Rumor: 2024 Trade Rumors and Free Agency Thread: Post Deadline
- Thread starter forsbergavs32
- Start date
- Apr 25, 2006
- 49,344
- 52,165
What do you think is the top 5?
Here's my rankings of most attractive cities for NHLers (not based on teams performance)
Top tier:
Florida
Tampa Bay
New-York (Rags)
Vegas
LA
2nd tier:
Dallas
Boston
Seattle
Anaheim
San Jose
3rd tier:
All the remaining US East teams minus Columbus
Vancouver
4th tier:
All the remaining US West teams minus Arizona <--- Colorado is here
Toronto
5th tier:
All the remaining Canadian teams + Columbus and Arizona
Last edited:
Avs_19
Registered User
- Jun 28, 2007
- 84,775
- 32,714
Yeah, he’s not going anywhere. Certainly not in a trade.
Avs9296
Registered User
- Jul 1, 2019
- 2,748
- 4,160
That looks about right, except I don't think Seattle is in the 2nd tier. Probably closer to the 4th.
This is close but I don't think Dallas would be 2nd tier. It would be more 3rd IMO with the only thing separating it from 4th tier being the no state tax thing. I would also probably put Nashville in that 3rd tier for the same reason.
Foppa2118
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2003
- 52,277
- 31,367
Girard played poorly in the same situations though. When G played on the bottom pair the first half of this year, he struggled a lot. When he's played on his off side he has struggled a lot as well.
When G finally started playing well, it was at LD on the 2nd pair with Manson, and he didn't play there until 4 games after coming back from his leave in January, because Bo left with a lower body injury.
The best Bo played this year was also with Manson IMO. He got matched with Colton's defacto 2nd line a lot instead of RJ, and Bednar used that pair at the end of almost every period and game to hold leads.
They were starting to gel more and more, but then Bo missed a few weeks, and by then Sammy was playing too well on that pair to break them up.
There's a reason Bednar and Pratt trusted Bo to play on his off side a lot more than Sammy or JJ though, who maybe played a handful of shifts each on the right side this year, while Bo played most of the year there.
- Apr 25, 2006
- 49,344
- 52,165
CMac may not be the most exciting guy but I love how he seems to know the people covering the team, even the smaller guys, and call them by their first name. For example he knew that @The Mars Volchenkov was always writing about Kovalenko and all that stuff.
I'd not be surprised to learn that he reads this forum from time to time.
Foppa2118
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2003
- 52,277
- 31,367
I think the decision to move Bo instead of G, was mostly an all in move for this year. I think they may have entered the year planning on moving Sammy, but Bo struggled a bit, and Sammy played better than Bo when he came back, so they kept him.
CMac said Ritchie has 2C potential, and chances are they may have to sign Mitts to a bridge deal and watch him walk to UFA, just to get under the cap next year. So Mitts may not be the Avs 2C for long.
They must have known Bo wasn’t put in a position to succeed making him play on his off side pretty much all year, a lot on the third pair, matched with RJ’s line, and only 15 seconds or so on the halfway of PP2.
Given his age, and usage, ordinarily the move would be to evaluate him next year before making a decision, knowing things could have changed, but right or wrong, they didn’t want to wait.
Keeping Girard over Bo and having to give Mitts a raise will likely lead to the Avs losing 1-2 guys (my guess was Drouin + Manson/Lehky) that they might not have had to if they kept Bo too. Lots of things point to the trade primarily being for this year.
They could have traded G for a stop gap 2C under contract for another year, to wait for Ritchie, and kept Bo, but I think they thought they had a better chance of winning this year, with the move they made.
I really don't think they could've done that. I'm a huge Sammy G fan but even I know there just isn't much of a market there for him out there, certainly not for a "stopgap" 2C (for the sake of discussion, I am assuming "stopgap" here is a guy like Strome or Strome, but not Henrique or Wennberg, none of whom I think could be had in exchange for Sammy). Part of the appeal of Byram was his age, and his low cap hit and lack of term. Made him the far more tradeable asset.
I feel like if they move on from G it'll be more of a salary dump-type situation. There's really only one team IMO who'd be very interested in picking #49 up, and it's the team that just beat the Avs last night. I'm certainly not dying on that hill or even getting rocks thrown at me on it though.
Foppa2118
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2003
- 52,277
- 31,367
Respect the opinion of those who believe Sammy doesn't have much value around the league, but I just disagree. Especially after the way he played from January until the deadline.
Teams value fast PMD's to help their transition game now more than ever, and GIrard even with his limitations, is one of the absolute best in the league at transitioning the puck. There are teams that need that.
He may not have got Mittelsdadt, but he could have got a serviceable 2C better/younger than Henrique IMO. A Strome level player or perhaps another sneaky good buy low pro scout target we're not aware of. I think they could have won with that level player too, but it would have been more reliant on Ritchie panning out beyond that.
I do think it's unlikely they move G now though. Feels like they made a choice between him and Bo, and also moving him, and keeping Walker, while I think Walker is better defensively, and about the same offensively, would mean they've made the blueline substantially older.
I certainly believe Sammy has value, and the Avs certainly value him, but I just don't think there's many, if any among the 31 other GMs who value an undersized puckmover who doesn't really generate a lot of offense on his own, regardless of how well he plays defensively.
But I agree, I don't think they'll be moving G. If I were to predict what happens, it's likely that Walker walks and they try and move someone up front to clear cap room. Who that is, I don't know.
Foppa2118
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2003
- 52,277
- 31,367
Nate would lose his shit if they traded Mikko. A big part of why Bednar always plays them together, is because they want to play together. We know Nate has some influence on Joe and CMac's decisions.
That alone meant Mikko probably wasn't getting traded, and there's a good chance they find a way to re-sign him.
LOFIN
Registered User
- Sep 16, 2011
- 13,911
- 18,741
I would pay to see some people at HFAvs, to have 5mins with Nate 1 on 1 in a room, trying to explain to him how trading away Mikko for any package is good and helps them win more.
And I'm not saying that idea is completely stupid, I've said I'm open to trading Mikko if the playoffs are a failure, he's not re-signing at a discount and a good trade is available, and I'm saying this as a guy who started following the Avs because of Rantanen. But yea, I somehow doubt Nate would accept trading Mikko as "part of the business".
Eh, I think people thought that when they dealt Tyson Barrie. That said, I'm sure any team's best player has some sway on the front office.
expatriatedtexan
Habitual Line Stepper
- Aug 17, 2005
- 16,637
- 12,089
Sometimes I can convince myself that Sir Avsgard was really Bednar just gettting drunk and trolling us after games.
LOFIN
Registered User
- Sep 16, 2011
- 13,911
- 18,741
It's not the same. TBoobs and Nate were probably closer than Mikko and Nate are. But there's also a big, big difference in how Mikko affects the team, and affect Nate's play on the ice.
Foppa2118
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2003
- 52,277
- 31,367
It's less about friendship, than having a winger who's game he highly respects, and wants to play with.
Losing a friend he can probably justify as being part of the business like Barrie, ROR, and Bo, but it's different when the player is his winger, and he's had a ton of success individually, and as a team playing with him.
LOFIN
Registered User
- Sep 16, 2011
- 13,911
- 18,741
I'm just convinced he's from Turku, Finland, because he's so heavily invested in Rantanen AND Kakko. Kinda like me
But I can assure you, I'm not sir avgard. I kinda wish I was, reading some of his stuff is mind-blowing to say the least.
Barrie and MacKinnon had insane chemistry though, they were practically a tandem of their own. Obviously Barrie saw the writing on the wall and has even said as much in interviews so I'm guessing Nate did too.
In any event, I'd be shocked to my core if the Avs ended up trading Mikko.
- Jan 18, 2016
- 34,150
- 25,311
Would depend on the trade imo. Nate wants to win flat out. If trading Mikko made the team better and have a better chance at a cup I’m sure he’d be fine with it. But you move for futures and there’d be a problem.
Foppa2118
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2003
- 52,277
- 31,367
True, but if they moved Mikko it's for cap reasons, so it would probably be for a package of lesser pieces.
