SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

Macker74

Member Since
Aug. 24, 2016
Favourite Team
Calgary Flames
Forum Posts
121
Posts per Day
0.0
Forum: Armchair-GMDec. 30, 2023 at 9:24 a.m.
Thread: one big swing with the flames
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Anus_McLeod</b></div><div>Imho, Colorado isn't trading Byram for the guys Calgary has available (i.e. short term fixes that will demand big contracts next year). It just doesn't make sense to move such a long term piece for someone in that stage of their career, when they aren't even on a longer (and good value) deal.

Now if a young 2C is somehow available, Byram could be on the table. But aside from that, I just don't see him being moved.</div></div>

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Anus_McLeod</b></div><div>Imho, Colorado isn't trading Byram for the guys Calgary has available (i.e. short term fixes that will demand big contracts next year). It just doesn't make sense to move such a long term piece for someone in that stage of their career, when they aren't even on a longer (and good value) deal.

Now if a young 2C is somehow available, Byram could be on the table. But aside from that, I just don't see him being moved.</div></div>

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Anus_McLeod</b></div><div>Imho, Colorado isn't trading Byram for the guys Calgary has available (i.e. short term fixes that will demand big contracts next year). It just doesn't make sense to move such a long term piece for someone in that stage of their career, when they aren't even on a longer (and good value) deal.

Now if a young 2C is somehow available, Byram could be on the table. But aside from that, I just don't see him being moved.</div></div>

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Anus_McLeod</b></div><div>Imho, Colorado isn't trading Byram for the guys Calgary has available (i.e. short term fixes that will demand big contracts next year). It just doesn't make sense to move such a long term piece for someone in that stage of their career, when they aren't even on a longer (and good value) deal.

Now if a young 2C is somehow available, Byram could be on the table. But aside from that, I just don't see him being moved.</div></div>

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Anus_McLeod</b></div><div>Imho, Colorado isn't trading Byram for the guys Calgary has available (i.e. short term fixes that will demand big contracts next year). It just doesn't make sense to move such a long term piece for someone in that stage of their career, when they aren't even on a longer (and good value) deal.

Now if a young 2C is somehow available, Byram could be on the table. But aside from that, I just don't see him being moved.</div></div>


I don’t think a Byram is a long term piece Makar will be making 12m+ a season shortly and they just committed long Term to Toews. The only way he is long term is if he is 3/4 type guy which only makes 4-6M and if that is the case he isn’t worth what Ave’s fans want for him
Forum: Armchair-GMNov. 24, 2019 at 10:05 p.m.
Thread: Johnny Hockey and Lucic - Cap Neutral Trade
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>CaptJosef</b></div><div>Whenever I hear this I can't help but think how contradictory it is. Adding Frost or Farabee for Gaudreau makes the Flames worse now too. Sure in the long term it (if Frost and Farabee progress as we hope) levels out but if definitely say my offer helps the Flames more right now. I doubt there's a deal that can be made that leaves the Flames better off after moving Gaudreau in terms of his pure skill level for cap hit. Frost was a 27th overall pick, you get to draft your own Frost with the 1st rounder.</div></div>

I don't think its contradictory I just think its a move that makes Calgary a worse team for sure(Giving up the best player in the deal) and still have cap problems so it would be hard to improve to become a contender so if you are trading Gaudreau for a player like Frost and a 1st or one of their young Dman you would get some Cap flexibility back to add some more depth plus a very good looking young player who looks ready to play.
Forum: Armchair-GMNov. 28, 2018 at 1:13 p.m.
Thread: Blues trade year 2
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>palhal</b></div><div>Schwartz is injured....again. Where does the Leafs? Leafs LW is very goo. Cap reasons it certainly doesn't work for Leafs as the Leafs have to zero bonuses carryover into next year. Leafs need the cheap ELC Liljgren to play RHD very soon. Can't Pietrangelo be traded to an other team besides the Leafs? (which is the trend). Tampa can't afford him next year either.

That's a problem often with trading high priced (good) players to contenders. These contenders have no cap...except for maybe retained expiring contracts at TDL. Extending these players into the following year without equal cap coming back are difficult trades.</div></div>

Leafs cover all bonus carry overs from 2017/18 and the current year in this season even with the trade and still have 1.5 in space in the 2018/19 season they will have zero carryover to the 2019/2020 season
Forum: Armchair-GMNov. 28, 2018 at 11:57 a.m.
Thread: Blues trade year 2
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>palhal</b></div><div>Leafs say no. Leafs don't need help at LW. Is Pietrangelo that good NOW. Cap wise it doesn't work at all for the Leafs. Bonus carryover from 2018/19. I can't imagine some of RFAs accepting so little....that could be UFAs.
Zaitsev probably can't be traded without cap being sent back to the Leafs.[/quote

Leafs have enough cap space this year to cover bonus there shouldn't be any carryover. Your right about zaitsev would be tight to move but you can also flip Brown and bring up Grundstrum its real tight in this year but once marleau is done it opens up more cap space. Also I was conservative on the bump in cap space only moving it 2.5M good chance it could go up another 1m-2m on top of that.</div></div>