One small thing that I will point out as it has come up a few times, which is that while the long term usually would be a strong considerations Tor has appeared to have the philosophy of 1 year at a time going on atm, which is why they did a move like the Barrie trade. Now maybe they have changed their minds because of it, but everything over the past year or so that we have seen out of them, they do seem comfortable accepting future risk if it increases the odds of them winning in the now.
Proposal: 3 way trade between TOR COL ANA
- Thread starter Richard88
- Start date
One small thing that I will point out as it has come up a few times, which is that while the long term usually would be a strong considerations Tor has appeared to have the philosophy of 1 year at a time going on atm, which is why they did a move like the Barrie trade. Now maybe they have changed their minds because of it, but everything over the past year or so that we have seen out of them, they do seem comfortable accepting future risk if it increases the odds of them winning in the now.
I feel like Tor would be the one needing to throw in the add, not Col.
Personally imo Rakell and Nylander are similar enough where it doesn't make sense for the Avs to greatly overpay for one over the other. It also seems like most of the contention seems to be over Mansons value and Tor does have quality middle 6 forwards that they could consider moving to help Ana get more value and Tor to get more cap space.
Ultimately the more complex you make a deal the more area's of concern you add, no deal will be perfect so its more about getting it to a realistic level of criticism where the benefits outweigh the risks. Tbh I think your original deal was solid enough that it will be hard to change it too much without causes more problems than solutions.
While not too relevant to the overall conversation here, he actually has played RD in the past and looked pretty solid there. That said dmen playing on their offhand is something the NHL has been avoiding more and more as the speed of the game increases so it likely doesnt matter.
TheImpatientPanther
Registered User
Not a TOR fan, just think eventually they need a legit RD who has played RD not a guy playing on his off-side.
Think they have Dermott and Lehtonen who have played RD.
I get your point but not sure if TOR fans would be interested in what Zadorov will be looking for on his next deal
- Jul 25, 2012
- 40,338
- 35,620
If you cant afford rakells next contract... then there is a strong likely hood that you wont be able to afford nylander in 2 years either(I don't think rakell will make more than what nylanders contract is now(id guess more around he 6 range).
I agree with majority of post... kapanen does have some value(but I almost feel like he has even more value staying in Toronto)… any draft pick is tough to move cause leafs need a steady stream of entry lvl contracts coming in, and liljegren could be moved but his value is pretty big ? mark imo.
- Jul 25, 2012
- 40,338
- 35,620
- Jul 25, 2012
- 40,338
- 35,620
I don't know exactly... tough to say.
I think packaging Rakell and Manson together in the same trade almost always results in us losing value.
I mean you can find a Toronto fan that would be for anything, there are so many of them.
Tor is fun because their mgmt has very specific goals and viewpoints when it comes to building that team and taking the easy way out has never been on of them. I respect them for sticking to their guns but they are in a constant tight rope trying to make it all work which makes it fascinating to watch and almost impossible to predict.
For example a ton of posts on here concluded that Barrie wouldn't have made sense for them due to the complex nature of things but Tor still decided the upside was worth it. (And in this case the real life was SOOOO much more interesting than anything that could have came from on here).
TheImpatientPanther
Registered User
This pic represents TOR's LD/RD depth chart so well.
Guess I'm more of a traditionalist in the sense you need at least 2 right handed D who have played it the majority of the career and you can get away with maybe 1-2 guys playing on opposite sides.
For sure, playing your offside used to be a thing, but in recent years we have seen it almost go away entirely and now it only happens when a team doesn't have a better alternative.
IWantSakicAsMyGM
Registered User
Well for the most part I agree, but this is a trade board
Yes, but it's meant to discuss semi-realistic trades. I don't think it's realistic to assume that the guy who said "I'm not going to do anything this year that's going to jeopardize what we got coming in the next few years," at the TDL is going to do an about face a few months later and package 3 of his better prospects + 1st in a single trade that doesn't address a significant need. Nylander is a good player, but he's just not the kind of guy you mortgage the future to get.
- Jul 25, 2012
- 40,338
- 35,620
Meh, I think the trade itself is semi realistic.
As to what he said, its not like GMs don't posture at all.
Again, I don't really think its mortgaging the future... its a steep price... but your getting a player thatll essentially be a corner stone of your offense with Mack + Rantanen
But I do think the Avs would rather just go for rakell and aim at a cup in a 2 year window without potentially strapping them with money down the line.
I think pretty much everything you have said so far has been spot on and makes sense.
That being said one caveat that I would throw out there is that the Avs currently have too many good young dmen and its likely that one if not 2 of them will have to be moved over the next few seasons. So while this specific trade is a bit too complex to be realistic I wouldn't be shocked at all to see a deal around Rakell and Timmins+
IWantSakicAsMyGM
Registered User
I would be shocked to see Sakic move the only RHD prospect with the potential to replace EJ. I think we're much more likely to see the lesser guys (Zadorov, Graves, etc) moved to make space for the good youngsters, and won't see any of the big 4 (Makar, Girard, Byram, Timmins) moved before Byram's 2nd contract kicks in at the earliest.
There is a lot more to Dmen then just the handedness and I don't see Timmins skillset as one that replaces EJ. I also don't think he would make the best partner for G or that the Avs have the opportunities with already having BB, Makar and G for him to fully shine. So while I don't think it will be immediate as having a skilled high end puck moving dman on an ELC is super inciting, I do think he is traded before his next deal as he will be worth more to a team that can offer him the opportunity that the Avs can't, especially in regards to PP time.
I think Timmins is an excellent young Dman who is NHL ready and almost a lock to be a solid top 4 guy, but his skill set is just very redundant with the guys the Avs have ahead of him.
I also think one of Zads or Graves is traded this offseason as well, with Zads being likely and Graves being if a team is high enough on his stellar rookie year to potentially buy high. Or if contract negotiations gets silly with either.
IWantSakicAsMyGM
Registered User
Yes, there is more than just handedness, but having at least 2 RHD on the team is still better than having only 1. I also think that Timmins skill set is a suitable replacement for EJ in the new NHL. Yes, he has elite puck moving skills, but he's also very good defensively. Whether he plays well with Girard or BB or whoever remains to be seen, but after the years of watching a parade of pylons masquerade as our defense (Zanon, Orr'Brien, O'Byrne, Guenin, etc), the idea of having 3-5 good/great young defensemen at the same time is too exciting to pass up. CapFriendly also shows that Timmins needs a new contract after next season, which could work to our advantage. It's not like there are going to be a lot of teams with money to throw around.
I do agree with you on Zadorov and Graves. One of them is gone. I also wouldn't mind if Cole is moved, but I don't think that's very likely.
While I think the NHL is transitioning to a more transitional based game and are open, you still can't have an entire dline of small puck movers, just ask Tor. Its also the reason that G-Makar never became a full time thing. (Its also what makes Graves as valuable as he is, as he has that size and strength but also good transitional ability).
I'm not saying Colorado should play bad dmen, but size is still a very relevant factor for dmen when it comes to net front and board battles. Especially when you are already going to lose one of Graves and Zads, and both EJ and Cole are starting to get up there in years. It will definitely be an area of focus for the team heading forward.
Its possible that we might just disagree on this philosophy which I totally respect. Thats just my personal prediction. Any time a team has too many good players at one position one gets moved almost always, its why I was right in the previous Barrie conversations as well as before that when Col had too many good centers.
(Specifically with Timmins I don't think it will be right away has his ELC is very valuable but I think eventually he will be moved in the next 3ish years)
Northern Avs Fan
Registered User
- May 27, 2019
- 21,970
- 29,648
I don’t think Girard and Makar playing apart has anything to do with size.
Colorado has two elite puck-movers and it’s a waste to have them on the same pairing. You put a lot more pressure on the defence if you can have a puck-mover on the ice at all times.
Crosscrease14
Registered User
- Dec 16, 2014
- 1,589
- 1,103
How about this 3 way?
TOR out: Nylander
TOR in: Manson + Rakell @$1.9m
ANA out: Manson + Rakell ($1.85m retained)
ANA in: Timmins, Kaut, 1st, Beaucage
COL out: Timmins, Kaut, 1st, Beaucage
COL in: Nylander
Anaheim generally love the idea of Timmins + 1st for Rakell. Avs probably don't do that though as it probably favours Anaheim a bit. Kaut + Beaucage probably comes close to Manson, but favours Colorado slightly. Together the two parts balance for a fair trade.
Toronto would get a defensive RHD that they need and who TML fans have been making proposals about for 2 years, AND a direct replacement for Nylander with a really cheap cap hit.
Colorado gets a young and cost-controlled 1st line winger who is signed through his prime, for futures.
Maybe another pick or two need to be added for balance but as a basis I think this could work well for all 3 teams.
It's an interesting proposal but as a leafs fan id rather move depth pieces and keep Nylander.
It has everything to do with it. Starting back in the playoffs last year, even though they are both excellent with their sticks and transition game they are a liability in their own end because they can't prevent people from making power moves to the net and just get bullied down low by players with size.
Its why you ONLY every see them on offensive zone draws exclusively. The pair is easily exploitable, and coaches hate to not have all of their bases covered.
EJ and Graves are also very proficient puck movers so its not like there is a big shift in ability with these combos.
Northern Avs Fan
Registered User
- May 27, 2019
- 21,970
- 29,648
Uh... no, I disagree with all of that.
Makar is absolutely strong enough to hold up physically. Girard is a better defender than EJ, so I’m not sure why EJ would be considered more reliable.
In terms of puck-movement, Makar and Girard are light years ahead of EJ and Graves.
While, yes the Avs like to try and score goals when Makar and Girard are on the ice, most starts occur on the fly, so don’t be fooled by that stat.
I can totally respect if you disagree with my thoughts on the matter.
I would be curious though if that is the case then how would you explain why the Avs usage doesn't align with that veiw point? As the on ice pairings made by the coaching staff does support mine.
Also for clarity I'm not saying that EJ or Graves are as good at Makar or G in puck moving, but that all 4 of them are good puck movers so its a non issue imo. No matter how you mix them you will have a good transition game.
Imo your take is over simplistic. All of those players have their own strengths and weaknesses, and while Girard does have a great stick and positioning, if you have someone like E. Kane bull rushing the net every play he isn't the one I am choosing.
Clearly though when we look around the league we do see a lot of different thought processes in action and the general consensus thoughts about defense as a whole has evolved quite a bit over the past few years. So I think having multiple points of view on this topic is valuable
Northern Avs Fan
Registered User
- May 27, 2019
- 21,970
- 29,648
The day of needing big lumbering defenders is over imo. What you need in today’s NHL is intelligence and skating.
If you feel Graves and Johnson are so good why don’t the Avs play them as their top pair. Something like this:
Graves - Johnson
Cole - Makar
Girard - Zadorov
That way that top pair could play 25+ minutes a night.
The way the Avs deployed their defence made a lot of sense for having two 21-year old defenceman.
I think to say that EJ and Graves puck-moving is good enough that the difference between them and Girard/Makar is a ‘non issue’, is off the mark.
I’m not saying it’s not important to have some size on your defence, but it’s not as critical as overall play.
[Please don't misinterpret my points, nothing will come of any discussion is you misrepresent my position like the one in bold. ]
I mean Tor has definitely thought that way for the past few years and Fla before that. If you could find an example of a successful team that is built that way I think there would be more strength to your claim, but in the current day results it is not what we see.
While I think that offensive dmen were GREATLY underrated for the better part of the past 20 years and that the league is now finally appropriately rating them, completely disregarding size is a massive over correction and also not correct. Going fully in either direction is incorrect.
The Avs tried the Makar and Girard pairings and if your hypothesis was correct then it would have stuck but it ended pretty quickly.
Modern day defense definitely has the correct focus on skating, skill and good transitional play but it is also about creating pairings that complement each other. Having a dman who can use their size to protect the net and win board battles along side a strong puck mover is still the predominant model as there aren't any areas for the other team to exploit. Its also the reason why we see the actual pairings that we do.
Finally for clarity, in case you still truly have not understood the point that I have iterated on twice now. You said it would be a waste to have G and Makar on the same pairing because they are both so good at moving the puck, which I disagree with. If you had an entire team of Zads where you needed to spread out your PMD due to limited options I could agree with that, however as a whole EJ and Graves are both good puck movers themselves and thusly isn't an issue if they are paired with a dman who struggles in that area, nor require one themselves to not get trapped in their own zone on forechecks. So I disagree with your claim that puck moving ability is the main reason why the pairs are set up in the way that they are as you could have any combination of those 4 players and the transitional element of their game would not be an issue. However other elements of the lines defensive responsibility would, which is my claim.
