SalarySwishSalarySwish
Forums/Armchair-GM

Zuccarello

Created by: Richard88
Team: 2020-21 Colorado Avalanche
Initial Creation Date: Jul. 21, 2020
Published: Jul. 21, 2020
Salary Cap Mode: Basic
Description
Minnesota want to get out of a bad contract and need a center, whilst Colorado need a top 6 forward and Jost is surplus. Zuccarello would be a decent fit on Avs 2nd line.

Zuccarello's contract is fairly risky for Colorado to take on given that it runs 1 year beyond Mackinnon's raise, at which stage Zuccarello will be 35, so Minnesota would need to retain a bit to make it workable and lessen the risk involved from Colorado's perspective.
Free Agent Signings
RFAYEARSCAP HIT
4$4,850,000
3$2,750,000
2$2,250,000
1$875,000
Trades
1.
COL
  1. Zuccarello, Mats ($2,000,000 retained)
MIN
  1. Jost, Tyson [RFA Rights]
2.
COL
  1. 2020 2nd round pick (FLA)
  2. 2021 3rd round pick (FLA)
FLA
  1. Zadorov, Nikita [RFA Rights]
3.
COL
  1. 2021 4th round pick (ARI)
ARI
  1. Kamenev, Vladislav [RFA Rights]
DraftRound 1Round 2Round 3Round 4Round 5Round 6Round 7
2020
Logo of the COL
Logo of the FLA
Logo of the TOR
Logo of the COL
Logo of the COL
Logo of the FLA
Logo of the COL
2021
Logo of the COL
Logo of the COL
Logo of the COL
Logo of the FLA
Logo of the ARI
Logo of the COL
Logo of the COL
Logo of the COL
2022
Logo of the COL
Logo of the COL
Logo of the COL
Logo of the COL
Logo of the COL
Logo of the COL
Logo of the COL
ROSTER SIZESALARY CAPCAP HITOVERAGES TooltipBONUSESCAP SPACE
22$81,500,000$75,743,095$0$5,425,000$5,756,905

Roster

Left WingCentreRight Wing
Logo of the Colorado Avalanche
$5,571,429$5,571,429
LW, C
M-NTC
UFA - 1
Logo of the Colorado Avalanche
$6,300,000$6,300,000
C
M-NTC
UFA - 3
Logo of the Colorado Avalanche
$9,250,000$9,250,000
RW, C
UFA - 5
Logo of the Colorado Avalanche
$4,850,000$4,850,000
RW, LW
UFA - 2
Logo of the Colorado Avalanche
$4,500,000$4,500,000
C
M-NTC
UFA - 2
Logo of the Minnesota Wild
$4,000,000$4,000,000
RW, LW
NMC
UFA - 4
Logo of the Colorado Avalanche
$2,250,000$2,250,000
RW, LW
UFA - 2
Logo of the Colorado Avalanche
$3,500,000$3,500,000
C, RW
UFA - 3
Logo of the Colorado Avalanche
$3,900,000$3,900,000
RW
UFA - 3
Logo of the Colorado Avalanche
$2,850,000$2,850,000
LW, RW
UFA - 1
Logo of the Colorado Avalanche
$1,800,000$1,800,000
C, LW
UFA - 1
Logo of the Colorado Avalanche
$863,333$863,333 (Performance Bonus$425,000$425K)
RW
RFA - 3
Logo of the Colorado Avalanche
$875,000$875,000
RW, LW
UFA - 2
Left DefenseRight DefenseGoaltender
Logo of the Colorado Avalanche
$2,750,000$2,750,000
LD
UFA - 3
Logo of the Colorado Avalanche
$880,833$880,833 (Performance Bonus$2,500,000$2M)
RD
UFA - 1
Logo of the Colorado Avalanche
$3,333,333$3,333,333
G
UFA - 1
Logo of the Colorado Avalanche
$5,000,000$5,000,000
LD/RD
UFA - 7
Logo of the Colorado Avalanche
$925,000$925,000
RD
RFA - 1
Logo of the Colorado Avalanche
$2,000,000$2,000,000
G
UFA - 2
Logo of the Colorado Avalanche
$894,167$894,167 (Performance Bonus$2,500,000$2M)
LD/RD
RFA - 3
Logo of the Colorado Avalanche
$6,000,000$6,000,000
RD
M-NTC, NMC
UFA - 3
Logo of the Colorado Avalanche
$3,450,000$3,450,000
LD/RD
UFA - 1
ScratchesInjured Reserve (IR)Long Term IR (LTIR)
Logo of the Colorado Avalanche
$925,000$925,000 (Performance Bonus$150,000$150K)
C
RFA - 2
Logo of the Colorado Avalanche
$842,500$842,500 (Performance Bonus$57,500$58K)
G
UFA - 1

Embed Code

  • To display this team on another website or blog, add this iFrame to the appropriate page
  • Customize the height attribute in the iFrame code below to fit your website appropriately. Minimum recommended: 400px.

Text-Embed

Click to Highlight
Jul. 21, 2020 at 10:11 a.m.
#1
TAVARES IS A LEAF
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2020
Posts: 659
Likes: 175
Minnesota kisses your feet, sends you flower baskets for the next decade, and let Sakic father their damn children.
MNBassman liked this.
Jul. 21, 2020 at 10:12 a.m.
#2
HutsonNorlinderGuhle
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2020
Posts: 2,768
Likes: 1,377
I also think Zuc would be good on the Avs. Might be a bit of an overpay for FLA, though
Jul. 21, 2020 at 10:14 a.m.
#3
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jan. 2020
Posts: 4,423
Likes: 1,457
I think Bill would be running faster than Anakin and Obi wan swinging their lightsabres
Jul. 21, 2020 at 10:16 a.m.
#4
retired
Avatar of the user
Joined: Apr. 2020
Posts: 8,893
Likes: 4,761
would have loved the avs getting him in free agency but the wild handed him that awful contract so it's a no go now.
Jul. 21, 2020 at 10:17 a.m.
#5
Avatar of the user
Joined: Oct. 2019
Posts: 443
Likes: 191
Id rather have jost
Jul. 21, 2020 at 10:23 a.m.
#6
Thread Starter
John 3 16
Avatar of the user
Joined: Apr. 2020
Posts: 9,584
Likes: 4,618
Quoting: Foreskin_Gump
Minnesota kisses your feet, sends you flower baskets for the next decade, and let Sakic father their damn children.


Quoting: keep_ups12
I think Bill would be running faster than Anakin and Obi wan swinging their lightsabres


Has Zuccarello's stock really fallen that hard after just one bad season on a bad team? He's only 12 months removed from putting up 14 points in 15 games for Dallas in the regular season and playoffs (11 in 13 in the playoffs as Dallas' best player).

Despite the bad season he's still pacing for 46.6 points in 82 games which isn't THAT bad. The only thing that makes it bad is his caphit, but if Colorado could get him at $4m it would actually not be bad value. The only problem I could see would be the term, but at $4m it shouldn't be too difficult to move him if needed in 2023 when he'll only have 1 year remaining.
Jul. 21, 2020 at 10:26 a.m.
#7
Thread Starter
John 3 16
Avatar of the user
Joined: Apr. 2020
Posts: 9,584
Likes: 4,618
Quoting: DirtyDangle
would have loved the avs getting him in free agency but the wild handed him that awful contract so it's a no go now.

With $2m retention doesn't that make the contract manageable?

I mean, I'm sure we would have gladly signed Zuccarello to a $4m x 5 year contract last season if it had been possible. The 5th year isn't ideal, but it wouldn't be impossible to move him in 2023 if needed. And there's also the potential that he could rediscover his best form while playing on a good team again, in which case $4m could prove to be a steal if he can keep up 50+ point pace for the next 3 years.

For the record I'm not trying to promote this trade as the best alternative. I'm just trying to gauge value and explore if this could be a legitimately good option.
Jul. 21, 2020 at 10:27 a.m.
#8
TAVARES IS A LEAF
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2020
Posts: 659
Likes: 175
Quoting: Richard88
Has Zuccarello's stock really fallen that hard after just one bad season on a bad team? He's only 12 months removed from putting up 14 points in 15 games for Dallas in the regular season and playoffs (11 in 13 in the playoffs as Dallas' best player).

Despite the bad season he's still pacing for 46.6 points in 82 games which isn't THAT bad. The only thing that makes it bad is his caphit, but if Colorado could get him at $4m it would actually not be bad value. The only problem I could see would be the term, but at $4m it shouldn't be too difficult to move him if needed in 2023 when he'll only have 1 year remaining.


Go for Rakell. Zuccarello is already cooked and his money and term are not good for your team.
Jul. 21, 2020 at 10:27 a.m.
#9
Thread Starter
John 3 16
Avatar of the user
Joined: Apr. 2020
Posts: 9,584
Likes: 4,618
Quoting: HabsFan9
I also think Zuc would be good on the Avs. Might be a bit of an overpay for FLA, though


What do you feel about the price in this trade to get Jost? I figure that Minnesota would probably want some sort of decent asset coming back if they trade Zuccarello with this much retention, and Jost makes sense given that he's likely surplus to Colorado regardless.
Jul. 21, 2020 at 10:29 a.m.
#10
Thread Starter
John 3 16
Avatar of the user
Joined: Apr. 2020
Posts: 9,584
Likes: 4,618
Quoting: Foreskin_Gump
Go for Rakell. Zuccarello is already cooked and his money and term are not good for your team.


Rakell would be sweet, but not at the price that gets bandied about (eg. Timmins + 1st). That said, if we could get Rakell for 2021 1st + a prospect not named Byram/Newhook/Timmins I'd be in favour of it. 2021 1st + Kaut would be a pretty solid offer I think.
Jul. 21, 2020 at 10:29 a.m.
#11
TAVARES IS A LEAF
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2020
Posts: 659
Likes: 175
Quoting: Richard88
Rakell would be sweet, but not at the price that gets bandied about (eg. Timmins + 1st). That said, if we could get Rakell for 2021 1st + a prospect not named Byram/Newhook/Timmins I'd be in favour of it. 2021 1st + Kaut would be a pretty solid offer I think.

Check my recent ACGM tell me what you think
Richard88 liked this.
Jul. 21, 2020 at 10:35 a.m.
#12
retired
Avatar of the user
Joined: Apr. 2020
Posts: 8,893
Likes: 4,761
Quoting: Richard88
With $2m retention doesn't that make the contract manageable?

I mean, I'm sure we would have gladly signed Zuccarello to a $4m x 5 year contract last season if it had been possible. The 5th year isn't ideal, but it wouldn't be impossible to move him in 2023 if needed. And there's also the potential that he could rediscover his best form while playing on a good team again, in which case $4m could prove to be a steal if he can keep up 50+ point pace for the next 3 years.

For the record I'm not trying to promote this trade as the best alternative. I'm just trying to gauge value and explore if this could be a legitimately good option.


it's not just the cap hit. he's signed until he's 36. he has full or partial nmc/ntc protection in various years. his contract is also back loaded so be gets $7.5m in 2021-22 and 22-23. with retention that's still $5.5m.
i think the avs would be better off signing someone like haula or namestnikov for that price or even trade for someone like rakell or anderson.
Richard88 liked this.
Jul. 21, 2020 at 10:40 a.m.
#13
Thread Starter
John 3 16
Avatar of the user
Joined: Apr. 2020
Posts: 9,584
Likes: 4,618
Quoting: DirtyDangle
it's not just the cap hit. he's signed until he's 36. he has full or partial nmc/ntc protection in various years. his contract is also back loaded so be gets $7.5m in 2021-22 and 22-23. with retention that's still $5.5m.
i think the avs would be better off signing someone like haula or namestnikov for that price or even trade for someone like rakell or anderson.


Good point on the back loading, I hadn't noticed that. Just makes the contract even worse for Minnesota. And yes a 32 it's probably not ideal for a young team like Colorado to be adding him. It's the sort of risk I don't envisage Sakic taking, particularly when there are other options available via trade as you said.
Jul. 21, 2020 at 10:51 a.m.
#14
HutsonNorlinderGuhle
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2020
Posts: 2,768
Likes: 1,377
Quoting: Richard88
What do you feel about the price in this trade to get Jost? I figure that Minnesota would probably want some sort of decent asset coming back if they trade Zuccarello with this much retention, and Jost makes sense given that he's likely surplus to Colorado regardless.


Jost is about right, since Zuc is on the decline and Jost doesn’t have amazing potential. I also don’t think he has a future in Colorado
Richard88 liked this.
Jul. 21, 2020 at 11:47 a.m.
#15
Avatar of the user
Joined: Apr. 2020
Posts: 3,649
Likes: 3,497
Not my favorite but also not the worst. If they go the route of an inexpensive vet then Killorn makes more sense to me. Too much risk with Zuc.
Jul. 21, 2020 at 12:01 p.m.
#16
Thread Starter
John 3 16
Avatar of the user
Joined: Apr. 2020
Posts: 9,584
Likes: 4,618
Quoting: SuckMyAvs
Not my favorite but also not the worst. If they go the route of an inexpensive vet then Killorn makes more sense to me. Too much risk with Zuc.


I agree, not my favourite either. But I thought it would be interesting to gauge value here.

Minnesota might need to add some more retention here, or another asset. From Colorado's perspective I'd even be tempted to add a pick to get some extra retention if possible. Zuccarello at like $3.5m could be a steal if he reverts back to his NYR/DAL form. And at that cap hit it shouldn't cost too much to dump him if needed later on (like in 2023).
Jul. 21, 2020 at 1:19 p.m.
#17
hey look a squirrel
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 6,128
Likes: 3,797
@tansor @mnbassman

Hip hop horray?
TanSor and OutCold13 liked this.
Jul. 21, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.
#18
Hockey Fan13
Avatar of the user
Joined: Oct. 2019
Posts: 3,971
Likes: 2,514
I get the logic behind this trade, as a Wild fan I think it's too good to be true. Zuccarello would probably have a nice bounce back with the Avs. Wild would have to get creative to make it more appealing to the Avs.
Jul. 21, 2020 at 2:21 p.m.
#19
Thread Starter
John 3 16
Avatar of the user
Joined: Apr. 2020
Posts: 9,584
Likes: 4,618
Quoting: Paul13
I get the logic behind this trade, as a Wild fan I think it's too good to be true. Zuccarello would probably have a nice bounce back with the Avs. Wild would have to get creative to make it more appealing to the Avs.


Thanks for your feedback.

I think I underestimated how low Zuccarello's value is when making this AGM. Colorado should probably push for an extra pick to be included from Minnesota, or to have more retention. I wouldn't be opposed to trading a pick to maximise the retention as well.

What do you think of one of these two options?

1) Zuccarello ($2m retained) + MIN 2021 3rd for Jost

2) Zuccarello ($3m retained) for Jost + COL 2020 4th

I guess from Minnesota's perspective they would have a severely limited market due to the NMC, so Colorado would have all the leverage (assuming that Zuccarello would waive to move to a contender like Colorado).
OutCold13 liked this.
Jul. 21, 2020 at 2:40 p.m.
#20
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2020
Posts: 4,528
Likes: 3,194
Quoting: Richard88
Thanks for your feedback.

I think I underestimated how low Zuccarello's value is when making this AGM. Colorado should probably push for an extra pick to be included from Minnesota, or to have more retention. I wouldn't be opposed to trading a pick to maximise the retention as well.

What do you think of one of these two options?

1) Zuccarello ($2m retained) + MIN 2021 3rd for Jost

2) Zuccarello ($3m retained) for Jost + COL 2020 4th

I guess from Minnesota's perspective they would have a severely limited market due to the NMC, so Colorado would have all the leverage (assuming that Zuccarello would waive to move to a contender like Colorado).


I think the limit we'd accept on retention is $2M. Frankly $3M is too much, maybe we go up to $2.5M instead? Also since Jost would be coming back in the trade, I think asking for our 21' 3rd might be too much. I don't know any GM that likes going back to back years without a 3rd rounder.

So how's this for a counter offer...

Ave's get Zuccarello($2.5M retained), 2021 4th round pick (MIN).

Wild get Jost, 2020 5th rounder (Col).

Thoughts?
OutCold13 liked this.
Jul. 21, 2020 at 2:56 p.m.
#21
Hockey Fan13
Avatar of the user
Joined: Oct. 2019
Posts: 3,971
Likes: 2,514
Quoting: Richard88
Thanks for your feedback.

I think I underestimated how low Zuccarello's value is when making this AGM. Colorado should probably push for an extra pick to be included from Minnesota, or to have more retention. I wouldn't be opposed to trading a pick to maximise the retention as well.

What do you think of one of these two options?

1) Zuccarello ($2m retained) + MIN 2021 3rd for Jost

2) Zuccarello ($3m retained) for Jost + COL 2020 4th

I guess from Minnesota's perspective they would have a severely limited market due to the NMC, so Colorado would have all the leverage (assuming that Zuccarello would waive to move to a contender like Colorado).


I would think 3 mil retention is too much. I think the 2 mil retention is a the better deal and I guess I also like the the idea by @RazWild. Some combination of that is probably a good deal for both teams.
Jul. 21, 2020 at 3:24 p.m.
#22
Thread Starter
John 3 16
Avatar of the user
Joined: Apr. 2020
Posts: 9,584
Likes: 4,618
Quoting: RazWild
I think the limit we'd accept on retention is $2M. Frankly $3M is too much, maybe we go up to $2.5M instead? Also since Jost would be coming back in the trade, I think asking for our 21' 3rd might be too much. I don't know any GM that likes going back to back years without a 3rd rounder.

So how's this for a counter offer...

Ave's get Zuccarello($2.5M retained), 2021 4th round pick (MIN).

Wild get Jost, 2020 5th rounder (Col).

Thoughts?

Quoting: Paul13
I would think 3 mil retention is too much. I think the 2 mil retention is a the better deal and I guess I also like the the idea by @RazWild. Some combination of that is probably a good deal for both teams.


@RazWild The way the bold part is worded sounds like you think Jost is a negative asset which just seems odd. Jost is 10 years younger than Zuccarello and will be really cheap to resign this offseason and also has untapped upside, so I don't think asking for a 3rd in addition to retention is too much. Jost is valued at about a 2nd + 3rd, so that would effectively make Zuccarello worth a 2nd which seems reasonable under the circumstances of him being something of a cap dump and having a NMC (extremely limited trade market).

I do like your counter-offer though. The extra $500k retention would be worth losing the 3rd for, as it would give us an extra bit of roster flexibility from 2021 until 2024 when capspace will be a premium for us. Maybe downgrade our 5th to a 6th or 7th but that's just splitting hairs really. Zuccarello at $3.5m would be pretty good value, and that extra bit of retention would mean that he'd be that much easier to flip if needed.

To be brutally honest though I don't think Sakic would make this trade even with the retention, as he'll be more keen to use capspace and assets on players who fit the age range of the core a bit better than Zuccarello does, since he'll be 32-36 during the length of this contract. We're also going to be kinda spoiled for choice in the trade and UFA market as one of the only contenders with capspace, and so I think Sakic is going to go for more of a sure thing rather than a player on the decline.
RazWild liked this.
Jul. 21, 2020 at 3:39 p.m.
#23
RETIRED
Avatar of the user
Joined: Apr. 2019
Posts: 4,846
Likes: 2,482
Quoting: HabsFan9
Jost is about right, since Zuc is on the decline and Jost doesn’t have amazing potential. I also don’t think he has a future in Colorado


The trade value is about fair but there’s better options out there than Zucc
Richard88 liked this.
Jul. 21, 2020 at 3:58 p.m.
#24
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2020
Posts: 4,528
Likes: 3,194
Quoting: Richard88
@RazWild The way the bold part is worded sounds like you think Jost is a negative asset which just seems odd. Jost is 10 years younger than Zuccarello and will be really cheap to resign this offseason and also has untapped upside, so I don't think asking for a 3rd in addition to retention is too much. Jost is valued at about a 2nd + 3rd, so that would effectively make Zuccarello worth a 2nd which seems reasonable under the circumstances of him being something of a cap dump and having a NMC (extremely limited trade market).

I do like your counter-offer though. The extra $500k retention would be worth losing the 3rd for, as it would give us an extra bit of roster flexibility from 2021 until 2024 when capspace will be a premium for us. Maybe downgrade our 5th to a 6th or 7th but that's just splitting hairs really. Zuccarello at $3.5m would be pretty good value, and that extra bit of retention would mean that he'd be that much easier to flip if needed.

To be brutally honest though I don't think Sakic would make this trade even with the retention, as he'll be more keen to use capspace and assets on players who fit the age range of the core a bit better than Zuccarello does, since he'll be 32-36 during the length of this contract. We're also going to be kinda spoiled for choice in the trade and UFA market as one of the only contenders with capspace, and so I think Sakic is going to go for more of a sure thing rather than a player on the decline.


Not at all. Taken separately, you'd be right. But it was meant to be taken in conjunction with taking on the extra retention on our part. Without it, then I'd agree on the 3rd, not that I'd like it much.

Hell, if it meant moving Zuccarello I'd take that 6th instead of the 5th.

All that said, you're probably right about Sakic. Still, it's fun to dream and ultimately nice to talk to someone reasonable and interested enough to explore the possibility of it.
Jul. 21, 2020 at 4:10 p.m.
#25
Thread Starter
John 3 16
Avatar of the user
Joined: Apr. 2020
Posts: 9,584
Likes: 4,618
Quoting: RazWild
Not at all. Taken separately, you'd be right. But it was meant to be taken in conjunction with taking on the extra retention on our part. Without it, then I'd agree on the 3rd, not that I'd like it much.

Hell, if it meant moving Zuccarello I'd take that 6th instead of the 5th.

All that said, you're probably right about Sakic. Still, it's fun to dream and ultimately nice to talk to someone reasonable and interested enough to explore the possibility of it.


Thanks for clarifying, much appreciated. And thanks to you also for the discussion, I too find it enjoyable to have a reasonable discussion relating to player value, and I'm grateful for the thought and time you've put into this discussion, much appreciated!

Zuccarello ($2.5m retained) + MIN 2021 4th for Jost + COL 2021 6th has the looks of a trade that could be convenient for both teams, and I will keep this trade discussion in mind going forward for future AGM's.

That said, it would most likely be a "circle-back" option for a GM after exploring UFA and other trade avenues involving younger forwards. Colorado has a lot of assets and capspace so we don't necessarily have to go the bargain route which this would be to a large extent.
RazWild liked this.
 
Reply
To create a post please Login or Register
Question:
Options:
Add Option
Submit Poll