SalarySwishSalarySwish
Forums/Armchair-GM

Based on latest rumor Leafs

Created by: ChiHawk
Team: 2021-22 Chicago Blackhawks
Initial Creation Date: Mar. 8, 2022
Published: Mar. 8, 2022
Salary Cap Mode: Basic
Description
Due to Campbell not playing well since Jan 1st, apparently the Leafs are rumored to be talking to Chicago about Flowers and Hagel. It's going to take a haul to get them both, but I'd imagine this proposal can get Chicago to listen.
Trades
1.
CHI
  1. Mrázek, Petr
  2. Robertson, Nicholas
  3. 2022 1st round pick (TOR)
  4. 2023 1st round pick (TOR)
TOR
  1. Fleury, Marc-André ($3,500,000 retained)
  2. Hagel, Brandon
2.
CHI
  1. 2023 3rd round pick (EDM)
EDM
  1. Mrázek, Petr ($1,000,000 retained)
Additional Details:
If the Leafs trade were to happen, hopefully Chicago can flip Mrazek at the TDL or in the offseason
3.
CHI
  1. 2022 2nd round pick (STL)
4.
CHI
  1. 2022 2nd round pick (CAR)
Additional Details:
Doesn't have to be Carolina but Hawks looking for a 2nd for Kubs
Retained Salary Transactions
Buried
DraftRound 1Round 2Round 3Round 4Round 5Round 6Round 7
2022
Logo of the TOR
Logo of the CHI
Logo of the STL
Logo of the CAR
Logo of the EDM
Logo of the TOR
Logo of the VGK
Logo of the CHI
Logo of the CHI
Logo of the CBJ
Logo of the CHI
2023
Logo of the CHI
Logo of the TOR
Logo of the CHI
Logo of the TBL
Logo of the CHI
Logo of the EDM
Logo of the CHI
Logo of the CHI
Logo of the CHI
Logo of the CHI
2024
Logo of the CHI
Logo of the CHI
Logo of the CHI
Logo of the CHI
Logo of the CHI
Logo of the CHI
Logo of the CHI
ROSTER SIZESALARY CAPCAP HITOVERAGES TooltipBONUSESCAP SPACE
19$81,500,000$56,778,381$452,439$2,565,000$24,721,619
Left WingCentreRight Wing
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$6,400,000$6,400,000
LW, RW
UFA - 2
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$10,500,000$10,500,000
C
NMC
UFA - 2
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$2,625,000$2,625,000
RW
NMC
UFA - 2
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$3,000,000$3,000,000
C
UFA - 1
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$5,000,000$5,000,000
RW, C, LW
M-NTC
UFA - 3
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$1,000,000$1,000,000
C
RFA - 2
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$1,000,000$1,000,000
RW, C
UFA - 1
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$842,500$842,500 (Performance Bonus$32,500$32K)
LW, C, RW
RFA - 1
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$925,000$925,000 (Performance Bonus$2,500,000$2M)
C, RW
RFA - 1
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$811,667$811,667 (Performance Bonus$32,500$32K)
LW, C
RFA - 1
Logo of the Toronto Maple Leafs
$796,667$796,667
LW, RW
RFA - 3
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$750,000$750,000
RW, C, LW
UFA - 1
Left DefenseRight DefenseGoaltender
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$5,400,000$5,400,000
RD
M-NTC
UFA - 1
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$2,000,000$2,000,000
LD/RD
M-NTC
UFA - 4
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$3,850,000$3,850,000
RD
UFA - 1
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$800,000$800,000
G
UFA - 1
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$1,350,000$1,350,000
LD
RFA - 3
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$850,000$850,000
LD/RD
UFA - 1
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$800,000$800,000
LD
UFA - 1
ScratchesInjured Reserve (IR)Long Term IR (LTIR)
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$3,900,000$3,900,000
C, RW
UFA - 1
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$975,000$975,000
LW, C
UFA - 2
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$880,833$880,833
RW, C
RFA - 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
Mar. 8, 2022 at 1:08 p.m.
#51
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 19,108
Likes: 4,974
Quoting: dannibalcorpse
Just wanted to focus on this point, I think the reason Mrazek's value is being questioned is because he's basically a backup at this point in his career (mayyyybe a 1B on a lottery team) who got a starter's contract. In the Chicago trade here, he doesn't add much value for the Hawks besides being a warm body to share the crease with Lankinen, while Toronto benefits from getting 2 more years $3.8M getting off their books. He's also going to be hard to dump on a team like Arizona because his contract is backloaded on actual salary ($2.8/4.2/4.4M is the 3 year breakdown on his actual dollars)


He's a 1A, and was a 1A on a contender until this most recent summer. Yes, Nedeljkovic emerged in his absence, but he's a capable goaltender. The fact that BOTH toronto goalies are faltering suggests it's not a goalie issue. It's a team defense issue. He's not been good this year, sure. But to say he isn't a 1A when he's played like 30 games total in the last 2 years is a little short sighted.
Mar. 8, 2022 at 1:26 p.m.
#52
we miss leo k
Avatar of the user
Joined: Feb. 2018
Posts: 5,961
Likes: 5,094
Quoting: Caniac2000
He's a 1A, and was a 1A on a contender until this most recent summer. Yes, Nedeljkovic emerged in his absence, but he's a capable goaltender. The fact that BOTH toronto goalies are faltering suggests it's not a goalie issue. It's a team defense issue. He's not been good this year, sure. But to say he isn't a 1A when he's played like 30 games total in the last 2 years is a little short sighted.


Highlighting that one specific part to also add to the point as to why I think it's hard to call him a 1A - he's hurt all the time. He's missed significant time in each of the past 2 seasons - it's hard to call a guy who's started 25 out of his last 112 games a reliable 1A option. I know you can't specifically blame him for it the way you might for bad play, but it has to come into the equation - any team acquiring him is getting 2 more years @ $3.8M for a guy who has missed significant chunks of time in each of the last two seasons.

Furthermore, his play when he has been healthy hasn't been that good - going back to 2016-17, he has a .905 SV%, 2.79 GAA, and -30.8 GSAA - and that includes his one good "full" season in 2018-19 (2.39, .914, 4.5 GSAA) and what he did when he was actually healthy last year (12 games, 2.06, .923, 4.5 GSAA). That's 52 games of above average goaltending in 5 seasons (192 games total) - would you want to pay that guy $3.8M for 2 more seasons after this to start for your team?
ChiHawk liked this.
Mar. 8, 2022 at 2:00 p.m.
#53
Avatar of the user
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 19,108
Likes: 4,974
Quoting: dannibalcorpse
Highlighting that one specific part to also add to the point as to why I think it's hard to call him a 1A - he's hurt all the time. He's missed significant time in each of the past 2 seasons - it's hard to call a guy who's started 25 out of his last 112 games a reliable 1A option. I know you can't specifically blame him for it the way you might for bad play, but it has to come into the equation - any team acquiring him is getting 2 more years $3.8M for a guy who has missed significant chunks of time in each of the last two seasons.

Furthermore, his play when he has been healthy hasn't been that good - going back to 2016-17, he has a .905 SV%, 2.79 GAA, and -30.8 GSAA - and that includes his one good "full" season in 2018-19 (2.39, .914, 4.5 GSAA) and what he did when he was actually healthy last year (12 games, 2.06, .923, 4.5 GSAA). That's 52 games of above average goaltending in 5 seasons (192 games total) - would you want to pay that guy $3.8M for 2 more seasons after this to start for your team?


To say he's hurt all the time and only highlights the last 2 years seems a little like an oxymoron. He spent the majority of his time in Raleigh healthy. He would have started more last year if it wasn't a condensed season. You can't blame him for being run into and breaking his thumb in Raleigh. I don't know how he sustained the injury in Toronto, but the injuries aren't something a player controls. If you want to point to a goalie with injury issues consistently, Raanta is the prime example.

You go back to 16-17, where he was on garbage Detroit teams and on a shoddy Flyers roster. There's a balance for how far back is ideal, and normally that's around 3 years. I get you might want the extra time because they've been shortened years and he's sustained injuries, but... are you better at your job now than you were 5 years ago? A lot changes when it's been that long
Mar. 8, 2022 at 2:25 p.m.
#54
we miss leo k
Avatar of the user
Joined: Feb. 2018
Posts: 5,961
Likes: 5,094
Quoting: Caniac2000
To say he's hurt all the time and only highlights the last 2 years seems a little like an oxymoron. He spent the majority of his time in Raleigh healthy. He would have started more last year if it wasn't a condensed season. You can't blame him for being run into and breaking his thumb in Raleigh. I don't know how he sustained the injury in Toronto, but the injuries aren't something a player controls. If you want to point to a goalie with injury issues consistently, Raanta is the prime example.

You go back to 16-17, where he was on garbage Detroit teams and on a shoddy Flyers roster. There's a balance for how far back is ideal, and normally that's around 3 years. I get you might want the extra time because they've been shortened years and he's sustained injuries, but... are you better at your job now than you were 5 years ago? A lot changes when it's been that long


True, I went back that far because it was the last year he was a full-time starter in Detroit and it gets you ~200 games to draw data from. If you want to look at the last 3 years, it's pretty similar (.904, 2.70, -7.9 GSAA in 67 games, including his 12 game heater last year.)

Raanta is actually a fairly good name to bring up as a comparison, too - he's actually played almost as many games in the past 3 seasons as Mrazek (61 vs. 67) despite his "[consistent] injury issues". He's actually got comparable/better numbers than what Mrazek has put up - .915, 2.79, 11.9 GSAA, with that GAA getting a little skewed playing behind a pretty bad Arizona team last year. He's also only getting paid $2M this year and next, while Mrazek's cap hit is nearly double that for 2 more seasons after this.

None of this is necessarily saying Mrazek is a terrible goalie or anything like that, just that he's being paid like a starter while not really playing up to that level, and that should be reflected in his trade value.
ChiHawk liked this.
Mar. 8, 2022 at 2:30 p.m.
#55
Avatar of the user
Joined: Mar. 2017
Posts: 23,753
Likes: 7,634
Edmonton declines.
Mar. 8, 2022 at 3:09 p.m.
#56
Thread Starter
Avatar of the user
Joined: Apr. 2017
Posts: 18,913
Likes: 9,201
Quoting: CD282
Edmonton declines.


I would too! Mrazek for that cap hit sucks
CD282 liked this.
 
Reply
To create a post please Login or Register
Question:
Options:
Add Option
Submit Poll