Rumor: Avs Proposals/Rumors/Free Agents 18-19 part XXVII|Crosby+MacK = Tim's Empire

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pierce Hawthorne

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Apr 29, 2012
45,262
42,926
Caverns of Draconis
No one should be snarkily dismissive of anyone's opinions. And if you think all the arguments are illogical and Barrie is our best blueliner, then just ignore all those people making those arguments. If these arguments are truly wrong, then surely it's possible to prove it beyond any reasonable doubt and convince the vast majority of people that you're right, then just quote your key arguments any time you feel the need to prove it again.


I mean this literally happens every time. The large majority do want Barrie kept around. And we use the same very clear arguments as to why its dumb to trade him all the time

They just get ignored by that minority who believe trading Barrie is somehow a great idea towards winning a cup.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Barklez

RockLobster

King in the North
Jul 5, 2003
27,207
7,525
Kansas
I mean... we're in the 2nd round of the playoffs. Teams this far into the playoffs generally dont have major holes that need to be filled.


I think this is a case of people seeing something to be a lot worse than it actually is. I dont think Sakic necessarily has to be super aggressive this summer. One move for a Top 6 forward is all we truly need. After that, it'd be nice to make another move for help but I really dont think it would be completely necessary.


Just getting a Hayes or a Skinner player should put this team over the edge and into that outside cup contender group next season. Quite frankly doing nothing at all we're probably still in that group.


If we were to get say 2 legit Top 6 forwards, I think we'd have to be looked at as a strong favorite in the West next season.

And I'd offer a counterpoint that we're in the 2nd round the playoffs because the team caught fire at the right moment and Grubauer has really taken off. I mean we're all thrilled to still be able to watch the Avalanche play hockey, and they have played well for sure, but I would not ignore the rest of the year, especially the Dec/Jan stretch, when it was readily apparent that the offense was being driven by MacKinnon/Landeskog/Rantanen. When that line cooled and we needed secondary scoring (on top of Varly and Gru needing the ability to save even a beach ball), the holes that many of us believed were there prior the season beginning were magnified even more.

I just don't believe that just because we're in the 2nd round doesn't mean that there are no longer roster issues. We could very well catch lightning in a bottle this year and do some legitimate damage, but it doesn't mean that Soderberg (or Jost/Kerfoot/Compher) are answers at the 2C or 2nd line level.
 

EdAVSfan

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Aug 28, 2009
7,411
4,452
Joe needs to be aggressively prudent. Free agent signings rarely work out. Take Tavares for example. 11 million and another 1st round exit.

I seriously doubt Joe will add a big name free agent. We will be having alot of players due for big raises very shortly here. I'd rather pay our players who have worked their butts off for this franchise and improved every year than some outside free agent. A mid tier guy like Ryan Dzingel would be perfect.

4th OA. I like the idea of Alex Turcotte. Dude can fly and is a nice 2 way center. I think he can play this year.

-Sign Rantanen for as long as we can
-Sign Dzingel *5yrs, 25M
-Re-sign Colin Wilson to a modest deal
-Try to extend Barrie this summer
-Try to extend Zadorov
-Sign Compher and Kerfoot to 2 year deals

Landeskog- MacKinnon- Kerfoot
Dzingel- Turcotte- Rantanen
Wilson- Soda- Compher
Nieto- Jost- Calvert

That is a nice, deep and more importantly fast team. That's a 2nd ljne that can also do alot of damage and is responsibly defensively. And we have nice energy and depth on the bottom.6..
Tavares is in the first year of his contract. In no way is his signing a signal that it was a failure. Nylander and the non-addressing of the Defense are reasons why that team is out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cgf and MarkT

AllAboutAvs

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Aug 25, 2006
9,452
7,604
It's easy to sit here an say Sakic needs to be aggressive to fix the 2nd line but people seem to always forget that it takes two party to make a deal. Heck I want that too. Unfortunately:
1. You need both Sakic and a willing UFA to come here to agree on said contract, or
2. You need both Sakic and another GM to agree on a deal.

It is never as easy as people think it is. Oh and there is the cap as well to consider. That said we do need at least one top-6 player.
 

EdAVSfan

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Aug 28, 2009
7,411
4,452
Anyone who is sick of the discussion is free to leave it to those of us who still enjoy it. Maybe when I've been a member here for a decade I'll be sick of the some of the arguments too, but hopefully I'll not end up dismissive or disrespectful.
We all reach our tipping points eventually.

Don’t worry, you’ll get there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cgf

RockLobster

King in the North
Jul 5, 2003
27,207
7,525
Kansas
Signing a higher end UFA ie Hayes would require at least 5 years. So you're expecting to overpay for the initial productive 2-3 years and waste the last couple of seasons for Cozens/Turcotte?

I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but AVs are entering a phase of contention and still need to be careful in offering long-term expensive deals.

So let's say 5 years or Hayes (even though I think we all figure it may be longer, but let's go w/ 5).

Here's how I could potentially see it playing out:

Year 1: 2C (Cozens or Turcotte are in the CHL or NCAA)
Year 2/Year 1 ELC: 2C (Cozens or Turcotte are likely in the NHL because the Avs tend to rush F prospects, but they're either playing W or 3rd/4th line C)
Year 3/Year 2 ELC: First possible year that Cozens/Turcotte could be in the 2C role, but let's say they split w/ Hayes for 2C role while also playing 3C
Year 4/Year 3 ELC: Hopefully solidified 2C role, Hayes down to 3rd/4th C (depending on what happens with Bowers)
Year 5/Post ELC Year 1: Same as above.

So there is one year on that type of plan where there's some overlap, however that's where we have buyouts if needed, or potential trades, the cap increases, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Patagonia

MarkT

Heretic
Nov 11, 2017
3,997
4,513
You'd think so, but arguments rarely change deeply held beliefs...and puck-moving blueliners are an article of faith for too many hockey fans.

I know how minds are changed, but I also know what hardens beliefs, and seeing people constantly dismissive of a viewpoint and seeing that viewpoint as misrepresented can actually strengthen the beliefs of someone who holds that viewpoint. The thinking is basically "well if people have to resort to sarcasm and strawmen then they must not have a strong argument". And no, you'll never change everyone's mind, but you could end every Barrie conversation after one post is everyone is aware of the unassailable logic of the "keep Barrie" position. I personally suspect that logic is not unassailable though, which is in part why this argument keeps happening.

I mean this literally happens every time. The large majority do want Barrie kept around. And we use the same very clear arguments as to why its dumb to trade him all the time

They just get ignored by that minority who believe trading Barrie is somehow a great idea towards winning a cup.

I think you and I have very different perspectives on discussions of Barrie. I recall the beef we had ages ago started in a Barrie discussion where I tried to use stats, number and logic to back up my views on Barrie, and you weren't exactly willing to have a mature, reasoned discussion about it.

And for the record, it definitely doesn't happen all the time. As someone who is at least open to the idea of trading Barrie, I routinely see anyone with that viewpoint dismissed, mocked, insulted, and mostly, misrepresented.

Also, the goal isn't "a cup", it's many cups and years and years of contention for cups.
 

EdAVSfan

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Aug 28, 2009
7,411
4,452
And I'd offer a counterpoint that we're in the 2nd round the playoffs because the team caught fire at the right moment and Grubauer has really taken off. I mean we're all thrilled to still be able to watch the Avalanche play hockey, and they have played well for sure, but I would not ignore the rest of the year, especially the Dec/Jan stretch, when it was readily apparent that the offense was being driven by MacKinnon/Landeskog/Rantanen. When that line cooled and we needed secondary scoring (on top of Varly and Gru needing the ability to save even a beach ball), the holes that many of us believed were there prior the season beginning were magnified even more.

I just don't believe that just because we're in the 2nd round doesn't mean that there are no longer roster issues. We could very well catch lightning in a bottle this year and do some legitimate damage, but it doesn't mean that Soderberg (or Jost/Kerfoot/Compher) are answers at the 2C or 2nd line level.
Not only that, but we needed an incredible 10 game streak AND help from other teams just to barely squeak in.

With the moves Joe should make, making the playoffs should be an automatic barring catastrophic injuries next year.

We simply were a couple of bad bounces in the final 10 games of not being here in the first place.

Now, if we had convincingly made the playoffs this year then I’d understand Pierce’s point. But it was simply too borderline for me to think that the same team will make the playoffs next year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cgf

cgf

FireBednarsSuccessor
Oct 15, 2010
60,544
19,380
w/ Renly's Peach
And I think you need to remember that not all of us have been here for years and had this debate for years like you have. For many of us, we've probably never heard some of the best arguments for and against trading Barrie.

That's fair, which is why I hope you don't take my dickishness personally. The vitriol behind my snark is directed at Patagonia, Iceberg, Owen and that camp who we've been debating Barrie with since the ROR-trade went down and we needed to move on to pushing out the next guy. Not those of you who are newer to this war.

FWIW I figured you'd just ignore my post & eventually one of the Barrie-truthers would quote me with some snarky of their own. As that initial post was more for my own amusement than any actually discussion
 
  • Like
Reactions: MarkT

Pierce Hawthorne

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Apr 29, 2012
45,262
42,926
Caverns of Draconis
And I'd offer a counterpoint that we're in the 2nd round the playoffs because the team caught fire at the right moment and Grubauer has really taken off. I mean we're all thrilled to still be able to watch the Avalanche play hockey, and they have played well for sure, but I would not ignore the rest of the year, especially the Dec/Jan stretch, when it was readily apparent that the offense was being driven by MacKinnon/Landeskog/Rantanen. When that line cooled and we needed secondary scoring (on top of Varly and Gru needing the ability to save even a beach ball), the holes that many of us believed were there prior the season beginning were magnified even more.

I just don't believe that just because we're in the 2nd round doesn't mean that there are no longer roster issues. We could very well catch lightning in a bottle this year and do some legitimate damage, but it doesn't mean that Soderberg (or Jost/Kerfoot/Compher) are answers at the 2C or 2nd line level.


For the record I do agree we need one more top 6 forward, who is ideally a Center.


But I dont think this team caught lightning in a bottle either. We didn't just make the 2nd round, we thoroughly dominated the best team in the West. And when you look at our regular season the signs are all there that this team is a lot better than where we finished. We were the 2nd best team in the league through December 1st. And we were a Top 5 team again from March onward. Besides our stretch of awful goaltending in the middle of the year, this team has been a very strong team. The advanced analytics support it as well. We give up very few scoring chances and generate a lot of chances for ourselves.


We're a good team as it is right now that stands to get even better next year soley with the addition of Makar.


We need one more Top 6 forward. But 5o me that's really it. Especially if we're going to separate the top line moving forward I think if we brought in just Hayes this summer and left everything else as is we'd be a cup contender in the West.


Landy - Mack - Kerfoot
Compher - Hayes - Rantanen
Nieto - Soda - Calvert
Jost and whoever on the 4th line


That's a good, deep forward group with 3 lines that can score goals at 5 on 5.
 

MarkT

Heretic
Nov 11, 2017
3,997
4,513
We all reach our tipping points eventually.

Don’t worry, you’ll get there.

I've been a veteran on other forums. I know how it goes. I was always the one who took the time to explain to noobs why they were wrong when they came in with their long-disproved arguments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CobraAcesS and cgf

MarkT

Heretic
Nov 11, 2017
3,997
4,513
It's easy to sit here an say Sakic needs to be aggressive to fix the 2nd line but people seem to always forget that it takes two party to make a deal. Heck I want that too. Unfortunately:
1. You need both Sakic and a willing UFA to come here to agree on said contract, or
2. You need both Sakic and another GM to agree on a deal.

It is never as easy as people think it is. Oh and there is the cap as well to consider. That said we do need at least one top-6 player.

I'm always glad to see people make this point, because people do indeed seem to forget that. But I think maybe you're forgetting that this is potentially a very deep free agent class in terms of 2nd line forwards, and there should be quite a few 2nd line forwards available on the trade market as well. If Sakic doesn't bring in at least one 2nd line forward this season then I think it's fair to call that a failure by him.
 
Last edited:

cgf

FireBednarsSuccessor
Oct 15, 2010
60,544
19,380
w/ Renly's Peach
It's easy to sit here an say Sakic needs to be aggressive to fix the 2nd line but people seem to always forget that it takes two party to make a deal. Heck I want that too. Unfortunately:
1. You need both Sakic and a willing UFA to come here to agree on said contract, or
2. You need both Sakic and another GM to agree on a deal.

It is never as easy as people think it is. Oh and there is the cap as well to consider. That said we do need at least one top-6 player.

While this is true...Joe needing to be willing to take a risk if the perfect solution doesn't fall into his lap, is true regardless of whether players want to come here or other GMs want to trade with him. And we just don't have evidence that Joe won't let the perfect be the enemy of the good yet again if a risk-free solution doesn't present itself.

So I don't fault you for having more faith in Joe, but we also don't have the evidence yet for those of us with a much more "show me & I'll believe it" ethos.
 

MarkT

Heretic
Nov 11, 2017
3,997
4,513
That's fair, which is why I hope you don't take my dickishness personally. The vitriol behind my snark is directed at Patagonia, Iceberg, Owen and that camp who we've been debating Barrie with since the ROR-trade went down and we needed to move on to pushing out the next guy. Not those of you who are newer to this war.

FWIW I figured you'd just ignore my post & eventually one of the Barrie-truthers would quote me with some snarky of their own. As that initial post was more for my own amusement than any actually discussion

C'mon man, by now you should know I'm not the type to ignore a post ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: cgf

RockLobster

King in the North
Jul 5, 2003
27,207
7,525
Kansas
For the record I do agree we need one more top 6 forward, who is ideally a Center.


But I dont think this team caught lightning in a bottle either. We didn't just make the 2nd round, we thoroughly dominated the best team in the West. And when you look at our regular season the signs are all there that this team is a lot better than where we finished. We were the 2nd best team in the league through December 1st. And we were a Top 5 team again from March onward. Besides our stretch of awful goaltending in the middle of the year, this team has been a very strong team. The advanced analytics support it as well. We give up very few scoring chances and generate a lot of chances for ourselves.


We're a good team as it is right now that stands to get even better next year soley with the addition of Makar.


We need one more Top 6 forward. But 5o me that's really it. Especially if we're going to separate the top line moving forward I think if we brought in just Hayes this summer and left everything else as is we'd be a cup contender in the West.


Landy - Mack - Kerfoot
Compher - Hayes - Rantanen
Nieto - Soda - Calvert
Jost and whoever on the 4th line


That's a good, deep forward group with 3 lines that can score goals at 5 on 5.


While I will not argue that Kerfoot is performing well right now, I still do not believe he's a viable piece in a contending team's Top-6 (let alone the top line). His shot is just not good enough and he's an easy person to gameplan against.

Again, he's doing well there right now, absolutely, I just don't see it as a longterm solution myself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MarkT

cgf

FireBednarsSuccessor
Oct 15, 2010
60,544
19,380
w/ Renly's Peach
I've been a veteran on other forums. I know how it goes. I was always the one who took the time to explain to noobs why they were wrong when they came in with their long-disproved arguments.

That is a degree of patience I just don't have online :laugh:
 
  • Like
Reactions: MarkT

cgf

FireBednarsSuccessor
Oct 15, 2010
60,544
19,380
w/ Renly's Peach
While I will not argue that Kerfoot is performing well right now, I still do not believe he's a viable piece in a contending team's Top-6 (let alone the top line). His shot is just not good enough and he's an easy person to gameplan against.

Again, he's doing well there right now, absolutely, I just don't see it as a longterm solution myself.

I could live with Kerfoot if he was (without question) the 6th best forward in our top 6. But that would mean adding a legit 1b C & true top-6 winger.
 

RockLobster

King in the North
Jul 5, 2003
27,207
7,525
Kansas
I could live with Kerfoot if he was (without question) the 6th best forward in our top 6. But that would mean adding a legit 1b C & true top-6 winger.

Hmm...maybe, I don't know though.

I just can't get over how I feel every time I see the puck on his stuck in a prime scoring chance (and that feeling is "Well this will be an easy save...")
 

AvalancheFan19

Registered User
May 3, 2009
2,398
397
To trading Barrie...Duchene, Stastny and O'Reilly are killing it on other teams. Stastny left on his own (more money) and Duchene/O'Reilly didn't want to be here by the end of it. However, they are thriving elsewhere and I do not want to add Barrie to this list. Keep him.
 

Patagonia

Keep Whining
Jan 6, 2017
7,624
3,246
That's fair, which is why I hope you don't take my dickishness personally. The vitriol behind my snark is directed at Patagonia, Iceberg, Owen and that camp who we've been debating Barrie with since the ROR-trade went down and we needed to move on to pushing out the next guy. Not those of you who are newer to this war.

FWIW I figured you'd just ignore my post & eventually one of the Barrie-truthers would quote me with some snarky of their own. As that initial post was more for my own amusement than any actually discussion

Come on you love us...:popcorn:
 
  • Like
Reactions: MarkT

cgf

FireBednarsSuccessor
Oct 15, 2010
60,544
19,380
w/ Renly's Peach
Hmm...maybe, I don't know though.

I just can't get over how I feel every time I see the puck on his stuck in a prime scoring chance (and that feeling is "Well this will be an easy save...")

It's by no means ideal to have his muffin continue ending up with so many prime scoring chances...thus why almost all of my capfriendly scenarios involve sending him to Vancouver for a 3rd & future 2nd, to backfill for outgoing picks, lol...but if Kerf is the 6th man in a top 6, I think that could be fine given how strong the top 3 are in our top 6 and the parts of his game that are useful alongside stars.

*Depending on who the 4th & 5th guy in our top 6 ended up being*
 

cgf

FireBednarsSuccessor
Oct 15, 2010
60,544
19,380
w/ Renly's Peach
Come on you love us...:popcorn:
original.gif
 

RockLobster

King in the North
Jul 5, 2003
27,207
7,525
Kansas
It's by no means ideal to have his muffin continue ending up with so many prime scoring chances...thus why almost all of my capfriendly scenarios involve sending him to Vancouver for a 3rd & future 2nd, to backfill for outgoing picks, lol...but if Kerf is the 6th man in a top 6, I think that could be fine given how strong the top 3 are in our top 6 and the parts of his game that are useful alongside stars.

*Depending on who the 4th & 5th guy in our top 6 ended up being*

That's fair, and I may have actually been persuaded (see, reasonable discourse CAN work!)
 
  • Like
Reactions: cgf and MarkT
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad