the AHL, gudbranson is the 7D, and the jackets have three balanced pairs that can be very effective and all handle 20+ minutes a night if needed.

the short-term cap is fine, and it buys them more cap room in the following two seasons when they'll need it a lot more.
Forum: Armchair-GM15 août 2023 à 14 h 25
Sujet: two moves
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>BoomerTheHero</b></div><div>Peeke for Brodie makes no sense.</div></div>

for CBJ:
- adds a veteran LHD (position of need)
- adds a ton of flexibility (can play RD with werenski or LD to partner with a young RHD like boqvist or jiricek)
- adds a quality player to a position where they've had injuries
- only costs them a guy who they're likely to move anyway
- frees up $5.5m in cap over the following two years

i know it doesn't address the 'logjam' but it doesn't have to – it makes them better at a reasonable price. they can clear the logjam elsewhere, unless the logjam is unable to be cleared this offseason anyway, in which case it's a straight-up upgrade that helps clear the logjam the following season.

for TOR:
- gets them a player they like
- gets them a player with term at a low cost
- helps fix the cap crunch without costing them nylander

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>capsleafs447</b></div><div>Leafs decline. Hard pass from the Caps.</div></div>

wasn't it reported that no one was willing to offer them anything significant for kuzy? it's a hard contract to move. this deal would move that contract, give them two flippable expiring assets who can contribute this year, and save them nearly $8m in cap the following year.

both bean and roslovic are former first-round picks who have shown the ability to produce in the NHL, but haven't consistently put it together. WSH is flush with guys like that who they've turned around – strome, milano, etc.