SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

KrakenTheCode

Member Since
Jul. 15, 2022
Favourite Team
Seattle Kraken
Forum Posts
879
Posts per Day
1.3
Forum: Armchair-GM13 hours ago
Thread: Futures for McCann - any chance SEA considers this
A bit late to the party, but I'll second much of what <a href="https://www.capfriendly.com/users/AEcho"><a href="/users/AEcho" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@AEcho</a></a> and <a href="https://www.capfriendly.com/users/KrakBirds23"><a href="/users/KrakBirds23" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@KrakBirds23</a></a> said. The offer you made is a really good one and if I was Ron Francis and co. I'd seriously consider it. It would largely come down to the path Seattle wants to take building their roster for the future. For better or worse all indications are that the Kraken want to maintain a solid NHL roster while simultaneously developing a young core to take over and elevate the team from that foundation. In that framework McCann is too important to lose, as he's their leading scorer and probably best all around forward currently, and the team needs to add scoring, not subtract it. For that reason I don't see this trade going through, but if Seattle pursues more of a rebuilding path, this deal would be a tempting one to take.

On your idea of Skinner to Seattle; I think that idea might have legs, but considering he's a clear notch below McCann in my view, is several years older, and has nearly twice the cap hit, I don't see him as being a valuable part of a hypothetical return package for McCann. I think a more feasible idea would be a sort of bad contract swap, where Seattle takes Skinner and sends back a lesser player earning less money.
Forum: Armchair-GMYesterday at 5:34 p.m.
Thread: My turn
A couple of key differences between the Garland/OEL deal from 2021 and the proposed deal you're trying to make with Seattle:

1. Conor Garland at the time of the trade was a 25 year old RFA coming off a season where he put up 39 points in 49 games, and was projected to only improve from there. Evander Kane just put up 44 points in 74 games and is 32; he's on the complete opposite side of the aging bell curve, meaning he's more likely to see his numbers decline instead of improve. Garland had WAY more value at the time of the deal than Kane has now.

2. Vancouver also dumped $12M in cap on the Coyotes as part of the deal. Here you're asking the Kraken to take on that same amount without sending any salary in return. The Kraken still need to figure out new contracts for Beniers and Tolvanen, and will have better ways to spend the cap remaining afterwards than on Kane and Nurse.

Overall, I don't think this deal is very much like the Vancouver-Arizona deal from a few years ago, and there is zero incentive here for Seattle to give up the 8th overall pick, with which they can select a badly needed defensive prospect with top-pairing potential, for an aging forward and a defenseman who while being paid like a top-pairing blueliner is certainly not at this stage.
Forum: Armchair-GMFri. at 12:03 a.m.
Thread: Seattle Kraken off-season
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>AEcho</b></div><div>That is a bit rich for me in terms of acquiring Necas. I wouldn't be opposed to moving a draft pick through instead of Sale, like perhaps the 2024 2nd round pick on top of Dumoulin and Burakovsky. Sale is still really young and is already looking like a future star for SEA, alongside Firkus.

If it needs to be a prospect I'd rather move a different prospect like either Nyman or Rehkopf.</div></div>

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Canesfan21_</b></div><div>We’d be interested in one of your centers, not Dumolin though</div></div>

Honestly I'd much rather move Šalé before Nyman and Rehkopf, despite the difference in draft capital the latter two are coming off breakout seasons where each looked incredibly impressive, while Šalé struggled relative to expectations in the OHL. In my mind Nyman and Rehkopf have both leapfrogged Šalé in the Kraken prospect pecking order.

If Carolina wants a center as part of the return for Nečas, Gourde would probably be the only viable NHL level option, while Goyette would be the most realistic prospect option. Beniers and Wright are basically untouchable, and the Kraken aren't trading McCann, as dealing their leading scorer when they're trying to add scoring would be counterproductive.
Forum: Armchair-GMThu. at 10:02 p.m.
Thread: Marner trade at actual value
Niemelä's an interesting prospect, but he's a very different type of defender than Larsson, so he's not likely to be able to replace what Larsson does directly in the long run. McMann could be a good depth scorer if he replicates his past season, but that's no guarantee and not something worth sacrificing a top four RHD for, even though Seattle could use more scoring help.

Overall, the package as a whole really isn't enticing enough to get Seattle to move Larsson in the offseason. He'd net them more than this as a deadline rental, and that's assuming Seattle would even be willing to trade him. They're aiming for a postseason return, and Larsson will be a key contributor to that. I doubt Seattle is going to be all that open to dealing him given that fact.
Forum: Armchair-GMThu. at 1:13 p.m.
Thread: Brad Treveling
Some feedback on your first ACGM if I may:

1. Seattle appears to be high on Kartye and has zero incentive to give up him <em>and</em> a second round pick for Järnkrok, who'd basically fill the same role as him but for more money and is almost a decade older, and Timmins, a guy who struggles to stay healthy and even when he is struggles to crack a lineup and would likely be a 7th defenseman in Seattle.

2. Holmberg has proven to be a useful bottom six center, but he's not worth a first round pick in a trade right now. Given their cap issues the Leafs would probably be better served holding onto him and his $800K cap hit.

3. Liljegren has shown flashes of top four ability, but too often his inconsistencies push him down the lineup to where he's playing a bottom six role. He's not getting the 7th overall pick and a high second rounder in a trade. I'd say he's more of a second round asset at the moment.

4. Not sure why you'd sign Jones only to turn around and trade him. Also not sure why Tampa or any other team would trade a second rounder for Jones when they could just sign him as a free agent.

5. I don't see Kämpf fetching anywhere close to a second rounder plus in a trade. There are many free agents available every year who can do what he does but cheaper, so any team looking for bottom six center help could just sign someone and not give up assets for Kämpf.

Overall I think you've severely overestimated the value of Toronto's depth players. It's alright though, I'm sure many of us, myself included, have done similar things on our early posts. I'd encourage you to keep working on your ideas, ACGMs can be a useful tool and are here for a reason.
Forum: Armchair-GMJun. 4 at 9:45 p.m.
Thread: Sabres
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>rktkt66</b></div><div>Agreed - I think the most plausible way to reunite with Borgen is if Jokiharju's RFA rights go back. They're comparable ages, both have seen top 4 minutes and Kraken AGM Botterill like Jokiharju enough to trade for him when he was the Buffalo GM. The question is if the Kraken would value the physicality that Borgen offers more or less than the skill in transition that Jokiharju has. Bylsma always wanted a mobile defense so his arrival may mean a change of system that Borgen isn't as good a fit for as he was under Hakstol.</div></div>

I've seen that swap floated, and to me trading Borgen for Jokiharju doesn't really make a lot of sense for Seattle either. Borgen's a key contributor to the Kraken's penalty kill, and that's something Jokiharju can't really replace given his lack of contributions on either special teams unit. Bylsma has also stated that he's not going to change much tactically, so I don't see Borgen being adversely affected at all by his hiring.
Forum: Armchair-GMJun. 3 at 11:53 a.m.
Thread: Competitive for 1 more year before going all in
That's going to be a very quick no from Seattle. The package on offer wouldn't entice the Kraken to trade Larsson alone, let alone retained and with Daccord as well. Seattle doesn't need Järnkrok when they already have a plethora of depth forwards who can do what he does, Petruzelli is looking like an AHL depth goalie at best, and the fourth rounder is what it is. None of those pieces are really anything more than tertiary assets/throw-ins. Liljegren's the only part of the package with meaningful value, and even then I see him as a quality secondary piece due to his inconsistencies pushing him down the lineup to a bottom pairing role. A package for Larsson would require a true headliner.

That doesn't even get into Daccord, who holds more value to the Kraken than other teams would realistically give up for him, or the fact that Seattle is aiming to return to the postseason next year, with Larsson and Daccord being critical to that effort. The Kraken would have a very hard time replacing either of them, and for that reason I don't see Larsson or Daccord going anywhere this offseason.
Forum: Armchair-GMJun. 3 at 1:02 a.m.
Thread: Saw this trade on a ACGM
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>shucket</b></div><div>This is equivalent to the 1st round pick they’ll get when they trade him at the deadline next year. Liljegren takes his spot and is younger which Seattle needs and adds a potential top 6 guy in Robertson with 30 goal potential. Think this is more than fair

I think they take it and run tbh</div></div>

I view Liljegren and Robertson at this point as high quality secondary pieces. Robertson still has good upside but there's a lot of downside as well. If he can't hack it in a top six, his play style isn't really conducive to a bottom six role. He also has a lengthy injury history. Liljegren has showed occasional flashes of top-four ability, but too often his inconsistencies relegate him to a bottom pairing role. To me they are both quality secondary pieces, and a package for Larsson would require replacing one of them with a true centerpiece asset.

I highly doubt Seattle is trading Larsson anyway, at least this offseason. They're gunning for a return to the playoffs and he's too important to the team to lose. The Kraken don't really have anyone who can immediately step in and replace all he provides right now.
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 30 at 1:31 a.m.
Thread: Couple of Ideas
Seattle is gunning for a return to the playoffs next season, and given how critical Larsson is to the team and the difficulty they'd have replacing him, I doubt the Kraken are going to seriously entertain trading him anytime soon. This offer wouldn't motivate them anyway. The total value isn't bad in my opinion, but I think a plausible trade package would need more quality, less quantity.

FWIW Seattle's top goalie prospect is Niklas Kokko, who will likely be part of Coachella Valley's AHL tandem next season. Kokko isn't an Askarov level prospect, but he's quite good and has exceeded his draft status. He's probably in a similar tier as Bjarnason right now, but I'd put Kokko a notch higher just because he's closer to being NHL ready than Bjarnason and still putting up strong numbers, and goalie prospects can be quite volatile and have a longer development curve.