SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

BigShoots

Big Shoots
Member Since
Sep. 17, 2020
Favourite Team
Vancouver Canucks
Forum Posts
3570
Posts per Day
2.7
Forum: Armchair-GMFeb. 2 at 11:58 a.m.
Forum: Armchair-GMJan. 30 at 9:51 p.m.
Thread: Deadline
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Garak</b></div><div>It's your reasoning that is weird. Where CHI is concerned, there is no middle ground here. Either VAN needs to move him to open up some cap, in which case he is a dump and CHI could be interested, or he is a valuable long term asset, which CHI isn't buying on. And I said a 3rd is the max CHI should spend, meaning it is still too much but possibly doable. Personally, I wouldn't do it, though. Either way, it seems like VAN is the one who needs to move his cap hit, and he is not playing well, and CHI are not buyers. So, if CHI is involved, he is a cap dump.

If you want to sell him, sell him to another team. If you want to dump him, we can probably work something out.</div></div>

You created a false choice. What I'm saying is Chicago should be looking to weaponize their cap space. Not just willy nilly to help teams but to gain assets. In this case the player is coming off of a very productive season. His only season in the league and is struggling. The idea he could get back to a 1st line winger level doesn't seem far fetched. And if he does do well you can turn him into more assets. The cost of doing so is very minimal. And in the mean time the team gets a player who will finish off some of Bedard's outrageous plays and potentially keep his confidence high. I don't see the downside.
Forum: Armchair-GMJan. 30 at 7:34 p.m.
Thread: Deadline
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Garak</b></div><div>Dude, no, we don't. We have created a competitive environment that will get better over time as more talent is added to CHI's roster through development and free agency, and MAYBE trades years down the road for players that actually project as long term pieces.

The goal is always to win. Adding a floundering player with a large cap hit that would not be part of CHI's future plans does nothing to help create a "winning environment". We aren't buying your guy. But if you are ready to move on from him, I'm sure we could work something out. Beauvillier and Dickinson are the kind of comps you should be considering for a Kumenko deal. You aren't going to get what you could've gotten for him last year, and if he were still playing that way VAN wouldn't even consider selling him in the first place.</div></div>

Literally said he isn't worth much. We'd probably take a 3rd. You acted like you'd be hard done by to do that type of a deal when it is a deal that has the potential to net you a 1st line winger and maybe a 1st round pick down the road. There is literally no reason to scrimp here. He doesn't even get paid much it the contract ends next season. Just weird you wouldn't want that potential talent. And your reasoning is youre afraid to win (because you want higher picks understandably) but also he sucks and likely wouldnt be a buy low candidate.
Forum: Armchair-GMJan. 29 at 11:55 p.m.
Thread: Deadline
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Garak</b></div><div>Sure. That's why I say a 3rd is the max I would find to be acceptable to spend on a player right now. But we don't need to add right now. If he sucks we lose a 3rd round pick for the privilege of helping VAN out with their cap troubles. If he is fine, we maybe break even on a trade if we retain. If he scores 39 goals again, we MAYBE get a late 1st at the deadline if we retain, but we also arbitrarily move our own 2025 1st round pick later in the draft. When we don't need more depth, we need top of the lineup players. The only thing we need for depth is RD.

All 1st round picks are not created equal. A late 1st round pick still has a slim chance of becoming an NHLer. And the difference between a top 3 pick and a 4-15 pick is a pretty drastic drop off in them becoming a real difference maker or high end player. So, we don't need to artificially improve our team in the short term for more "maybes". We need the best possible shot at drafting more top of the lineup players. Where is the line where it becomes worth it? I don't know. But, personally, I'm not interested in Kuzmenko for any reason, really. So the deal is gonna have to be pretty sweet.

P.S. WE DON'T NEED TO "GO GET GUYS TO PLAY WITH BEDARD." That whole narrative makes no sense. We are rebuilding. We don't need to compete or anything "while he is on his ELC", like so many people say. He has people to play with. He was playing at almost a point per game pace with what we have on the roster, and we have more young and exciting players on the way very soon. Next year is almost as unimportant as last year was and this year is. Bedard is a smart kid, he understands what CHI is doing, and he is completely team first. He will get his "help" in due time.</div></div>

You need to create some kind of environment of winning or at least attempting to win. I agree you want high picks. That part is not in danger. And with Kuz isn't really either as he's just a guy to score when Bedard passes. You upgrade from a 3rd to maybe a 1st and the cost is having Bedard play with a skilled player.
Forum: Armchair-GMJan. 29 at 10:06 p.m.
Thread: Deadline
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Garak</b></div><div>"IF" he returns to form, it is certainly possible, but I would not describe that valuation as "easy" and it is definitely on the VERY high side considering he will be a 29yo pending UFA with a $6M cap hit. Also, we would more than likely have to retain in order to get anything remotely close to that, which has value that shouldn't be ignored and is not something VAN would be able to do this year or next year.

So, once again, in order for CHI to have interest, I think they would need a clear path to making a profit. Honestly, at this point, I have half a mind to say VAN needs to pay us to take his cap hit with how bad he has been.</div></div>

It is an "IF" but it's just the easiest project ever. Your team isn't near the cap, doesn't have many offensive players and can acquire one for next to nothing. Why wouldn't you want to do that? The downside of such a gamble is so minimal. And if you have to retain at the deadline that only helps the trade value and again doesn't hurt the team at all.

The guy was probably worth a 1st plus in the summer. He's clearly a capable player. While scoring 39 goals is probably not realistic again I don't see why he can't be a 25-30 goal guy.
Forum: Armchair-GMJan. 26 at 2:46 p.m.
Thread: Big Picture Moves
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>westleysnipez</b></div><div>No, the Canucks absolutely would not at 5.5M. They do not have the cap space to take him. If you wanted to trade Kuzmenko 1 for 1 for Tavares 50% retained, sure, but we both know that's never going to happen. There are a half dozen lower cap hit centres out there that fit the Canucks' need better than Tavares does, centres the Canucks don't have to give three key futures for; Lindholm, Henrique, Monahan, Vatrano, hell even JEE has a better chance of coming to VAN that Tavares does. Tavares is a good player, but he doesn't fit the Canucks.</div></div>

Obviously there is no chance Tavares is coming at 50% retained. I'm just saying that would be a great deal to pursue for fan. You'd have to move Kuzmenko though or some money out somehow though. As you would with most deals.