Shopping Jack Eichel: Colorado

[LGR4GM]

2 minutes ago, Buffalonill said:

Do people realize Landeskog is a UFA 

Yea, hence why were talking about them losing him... in ufa

[Buffalonill]

7 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Yea, hence why were talking about them losing him... in ufa

Some above disagree  .

 

Jack eichel for Landeskog

[Hoss]

13 minutes ago, Buffalonill said:

Some above disagree  .

 

Jack eichel for Landeskog

Nobody is talking about trading Eichel for Landeskog. Freeman’s comment was about getting Newhook in a deal for Eichel and signing Landeskog in free agency.

[Buffalonill]

18 minutes ago, Hoss said:

Nobody is talking about trading Eichel for Landeskog. Freeman’s comment was about getting Newhook in a deal for Eichel and signing Landeskog in free agency.

Claude Balls said:

I read somewhere that Landeskog was unhappy. Don't remember where I saw it (maybe the athletic). I was like, why would anyone be unhappy in Colorado right now. I thought to myself, ok, Jack for Gabriel straight up and I'd be ok with it at this point.

[kas23]

3 hours ago, Claude Balls said:

I read somewhere that Landeskog was unhappy. Don't remember where I saw it (maybe the athletic). I was like, why would anyone be unhappy in Colorado right now. I thought to myself, ok, Jack for Gabriel straight up and I'd be ok with it at this point.

The reason he’s unhappy is because the Avs haven’t ponied up his money quick enough. He wants to stay in Colorado, but just wants them to hurry up and pay him his due. Sounds familiar to a squabble they had with a former player who we all used to know. 

[PerreaultForever]

Colorado is apparently interested in Kuemper so they might be planning to move on from Grubauer. So maybe that's a goalie we could get. 

[will]

sakic's opening offer to gabe was somewhere in the 5.5mil AAV, per the voices on my siriusxm radio.  wtf?  can anyone justify that lowball offer to me?

[Hoss]

1 hour ago, will said:

sakic's opening offer to gabe was somewhere in the 5.5mil AAV, per the voices on my siriusxm radio.  wtf?  can anyone justify that lowball offer to me?

That’s what the other reporters are saying, as well. I think he’s as good as gone which I think that team will miss.

[will]

and now landeskog is being exposed to the expansion draft.  avs so crazy.

[Curt]

26 minutes ago, will said:

and now landeskog is being exposed to the expansion draft.  avs so crazy.

Landeskog is a UFA.  Technically Avs could still protect him, but their contract talks have broken down and it doesn’t look like the two sides will come to a deal.

Seattle can’t select Landeskog in the expansion draft.  He would have to sign a free agent contract with them.  His choice.

[Hoss]

1 minute ago, Curt said:

Landeskog is a UFA.  Technically Avs could still protect him, but their contract talks have broken down and it doesn’t look like the two sides will come to a deal.

Seattle can’t select Landeskog in the expansion draft.  He would have to sign a free agent contract with them.  His choice.

UFAs CAN be selected even without a contract. Several will be. For two reasons:

1. It gives Seattle an exclusive negotiating window

2. They will intentionally take a few expiring contracts to maintain cap flexibility going into their first offseason.

[JohnC]

18 hours ago, Hoss said:

That’s what the other reporters are saying, as well. I think he’s as good as gone which I think that team will miss.

Teams with a number of talented players can't give all of them fair-market contracts. The contract pieces simply don't fit within the cap puzzle. Some players are going to get shortchanged. When the numbers don't add up for the affected players and teams, no matter how hard you try, then you have to accept the harsh reality of the $$$ numbers, and one way or another shed the player/s. You can do it by trading, exposing the players in the expansion draft or allowing a player/s to move on to the market and seek better financial options. 

The teams that will benefit from the system are teams with cap space. The problem for the Sabres is that it is not an appealing destination for players because of its reputation for futility. Hopefully, with good stewardship that maligned reputation will change to a more reputable reputation. 

[Curt]

14 minutes ago, Hoss said:

UFAs CAN be selected even without a contract. Several will be. For two reasons:

1. It gives Seattle an exclusive negotiating window

2. They will intentionally take a few expiring contracts to maintain cap flexibility going into their first offseason.

I don’t think this is quite correct.  Doesn’t Seattle already have an exclusive negotiating window with all unprotected UFAs, happening right now?  They don’t need to select them to get that early negotiation time.

Just checked:  yes, from today July 18 until July 21, Seattle has early negotiation rights with all unprotected UFAs.

If they sign any of these UFAs in this early negotiation window (as its rumored they will with Drieger) that player counts as their selection from the team.  But it’s not like all the teams are protecting their UFAs to stop Seattle from signing them.  If Avs are leaving a UFA like Landeskog unprotected it’s because they don’t feel they are going to get them signed.

I don’t think Seattle will be taking players that they intend to just let walk in UFA, at least not without some compensation.

Seattle needs to take minimum $50M in contracts for the 2021-22 season.  Expiring UFA contracts don’t count towards this.

In fact I don’t even see how they could select a UFA in the actual expansion draft.  I don’t think that’s a thing.  Their only way to get UFAs is to sign them to actual contracts.  They can’t pick them up without first signing them.

Edited July 18, 2021 by Curt

[dudacek]

I understand Donskoi and Compher’s contracts are considered a bit of a burden to the Avs, but they aren’t exactly Jeff Skinners.

Leaving those two, along with Landeskog, unprotected was eyebrow raising to me. 
They protected Logan O’Connor…?

[Sabres Fan in NS]

3 hours ago, Curt said:

I don’t think this is quite correct.  Doesn’t Seattle already have an exclusive negotiating window with all unprotected UFAs, happening right now?  They don’t need to select them to get that early negotiation time.

Just checked:  yes, from today July 18 until July 21, Seattle has early negotiation rights with all unprotected UFAs.

If they sign any of these UFAs in this early negotiation window (as its rumored they will with Drieger) that player counts as their selection from the team.  But it’s not like all the teams are protecting their UFAs to stop Seattle from signing them.  If Avs are leaving a UFA like Landeskog unprotected it’s because they don’t feel they are going to get them signed.

I don’t think Seattle will be taking players that they intend to just let walk in UFA, at least not without some compensation.

Seattle needs to take minimum $50M in contracts for the 2021-22 season.  Expiring UFA contracts don’t count towards this.

In fact I don’t even see how they could select a UFA in the actual expansion draft.  I don’t think that’s a thing.  Their only way to get UFAs is to sign them to actual contracts.  They can’t pick them up without first signing them.

I believe this to be all correct.

There is no incentive for The Avs to not expose Langeskog.  It really appears that the Avs will be losing him in UFA regardless.  Seattle has first dibs to sign him, or any other unprotected UFA.  They may sign a number of them before the expansion draft, but maybe none.  If they do sign anyone they will the, obviously (I think) count in the $50 million in contracts (is that the cap floor?).  

Anyway, it is pretty clear that Adams has a deal in place, or very close, with Linus, since he is a protected UFA. 

[Hoss]

5 hours ago, Curt said:

I don’t think this is quite correct.  Doesn’t Seattle already have an exclusive negotiating window with all unprotected UFAs, happening right now?  They don’t need to select them to get that early negotiation time.

Just checked:  yes, from today July 18 until July 21, Seattle has early negotiation rights with all unprotected UFAs.

If they sign any of these UFAs in this early negotiation window (as its rumored they will with Drieger) that player counts as their selection from the team.  But it’s not like all the teams are protecting their UFAs to stop Seattle from signing them.  If Avs are leaving a UFA like Landeskog unprotected it’s because they don’t feel they are going to get them signed.

I don’t think Seattle will be taking players that they intend to just let walk in UFA, at least not without some compensation.

Seattle needs to take minimum $50M in contracts for the 2021-22 season.  Expiring UFA contracts don’t count towards this.

In fact I don’t even see how they could select a UFA in the actual expansion draft.  I don’t think that’s a thing.  Their only way to get UFAs is to sign them to actual contracts.  They can’t pick them up without first signing them.

They can take players who are unsigned UFAs. It extends the exclusive negotiating window they have. They will take UFAs they haven’t signed and probably some they don’t intend to sign (from teams they don’t have any desire to select from).

[Hoss]

2 hours ago, New Scotland (NS) said:

I believe this to be all correct.

It’s not. Seattle can take UFAs they haven’t signed to deals.

However, they can only take up two ten players that aren’t signed into next season. If a pending UFA signs a contract with Seattle they count as that team’s selection but DO NOT count as one of those ten players.

Vegas selected three pending UFAs they never signed: Connor Brickley, Chris Thorburn, Jean-Francois Berube.

[Curt]

42 minutes ago, Hoss said:

They can take players who are unsigned UFAs. It extends the exclusive negotiating window they have. They will take UFAs they haven’t signed and probably some they don’t intend to sign (from teams they don’t have any desire to select from).

That’s interesting.  I didn’t realize that they could do that.