Rumor: Avs Proposals/Rumors/Free Agents 18-19 part XVI| Why No Trades!?
- Thread starter SoundwaveIsCharisma
- Start date
- Status
Foppberg
Registered User
Top 3 pick would be a home run, but we're approaching the half way mark and the Sens aren't quite the complete bottom feeder we thought they'd be. Best shot at getting a top pick like that is if we win the lottery.
Bill Peckerskull
Fargin' Icehole
Lots of time left. I don't think they catch LA or Chicago, but they could still easily be bottom 3.
This is very much the situation and the entire top half of the draft has high end centers. Cozens, Dach, Turcotte has dropped off a bit but with 2 1sts this year it is likely the Avs will be able to pick up a high end young top 6 forward and the higher the selection the more likely they make the jump sooner than later.
Kerfoot, JT, and Carl are good enough short term down the middle if the all around depth is there, which with Kaut and Bowers getting closer to making the jump could be pretty solid.
What the Avs really lack on the 2nd line is high end talent that those picks could be but I am not sure Hayes is that, he would just be more depth, and another option down the middle. It would give the Avs more options with lines and make them more resilient to injuries. If you do get Hayes I think it is more of a "lets get this guy in case Soderberg goes down for some reason as right now we don't have someone who could fill in for that spot"
Signing Hayes reminds me a lot of what STL did this offseason with Perron, Bozak and Maroon. It gave them more options but it really didn't change much of anything for them.
SoundwaveIsCharisma
Moderator
I find it boring that NHL GM's are so worried about being bad guys that they won't offer sheet other players. Way too conservative.
- Feb 24, 2012
- 62,740
- 46,728
@Ivan13 I think not exploring a Hayes trade would be a mistake too. You have to at least see what it would cost to acquire him and get a headstart on re-signing him. Of course there are limits to what you should be willing to pay, but it screams to me a Conditional 1st (based on reaching a certain spot in the playoffs/re-signing) + B+ prospect isn't a bad price to pay. Even throwing in another 2nd/3rd doesn't break the bank IMO. Saying that I'd rather spend more to solve the issue in a different way, but getting Hayes at that price and likely re-signing isn't a terrible idea.
As long as they are bottom 8ish with the lotto it should be great for the Avs in most cases. Bottom 5 would be a slam dunk.
The Avs have been much better this year than anyone expected but I don't think giving up multiple 1st rounders for getting for only this year would have been a good call. He will be available in UFA should they choose to pursue him and it costs them nothing but the Cap it would have in any scenario. Especially considering this will be the best UFA class in a decade there is no reason to give up assets unless they are cost controlled with term already. There will be 10+ high end players the Avs can go after at the end of the year and few teams will be as enticing and have the flexibility they will. Now whether they should or not is a different story.
Avs_19
Registered User
- Jun 28, 2007
- 84,757
- 32,658
It's terrible. We need Lou to do something crazy and vindictive this summer after losing Tavares to the Leafs. Getting Matthews or Marner to actually sign it might be difficult though. Throw $15M/yr at Matthews.
I don't think its anything to do with that. Its that by design there is no logically reason why an OS would ever work. If you are giving them a contract the other team would pass on, then it costs more assets than it would take to simply trade for that player, and if it costs less assets then generally its a cheap enough deal where the team would just match. The political side is there too, for instance the GMs accepting not to use them as it pits them against themselves for the benefit of the player which makes no sense but that is irrelevant when the system is currently not balanced to be worth while.
It would be like if there was a rule that said you can have Blake Comeau from any team as long as you give him a 7x7 contract at any point. GMs 'could' do it, but they wouldn't.
I’m just not a fan of the player, nor do I think this team is in position of trading what it would get him yet.
1 look at the other UFA's out there. If you're willing to give up assets, go after the rentals like Panarin and Stone.
Also do you think the Avs are a Hayes from winning the Cup this year? If so then consider it but if you don't think the team is a legit Cup favorite then save your assets, the Avs window will be open for a long time and a high pick could be massive for this team over that duration.
I bet the market is so saturated he is only moved for a 3rd and a meh prospect. Too many other guys who are better for teams to target if they are going rental.
Offer sheets are against the code , GMs are working together to keep salaries down
I don't think NHL GMs are "good guys." Quite the opposite in fact. They'd sell out their own family if it meant getting them closer to a Stanley Cup. And there's the rub, they're a very vindictive bunch. I think the residual shockwaves of the whole Backes/Bernier thing still leave teams a little gun-shy.
Also, the system just doesn't lend itself well to a successful signing. First, you gotta identify a team that has a good player entering RFA status amid salary cap trouble. Then you have to make the offer sheet so massive the team is dissuaded from signing it. And THEN even if you're successful and the other team doesn't choose to match, you have to give up multiple draft picks in order to get the player. And the higher the offer sheet, the more draft picks.
The only real reason to use offer sheets is the real "weaponization" of cap space, signing a complementary player or two in order to trip up an otherwise good team. For instance, I think during the Hawks' run of dominance someone suggested swooping in with a relatively modest offer sheet for a then-still-young Marcus Kruger. They either would've matched and gotten themselves in REAL trouble under the cap (at which point they would've been jettisoning even more talent than they usually do) or they would've given up one of their better defensive forwards at the time for a not-insane salary.
I do hope we see another offer sheet saga at some point (hopefully not involving the Avs though). The fallout from the whole Dustin Penner thing and the incessant whining that both of the NHL's biggest drama queens at the time (Burke and Lowe) was so much fun to watch unfold.
Well some GM 's are silly but take the Nylander fiasco for instance, Dubas did well to hold out and get him cheaper, it's just too bad he didn't let him sit the whole year .
- Jan 18, 2016
- 34,144
- 25,294
I think bringing in Hayes would be a better move than all of those mentioned. Hayes is a 2C pretty easily, not a high end one, but someone who’s good defensively and good for ~45 pts and something that is desperately needed. Then we can have him ease in a young C if needed and would be the de facto soda replacement so it makes a lot of sense. He 1)adds scoring depth 2) gives us a decent option for 2 way play 3) isn’t too old for the core 4) gives us flexibility going forward.
Now this all depends on the price he comes at in a trade or as a UFA.
Eh...I don't buy that. It doesn't take offer sheets to inflate the market, we have lockouts every cycle because the GMs find a way to do that anyway. In fact the only time I recall a notable offer sheet actually raising market value of other star players was the infamous Rangers offer sheet for Joe Sakic way back when. I believe Paul Kariya and (I think) Brad Richards both took their respective teams to the cleaners after that one. I feel like I'm wrong about the latter though...if someone knows better then by all means, please correct me.
Well yes I guess he did but got less than he was requesting. Glad Dubas didn't end up with the Avs , Tavares contract is bad and now Nylander overpaid.
I don't necessarily agree with that. Nylander was the one who blinked, not Dubas.
You're in the minority if you think that's a bad contract, especially since he's had to fill in for an injury-prone Matthews and the team hasn't lost a step (well, recently they have but I think this is just a minor blip for them).
And Nylander isn't necessarily overpaid. His numbers are not that of some complementary forward.
Foppberg
Registered User
I'd definitely side with Nylander on that whole situation, guy made out like a bandit. Though I'm not super high on him.
- Status
