SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

mytduxfan

Membre depuis
25 janv. 2017
Équipe favorite
Ducks d'Anaheim
Messages dans les forums
1472
Messages par jour
0.5
Forum: Armchair-GM24 juin 2020 à 8 h 48
Sujet: Best Case Scenario
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Timmah007</b></div><div>I’d pass for oilers. <strong>Not sure I’d do neal straight up</strong>. Since it’s adding a year tern.</div></div>

LFMAO!!! Good one. You're clearly clueless when it comes to ANA and its players. 2-for-2 on nonsensical comments recently.

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Jah1722</b></div><div>Please no to that EDM trade. AA isn’t good and you gave him more than Silf makes plus took on Neal. Took on 5M, gave up the best player in the deal and only got a 3rd.</div></div>

I know, right? Silf getting treated like a cap dump, even though he's one of the few players performing on a crappy team. James Neal's contract is awful. AA is streaky at best. EZ pass.

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>DirtyDangle</b></div><div>way too much for colorado</div></div>

Take out Kaut and it's fair. However, I'd hold onto Rakell and move him for more to a team struggling to get under cap.
Forum: Armchair-GM24 juin 2020 à 7 h 50
Sujet: Top 10 Ducks Prospects
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Foreskin_Gump</b></div><div>He’s been underwhelming in the NHL. Still has some upside but the players above him are rightfully so.</div></div>

Whilst I agree, I think your ranking is a little harsh. I mean, BOG has looked good, but only at the junior level and he's ranked higher than Lundestrom who is playing at the adult level. I think Lundestrom gets a little too much stick IMO. The kid is only 20 and coming from a softer league. It is going to take time for him to adjust and he's had some injuries to deal with. Moreover, he's clearly being developed as a two-way 2C/3C with a high-level defensive game. Those skills take more time to develop. I still have high hopes for him and believe he has the potential to be an elite shutdown C with a solid 2-way game i.e. a poor mans ROR. Hopefully he pans out as we'd have a lethal set of centres, especially if we are lucky enough to add Byfield or Stutzle this year. Byfield/Stutzle - Zegras - Lundestrom- BOG would be insane!

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>AFOX10900</b></div><div>Thrun and LaCombe are a lot better than Axel, I wouldn't put Jones that high either, I don't think he has all that much upside</div></div>

Agreed on Lacombe and Thrun. Both look to be excellent D-men with NHL potential, whilst AA is borderline for me. Jones probably shouldn't be on the list at this point. However, I don't see him being more than a bottom 6er. I'd put everyone except Tracey, Mahura and AA above him.

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Richard88</b></div><div>Which of these prospects would you be ok trading for Jost? Either in a 1-for-1 or in a prospect+pick package.

Just curious to see how you value your prospects, and which one, if any, might be of interest in a trade.</div></div>

Probably BOG, Tracey and Jones.

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>OldNYIfan</b></div><div>I'm not going to respond specifically to that because I just can't get energized thinking about trading for Jost. Instead, I'll respond about our prospects generally and let my colleagues <a href="/users/AFOX10900" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@AFOX10900</a> and <a href="/users/mytduxfan" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@mytduxfan</a> weigh in on my opinions.

In general, I think that our best assets to trade (meaning those players I think would bring back the best return) are Rickard Rakell, Max Jones, Jacob Larsson and Josh Mahura, depending upon what level of player or asset we were trying to acquire.

I'd rate all of our prime LD prospects currently ahead of Andersson, but I still think AA is going to get to the NHL eventually. I'd rate the LDs Larsson, Mahura, Guhle, Thrun and LaCombe.

I think that Troy Terry is a better prospect than Max Jones, and that's at a position at which we are much thinner (RW), so we're not trading him.

Overall, I'd say we're overstocked at LW and LD, adequately stocked at C and G, understocked at RW and out of stock at RD, although I see both Hakanpaa and Andersson as playable.

That's why my draft board would be Lucas Raymond/Jamie Drysdale/Alex Holtz with our first pick and Helge Grans/Tyson Foerster/Topi Niemela with our second pick (unless one of the more-highly-rated RDs is a faller).</div></div>

Hmmmm... I would say we're only "overstocked" at LW, but not at LD. I think we're solid at GT and have a decent pool of Cs and LDs. We're definitely weak at RW and RD. The issue with our prospect pool and the reason I am hesitant to say we are "overstocked" at LD is that we really lack elite potential. IMO, for us to be "overstocked", we really need at least some 1st line talent. I'd say we have that at LW with Comtois, but don't see the same at LD. We have it at C with Zegras too, but, for me at least, you can never have too many Cs.

If we end up at #5-7 range with our first pick, I think Raymond + Grans/Niemla would be a great haul.
Forum: Armchair-GM23 juin 2020 à 13 h 40
Sujet: Trading Lindholm Rakell and Manson
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>moli92</b></div><div>I know the Rakell for Timmins + 1st was talked about a lot on here months ago but now with COVID and the flat cap I think the market changed. Lots of teams will be needing to sell players to fit under the cap and I would rather go after someone like Killorn/Palat who could be had for much less in a trade. Not really interested in Rakell at that price</div></div>

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Richard88</b></div><div>Yeah I came down to the comment section to say the same thing.

The only way I'd be open to trading Timmins would be if we acquire a top RHD like Pietrangelo that makes Timmins expendable, but that's really unlikely to happen.

Other teams with less capspace will likely value Rakell's low cap hit much more than Avs do, so are likely to price us out of a Rakell trade.

And as moli92 said, there will be much better deals available on the trade market and free agency that won't mortgage our future. Timmins and that 1st (eg. Reichel/Peterka/Brisson/etc) are going to be really important in phase 2 of our cup window beyond 2023. Would rather go for Killorn/Palat on the cheap than losing Timmins.

To put it another way...

Timmins + 1st = Rakell
2nd + 3rd = Killorn/Palat

... I'd rather have Killorn/Palat + Timmins + 1st, than Rakell + 2nd + 3rd.</div></div>

If you'd prefer Killorn/Palat at a lower price, that is fine, but Rakell is absolutely worth Timmins + 1st. I don't think we'd trade him for anything less. In fact, from what you're saying about team's being desperate to get under cap, I think it is safe to assume that Rakell (and his sweetheart deal) is worth a lot more now. Nice!!!!

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>SammyT_51</b></div><div>I wouldnt think so. Liljegren is still only barely 21 years old and is amazing prospect and surely a top-4 D in a year or two. Liljegren is ready. But he needs to wait a year to go straight into top-4 since we have bunch of bottom-4 Dmen currently. I see him playing 30 minutes a night on Marlies in 20/21 and then Muzzin pairing in 21/22 right at the age of 22/23 where those young top-4 Ds hit their stride on NHL level.</div></div>

Means nothing because progression isn't linear. Liljegren could dominate the AHL next year and then implode at the NHL level. He wouldn't be the first and won't be the last D-man to struggle to make the jump. I mean just look at Fleury, Honka, Zboril, all of whom were drafted higher than Liljegren, had solid AHL numbers, and can't stick it at the NHL level. Not saying it happens. The point is that there is a risk with Liljegren that needs to be compensated for.
Forum: Armchair-GM19 juin 2020 à 19 h 28
Forum: Armchair-GM19 juin 2020 à 19 h 27
Sujet: Offseason of the offseason
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>AFOX10900</b></div><div>I mean... Do we really need a third pair guy, like we already have Guddy and Hakanpaa, like Axel will probably be a small step up over them if he develops properly, but there's always a chance he doesn't, and I'd say it's worth giving up a potential bottom pair guy for a really good top 4 guy outside of BUF, and a still decent confirmed bottom pair guy, even in BUF</div></div>

Well... I think we do need a 3rd pairing guy right now (MDZ's contract ends this year and Irwin/Hakanpaa aren't very good. So we have Manson and Gudbranson and then..... *shrugs*... none of those guys should be on the PP anyway). I am not saying that Axel is that guy right now, but he could be in the future. He's a prospect and only 20 years old. He likely isn't going to make the NHL next year. I mean, Axel is young and cheap. Could he struggle to make the NHL? Sure! But he's the best RHD prospect we have right now and has plenty of time to grow. He isn't costing us an arm and a leg, so why not just wait and see what happens? We're not contending next year and probably not the season after either. We have time to wait for him to develop.

As far as Miller, I'd say he's a bottom pairing PP specialist. I mean, he was that in BOS and LV, and has continued to play the role in BUF. He certainly wasn't a top 4D in BOS or LV. Always 5th highest overall and getting the 2nd, sometimes 3rd, most PP minutes. Would he make our team better now? Probably, but, considering that our core so poor right now, I don't think it would really matter. Therefore, IMO, we're probably better off holding onto the kids and hoping they pan out into something good.
Forum: Armchair-GM19 juin 2020 à 19 h 6
Sujet: Fixing top 6 but keeping our firsts
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>OldNYIfan</b></div><div>My question was directed at my esteemed Anaheim colleague <a href="/users/mytduxfan" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@mytduxfan</a> . I construed his comment (in response to yours, which is why I included it) as saying "that's pretty low for me, I'd pass" to yours, which I construed as Rakell for a top prospect and a first from 16-24. There has been a lot of discussion about a trade of Rakell for Timmins and Colorado's first (presumably somewhere between 28 and 31) and most of us Ducks guys like that.</div></div>

Whoops... another late night misread. I only read the part about a "1st in the late teens". A top prospect + late 1st would be within the range of return I'd expect for Rakell. Depending on the prospect, it would probably be the minimum I'd expect. However, definitely within the range of potential deals. Kind of like my view on Timmins + 1st. It's not something I'd accept personally as I think it's a little too low for me right now, but, at the same time, I wouldn't be disappointed or felt we got shafted if such a deal were to be made. It would fall within the range, but be on the lower side of the return value scale for me. Meanwhile, 7th OA is a the top end of what I think you can expect for Rakell. Although, like I said, that deal would never happen because no team with 7th OA needs Rakell.
Forum: Armchair-GM18 juin 2020 à 14 h 28
Sujet: Fixing top 6 but keeping our firsts
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>OldNYIfan</b></div><div>As much as I love Rakell, and as much as I love my Ducks, Rakell doesn't = 7th overall pick. Maybe Anaheim adds Jacob Larsson?

I don't think it makes sense for Buffalo to trade that pick. Here's a deal I could live with that doesn't cost you it:
Jokiharju
2020 second
2021 second

{That may be the first time I've ever used those two pronouns in succession}</div></div>

I think the value is there. I mean, when you're drafting wingers between 5-10 you'd be pretty happy if they turn out to be 30 goalscorers... of course, there is always that risk that they may not. Having said that, any team with a top 10 pick shouldn't move it for Rakell. That makes no sense.

Would love a deal around Rakell for Jokiharju+. I'd take that deal in a heartbeat.

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Xqb15</b></div><div>Yeah I don’t think you give up the 7th overall but a top prospect and a 1st in the late teens early twenties is what I was thinking.</div></div>

That's pretty low for me. I'd pass.
Forum: Armchair-GM18 juin 2020 à 7 h 2
Sujet: Playoff Contenders
Wth is that Silf trade? Do you really view him as a cap dump? Is any player older than 29 with a contract that takes them past 33 years of age a cap dump now? Ridiculous.

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>MG1986</b></div><div>I have a hard time believing the Ducks are going to kick the expensive defenseman can and sign Tyson Barrie this offseason. This team is a work in progress, and I think this group will take things slow and steady. If I had to make a prediction, I think Rakell gets moved for futures and the Ducks sign 2nd, or 3rd UFA tier defenders. Maybe like Radko Gudas? He will probably cost you half of what Barrie costs and I think he'd be a good veteran leader for this young group.</div></div>

Agreed on Barrie. I don't think Rakell gets moved unless we win the lottery. Having said that, C is our priority position. Well... RHD is, but this year's pool of RHD prospects is significantly weaker than its pool of Cs IMO. Now, obviously we'd draft Laf if we won the lottery, but adding Byfield or Stutzle would also be fantastic for us.

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>SociallyHawkward</b></div><div>You already have a tyson Barrie.. His name is can fowler. You don't need 2</div></div>

Lol...someone just showing they don't watch Fowler... or can even read his statistics. Fowler far better defensively than Barrie and far worse offensively. Like not even close to a reasonable comparison.
Forum: Armchair-GM16 juin 2020 à 10 h 1
Sujet: Ideal Offseason Option 2
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Arlotti47</b></div><div>What would you suppose then</div></div>

Not trading away our #1D for a non-elite winger + scraps and one of the few experienced veterans we have for a less-accomplished, older player on a worse contract. I mean, people complain about Henrique's contract, but Zucc's is god damn awful.

If we get Byfield, expect one of Steel or Lundestrom to move to wing (I'd prefer Steel on the wing). Keep the D as is unless a trade for a legit top pairing D prospect become available at a reasonable price. IMO, we aren't going to get out this situation with trades. We're going to have address our needs through the draft. It is just a shame that its a poor year for D-men. Would love to knab a standout prospect with elite #1D potential this year, but I don't think Drysdale is of that calibre.
Forum: Armchair-GM16 juin 2020 à 9 h 45
Sujet: rotation of assets
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Wqrrior</b></div><div>Zucker trade would have been physically impossible unless there was someone of similar cap. I don't think Galc was a cap dump, but his value was lower than a 4th. He was expendable from the start and PIT wanted him gone. They probably could care less if he was given for free... and he was not a member of that trade that stirred the pot in the trade. I think the Wild would have done it even without him in the return. For the sake of argument, consider him worth a 4th.

Addison, a first (late) and a 4th. The fourths would cancel, leaving Timmins and a mid/late 2nd for Rakell. I think Timmins more than is large enough an upgrade to warrant that difference in pick. Not to mention that everyone knows the Ducks need a RD prospect more than any other position of prospect, so they too would be more inclined.

<strong>I do think Rakell is heavily overvalued. I might be slightly low on him, but he has never had a full season and injury risk players don't often go at full price. His last two years were not that good. It's hard to argue that the team is of massive effect to that as his linemates have remained fairly steady. If this was one year in the 40 point range, it'd be different than 2.
Also it says a lot that he hasn't, because if he's supposedly your best guy, he'd do more to carry the team's production. He hasn't. He's not a top line player on any contender unless it's for the reasons of line balancing. </strong>

27 is usually a levelling off as it's establishing the rise of the younger years. His production has formed a parabola of sorts, starting decent, peaking, then returning to a decent level again. Usually up until 27 it's a gradual rise of production (best fit line) then levelling off by this time. They're considered prime years because you know what you are getting for a while and they won't fall.

Even on most other teams, I don't see Rakell as anything more than a solid 50 point guy. That's good of course, but that's far from the potential he had when he had those 30 point years. We're no longer paying for a 30 point scorer. Two years does that to you. They're selling him as a solid/above average 2nd liner.

Zucker trade is our closest comparable here... and I already explained why i think they're equal in value. Zucker to me is the better player, but they are equal in value due to the more stable cap of rakell... but he also has less term.

If the difference to you is a roster player, I'm sure COL wouldn't be all too upset to give up a Kamenev etc.</div></div>

Fair enough. I think we just fundamentally disagree on values here (on both Timmins and Rakell). IMO, you're being extremely critical of Rakell and very easy on Timmins. Pointing out that Rakell has never played a full season (even though he's never had a serious injury and has pretty consistently played 70+ games i.e. not exactly injury-prone) whilst ignoring Timmins concussion history kind of exemplifies your bias. I mean, if you're low on Rakell, I don't see how you can fairly assess his value. We're not selling him as a solid/above average 2nd liner. He's our 1st line LW and has adequately played in that role for multiple seasons. Two down years doesn't change that. I mean, should we also trade Gibson as a 1A/B netminder following his two sub-0.920% seasons? Or should DET trade Larkin as a 2C because of his down year? I don't think so, but, according to your logic at least, they are clearly "levelling off" as weaker players than demonstrated in previous years when the teams they play for weren't complete trash... so....

In any event, you are of course welcome to your opinion. As a Duck fan, I wouldn't trade Rakell at that price. I think Timmins + 1st would be stretch too and probably something I'd pass on unless we won the lottery or something.
Forum: Armchair-GM15 juin 2020 à 19 h 55
Sujet: rotation of assets
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Wqrrior</b></div><div>Dobson isn't a prospect any more. He's a rookie. Bouchard plays a different game... and I don't know much at all about Lundkvist. But I said "One of the best"... not that he is "the best"... though he could be. He still carries a load of value.</div></div>

Fair... yeah, I misread your response. I agree that Timmins is "one of the best" RHD prospects out there. However, he still comes with significant risk and that isn't being considered in his valuation. Either that or you're criminally undervaluing Rakell.

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Wqrrior</b></div><div>Rakell's value does rely heavily on his contract. He's leveling off as more of a 40 - 50 point guy, a 2nd liner, than the top liner he was projected to be. I think it's fair to compare Zucker and Rakell. Imo Zucker is better, and Rakell at 27 isn't really growing his game any more. But their value should be around similar... however Timmins to me is a better prospect than Addison</div></div>

I disagree. Rakell's value comes from his track record as a 1st line winger and his 2 x 30 goal seasons. His value is boosted by his sweetheart contract, but its not where the majority of his value comes from.

I don't understand your notion that he's "levelling off" as a 40-50 pt guy and 2nd line winger. Forwards don't level off at 27. These are his prime years, but he's stuck on a bad team. That doesn't mean he wouldn't thrive on a team at their peak. Pretty much everyone looks bad on ANA, even Gibson and Lindholm. I don't know why Rakell is being singled out here. Dylan Larkin had a down year this year. Is he also "levelling off" as a 50-55 pt C? Of course not! At this level, the good teams aren't just good because they have the best players. Chemistry, coaching, leadership, etc. all play a role and we are clearly lacking in those areas.

If we agree that Zucker = Rakell then you'll have to explain why Timmins &gt;&gt;&gt; Addison to warrant the loss of a roster player (Galc) and the downgrade to a 2nd from the 1st that PITT gave up for Zucker in your proposed deal for Rakell. IMO, we should be getting equivalent value.
Forum: Armchair-GM15 juin 2020 à 12 h 58
Sujet: rotation of assets
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Richard88</b></div><div>My first claim that Timmins is worth more (to Colorado) is based on the fact that: he's NHL ready; Colorado are in 'win-now' mode; and Avs depth at RHD is shallow. In vacuum he might only be worth a 1st, but in the real world Colorado won't trade him for that due to the 3 factors I mentioned.

My second claim is that Timmins "has legit top pairing POTENTIAL, <strong>but likely becomes a solid two-way #3 RHD</strong> (assuming he can stay healthy).", which is reasonably close to your assertion.

Note that at the 2017 draft he was alrady ranked around 25th, and got taken 32nd overall. Since then he had a dominant season in the OHL with more than PPG pace, along with near ppg-pace in the playoffs. He also had an extremely good WJC tournament as well. In the AHL he had a slow start (largely due to the fact that he was a bit rusty), but was a near ppg Dman after his slow start. All of which projected him as a top 4D. </div></div>

Okay, so I think we pretty much agree. He came out of his draft year with top 4 potential, but with some concerns about his skating and offensive play that reduced the likelihood of him hitting his ceiling enough that he dropped out of the 1st round. However, his ceiling was still "top 4D". So why throw out that he has legit top pairing potential? He didn't at the draft and, unless you can show otherwise, has done nothing in his career since being drafted to increase his potential. I mean, look at Rasmus Sandin as an example. The kid was drafted late 1st round, but is clearly developing ahead of his curve and, thus, his potential has increased since his draft year. I don't see the same in Timmins.

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Richard88</b></div><div>Aside from his injury he has done very well since the draft and only raised his stock. The biggest question was his injury, but the fact that he played a full season this year without any concussion issues puts a lot of those concerns to rest (certainly when compared to where things were at 12 months ago).

Now, obviously Timmins isn't "the best" RHD prospects in the game, but that's not what the other poster said. What he said was that Timmins is "ONE of the best RD prospects in the game right now". And based on the evidence so far I don't think it's that unreasonable to claim that he's easily among the top 10-15 RHD prospects.

For the record, according to the Hockey Writers ranked Timmins 90th on their list of ALL prospects not in the NHL, whch makes him 15th on their list of RHD's (Seider, Boqvist, Bouchard, Dobson, Lundqvist, Soderstrom, Foote, Brook, Liljegren, Antoni Honka, Bernard-Docker, Addison, Lassi Thomson, Jett Woo, Conor Timmins). When you factor in the fact that Timmins missed 18 months of hockey I'd say that's a very solid ranking. You could also argue that he should be above a few of the names on that list as well.
<a href="https://thehockeywriters.com/nhl-top-100-prospects-ranking/" rel="nofollow noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">https://thehockeywriters.com/nhl-top-100-prospects-ranking/</a>

Looking at that list above, very few of those other guys are going to be trade bait by their respective teams. So if Timmins is made available then he would most certainly be absolutely be one of the most attractive young RHD's on the trade market.</div></div>

I think he'd possibly get a late, late 1st or equivalent prospect. He's not a sure thing, has already sustained a significant and potential reoccurring injury, and, at best, becomes a top 4D. I don't think there would be a significant bidding war.

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Richard88</b></div><div>As for Zucker, he didn't really get "more than 2 late 1sts" given that Galchenyuk was obviously included in the trade as a cap dump. Without Galchenyuk it's likely that Pittsburgh could have gotten Zucker for a 1st and a lesser prospect than Addison. Zucker was also traded at the deadline with 3 years term remaining, so Pittsburgh get 4 playoffs out of him; whereas an offseason trade for Rakell would only get you 2. There's also the general market to consider, as this offseason will be a buyers market due to the flat cap (but that arguably has limited effect due to Rakell's caphit).</div></div>

This is a misconception that people have about Galc in the Zucker trade. Just a quick look at his statistics and contract status and it's obvious Galc was never a cap dump. I mean, you're talking about a consistent 40-50 pt player, who posted 19 goals just last year, and who is on a reasonable, 4.9M per year, contract that runs out in a couple months. Why would he be a cap dump? Doesn't make sense. Galc never lived up to the hype given to him in MTL, but he's not a bust. He's a productive player. Okay, so he has bounced around a few teams, but consistent producers of 40-50 points and 20 goals are valued assets, not dumps.

So you've got Galc (solid middle 6 forward) + Addison (RHD prospect with top 4 potential) + 1st for Zucker who is older, less accomplished, more expensive than Rakell. Meanwhile, Rakell gets Timmins (equivalent to Addison IMO, although your list has him above Timmins) + 2nd. Just awful value.

Just for clarity, I like Timmins and would love to have him as an ANA prospect, but, for me, he doesn't get the ball rolling in a Rakell deal. Too risky and not enough of a reward IMO.
Forum: Armchair-GM15 juin 2020 à 6 h 3
Sujet: rotation of assets
Significant undervaluations of Manson and Rakell. Pass.

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Richard88</b></div><div>Timmins is worth more than a 1st round pick. The guy has legit top pairing potential but likely becomes a solid two-way #3 RHD (assuming he can stay healthy).

That said I think Colorado says yes to this trade. We'd have to acquire a RHD some other way though by the time Cole hits UFA.</div></div>

How can you make such a claim? I've watched Timmins at the AHL level. He's solid, but doesn't wow offensively. Even if he could handle the faster pace of the game on D and the level competition at the NHL level, he'd be the weakest top pairing D-man in the league. IMO, he's got top 4 potential at best. That was his projection coming out of the draft and he hasn't done anything to change that. If anything, there should be concerns about repeat concussions following his most recent injuries.

I could see a team who really believes in Timmins paying a late 1st for him. The question is why is a 1st line winger with 2 x 30 goal seasons under his belt, on a sweetheart deal, in his prime years not worth 2 x late 1sts? Zucker got more than that he's older, more expensive, and less accomplished than Rakell.

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Wqrrior</b></div><div>Yeah, I see Timmins as one of the best RD prospects in the game right now, so his value is high. He'd also fill the Ducks largest need of a top RD prospect. This guy carries some serious value.</div></div>

You really think Timmins is the best RD prospect in the game? What, better than Lundkvist? Bouchard? Dobson? What are you basing that on? Yes, he'd fill a need, but why sell low on Rakell when you could get more. That's like saying "I traded the $100,000 diamond ring for a Toyota because I needed a car!". Timmins + 1st is the least I'd expect from a trade involving Rakell. Personally, I'd rather wait to see what happens at the draft before moving Rakell. If we win the lottery, the Rakell becomes a lot more expendable and I'd be more open to to a Timmins + 1st deal. Right now, however, I'd pass.
Forum: Armchair-GM12 juin 2020 à 14 h 56
Sujet: Attempt 2 - NSH OTT WIN BUF
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>AFOX10900</b></div><div>Yeah, he doesn't have a ton of responsibilities, but the few he has, he can't do.

I'd also take an above average 1W than a low end 1C...</div></div>

I've watched KC a fair bit and his defensive game never really stuck out badly to me. In any event, he's not critical on defence, so I'd still take him over Ehlers. Kids gonna get 40 goals one day. Could have done it this season if it was for the lockdown. "Meh", to each his own. I like Ehlers too, so I wouldn't be disappointed in getting him.

I wouldn't characterise Schiefele as a "low end 1C". He's not McDavid, but he's top 15 C in the league. Weird logic nonetheless. Anyway, you're of course welcome to your opinion. I don't think many would agree with you though.