SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

GoCanes

Member Since
May 31, 2022
Forum Posts
155
Posts per Day
0.2
Forum: Armchair-GMJul. 1, 2023 at 1:24 a.m.
Forum: Armchair-GMJun. 30, 2023 at 11:59 p.m.
Forum: Armchair-GMJun. 28, 2023 at 7:12 p.m.
Thread: Intersting Marner trade from a Leafs fan - impact
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>palhal</b></div><div>You have to be kidding if you think it was the same. PLD was an going to a RFA July 1st....free to sign with any team in the NHL (with compensation going back to the Jets).
Pesce in under contract for one more year to the Canes.</div></div>

Pesce can sign an extension with Car at any time. If the contract parameters are too pricey for the Canes liking then signing it with the intent to trade to Tor is exactly the same thing. It garners a higher return because Pesce comes with term. Win had team control for a full year as well. Nobody was going to sign PLD to an offer sheet. This is literally no different. PLD wasn’t moving to the team of his choice until next summer either.
Forum: Armchair-GMJun. 20, 2023 at 5:50 p.m.
Forum: Armchair-GMJun. 20, 2023 at 5:42 p.m.
Thread: Intersting Marner trade from a Leafs fan - impact
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>ecupirate07</b></div><div>All those pieces you mentioned aren’t even supporting your argument. They are doing the opposite. 3rd round picks aren’t “good assets.”
We gave up a bust for Hakanpää
We got back bokk who had control with Edmundson. So that doesn’t support your point
Tro, we traded a fallen out rental and a bunch of low level pieces. Not talking high level, nhl roster players.

You tried to make a point terribly.

Check necas. He is a RFA after his deal, he definitely has team control. They didn’t say they would move a first for a rental, they said they would be aggressive for the right piece.</div></div>

I'll reiterate point #1 - times are definitely different

For 2 - My understanding is Necas is only under team control until '25, right? So 2 more years? Maybe it's 3? Regardless, he won't be cheap anymore and can leave if he'd like as a UFA. Pesce is not under team control beyond this year. Plus, in this deal, we'd be getting Lilegren who would be under team control as well. So, it's still 2 guys in with 2 or more years of control with 1 going out.

For 3 - again, see point #1. AND, a 3rd round pick for a 3 month deadline acquisition isn't all that much different (in terms of value) than a 1st for a 2 year "rental". The point is simple... even the "asset control" Canes have given up picks and prospects for rentals and short term commitments. I'll admit, I laughed when typing Vatanen and Hakanpaa:) The deal that is most similar to what is proposed on this thread is Troch... The Canes gave up a lot of assets for a 2 year "rental" and nobody had a problem with it. We can look back now, evaluate how the assets spent have turned out, and say we won that trade. But we still only had Troch for 2 years! We gave up a 1st for 3 years of Skjei who was a much larger gamble than acquiring a Mitch Marner. I just don't see a big difference... Marner would be here for 2 years minimum. And I think he'd be a relatively easy negotiation to keep beyond as he already makes a huge salary so there won't be this 30-40% jump in a salary request. This isn't some prized &amp; controlled asset dump for a rental.
Forum: Armchair-GMJun. 20, 2023 at 3:55 p.m.
Thread: Intersting Marner trade from a Leafs fan - impact
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Caniac555</b></div><div>As an example, if the Canes agreed to a deal for Nylander with the Leafs but they wanted an extension as part of it (assuming Leafs agree) - that is optimal. They then know what Nylander is looking for and have that information to make informed decisions on.

Marner is more expensive, with more long term uncertainty…and you can make the argument that Nylander fits what the Canes need more than Marner.

That is my logic</div></div>

I can completely understand your point that Nylander may fit the team needs more effectively than Marner. And I totally understand and would prefer if Nylander comes with a 7 year extension. I just don't see how it makes sense to prefer a 1 year rental (and "we'll talk in July") vs a 2 year contracted player (purely from a conceptual perspective). You can talk extension with either of them at any time once they are on your team. And I think the cost certainty for Marner is much more clear than Nylander (who is currently underpaid). Marner may not even get a raise with his next deal... We will see. In other words, you already have the cap space allocated for Marner. You may not for Nylander.
Forum: Armchair-GMJun. 20, 2023 at 3:53 p.m.
Forum: Armchair-GMJun. 20, 2023 at 1:27 p.m.
Thread: Intersting Marner trade from a Leafs fan - impact
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>palhal</b></div><div>As a Leaf fan here is my analysis. Think the Leafs win the Necas/Marner swap. About 30 points difference in production but Necas is much cheaper and will be on his next contract. So the Leafs gain cap an years of control. But the Liljegren/Pesce I'm not fond. of. Liljegren is a NHL Dman, cheaper for a year and years of control over upcoming UFA Pesce.
So it might be pretty fair deal on paper, but wondering if any team would do the deal. But a good thought on the trade.</div></div>

I agree... I think it's a pretty reasonable trade if Toronto wants to break up the core 4 and Carolina doesn't like the value of the extension that Pesce is seeking. And I think both of those scenarios are possible. I will state that you don't have to like the Pesce/Liljegren piece. But you are right, Liljegren is an NHL Dman. Pesce is a great shut down NHL Dman. Pesce will be far superior to Liljegren for at least the next 3-4 years. Liljegren is a bottom pair Dman. Pesce is the #1 shut down Dman on many NHL rosters. You don't have to like the economics of it, but lets not pretend the Leafs wouldn't do Liljegren plus picks for Pesce straight up (minus any cap ramifications).