SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

OutCold13

Hockey Fan13
Member Since
Oct. 2, 2019
Favourite Team
Minnesota Wild
2nd Favourite Team
San Jose Sharks
Forum Posts
3944
Posts per Day
2.3
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 9 at 6:03 p.m.
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 9 at 12:51 p.m.
Thread: 2 sides of a Marner trade
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>iAce</b></div><div>I'd run it back then. I don't think the fit on the Wild is overly great. Yes he's talented but with how BG wants to play, he doesn't fit the bill. I don't think the Wild would want to sink 12 mill into him either. Not many teams can eat his salary and give you a return. I'm not sold on why the Wild should go all in on him?</div></div>

I would agree that 12 million is too much, not sure he can get that outside of Toronto, Canadian teams seem to pay a premium for players because the taxes are high, as well as the scrutiny. BG does want physical gritty guys which Marner really isn't but he isn't that small and I think that aspect of his game could still be cultivated to a point where it is good enough. That said BG should not overpay for Marner in reality he probably isn't all that interested.
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 8 at 1:05 p.m.
Thread: 2 sides of a Marner trade
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Garak</b></div><div>I know you are on the same page and have heard and/or agree with all of this, as well. But for the MIN fan who may not be familiar with the situation, I am going to rant here.

I think a lot of non-CHI fans, and even some CHI fans, are still holding onto the JFresh and Sportsnet stuff, among others, from two plus years ago about Jones having "the worst contract in the NHL." But it just isn't true. He is a good defenseman on a bad team. Overpaid? Sure. Did CHI spend too much acquiring him? Yes. But there are plenty of players who are overpaid and teams spent too much on. There are also MUCH WORSE players, with much worse contracts. Not to mention CHI has no need to move him, especially for nothing, and they shouldn't have any need to do so for the duration of his contract. Having him around is a positive for CHI. He brings stability, leadership, experience, and helps get us to the cap floor. Even if Jones asks out, if CHI isn't receiving good value for him, CHI has no reason to oblige the request, especially if teams want us to sell insanely low or even pay them to take him. It just isn't happening. I think, as CHI gets better, people will start to recognize Jones for what he is, a bonafide 1RD. If his contract becomes a problem in the last couple years, it should be more than manageable at that point.

So, sure it wouldn't have taken much to figure out CHI would decline this trade, but you also can't exactly blame fans of other teams for not understanding the situation.</div></div>

I appreciate you filling me in on what's really going on.
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 8 at 1:08 a.m.
Thread: 2 sides of a Marner trade
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>CaseyFlyman</b></div><div>As a fan of the team that signed Johnny Gaudreau: I'm skeptical. Without support, it's too easy for NHL defenses to swarm one player, especially if they're undersized and primarily a playmaker.

Marner is an incredibly valuable player, and Minnesota probably gives you the best potential package just because they're looking for another elite talent to go alongside Boldy/Kaprizov. But the return really comes down to three things:

1) If the Leafs are going to make changes to the core four, he's the one. Matthews and Nylander aren't going anywhere, and Tavares is a $6M player making $11M; you're likely giving
1) If the Leafs are going to make changes to the core four, he's the one. Matthews and Nylander aren't going anywhere, and Tavares is a $6M player making $11M; you're likely giving him away if you want to get rid of the whole contract. The Leafs wanting to move Marner is the worst kept secret in hockey, so teams are looking to take advantage of that.

2) If you do move Mitch, not many teams can take an $11M cap hit, so you're either retaining or limiting the number of suiters, which would decrease a potential return.

3) Mitch has a full NMC. He's not going to waive that and just say "send me wherever you get the best package", he's going to use that to pick his spot and force Toronto to trade him to one of a select few locations (like when Kaberle was traded, the list was: Boston...and that's it).

If I'm honest, I think Minnesota has to make that pick this year's 1st (13 OA) if they're going to have Toronto retain even ~$3M, but if you get Rossi, Gustavsson, and 13OA...take that and run. A starting-caliber goalie that's only 25 and locked up to a reasonable deal, a potential 2C of the future (which Toronto desperately needs if Tavares regresses), and 13OA? Use the pick, or the extra ~$6.5M in cap space and free agency, to fix the D.</div></div>

This is well said and smart.
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 8 at 12:45 a.m.
Thread: 2 sides of a Marner trade
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>WN88</b></div><div>I guess that's reasonable under the assumption that you're taking a risk. Perhaps this is a bit far-fetched, but I think, hypothetically, any team Marner would waive for would also likely be a team he'd extend with. I can't really speak on the trade rumours. All I can say is it's incredibly sad to see just how many "fans" and people in the media want to see the destruction of a team.

I've watched just about every game of the Matthews/Nylander/Marner era. I can assure you that Marner would be a 100-point player away from Auston Matthews. I mean, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying you could put him with borderline fourth-liners, and he'd still reach that mark. But I'm certain that you could expect at least 90-100 points if you slid him into just about any team's top-6.</div></div>

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>OutCold13</b></div><div>Out of curiosity, would it interest you if I made the deal Spurgeon and defensive prospect of the Leafs choice (we are probably talking Hunt, O'Rourke, or Lambos plus Rossi. No picks no retention?</div></div>
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 8 at 12:00 a.m.
Thread: 2 sides of a Marner trade
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>WN88</b></div><div>I'm sorry bro, but it's not. Rossi looks like he has a solid future ahead of him; he might even become a point-per-game player (despite being a 5'9 centre). I understand Minnesota had their struggles this season, but at this point, Gus has only recorded 1 good season under his very, very short career so far. And the first-round pick you're giving up will likely be in the 20s.

On the other hand, you're pretty much getting a 100-point winger at a 5 million-dollar cap hit (and I'm assuming that you would only make this trade if Marner agreed to an extension). Not to mention he plays in every single situation, at an elite level. The odds Rossi would ever enter the realm of becoming as good as Marner is incredibly slim. Organizations will tank for years just to have a non-zero chance of acquiring a talent like Marner. The Leafs could sign him for the rest of his career on July 1st. From my perspective, this is giving him up for practically nothing in the bigger picture.</div></div>

I am not making the trade under the presumption of a pre signed extension. I have the Wild taking a risk here, so yes it plays into it. Is any one sure what Marner is if he isn't with Matthew's. He is still good no doubt but probably not a 100 point producer in most situations. The rest of your argument I really don't have a rebuttal for other than Friedman saying the Leafs may be willing to lose the Marner trade for the sake of changing the team up.
Forum: Armchair-GMApr. 10 at 12:40 p.m.