The Kingslayer
Registered User
FLA is a team I wouldnt mind seeing ROR go to. Just no Western team and no to Toronto lol
Rumor: In-season Proposals, Rumors, Free Agents & Roster Moves (related topics) LXXIV
- Thread starter Frenchy
- Start date
- Status
FLA is a team I wouldnt mind seeing ROR go to. Just no Western team and no to Toronto lol
I think you might be jumping the gun a little bit on MacK. I don't see him getting 7 right away, especially if the cap doesn't move much like you suggest. I'm think he takes somewhere around 5 on a bridge deal or a long term contract at 6. Unless he just absolutely blows up next year and turns into the superstar he is capable of being. To be honest, if the cap stays that low, it probably would not be possible to sign RoR at 7 and a top pair Dman at 6.5 (the number I always used when doing my calculations). It would need to get into the 77+ range probably.
I'm think EJ and Barrie sign for less as well. Barrie, might have the points (he might not as well, he is pretty streaky, he has fallen to 16th in Dman scoring), but his role on the team and overall game just doesn't justify that much. I mean, how many players get 5mil who play only 20 minutes a game? And it's not like Barrie is some amazing PP player who deserves extra money because of what he provides on that unit. If he was an UFA, then I could see him getting that much. Those Dmen are getting PAID. And for some reason I just think EJ takes a team friendly deal (I'm probably shouldn't listen to the crazy voices in my head though).
If we are thinking of adding 2 top4 Dmen, without that being Bigras/Siemens, then there really is no way. If we re-sign everyone it's only doable to add 1 top4 Dman, unless we can get MacK to take some absurd bridge deal at like 3.5, but I don't see that happening.
As far as Pitt goes, I'm not sure if that says something about us if we put all the money at the top. To me, that just says Pitt did a bad job scout and finding these cheaper bottom players and developing draft picks who play on cheap ELCs. Seems to me there are plenty of depth players out there for cheap. And I fully trust this staff when it comes to scouting. I thought they did a tremendous job in finding guys like Everberg and Rendulic who can play well at this level. I thought they did a great in finding prospects like Henley, Corbett and Will (he isn't doing so hot though). And I've really liked our picks the past couple years, though maybe I'm getting ahead of myself here.
And I doubt we have that much turnover. Everberg, Rendulic and Redmond should all be re-signed for cheap. Plus you gotta think Siemens and/or Bigras will be ready by 16-17. As should Bleackley. We can probably keep Tanguay on for cheap as well (he isn't that old yet). McGinn hasn't shown anything to get a raise from his current pay.
Bleackley (1mil)
Tanguay (2.5mil)
Everberg (1mil)
Rendulic (1mil)
McGinn (3mil)
Scratch (700k)
FA Dman (6.5mil)
Redmond (2mil)
Bigras (1mil)
2nd scratch (700K)
Pickard (1.5mil)
This would put us at about 77, 78.
Exactly. And more so, you need to give Elliott a real look at this point to see what you have and if there's interest in keeping him moving forward. With his contract up this summer, I can't imagine he'll want to stick around in LE for a 5th year. If he's still in the organization, I could see him opting to head to Europe.
tigervixxxen
Optimism=Delusional
Elliott has earned it. He was just at the ASG and a righty got injured. If that doesn't get him a callup nothing will. I don't know how they will play him but I really don't know how any extra D does either. It's not like Stollery takes Holden out of the lineup.
Foppa2118
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2003
- 52,476
- 31,793
I could see them holding off on calling up Elliott, until they get closer to a deal they're looking to make. This would allow them to call him up for a game or two for the other team to get a look, and then after the trade, the new team would still have a few games and days before the 10 game/30 day threshold when he'd have to clear waivers to be sent down again. They might also be holding off because he's playing well in the AHL, and if anything, calling him up might result in poor play and reduce interest in him.
Regardless of how well he plays the rest of the year, it just feels like has no future with the Avs no matter what. I'd expect him to be moved in some kind of deal at the deadline, even if it's just a minor league swap like Gaunce for Vincour.
Regardless of how well he plays the rest of the year, it just feels like has no future with the Avs no matter what. I'd expect him to be moved in some kind of deal at the deadline, even if it's just a minor league swap like Gaunce for Vincour.
AvsFan2123
Registered User
I've been saying for a while I would love a trade for Kulikov and Hayes. Brings size and legit RW that we can have for a while.
henchman21
Mr. Meeseeks
- Feb 24, 2012
- 63,833
- 48,774
I'd put the percentage of MacK getting a bridge deal under 5%. Everybody knows the kid is going to be worth every penny he signs for in the future. If the Avs can get a discount on his 'poor' play on a long-term deal they will do it for the sake of saving the cap in the future (built in bridge deal like Landy's... except MacK's bridge portion would likely be 5.5m). The Avs know if they do sign bridge deal, the deal after that for MacK could easily go into the Kane/Towes category of deals (3+ years later and MacK will be that caliber of player by the end of that contract). That would be a nightmare for this team's cap position.
If Elliott gets called up, he should play. If the call up isn't going to play, it should be Stollery.
If Elliott gets called up, he should play. If the call up isn't going to play, it should be Stollery.
Foppa2118
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2003
- 52,476
- 31,793
I doubt Mack gets a traditional bridge deal, but the better question is will he sign early, or after his 3rd season? I bet they would have liked to sign him and EJ this summer, but Nate's had an off year both statistically, and positionally which at least gives them some pause on whether to procede with their original plan or be a bit more patient.
henchman21
Mr. Meeseeks
- Feb 24, 2012
- 63,833
- 48,774
Agreed. Though maybe they have already laid the groundwork of the deal and the Avs will still abide by that. If that is the case, it will look like an overpayment when it gets announced... it will still be a bargain though.
tigervixxxen
Optimism=Delusional
If the callup isn't going to play then please take Gervais. Do the Monsters a favor. Without Siemens, Noreau and Elliott/Stollery that D is going to be a disaster but at least I get to see lots of Corbett. For some reason I want to think Noreau's injury isn't serious but who knows.
Oh I know from the Avs perspective it's best to lock up MacKinnon long term as early as posdible. Might not be to his benefit though is why I'm thinking it doesn't happen.
Oh I know from the Avs perspective it's best to lock up MacKinnon long term as early as posdible. Might not be to his benefit though is why I'm thinking it doesn't happen.
Cousin Eddie
You Serious Clark?
- Nov 3, 2006
- 40,161
- 37,363
Elliott wont be called up unless they know they will play him. If they're calling a D up to be the 7th man it will be Stollery. No need of burning days of Elliott's waiver immunity if he isn't going to play.
If they're calling someone up to put into the lineup, it has to be Elliott.
If they're calling someone up to put into the lineup, it has to be Elliott.
henchman21
Mr. Meeseeks
- Feb 24, 2012
- 63,833
- 48,774
The vast majority of players would rather have a long-term deal and the security it brings over a bridge deal. That is usually what those disputes come down to. In this case, it really makes sense for the Avs to guarantee a good bit of money to MacK for long-term cap help, and it could make sense for MacK to cash in immediately instead of having to wait a few years.
Foppa2118
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2003
- 52,476
- 31,793
Briere doesn't serve much of a purpose until he scores a big goal, and he still manages to chip one in every once in a while. That's what you're hoping for with him in the lineup. He's got more goals than anyone else outside the top six. It's hard to keep a guy like that out of the lineup when your team has struggled to score all year.
UncleRisto
Not Great, Bob!
With EJ not being there to play his minutes I think that's what they're doing. It's a good chance to give Elliott some offensive minutes and see if there's something there too.
tigervixxxen
Optimism=Delusional
Hopefully it does make sense. I know he's an Avs priority and they won't have a problem paying him. I don't think his party will but cutthroat about it but I think they will consider maximizing his value. Which is also why it doesn't benefit them to do it after this season. But if they can skip the bridge that works too.
I think it's pretty easy to take him out. He has 2 goals in his last 23 games, and doesn't play on any special teams units. Roy has shown he's not afraid to take the guy out of the lineup. He really just isn't providing much of anything at the moment.
Foppa2118
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2003
- 52,476
- 31,793
Yea, but there's not really any other forwards that are much better options, and I've never been a big fan of playing 7 D if you can help it. It disrupts the flow of your forward lines and forces you to juggle guys around, and play them more, and it keeps some of the lesser D men on the bench a lot, leading to them not getting into the game and potentially playing worse. You throw a D man out there with cold legs, and all of a sudden there's a tough shift in his own end, that can be a big problem.
It's more of an emergency situation to a D man possibly not being able to play, than one you would take just to get a guy like Briere out of the lineup. That's just my opinion though.
Tommy Shelby
Registered User
- Feb 26, 2012
- 7,471
- 4,856
I would love this as well, but who would we give up for that package though?
McGinn is done for the year and any interest they may or may not have had in him in the past is gone as a result.
ROR? If they added a conditional 1st/2nd rounder in 2016/2015 respectively (condition being if ROR re-signs) or a prospect like Hawryluk and we added in Elliott or Butcher or something, then that might be pretty close but who knows.
Exactly. Stollery doesn't take anyone out of the lineup. It's ok for him to sit on the bench. It makes no sense to sit Elliott though. And on the right we still have Redmond, Barrie and Stuart. Can Elliott play the left side next to Stuart? Do we bench Stuart (probably has been or worst Dman recently) and play a completely different type of Dman? Do we bench Barrie because he needs to get his head out of his ass? Do we bench Redmond because, well, that's just what we do? Do we bench Guenin, who, like Stuart, plays a completely different role? Or Holden who has been playing much better since coming back from the bench? Do we bench Cliche and play all 7 (this makes the most sense to me if we bring up Elliott)?
tigervixxxen
Optimism=Delusional
expatriatedtexan
Habitual Line Stepper
- Aug 17, 2005
- 17,115
- 12,917
Here's hoping Stefan Elliott proves me wrong. Would love to eat crow on him not becoming an NHL regular.
- Status
