Has this off-season been a dissapointment?

[AllAboutAvs]

That's not a bad point in general, but I just don't think it jibes with this particular case given what Armstrong did for so many years. He wasn't hunting that 1C who could've put them over the top years ago; he was p***yfooting around with cheaper non-solutions and focusing on other positions, while capable 1Cs moved to other teams.


...and that's why my biggest lesson from Winnipeg's failure is to not wait too long to get started on solving problems. Chevy failed because he waited far too long to start trying to address their holes...and to a lesser extent because they never really committed to getting 100% solutions; instead, settling for short-term half-measures...leaving them with just a swing or two at the cup with all of the pieces in place. Pieces that they never gave enough time to, to settle in, because Chevy relied on TDL rentals instead of getting solutions in, in time for camp.

That's why I wanted to get started last summer and give ourselves as many swings at the cup with the necessary personnel as possible.

Again assumptions from you in that first paragraph. You have no idea if he was or wasn't trying to get that particular 1C. He also needed to fix his goaltending. Everybody on earth kept saying they would never win until they get a proper goaltending. They started to win not when they got their 1C (ROR) but when Binnington started to go God-mode for them. There are lots of reasons that could be brought up why they couldn't fill their 1C hole. Just because there are other 1Cs moving around it doesn't mean that:
- the player was a good fit for them.
- the player was available to them.
- the player was available to them at the same price as the the team that got him.
- paying the price to acquire that 1C would not have created another hole somewhere.
- etc.
Lots of reasons. I was told yesterday that it would have been easy to get Hayes last year. Heck McDavid would be easy to get if we would offer Mack and 3 1sts. You guys assume that the price you hear is what it is and that price is the same for everybody. It is not. You guys take what Hench say as gospel. Heck I love Hench and I trust that what he shares is truly being passed along to him by his contacts. However have you guys ever thought that maybe he is being fed a specific rumor or most likely his contact is being fed that rumor for a reason. My point is...you guys don't know what is going on in the background. Most of your arguments are based on assumptions.

You really need to apply for Sakic's job if it is that easy to acquire these last pieces to go over the hump because it seems with you at the helm we would have quite a few more Cups. Forget about all the GMs that could never make that final step and win it all, they were just bad GMs I guess. Forget about all the GMs that have made what they thought was the right move to get over the hump, I guess they didn't know what they were doing because what?...they weren't the player YOU thought they should go after.

News flash: It is extremely hard to win the Cup. GM's moves or lack thereof doesn't mean they are wrong because you don't agree with them. You could be wrong too you know.

/rant over

 

[henchman21]

That doesn't mean that there are 30 ready and waiting teams for every 1 center that becomes available. For instance, just because Domi and Galchenyuk were swapped for one another doesn't mean that a whole slew of other teams could've just waltzed in there and gotten either player IMO.

Circumstances play a part. Nazem Kadri wasn't available last offseason, but he was available a year later after Babs got fed up with him. They ended up getting, at least on paper, the perfect second-line center for this team. Waiting a year for that, while also making the postseason and pulling off a thrilling first-round upset while also being one game away from the WCF is fine with me. They're making steps toward the goal, and they took a BIG one this summer. You seem to be advocating they sprint the moment there's signs of life, and they did that once already.

Circumstances do play a part, but it seems crazy to me that one can’t be had within any season. Every year good players can be had, it is about work towards the deal and being aggressive enough to make it.

I believe teams need to be aggressive when the moments are there. Waiting until the exact right moment is how you pass that moment by. To me, the perfect move last year was aggressively going after Stastny. Wouldn’t have hurt at all long term, would have supported the younger players, and I think the Avs would have beat the Sharks with how it played out. WCF, maybe Cup appearance. Along with that though... the better move, in hindsight, would have been ROR. Either though and the Avs make a bigger push than they already did. They might be going into this season as the cup favorite then.

 

[Pokecheque]

Oh I’m not saying you can win with a rag tag defense at all. I’m just saying there’s more cases of teams winning with less elite defenses than teams with not that great 1-2 punches at C. Obviously you need to be well rounded to even have a chance and I think over the next 4 years we should be set up very well to compete. But now our drafting* is going have to be even better to set us up for the 2nd window that we’re gonna have to re open in 6 years or so. Luckily I think our defense is very well set up for the next 7-8 years so as long as we can draft a top 6 C that can play in 5 years I think opening a 2nd window should be a reasonable ask.

*but without drafting this could also be it, who knows.

I always go back to what a stats guy posted on Twitter: High-end forwards raise your ceiling, high-end defensemen raise your floor. I think that's why you see a team like Nashville get so far but not quite cinch the deal--their forward corps just doesn't move the needle far enough, or at least it didn't in years past. Conversely, you see Washington's defense, which I would by no means call elite, and then you look at the insane talent they had up front. I'm really hoping Colorado splits the difference there.

 

[Pokecheque]

Circumstances do play a part, but it seems crazy to me that one can’t be had within any season. Every year good players can be had, it is about work towards the deal and being aggressive enough to make it.

I believe teams need to be aggressive when the moments are there. Waiting until the exact right moment is how you pass that moment by. To me, the perfect move last year was aggressively going after Stastny. Wouldn’t have hurt at all long term, would have supported the younger players, and I think the Avs would have beat the Sharks with how it played out. WCF, maybe Cup appearance. Along with that though... the better move, in hindsight, would have been ROR. Either though and the Avs make a bigger push than they already did. They might be going into this season as the cup favorite then.

Well I'll say that I did not foresee a GM and organization being so insanely dumb as to hand over an elite two-way center for a glorified salary dump. That will forever stick in my craw. But I just don't know if circumstances make that one work for the Avs, just way too much bad blood there between both parties. And I still question whether or not Stastny was all that keen on coming back to Denver. I don't think that parting was very amicable either. Either way, circumstances did not line up in the Avs' favor for those particular players.

It is quite something to see just how many impact centers have made their way through the Avalanche organization who are still playing today.

 

[The Abusement Park]

I always go back to what a stats guy posted on Twitter: High-end forwards raise your ceiling, high-end defensemen raise your floor. I think that's why you see a team like Nashville get so far but not quite cinch the deal--their forward corps just doesn't move the needle far enough, or at least it didn't in years past. Conversely, you see Washington's defense, which I would by no means call elite, and then you look at the insane talent they had up front. I'm really hoping Colorado splits the difference there.

Yeah I definitely agree with this. I mean Pitt’s defense from a few years ago was ugly but obviously having Malkin and Crosby means you can get away with that. On the other hand I don’t think that anyone has had a better defense(recently) in a cup final than the Preds did a few years ago, but Forsberg was basically their only offensive weapon so there was no chance they were gonna do it. Obviously balance is key, but I still think having that elite 1C is more important than 1D by a hair. Having both is ideal but definitely tough to make that happen.

 

[cgf]

Again assumptions from you in that first paragraph. You have no idea if he was or wasn't trying to get that particular 1C. He also needed to fix his goaltending. Everybody on earth kept saying they would never win until they get a proper goaltending. They started to win not when they got their 1C (ROR) but when Binnington started to go God-mode for them. There are lots of reasons that could be brought up why they couldn't fill their 1C hole. Just because there are other 1Cs moving around it doesn't mean that:
- the player was a good fit for them.
- the player was available to them.
- the player was available to them at the same price as the the team that got him.
- paying the price to acquire that 1C would not have created another hole somewhere.
- etc.
Lots of reasons. I was told yesterday that it would have been easy to get Hayes last year. Heck McDavid would be easy to get if we would offer Mack and 3 1sts. You guys assume that the price you hear is what it is and that price is the same for everybody. It is not. You guys take what Hench say as gospel. Heck I love Hench and I trust that what he shares is truly being passed along to him by his contacts. However have you guys ever thought that maybe he is being fed a specific rumor or most likely his contact is being fed that rumor for a reason. My point is...you guys don't know what is going on in the background. Most of your arguments are based on assumptions.

You really need to apply for Sakic's job if it is that easy to acquire these last pieces to go over the hump because it seems with you at the helm we would have quite a few more Cups. Forget about all the GMs that could never make that final step and win it all, they were just bad GMs I guess. Forget about all the GMs that have made what they thought was the right move to get over the hump, I guess they didn't know what they were doing because what?...they weren't the player YOU thought they should go after.

News flash: It is extremely hard to win the Cup. GM's moves or lack thereof doesn't mean they are wrong because you don't agree with them. You could be wrong too you know.

/rant over

I heard the NYR stuff from someone other than Hench first. I get that that means nothing to anyone else, but he's been right about way too much Knicks stuff for me to doubt him on this since they work with both teams' PR departments. But it also fit with what we've heard in public reports and what we seen happen in comparable cases. So I don't think it's the outlandish assumption that you do when we know that only a small fraction of what GMs are working on actually makes it to the public.

Ultimately, we see enough top 6 Centers move each summer for this not to feel like an utterly outlandish assumption, to me.

As for Armstrong, it's not all assumptions, there were multiple seasons where he admitted to focusing on other areas than the 1C...like how Joe admitted last summer that he kicked the can on some things but was content with giving the college line their fair shot on the second line. The only assumption there is that the GM was being truthful.

...and I never said it was easy. In fact, everything I've argued for is based on the assumption that winning the cup is really f***in hard and that just having a team which is finally good enough to win, is no guarantee that you'll actually win with that team. STL did, but tons of others didn't; that's the entire reason why I want as many swings with a cup-caliber roster as possible...because winning a cup is so hard.

 

[AllAboutAvs]

I heard the NYR stuff from someone other than Hench first. I get that that means nothing to anyone else, but he's been right about way too much Knicks stuff for me to doubt him on this since they work with both teams' PR departments. But it also fit with what we've heard in public reports and what we seen happen in comparable cases. So I don't think it's the outlandish assumption that you do when we know that only a small fraction of what GMs are working on actually makes it to the public.

Ultimately, we see enough top 6 Centers move each summer for this not to feel like an utterly outlandish assumption, to me.

As for Armstrong, it's not all assumptions, there were multiple seasons where he admitted to focusing on other areas than the 1C...like how Joe admitted last summer that he kicked the can on some things but was content with giving the college line their fair shot on the second line. The only assumption there is that the GM was being truthful.

...and I never said it was easy. In fact, everything I've argued for is based on the assumption that winning the cup is really f***in hard and that just having a team which is finally good enough to win, is no guarantee that you'll actually win with that team. STL did, but tons of others didn't; that's the entire reason why I want as many swings with a cup-caliber roster as possible...because winning a cup is so hard.

I guess my problem with your post is that they come across as being easy to do. I agree with you that we should have as many kicks at the can as possible. Heck i'm sure everybody does. However I still think that last summer just after barely making the playoffs right after our worst season was the right time to start making fairly big moves. Especially that we didn't know what we had in those assets (Jost, Compher, Timmins, our 1st, etc.) that we would have used for that/these move(s).

I don't think we will ever agree on last summer moves or lack thereof.

 

[cgf]

I guess my problem with your post is that they come across as being easy to do. I agree with you that we should have as many kicks at the can as possible. Heck i'm sure everybody does. However I still think that last summer just after barely making the playoffs right after our worst season was the right time to start making fairly big moves. Especially that we didn't know what we had in those assets (Jost, Compher, Timmins, our 1st, etc.) that we would have used for that/these move(s).

I don't think we will ever agree on last summer moves or lack thereof.

Yeah, and I get why others feel the way you do. But teams on the rise tend to "arrive" a year before they are "supposed to", which is why I think now...and thought at the time...that we should've moved proactively, instead of waiting a year to let some things play out some more.

 

[avsfan09]

Then why do they change hands every season? Just this summer Kadri, Duchene, Hayes, and Miller are guys who are centers or can play center at a high level and have changed hands.

Just because they change hands every season doesn't mean every team has a shot at them.

 

[Thepoolmaster]

I think it's hard to say that they should have gone for it last year. Maybe with hindsight and the fact that they did so well in the playoffs (and i know some people pushed for it that summer), but it would have been crazy to do so. The timeline was just too risky imo.

48 point season
trade duchene
Mackinnon explodes
make playoffs in final game of the season
lose to nashville
Go all in on cup!

It doesn't really make sense. If the avs had traded the rumoured asking price of a 1st for Hayes and Mackinnon goes back to his career average. You are looking at giving the rangers two lottery picks. Going after Stastny would have made more sense, but I can understand why he would go to a team that JUST went to the finals in their first season instead of coming to Colorado.

And before anyone says that "you can't be afraid to make bad moves". That's not what I'm getting at all. What I'm saying is from a risk analysis perspective there is NO WAY ANY GM would go for it based on that timeline. Except for Brian Burke and we all know how that turned out for him and the Bruins.

It is fun for fans to think that way for sure, but its too risky for an actual GM. Either way Sakic has done a good job.

I'd also argue that teams that have won the cup or come close have NEVER been THAT proactive. They have taken advantage of scared and "proactive" GMs to get to the promised land. They were patient until they saw a moment to take advantage of a desperate team (you can call that aggressive if you want I guess, semantics, but I would call that patience and I think that is what Joe is leading up to). See everybody's favourite example STL and ROR, and Nashville with Forsberg. Both teams hovered in mediocrity until a stupid and "proactive" GM made a desperate move to win now, or in Buffalo's case just a stupid move, to get pieces to go along with good drafting. What really aggressive move has Tampa made? Boston? I'd argue none. Boston took advantage of an aggressive team like the Leafs and it worked out to get both Rask and Seguin, who they then stupidly traded to Dallas giving them a chance to open their own window. Again I wouldn't say this is Dallas being specifically aggressive but rather other teams doing stupid things for stupid reasons and other teams taking advantage. Maybe that's semantics. Just two summers ago the "proactive" move was to get Duchene from the Avs (the desperate team that needed to trade him because he wanted to be traded) and look how that worked out. That Ottawa team should have never gone that far and nobody should have expected them to repeat and yet they went for it (which I actually liked as a move though they gave up a lot for Dutchy).

Kadri could very well be our ROR this year, though Barrie was a big price to give up. But I would say that Sakic took advantage of a team that wanted to get rid of a good player, because of his suspensions.

 

[flyfysher]

I think it's hard to say that they should have gone for it last year. Maybe with hindsight and the fact that they did so well in the playoffs (and i know some people pushed for it that summer), but it would have been crazy to do so. The timeline was just too risky imo.

48 point season
trade duchene
Mackinnon explodes
make playoffs in final game of the season
lose to nashville
Go all in on cup!

It doesn't really make sense. If the avs had traded the rumoured asking price of a 1st for Hayes and Mackinnon goes back to his career average. You are looking at giving the rangers two lottery picks. Going after Stastny would have made more sense, but I can understand why he would go to a team that JUST went to the finals in their first season instead of coming to Colorado.

And before anyone says that "you can't be afraid to make bad moves". That's not what I'm getting at all. What I'm saying is from a risk analysis perspective there is NO WAY ANY GM would go for it based on that timeline. Except for Brian Burke and we all know how that turned out for him and the Bruins.

It is fun for fans to think that way for sure, but its too risky for an actual GM. Either way Sakic has done a good job.

I'd also argue that teams that have won the cup or come close have NEVER been THAT proactive. They have taken advantage of scared and "proactive" GMs to get to the promised land. They were patient until they saw a moment to take advantage of a desperate team (you can call that aggressive if you want I guess, semantics, but I would call that patience and I think that is what Joe is leading up to). See everybody's favourite example STL and ROR, and Nashville with Forsberg. Both teams hovered in mediocrity until a stupid and "proactive" GM made a desperate move to win now, or in Buffalo's case just a stupid move, to get pieces to go along with good drafting. What really aggressive move has Tampa made? Boston? I'd argue none. Boston took advantage of an aggressive team like the Leafs and it worked out to get both Rask and Seguin, who they then stupidly traded to Dallas giving them a chance to open their own window. Again I wouldn't say this is Dallas being specifically aggressive but rather other teams doing stupid things for stupid reasons and other teams taking advantage. Maybe that's semantics. Just two summers ago the "proactive" move was to get Duchene from the Avs (the desperate team that needed to trade him because he wanted to be traded) and look how that worked out. That Ottawa team should have never gone that far and nobody should have expected them to repeat and yet they went for it (which I actually liked as a move though they gave up a lot for Dutchy).

Kadri could very well be our ROR this year, though Barrie was a big price to give up. But I would say that Sakic took advantage of a team that wanted to get rid of a good player, because of his suspensions.

I think you hit the proverbial nail on the head. I didn't review the thread in depth about extending/maximizing the SC window but no GM would have acted that aggressively coming out of a 48 point season. Sakic's default MO for better or worse is not taking action even when arguably good opportunities present themselves. I'm guessing there's an overarching plan somewhere. Someone mentioned their belief that Sakic traded for Burakovsky so he could have that in place before trading for Barrie. That wouldn't have surprised me at all.

While I understand the argument of going for it sooner to extend the Cup window or doubting how well our new players/prospects and draftees, will perform over established players like the now traded Barrie, that's just too much the sky is falling kind of an outlook. Can it happen? Yes. Has it happened? Yes. I was there. It was super ugly. Will it happen again? Hopefully not but it's definitely possible. Still I'm really opposed to acting out of fear and remaining static. You have to find out what you have.

 

[Sea Eagles]

Not surprisingly, I think we did outstandingly (and I mean better than every other team in the NHL). Here's why: Longetivity. Look at our respective positions, then check out their ages! This is just at forward as well, our defense is younger, with guys like Byram, Zadorov, Girard, Makar, Timmins (who could all be legit top 1-3 guys) if lucky. This also shows our window (as people call it) could be a very long winded window)

Left Wing
+ Landeskog (who's now shown he can be a point-per-game player talent) 26 years old
+ Burakovsky (Cup winner now already, with massive potential upside. Big too - adds size/grit. Bigger than Landy) 24 years old
+ Wilson (veteran experience. In his prime. Lit up these playoffs and got rewarded with a short lesser contract) 29 years old
+ Calvert (Must have on any Cup like team imo. Adds grit / fight / determination, but also has offensive ability) 29 years old
+ Nieto (small, but fiesty and gritty. Stood up in the playoffs. I think that may spring board him. Will have better linemates) 26 years old

Center
+ Mackinnon (Not much to say. I DO believe he's once in a generation. Possibly best player in the league) 23 years old
+ Kadri (Boy did we need secondary scoring, more fight, more grit, more aggression - its what we lacked) 28 years old
+ Jost (people say he's not producing, but tell you what, he's curving / trending up exponentially - will have better line-mates) 21 years old
+ Newhook (unknown, but rumoured to have amazing wheels, and silky skills. Some say he may play at seasons end) 18 years old
+ Kamenev (guy has grit, skill, skating. Injury has really set him back. He is DARNED TOOTIN good though) 22 years old
+ Bellemare (locker room guy. Gritty, strong, tough. Like Calvert, a must have, and the more the better. No more being bullied) 34 years old
+ Bowers (pretty hyped player. Has a great reputation. Look forward to him jumping up at some point) 19 years old

Right Wing
+ Rantanen (Love that we have our own Jagr on the team. Guy could be absolutely anything) 22 years old
+ Kaut (Is improving exponentially in the AHL, and I expect him to be a call up this very season) 19 years old
+ Donskoi (Not given opportunity too much at The Sharks, but adds grit, scoring at LEAST at 40 point pace) 27 years old
+ Compher (Love everything about JT. Just an all round utility player. Is so determined and gritty) 24 years old

Jeez. Young, determined, experienced now (playoffs AND cups), balanced. I see nothing but Stanley Cup for us. Sorry, but there it is. Amazing forward, and as strong balance wise as I've seen this team EVER, including the Nordique days I loved.

 

[Pierce Hawthorne]

There's being optimistic.... And then there's this.


Cant even take it seriously.

 

[Foppberg]

There's being optimistic.... And then there's this.


Cant even take it seriously.

We need more guys like Sea Eagles around here damn it. Realistic or not.

 

[Pierce Hawthorne]

We need more guys like Sea Eagles around here damn it. Realistic or not.

Nah. I find that kind of unrealistic optimism to be as difficult to read as the Barrie nonsense honestly.


But that's just me.

 

[flyfysher]

We need more guys like Sea Eagles around here damn it. Realistic or not.

SE was the only one that had it right in calling the Avs to make the POs a couple of seasons ago. For everyone's expertise and insight, he got it right. I'll take that realism any day.

 

[Foppberg]

Nah. I find that kind of unrealistic optimism to be as difficult to read as the Barrie nonsense honestly.


But that's just me.

Fair enough. I just don't take anything on here that seriously, it's all just a distraction from companies dumping sewage into the water supply and dolphins dying with grocery bags wrapped around their head anyways.

 

[AllAboutAvs]

Not surprisingly, I think we did outstandingly (and I mean better than every other team in the NHL). Here's why: Longetivity. Look at our respective positions, then check out their ages! This is just at forward as well, our defense is younger, with guys like Byram, Zadorov, Girard, Makar, Timmins (who could all be legit top 1-3 guys) if lucky. This also shows our window (as people call it) could be a very long winded window)

Left Wing
+ Landeskog (who's now shown he can be a point-per-game player talent) 26 years old
+ Burakovsky (Cup winner now already, with massive potential upside. Big too - adds size/grit. Bigger than Landy) 24 years old
+ Wilson (veteran experience. In his prime. Lit up these playoffs and got rewarded with a short lesser contract) 29 years old
+ Calvert (Must have on any Cup like team imo. Adds grit / fight / determination, but also has offensive ability) 29 years old
+ Nieto (small, but fiesty and gritty. Stood up in the playoffs. I think that may spring board him. Will have better linemates) 26 years old

Center
+ Mackinnon (Not much to say. I DO believe he's once in a generation. Possibly best player in the league) 23 years old
+ Kadri (Boy did we need secondary scoring, more fight, more grit, more aggression - its what we lacked) 28 years old
+ Jost (people say he's not producing, but tell you what, he's curving / trending up exponentially - will have better line-mates) 21 years old
+ Newhook (unknown, but rumoured to have amazing wheels, and silky skills. Some say he may play at seasons end) 18 years old
+ Kamenev (guy has grit, skill, skating. Injury has really set him back. He is DARNED TOOTIN good though) 22 years old
+ Bellemare (locker room guy. Gritty, strong, tough. Like Calvert, a must have, and the more the better. No more being bullied) 34 years old
+ Bowers (pretty hyped player. Has a great reputation. Look forward to him jumping up at some point) 19 years old

Right Wing
+ Rantanen (Love that we have our own Jagr on the team. Guy could be absolutely anything) 22 years old
+ Kaut (Is improving exponentially in the AHL, and I expect him to be a call up this very season) 19 years old
+ Donskoi (Not given opportunity too much at The Sharks, but adds grit, scoring at LEAST at 40 point pace) 27 years old
+ Compher (Love everything about JT. Just an all round utility player. Is so determined and gritty) 24 years old

Jeez. Young, determined, experienced now (playoffs AND cups), balanced. I see nothing but Stanley Cup for us. Sorry, but there it is. Amazing forward, and as strong balance wise as I've seen this team EVER, including the Nordique days I loved.

I love your optimism SE and I don't want to rain on your parade but you what doesn't go well with longevity?

The cap.

 

[Northern Avs Fan]

I love your optimism SE and I don't want to rain on your parade but you what doesn't go well with longevity?

The cap.

Dude is fired up for the season, I can appreciate that.

In terms of the cap, eventually we will run into trouble, but this team shouldn’t be thinking about giving out long term free agent contracts for the foreseeable future.

Sea Eagles point about the age is a good one. Providing these players develop reasonably well, there’s really no reason to be looking at free agents, outside of a depth player here and there. That should help us avoid bad contracts like Neal and Lucic.

 

[Rosy Cheeks]

I would have preferred keeping Söderberg as a 3C and getting an additional conditional draft pick if Barrie resigns with Toronto.

I am happy they are building for the future. Been an Avs fan for over 20 years and I am in it for the long haul.

 

[OwenNolan]

I'd be more ok with it if I was sure that that was all it was...but I can't help but worry that this decision was more about not wanting to cut EJ after he was a good soldier through the dark days, than it was about not wanting to spend the ~2M more for the massive upgrade (Tyson) + the 1st & b-prospect that addressing our 2C would've cost elsewise.

Again, it's been said a thousand times...if we were to get rid of EJ or Cole as some have suggested who plays the heavy minutes vs the opponents top lines? Who kills penalties? 4 offensive minded Dmen is just not feasible and lacks the roster balance that the winning teams have.

In your scenerio:

Girard - Makar
Byram - Barrie
Zadorov - Timmins/Rosen
Connauton

Cole*

If you think Makar and Girard can then great but I don't think that's the case and I'd rather match them up in more offensive situations. Then that would leave Byram and Barrie who definatly shouldn't considering Byram sticks which I think he will.

Then Z and one of Timmins or Rosen? Nope.

The fact of the matter is no matter how many points a guy scores we still need guys to to the heavy lifting like EJ and Cole did vs the Flames top line for example.

Say what you want but when the going gets tough in the playoffs we need some big boys on the back end.

Girard - Makar
Byram - EJ
Zadorov - Cole

Timmins
Rosen
Connauton

That is one heck of a D group and hands down the best in the league IMO.

Barrie just wasn't needed and we will be better off without him IMO because of the roster balance we have now and us not having to pay him what he wants.

 

[MarkT]

Let's throw in another factor... Stastny on a 4 year 7m per deal. To me, Stastny + Barrie + Newhook + Kerfoot (as much as I'm not a fan of his) + Meloche is better than Kadri + Newhook + Meloche. Even if you think Barrie shouldn't be re-signed (crazy to me), you now can use him to get a top flight winger to go on the 2nd line and the Avs are not giving up a 2nd/3rd to get a reclamation project. You can play this game round and round forever... many ways to skin a cat.

As other people have already said, there was no guarantee Stastny would have come here even if we offered that 4th year. And yeah we could have afforded that deal last year and this upcoming one, but what about next season or the one after? Would we be trading away good players because we still need to pay a declining Stastny?

And no I don't believe you can play this game round and round forever. There's an extremely limited set of options for who realistically could be our 2C right now. Kadri, maybe Hayes, and maybe Stastny. Kadri's the only one of the three we have any certainty on because of course it actually happened.

You call it semantics, I call it the very thing I've been discussing this entire time

I have never claimed a team needed to bottom out during a retool the way that they do during a rebuild. In fact I have specifically made this point...referencing pre-Kessel/post-cup Pittsburgh and the way they continually made the post-season without being real cup contenders in any sense but the "any team technically has a shot as long as they get in" one...countless times when folks have asked what happens after Window 1 closes but before Window 2 opens.

Having to get rid of some Compher's & Donskoi's to pay up for our core won't leave us in the lottery and despite the strawmen I've never suggested it would...but it will rob our core of some of the depth that we can afford for these next 4/5 seasons, if not a lesser core piece, and we'll need some time for cap rises + the futures we bring in for the cap we have to shed, to allow us to contend seriously, again.

We'd basically spend a few seasons as what the pre-ROR Blues were or what Minny was for all those years before they fell apart...except it would only be a temporary phase for us, not our peak...and I wouldn't call any iteration of the Suter & Parise era Wild true contenders despite their regular playoff appearances.


SJ had to build an entirely new core before becoming genuine contenders again and that's a whole different process than what y'all are arguing for, unless I've misunderstood your point...I mean, I haven't seen many posts saying they're cool with failing to win a cup before MacK becomes a bottom 6er at best, like Jumbo has...so that's not exactly a model for "success" that I would be thrilled with following.

We're already as good as -- and closer to contending -- than STL ever was before ROR...as adding an adequate 2C + top 6 winger is typically a lot easier than adding a cup caliber 1C...so I really don't think they're a model for us, or teach us anything other than how important it is to actually fill the holes preventing you from contending with real solutions.

And I dunno about you, but I'm not exactly jealous of the results Nashville has actually achieved, despite their blueline factory

I know you don't advocate bottoming out, but you seem to advocate moves that I think would result in us bottoming out. Moves designed to focus exclusively on our 4 year "window", and then worry about the consequences later while we "retool".

See, to me, you should be "retooling" constantly. You shouldn't go through a period of retooling unless you've f***ed up in some way. Trading Soderberg and Barrie was retooling. Smart retooling is trading away aging players or players who are about to demand a massive contract that will result in them one day being an overpiced aging player on your team.

So getting rid of Compher would not be smart retooling - at least not as he is now. Donskoi? Maybe in a couple of years. Calvert? Cole? EJ? Maybe even Landy? Sure. The teambuilding method I support is to try the best you can to only pay players what they're worth while they're worth it. Any time you're at the cap and overpaying players is a negative.

I hope you understand better where I'm coming from.

And one last thing, and I think it's a big one. For you, it's all about cups. For me, from a roster building standpoint, cups are irrelevant. They're irrelevant because whether or not you win the cup is often based on random chance like injuries, hot goalies, hot streaks, and bad ref calls. Had the refs not missed that offsides call on Landy we might be currently celebrating a cup victory. Had Marc-Andre Fleury not had a run for the ages Winnipeg might have a cup right now. Every year there's multiple teams that could have realistically won the cup had things worked out just a little differently.

You can't build a team that is guaranteed to win a cup - Tampa proved that last year. All you can do is build a great team that plays well and has the right mix of youth, veterans, experience, leadership, character and talent. Whether that team wins the cup or not is up to the hockey gods. That's why I point to teams like Nashville or San Jose as good models despite them not winning cups. Had the dice rolled a little differently they might both have won multiple cups - they certainly had chances. And chances at the cup is all you can hope for, from a team building perspective.

So if Mac plays his whole career here and never wins a cup, sure I'll be disappointed. But if I feel confident the team was always good and had multiple chances at the cup, but lost out due to flukey play or a hot goalie or something, then I'll still support the decisions that got us there.

 

[cgf]

I know you don't advocate bottoming out, but you seem to advocate moves that I think would result in us bottoming out. Moves designed to focus exclusively on our 4 year "window", and then worry about the consequences later while we "retool".

See, to me, you should be "retooling" constantly. You shouldn't go through a period of retooling unless you've ****ed up in some way. Trading Soderberg and Barrie was retooling. Smart retooling is trading away aging players or players who are about to demand a massive contract that will result in them one day being an overpiced aging player on your team.

So getting rid of Compher would not be smart retooling - at least not as he is now. Donskoi? Maybe in a couple of years. Calvert? Cole? EJ? Maybe even Landy? Sure. The teambuilding method I support is to try the best you can to only pay players what they're worth while they're worth it. Any time you're at the cap and overpaying players is a negative.

I hope you understand better where I'm coming from.

And one last thing, and I think it's a big one. For you, it's all about cups. For me, from a roster building standpoint, cups are irrelevant. They're irrelevant because whether or not you win the cup is often based on random chance like injuries, hot goalies, hot streaks, and bad ref calls. Had the refs not missed that offsides call on Landy we might be currently celebrating a cup victory. Had Marc-Andre Fleury not had a run for the ages Winnipeg might have a cup right now. Every year there's multiple teams that could have realistically won the cup had things worked out just a little differently.

You can't build a team that is guaranteed to win a cup - Tampa proved that last year. All you can do is build a great team that plays well and has the right mix of youth, veterans, experience, leadership, character and talent. Whether that team wins the cup or not is up to the hockey gods. That's why I point to teams like Nashville or San Jose as good models despite them not winning cups. Had the dice rolled a little differently they might both have won multiple cups - they certainly had chances. And chances at the cup is all you can hope for, from a team building perspective.

So if Mac plays his whole career here and never wins a cup, sure I'll be disappointed. But if I feel confident the team was always good and had multiple chances at the cup, but lost out due to flukey play or a hot goalie or something, then I'll still support the decisions that got us there.

I guess that's fair, though I'd like to know which moves specifically you think would result in us bottoming out, because I generally like to leave enough futures with which to make further tweaks, that would leave us well positioned for a re-tool with our core, if they weren't all needed to push this project over the edge...at least when I'm being serious & not just indulging my lonelybadger-side


I think I get where you're coming from...if I have you correctly, you'd much rather be SJ with their decade+ of having at least a playoff-caliber team, rather than LA who had a great 4 year run before becoming a lower level playoff team and now needing to rebuild, not just retool. Not that I'm arguing for a Kings' esque run, just trying to put examples to this to get where you're at.

My big problem with that thinking is that when you try to have your cake & eat it too, you almost always end up not getting to enjoy either...and I feel that an eternal re-tool like you're describing runs a huge risk of slamming head first into that problem.

Of course you can't guarantee a cup...which is the entire reason I wanted us to give ourselves as many swings as possible at it so we can at least win 1 with this unique opportunity we have. But you can guarantee that you won't win the cup by not putting together the pieces necessary to make that run even if the stars were to align for you...like pre-ROR & Binnington STL...and not giving ourselves multiple shots with the necessary pieces in place for the stars to align one of those times...like WPG & maybe soon Nashville. And an eternal Re-tool seems highly likely to suffer from both of those problems unless you just so happen to get extremely lucky with the way your core talent aligns timeline-wise.


If the cap didn't exist I wouldn't feel like what you're arguing for was nearly as unlikely to actually work out, but in a cap world you simply can't have a great team for all that long without there being a dip/retool along the way...at least it hasn't happened yet ...unless we get really loose with the term great & decide that it applies to 16 teams a year.

 

[flyfysher]

in a cap world you simply can't have a great team for all that long without there being a dip/retool along the way

I'm more in line with MarkT's approach cgf. But I think your remark is on point. We're seeing it with the Hawks, Jets and Predators. It will happen to the Avs too eventually.

 

[cgf]

I'm more in line with MarkT's approach cgf. But I think your remark is on point. We're seeing it with the Hawks, Jets and Predators. It will happen to the Avs too eventually.

Yeah, that's why I'm more worried about keeping our core through the retool than I am keeping our depth pieces. So that's why it's the core & their contracts that define our windows IMO