TrueBlueGED
-
Posts
29,076 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by TrueBlueGED
-
-
14 minutes ago, WildCard said:
If you already have your foundation in piece you don't need a Marner though, you need 3-4 roster guys to roll more than one line
Agree to disagree. I think a team can always use a 90-point player. It's the same reason the Leafs are going to keep him even though they also have Tavares, Matthews, and Nylander up front.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, WildCard said:
Well that's on top of the $8M Sam's base salary would already have to have been, and the 2 first rounders you already spent on acquiring him
$12M + four firsts = 1 Sam Reinhart at 70 points + 3 other 1st round picks, which can translate to roster players in trades or just drafting them.
In 4 years maybe.
It all depends on timeline. For a team starting a fresh rebuild, an offer sheet of this magnitude doesn't make a ton of sense. But for a team that already has a foundation in place? Hell yea.
-
Just now, WildCard said:
But so is $12M + four 1st rounders vs $8M + two 1st rounders
Would you pay $4M and two 1sts to upgrade from Sam to Jack? I sure would.
-
8 minutes ago, WildCard said:
I'm not saying 90, I'm saying 70
All else equal, a 20 point gap in production is huge
-
6 minutes ago, WildCard said:
I don't know about way better. And at some point you have to consider what his cost is, financially and asset wise
How many teams are trading away a 90-point player entering his prime for two 1sts?
-
7 minutes ago, Hoss said:
I’ve been banging this drum for a minute. Give me Stastny.
Separately...
I don’t think anybody offer sheets Marner. They’ll talk to teams but in the end there isn’t really a point. You’ll piss off the Leafs (and probably other wimpy GMs) and you’ll either have to pay four first round picks or you’re going to have to slightly overpay Marner to pry him away.
The Leafs probably match anything short of $12 mill. Anything above it is too much.
This reasoning is exactly why offer sheets don’t happen. I think it's flawed, but it's definitely real.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, WildCard said:
Also, instead of using 4 1st rounders and 12M+ on Marner, why not just use two of those and trade some team for a young player instead
Because Marner is way better than any player you're trading for.
-
4 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:
Myers is not good lol
Maybe I'm being a little unfair, but that contract is absurd
Myers is serviceable as a 4/5 (ideally 5), so maybe a little unfair...but yes, this contract is bonkers.
-
5 minutes ago, Brawndo said:
@tom webster still don't think GMs are stupid? (To be clear, I know what you're saying, but things like this are why people use "stupid" as shorthand for "bad.")
I can't fathom thinking giving Myers this contract is a good idea. Holy smokes.
-
3
-
-
4 minutes ago, tom webster said:
Obviously it’s a long shot but when a 34 year old player faces reality, an extra year and a few million dollars might mean something.
I just have problems with absolutes. Nobody knows what motivates different individuals.
3 minutes ago, nfreeman said:There's one major factor that could sway Pavelski, and it rhymes with "Shmenjamins."
Pavelski turns 35 in a couple of weeks. How long a deal is going to get from Dallas or TB? And by how much should the Sabres beat that offer? Would Pavelski come here for $5MM x 3 years? Would that be a terrible move by the Sabres or merely a bad one?
I think a venn diagram of what it would take to get Pavelski here financially and what it would be defensible to pay him to do so would look like two circles separated by the Atlantic Ocean. I would do $5Mx3 but I really don't think that's even close to what it would take.
-
7 minutes ago, WildCard said:
Honestly amazed it's 'milquetoast' and not 'milktoast'
And none of us are amazed that you're amazed ??
-
1
-
3
-
-
Just now, WildCard said:
Seriously though
Pavelski would be such a great addition, but there's no freaking way he's coming to a bottom feeder. None.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Brawndo said:
The Sabres have reached out to Pavelski however they do not have a visit scheduled per LeBrun
The real question is how long Pavelski's agent spent laughing.
-
2
-
1
-
-
Just now, dudacek said:
I get what you're saying, but did you watch it? IMO, it wasn't delivered as a rote media reply.
I think there was some pretty healthy debate prior to the pick, with the some scouts vociferously backing their guy.
That's probably true, but is it really any different than any non-1st/2nd overall pick? I'd imagine it was much the same for the Mittelstadt pick.
-
1 hour ago, dudacek said:
I've read they were very high on Turcotte. But you'd think it would be due diligence to talk to NJ and NY, no?
It's also possible they simply had a second tier of three or four guys after Kakko and Hughes and wanted to get into that.
For all we know, Cozens was in it and he did drop to them.
Botterill has pretty clear that they absolutely loved a lot of players that went before and after their pick.
Breaking news: milquetoast GM says everyone is great. More at 11:00. ?
-
4 minutes ago, darksabre said:
We probably don't have a choice.
Indeed. We're either going to overpay for certainty or be left hoping for someone within the organization to step up to capably fill the role. Haven't had too much luck on the whole internal solution thing for quite some time.
-
22 minutes ago, Ho-Chi-Sock said:
RNH probably wouldn't mind a reunion with Krueger.
He'd be a great addition. Sign me the hell up.
-
2
-
-
10 hours ago, dudacek said:
I would have done the Marleau trade and the Subban trade (subbing in Pilut and whatever Roch guy Nashville wanted).
But I think you nailed why I wouldn’t do the Miller deal.
I think it all comes down to how high you see the pieces eventually climbing up the depth chart. Canucks paid more for Miller than the Rangers paid for Trouba and we paid for Skinner. Dougie Hamilton, Ryan O’Reilly, P.K. Subban were all acquired for mid- to low- first-rounders.
It’s not that I think we are likely to draft a stud with that pick, Sabrespacers are right when they say we likely won’t. It’s just that I think it would be wise to keep our powder dry for a better opportunity.
I understand this perspective, but it carries significant risk that a better opportunity doesn't actually come along. I'd rather have a good deal that could have been better than no deal because I waited for the rainbow that never comes.
-
1
-
-
34 minutes ago, dudacek said:
Yes. Worry is not the same as giving up. I haven't given up on Nylander yet, but I certainly worry.
Casey's rookie year doesn't worry me; I kinda expected it. It would worry me if he hasn't learned from it and bumped up his strength and conditioning of the summer and it would worry me that someone with his expected upside couldn't take advantage of such good linemates.
Relatedly, Skinner scored 35 with Derek Ryan. He can score 35 with Sam and Rob Ray on his line.
Not consistently, he can't.
-
5 hours ago, dudacek said:
I worry about Casey’s future if he is stumbling and bumbling with those two players in his D3 season.
Sam makes any linemate with an ounce of hockey IQ look better and Jeff scores goals by himself. That spot - with Jack drawing the top checkers on line 1 - is a gift. It removes all excuses; Casey couldn’t ask for a better situation to succeed.
If we can get someone like Zucker or Anders Lee to ride shotgun for Jack, then I foresee a similar opportunity for one of Tage/Alex/Victor on the other side.
Even If Botterill manages to pull off a real top-six addition, we still need a kid or two to take a step.
From the guy who always says development isn't linear?!?!
It depends what you consider stumbling. He shouldn't have been anywhere near the NHL last season, I think that's clear. Even with better linemates, I'd expect more of a "normal" rookie season for a top-10 pick, even though it's technically year 2.
Relatedly, I'll scream if they break up Jack and Skinner. We're paying Skinner to score 35-40 and that's not happening without Jack.
-
23 minutes ago, Brawndo said:
Karlsson’s New Deal is 8 years 6 Million AAV
There's one RFA target off the books before the purported "offer sheet offseason" even begins. Shocking.
Anyway, that's a pretty sweetheart deal for Vegas, damn.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, dudacek said:
Yes, that’s probably as good a definition as any, although I would probably tweak it to say that could be an effective 2nd line, as opposed to putting the entire spotlight on Casey.
With the tweak, my answer is much the same. In a vacuum I'd say probably not, but maybe. Bigger picture, however, if it means Jack is skating with Thompson and Olofsson...yikes.
-
17 minutes ago, dudacek said:
Notwithstanding the need to add more good players, could Casey succeed with Sam and Jeff this year?
How do you define success, and in what team context? I do not think he could succeed with them as wingers if you define it as 2C on a playoff team.
-
1
-
-
28 minutes ago, dudacek said:
The Vancouver market and fanbase - which is pretty much in the same place as ours - is skewering Benning for the move.
Not that fans and media are experts on anything, but the point is pretty consistent: Miller will help, but he’s not going to get this team closer to winning the Stanley Cup. Next year’s lottery ticket might. Good is the enemy of great.
The pick is 2020 lottery protected. If either team is relying on a high percentage lottery pick 2 years from now, they've already failed.
-
1
-
Pick #31 Ryan Johnson Defenseman
in The Aud Club
Posted
Know what else can hinder the team long term? Continuing to miss the playoffs so players are less likely to waive trade protection to come here and UFAs need to be even more overpaid to be convinced to sign. Long term planning isn't as simple as holding onto picks and prospects.