Rumor: 2019-2020 Trade Rumours and Free Agent Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cousin Eddie

You Serious Clark?
Nov 3, 2006
40,152
37,330
Expansion is literally two years away. It’s ridiculous to already map out how that’s going to go.

We have two Stanley Cups we’re expected to battle for before that happens. Let’s sit back, enjoy watching a competitive team and allow Joe Sakic to make the right decision on who he will protect in a couple of years.
 

Pokecheque

I’ve been told it’s spelled “Pokecheck”
Sponsor
Aug 5, 2003
46,286
29,431
The Flatlands
www.armoredheadspace.com
Their goaler was standing on his head.

Not only that, no one really knew what they were doing in the new cap system, the rule changes and VERY strict enforcement on obstruction meant teams were on the power play all the damned time, and there was a bit of a “talent lull” in the league before Crosby, Ovechkin, Toews, Kane, etc. began to take over the league.

In short, it was wiiiiiiiiiide open. It’s no coincidence that both teams from that Final hardly even saw the playoffs at all for years after that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AvsMakar08

Pokecheque

I’ve been told it’s spelled “Pokecheck”
Sponsor
Aug 5, 2003
46,286
29,431
The Flatlands
www.armoredheadspace.com
Teams are already planning ahead for he expansion draft. Trade protection isn’t quite as prevalent with new contracts as they’ve been in years past.

It shouldn’t necessarily stop a team from making a major upgrade, but yeah, you gotta be ready for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: avsfan09

Balthazar

I haven't talked to the trainers yet
Sponsor
Apr 25, 2006
49,689
52,970
Seattle is coming in the NHL one year too late IMO. Expansion draft should have been set to next summer.

Edit: Arena wouldn't be ready for next year it seems.
 

Cousin Eddie

You Serious Clark?
Nov 3, 2006
40,152
37,330
Planing 2 years ahead isn't ridiculous. The Avs can still be competitive and be cautious of how the expansion draft is going to affect them.
100% disagree.

You’re going to lose a good player no matter what. If you want to avoid being hurt by expansion you should build the deepest and best team possible so that you have the depth to overcome that loss. Everyone else loses a good player too. Just get over it.
 

Avs44

Registered User
May 16, 2011
21,709
10,260
100% disagree.

You’re going to lose a good player no matter what. If you want to avoid being hurt by expansion you should build the deepest and best team possible so that you have the depth to overcome that loss. Everyone else loses a good player too. Just get over it.

My take too...protect the stars, accept that (if you have a good club) you'll lose a quality non-star player. Too many GMs overthought it last time around. In trying to navigate keeping all quality players I think a few screwed themselves over....Minny being a happy example. At the end of the day Seattle can only pick one player. If you end up with, say, 3 good players exposed...well, that's a good problem to have, and you'll still have 2 good players left over + the entire protected list. That's easily surviveable.
 

Cousin Eddie

You Serious Clark?
Nov 3, 2006
40,152
37,330
My take too...protect the stars, accept that (if you have a good club) you'll lose a quality non-star player. Too many GMs overthought it last time around. In trying to navigate keeping all quality players I think a few screwed themselves over....Minny being a happy example. At the end of the day Seattle can only pick one player. If you end up with, say, 3 good players exposed...well, that's a good problem to have, and you'll still have 2 good players left over + the entire protected list. That's easily surviveable.
Exactly.

Hell I wouldn’t even be upset if we lost a star just because of the principle alone. Imagine if we lost a guy like Landeskog in expansion. Yeah that would f***ing suck but what would that tell us about our team. It would mean we have 8 players better than Gabe Landeskog on our roster.

I’d rather be a team that loses a star than to be a team who trades away their quality first just to avoid the headache of losing someone decent.

The team’s that lose the higher quality players are almost certainly going to be the more successful hockey clubs. I hate to see anyone go but I like Stanley Cups more than anything.
 

AllAboutAvs

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Aug 25, 2006
9,453
7,605
The old "we're gonna lose a good player anyway" is true but if you think GMs are not planning for the expansion already you are mistaken. You guys really think it is a coincidence Timmins was cleared to play late last season but was shutdown by the Avs "to be safe". You can still accept to be losing a good player but position yourself the best you can through draft, trade and UFA to lose one of the guy you are comfortable losing.
 

AllAboutAvs

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Aug 25, 2006
9,453
7,605
Just so that I understand it correctly:
EJ has a 19 team NTC.
This in and of itself would not prohibit EJ being exposed, as he would still be eligible to be drafted.

EJ also has an NMC which means he cannot be sent to the minors.
This is the killer in the ED and means he needs to waive.

I had been surprised for a long time that people said EJ would need to waive, but I figured that the limited NTC meant he would be eligible. However it is the NMC that is the problem.
You are correct.
 

CB Joe

Registered User
Oct 12, 2008
7,739
1,115
100% disagree.

You’re going to lose a good player no matter what. If you want to avoid being hurt by expansion you should build the deepest and best team possible so that you have the depth to overcome that loss. Everyone else loses a good player too. Just get over it.
No, that's not true. Last expansion Chicago only lost Trevor van Riemsdyk, Sharks lost Schlemko, Montreal lost Emelin, Rangers lost Lindberg. Those teams were 100 pt teams and all of them lost nothing valuable. There is absolutely no reason the Avs shouldn't be planing the future with the expansion draft in mind.
 

Cousin Eddie

You Serious Clark?
Nov 3, 2006
40,152
37,330
No, that's not true. Last expansion Chicago only lost Trevor van Riemsdyk, Sharks lost Schlemko, Montreal lost Emelin, Rangers lost Lindberg. Those teams were 100 pt teams and all of them lost nothing valuable. There is absolutely no reason the Avs shouldn't be planing the future with the expansion draft in mind.
3 of the 4 teams you just listed haven’t played a playoff game since the expansion draft lol.
 

CB Joe

Registered User
Oct 12, 2008
7,739
1,115
3 of the 4 teams you just listed haven’t played a playoff game since the expansion draft lol.
They were 100 point teams at the time of the expansion draft. Jets, Sharks and Carolina all made the final 4 since expansion and they only lost Thorburn, Schlemko, and Trevor van Riemsdyk respectively. Very few teams lost a good player that they didn't want to lose.
 

Balthazar

I haven't talked to the trainers yet
Sponsor
Apr 25, 2006
49,689
52,970
They were 100 point teams at the time of the expansion draft. Jets, Sharks and Carolina all made the final 4 since expansion and they only lost Thorburn, Schlemko, and Trevor van Riemsdyk respectively. Very few teams lost a good player that they didn't want to lose.

Those who would have lost a good one paid through the nose to avoid it.

Saying that you'll lose a good player regardless is like saying you don't mind if you lost a $10 bill or a $50 bill since you've lost money anyway. All the players don't have the same value.

That said, we'll have the whole next summer to worry about that. It's too soon.
 

RockLobster

King in the North
Jul 5, 2003
27,227
7,543
Kansas
There's a difference, in my opinion, between a GM planning for the expansion draft and then some of what we see posted around here.

For instance, I don't think that Sakic is having deep thoughts about the possibility of losing Zadorov (or JTC/Jost/etc), or whether or not EJ will waive his NMC. He and his staff can and probably have some ideas they're thinking about and planning for, but 2 years is actually a long time in the hockey world. Hell, we saw Joe make quite a bit of a roster turnover this year. We don't really have a concrete idea what the team will look like in 2 years.

So basically...I agree with Kento
 

S E P H

Cloud IX
Mar 5, 2010
31,058
16,585
Toruń, PL
100% disagree.

You’re going to lose a good player no matter what. If you want to avoid being hurt by expansion you should build the deepest and best team possible so that you have the depth to overcome that loss. Everyone else loses a good player too. Just get over it.
I think Seattle is going to build for the future as Vegas did, Las Vegas being in traditional Vegas fashion hit the jackpot and accelerated their rebuild by like four years. Teams will be smarter on which players to protect and will be less forgiving as well (I doubt a team will screw up as much as Wild/Panthers did). However, Seattle will want to pick younger players and accumulate draft picks. I personally have no problem getting rid of a 1st round, especially if we know it will be somewhere in the 20s+ range since we're a contender to keep our team as it is a year or two from now.

Probably going to look stupid here being so far of from the actual expansion draft, but I will be surprised if Seattle makes the playoffs in their first two years (could even be longer).
 
  • Like
Reactions: McMetal

McMetal

Writer of Wrongs
Sep 29, 2015
14,182
12,281
I think Seattle is going to build for the future as Vegas did, Las Vegas being in traditional Vegas fashion hit the jackpot and accelerated their rebuild by like four years. Teams will be smarter on which players to protect and will be less forgiving as well (I doubt a team will screw up as much as Wild/Panthers did). However, Seattle will want to pick younger players and accumulate draft picks. I personally have no problem getting rid of a 1st round, especially if we know it will be somewhere in the 20s+ range since we're a contender to keep our team as it is a year or two from now.

Probably going to look stupid here being so far of from the actual expansion draft, but I will be surprised if Seattle makes the playoffs in their first two years (could even be longer).
Yeah, Vegas got crazy lucky. I mean, who in the world would have expected William Karlsson to become a dominant 1C that first year? My to mention snagging one of the best coaches in the world in Gallant. Seattle won't be so fortunate.
 

cgf

FireBednarsSuccessor
Oct 15, 2010
60,557
19,390
w/ Renly's Peach
I think Seattle is going to build for the future as Vegas did, Las Vegas being in traditional Vegas fashion hit the jackpot and accelerated their rebuild by like four years. Teams will be smarter on which players to protect and will be less forgiving as well (I doubt a team will screw up as much as Wild/Panthers did). However, Seattle will want to pick younger players and accumulate draft picks. I personally have no problem getting rid of a 1st round, especially if we know it will be somewhere in the 20s+ range since we're a contender to keep our team as it is a year or two from now.

Probably going to look stupid here being so far of from the actual expansion draft, but I will be surprised if Seattle makes the playoffs in their first two years (could even be longer).

No. Bad S E P H. Bad!

We learn from mistakes made in the past, we don't double down on them :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: AllAboutAvs

Pierce Hawthorne

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Apr 29, 2012
45,269
42,937
Caverns of Draconis
On a different topic...


Justin Faulk would be a pretty fantastic addition if the Avs were serious about making a run this year. He'd make for perfect insurance on the Right side and really fill that last missing piece of our Defense IMO.


I wonder what the Canes would be looking for with him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Richard88

S E P H

Cloud IX
Mar 5, 2010
31,058
16,585
Toruń, PL
No. Bad S E P H. Bad!

We learn from mistakes made in the past, we don't double down on them :rolleyes:
Even if we don't like it or not the Avs showed in the past and with almost every general manager since Sakic was trained with Lacroix and Sherman that they're not afraid at trading 1st rounders for rentals.

Getting rid of a 1st round to Seattle to make them pick like Bellemare or Donskoi in the future could be a good trade off.
 

Youngblood29

Registered User
Jul 3, 2018
128
44
I would have done 2 years 11M. That offer would have left him 5M short but would have 2 additional free years to make it up.

I’m guessing Sakic wants to give the opportunity to the kids which is fine. Gardiner’s a damn good defenseman though.

Byram is going to get every opportunity to make the team.

Word on the street says that Avs offered 2years... well, I understand that the player took certainty and chose 4years deal and I totally understand that Avs didn’t offer the same.
 

AllAboutAvs

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Aug 25, 2006
9,453
7,605
Even if we don't like it or not the Avs showed in the past and with almost every general manager since Sakic was trained with Lacroix and Sherman that they're not afraid at trading 1st rounders for rentals.

Getting rid of a 1st round to Seattle to make them pick like Bellemare or Donskoi in the future could be a good trade off.
The only way it would make sense is if the player you are able to keep in that case is well worth a 1st himself. Even then that player you are keeping must be worth at least the 1st round pick + Donskoi in your example. i know you can always go back to UFAs to pick up another Donskoi but if Donskoi is already a great fit then you are taken a chance of 1. there isn't one available or 2. the new player isn't a good fit.

Just not worth it IMO. Not for a 1st.
 

Richard88

John 3:16
Jun 29, 2019
19,181
20,819
Even if we don't like it or not the Avs showed in the past and with almost every general manager since Sakic was trained with Lacroix and Sherman that they're not afraid at trading 1st rounders for rentals.

Getting rid of a 1st round to Seattle to make them pick like Bellemare or Donskoi in the future could be a good trade off.
Based on the current roster and likely protections (as listed below) there would be no reason to trade a 1st.

Donskoi/Burakovsky, Zadorov, and Francouz are the only key players at risk, and frankly none of them are worth paying a 1st for ON TOP of losing another player, especially if that player we ask them to select is Donskoi. Chances are that Donskoi would be one of the top choices available for Seattle to pick anyways, so we wouldn't need to pay them a 1st to choose him if they wanted him anyways.

Protected
  • Mackinnon
  • Rantanen
  • Landeskog
  • Kadri
  • Jost
  • Compher
  • Donskoi
  • Makar
  • Girard
  • Johnson
  • Grubauer
Exposed
  • Burakovsky, Wilson, Nieto, Calvert, Bellemare, Nichuskin, Greer, Kamenev
  • Zadorov, Cole, Connauton, Barberio, Graves, Rosén, Meloche
  • Francouz
Exempt
  • Kaut, Newhook, Bowers, Kovalenko
  • Byram, Timmins, Hellesson
  • Werner, Annunen
 
Last edited:

Richard88

John 3:16
Jun 29, 2019
19,181
20,819
On a different topic...


Justin Faulk would be a pretty fantastic addition if the Avs were serious about making a run this year. He'd make for perfect insurance on the Right side and really fill that last missing piece of our Defense IMO.


I wonder what the Canes would be looking for with him.
I agree. I made a detailed suggestion in the Faulk trade board thread that a deal around Faulk + Reimer would make sense. Here's the post:

With Gardiner in Carolina now, that likely puts Faulk on the block. Colorado could use another RHD to balance the defence, as only Makar and Johnson are RHD's on the roster. Timmins & Meloche need another year in the AHL, so Faulk for a year would fit well in the meantime.

Carolina were reported at the time of the Reimer/Darling trade to be looking to flip Reimer, and Colorado are one of few teams who have a need for a veteran No.3 goalie AND capspace to acquire Reimer's $3.4m for 2 years, and/or Faulk's hit.

Specifically, Colorado currently has $15.6m space. Assuming that Rantanen signs for ~$9.5m, that would leave ~$6.1m in space. Reimer ($3.4m) + Faulk ($4.83m) combined are $8.23m, so Avs would need to open about $2.1m, which could be found by for example including Connauton ($1.375m) or Barberio ($1.45m) in the trade and sending Nichuskin down ($850k).

A trade around Reimer + 2nd +3rd for Barberio/Graves/Connauton has been discussed earlier this summer. I wrote a detailed post outlining why a trade like that would make sense for both sides here:

Reimer + 3rd + 3rd <---> Barberio
  • $3.4m / 2 years <-----> $1.45m / 1 year

From Carolina's perspective:
  • Nedeljkovic just won the Calder Cup and deserves a chance at No.2 in net for them.
  • Trading Reimer and promoting Nedeljkovic would ease the log-jam at AHL level. Going forwards Carolina would still have Forsling / Booth / Helvig in the AHL.
  • There's a risk involved with going with an inexperienced No.2, but Mrazek is an experienced NHL goaltender and would help Nedeljkovic settle in the NHL.
  • Carolina has the assets with 3 2020 3rd round picks (and 6 picks in the first 3 rounds).
  • Carolina only has 6 defenseman on their NHL roster, so Barberio would be nice insurance to add as 7D.
  • Carolina is a small-market team who operate on gate receipts, and are going to be paying out big on Aho's signing bonuses after matching his offersheet. Getting out of Reimer's $3.4m would make financial sense for them in the short-term.
  • There was noise about Carolina looking to flip Reimer immediately when they acquired him:


From Colorado's perspective:
  • Colorado needs an experienced NHL-calibre goaltender as No.3 to insulate Grubauer/Francouz and support Werner in the AHL. Reimer ticks these boxes.
  • They have a gluttony of depth defenseman (Barberio/Connauton/Graves/Rosén/MacDonald) along with some younger guys looking to make the team (Timmins/Byram/Meloche), so moving a depth defenseman to fill a need makes sense.
  • Colorado will have around $5-8m in capspace this season after signing their remaining RFA's, and can easily afford to take on Reimer's cap hit.
  • In summer 2020 Barrie's retention ($2.75m) and Orpik's buyout ($1.5m) open up another $4.25m in capspace, meaning that Avs can afford to take on the 2nd year of Reimer's $3.4m contract as well. In 2020 Colorado's only significant contracts up for renewal are Jost; Girard; Zadorov; and Francouz, and Colorado should have more than enough capspace to resign them even with Reimer on the books.
  • Colorado lack a 2020 2nd pick so I could see them pushing for a 2nd here instead of two 3rds, but with these 2 3rds they could package them (perhaps with their other 3rd) in another trade to get a 2nd.


Building on that suggestion - which seemed to be more or less agreeable to Canes fans (give or take a pick), perhaps a trade could work with Faulk included instead of the picks? That is, Reimer + Faulk for Barberio/Connauton.

That might be a bit underwhelming for Faulk in isolation, but it would get Carolina out of Reimer's contract and the capspace they need. Maybe Colorado would need to include a pick as well to make it work, but as a basis for a trade I think it works well for both sides.

Carolina is currently $1.55m over the cap, and a trade like the one mentioned would see them gain about $6.8m in capspace ($8.23m from Reimer/Faulk, minus $1.375 / $1.45 for Connauton or Barberio), leaving them $5.25m under the cap, which they could to make some other moves, like adding another forward for example. Carolina defense would then look like this:

Slavin - Hamilton
Gardiner - Pesce
Forsling - Van Riemsdyk
(+ Fleury, Priskie, and one of Connauton/Barberio)
  • Mrazek
  • Nedeljkovic
  • Forsberg
  • Helvig
  • Booth
For Colorado it would really solidify two positions of need in one go (i.e. 3rd pair RHD, and veteran No.3 goalie), without giving up anything significant other than capspace and a depth defenseman (and maybe a pick). Colorado defense would look like this:

Girard - Makar
Zadorov - Johnson
Cole/Byram - Faulk
(+ 3 of Barberio / Rosén / Connauton / Graves)
  • Grubauer
  • Francouz
  • Reimer
  • Werner
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

  • USA vs Sweden
    USA vs Sweden
    Wagers: 3
    Staked: $1,050.00
    Event closes
    • Updated:
  • Finland vs Czechia
    Finland vs Czechia
    Wagers: 1
    Staked: $200.00
    Event closes
    • Updated:
  • Augsburg vs VfB Stuttgart
    Augsburg vs VfB Stuttgart
    Wagers: 2
    Staked: $1,000.00
    Event closes
    • Updated:
  • Frosinone vs Inter Milan
    Frosinone vs Inter Milan
    Wagers: 1
    Staked: $150.00
    Event closes
    • Updated:
  • Alavés vs Girona
    Alavés vs Girona
    Wagers: 1
    Staked: $22.00
    Event closes
    • Updated:

Ad

Ad