Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
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. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
Just now, TrueBlueGED said:

Because Marner is way better than any player you're trading for. 

I don't know about way better. And at some point you have to consider what his cost is, financially and asset wise

Posted
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? 

Posted
32 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.

But signing him to $12 and forcing the leafs to match is just right.

Posted
2 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

Would you pay $4M and two 1sts to upgrade from Sam to Jack? I sure would. 

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.

Posted

Imagine how far that move would escalate the cross border rivalry?  I still ***** hate Edmonton for the vanek offer sheet.  A move like that could revive the war of 1812.

  • Haha (+1) 3
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Posted
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. 

Posted
3 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

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. 

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

Posted
5 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

Signing Myers to that deal and trading a 1st for JT Miller makes me think that Benning is under a make the playoffs or else directive from ownership. 

It’s all they’re talking about out here.

Posted
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. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Hoss said:

That’s in the ballpark of what I’d pay him if I’m being honest.

Like, if I’m entering through the ticket gates near home plate and this contract is in the last seat in the left field bleachers with an obstructed view and broken arm rests.

Wow, funny post Hoss.

 

Thanks, Hoss.

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Thorny said:

It was protected, no? They deferred it from the 2018 draft. 

 It was protected in that they had the decision to defer. Someone can correct me if I’m wrong but I think normal lottery protection isn’t deferrable like that. 

Posted
5 minutes ago, #freejame said:

 It was protected in that they had the decision to defer. Someone can correct me if I’m wrong but I think normal lottery protection isn’t deferrable like that. 

Yea, most (maybe all) other lottery protection that has been put in is automatic, not discretionary. 

Also @Thorny way to ruin a most excellent joke! 

This topic is OLD. A NEW topic should be started unless there is a VERY SPECIFIC REASON to revive this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...