25 jan 2017
Messages dans les forums
Messages par jour
Sujets de discussion
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>DarthBriggles</b></div><div>Now that the trade deadline has passed, I can say with absolute confidence that Anaheim is in rebuild mode and any player over 24 is part of the fire-sale. It's just too bad Toronto GM Kyle Dubas didn't try to make any real moves.</div></div>
Well you're wrong. How does moving Kase, who has been disappoint this season and is made of glass, Ritchie, who has been nothing but a disappoint since his draft year and held out at RFA talks last year, Shore, Grant, Holzer, all expiring contracts, and Sprong, a kid that has been stuck in the AHL all season and wasn't going to make it on the big club, an indication that ANA is in rebuild mode? Literally none of those assets are core players and had no future with ANA. We had a shake up amongst our depth players and tried to add more speed. That's literally the definition of a retool - developing new assets that will eventually replace the old or exchanging assets of equivalent value in order to change/refresh the identity and play style of a team. That's not the same as stripping it all back and starting again.
Overall, I'm happy with how the TDL went. The only move I don't like is the Ritchie trade, but that's only because Heinen is just so vanilla. Not a bad player, but doesn't really excel at anything. Reminds me of Logan Shaw. Would have preferred a pick to be honest. Some are saying the Kase deal was bad and BM should have got more. I'm going to assume that was the best deal on the table. It's not what I hoped for, but, if it's a question of taking the deal or not, I'd take the deal because Kase's value was only going 1-way. The rest are good deals. Getting anything for Grant, Holzer, Shore is a win in my book. Losing Sprong sucks and as that Pettersson trade continues to look terrible for us. I don't understand why he was never given an opportunity here. At least we have Sprong 2.0 in Milano, who I believe is a better team player whilst also suffering the same defensive deficiencies as Sprong.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Salzy</b></div><div><a href="/users/OldNYIfan" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@OldNYIfan</a> <a href="/users/Jah1722" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@Jah1722</a> <a href="/users/mytduxfan" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@mytduxfan</a> Curious to see who you guys think we should go after if we target a top 4 RD by trade/FA</div></div>
I wouldn't. We need to get younger in that position. Unless we're trading Rakell to EDM for Bouchard or to NYR for Nils Lundkvist, I just stand pat with what we have. The draft is the best way to improve RD. Lots of RH D-men will be available around our 2nd 1st round pick.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Ragsandbluesfan</b></div><div>Because hes better offensively, and defensively, and has more term, and hes much more consistent</div></div>
How can a guy whose peak goals and points in one season is 1 goal and 5 pts less than Rakell's and whose P/GP is 0.54 vs. Rakel's 0.63 be better offensively? I think you'll struggle to justify that one.
Better defensively? Ok, sure. I won't pretend to have watched Zucker enough to say he's worse defensively. Rakell is ok defensively, but nothing special. So I'll assume Zucker is better. However, I am sure the difference (if any) is small. Zucker isn't some Selke nominated winger or anything, so let's not pretend that his defensive game is leaps and bounds beyond Rakell's. Moreover, they're scoring wingers, so they're getting paid to score and the focus of their game will be putting the puck in the net.
More term? I'd give you that if Zucker wasn't being paid 5.5M vs. Rakell's <$4M? I mean, we're talking about 1 year here. You're going to have to explain why a contending team that is close to cap would value 1 more year at a more expensive rate for a guy who is less offensively-gifted (as established above) than Rakell. Surely, if you're that close to the cap and pinching every $, you take the cheaper and offensively better guy. I mean, Rakell still has 3 full playoff runs left, so it's not like he's on <$4M now and then going to get a massive increase next year or something. Rakell is also younger, so you're getting a player in his prime years for longer. Yeah, I don't think any contending team will say that Zucker is more valuable because he has more term.
Zucker is more consistent? Yeah, he's more consistent because Rakell has 2 x 30+ goal seasons whereas Zucker only has 1. So yeah, he consistently produces less than Rakell. That's not an upside. I mean, if you're specifically referring to Rakell's down year this year, Zucker has a similar points total. Again, don't think consistency adds value. Production is key and Rakell is better at producing.
Rakell is younger, better offensively, cheaper than Zucker. His contract adds massive value because contending teams don't have the cap for big contracts and he comes with enough term for 3 x playoff runs. For these reasons, he should return more than Zucker.