Edit Avatar
  • png, jpeg
  • Recommended minimum size 800px by 800px
  • Maximum size: 1MB
Drag image to reposition
Save
Cancel

OldNYIfan

First NY Then LA
Member Since
Jun 23, 2018
Favourite Team
Anaheim Ducks
2nd Favourite Team
Los Angeles Kings
Birthday
Jan 26, 1948
Location
Los Angeles
Forum Posts
17358
Posts per Day
16.79
Forum Threads
640
Biography
a sucker wholl soon be a loser
Forum: Armchair-GM12 hours ago
Thread: Offseason Tear Down
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>TheFlamingC</b></div><div>You could tinker with timing of your trades to allow for the protection of Mangiapane.</div></div>

No, you can't.

You have to present two qualifying forwards to Seattle in the expansion draft. UFAs and RFAs expiring this season don't count. Your only qualifying forwards are Tkachuk, Gaudreau or Lindblom depending upon when that trade is made, Monahan or Chytil depending upon when that trade is made, Lindholm or Greenway depending upon when that trade is made, Backlund depending upon when that trade is made, Lucic and Mangiapane. You have to expose two of them, so even if Lucic waives his NMC, by this construction you're going to have to expose another forward whom Seattle would prefer to Giordano (even if it's Backlund).
Forum: Armchair-GM19 hours ago
Thread: If the stars wanna blow it up after this yearUnrealistic
Joe Pavelski is a 37-year-old rental next season with a cap hit of $7 million and gets $8 million in real money (!). You can make an argument that Florida might pay Tippett or a first for him (although personally I wouldn't), but he's nowhere near three high draft picks and a former first-rounder RW.

Tyler Seguin turns 30 in the middle of next season, was injured for a quarter of last year (when he underperformed by his own standards) and hasn't played a minute this year (and may not). With his gigantic cap hit for SIX MORE YEARS, I can't imagine that Las Vegas (who is near the cap) would be interested in him for any of the three prime elements of that package. And I don't think any other team would be willing to take that kind of chance on him for more than a second and a prospect.
Forum: Armchair-GM22 hours ago
Thread: Fair value for Eichel or no
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Lenny7</b></div><div>Agreed. If the Ducks were an Eichel away from being contenders, as a Ducks fan, I'd absolutely consider putting Zegras in a package, but the timeline doesn't even come close to matching up, and handcuffs the team financially when they need multiple pieces, as opposed to one big piece. I'd much rather keep Zegras/Drysdale/Comtois, and add value around them with the space/picks that we currently have.</div></div>

Amen to that. Our first this year could yield us another top-6 center (Matt Beniers or Kent Johnson), an LD to be the eventual partner for Jamie Drysdale (Owen Power), or another RD to give us a right-side punch even better than Fowler and Lindholm on the other side (Brandt Clarke), not to mention a top-line RW (Fabian Lysell) or LW (William Eklund or Dylan Guenther). I'm happy where we are, as bad as that currently is.
Forum: Fauteuil - DG23 hours ago
Thread: run for eichel
Each fanbase has a certain element that is incapable of evaluating its own players realistically. That segment of Buffalo fans that thinks EIchel = Draisaitl or MacKinnon has conflated Kevyn Adams' expressed desire for (i.e., negotiating tactic of announcing) "four first-round picks or the equivalent" into four first-overall-pick equivalents as the proper price for the unhappy and now injured center. It's not going to happen. Los Angeles isn't trading Byfield, or both of Turcotte and Vilardi, for Eichel. Nor are the Rangers trading LaFreniere or Kakko for him, nor Anaheim Zegras or Drysdale, nor Minnesota Kaprizov or Rossi.

The trade shown is fair value, although I don't think Kempe fits Buffalo all that well (I would substitute Kale Clague). Los Angeles shouldn't give up more, and I have a sneaking suspicion that what Buffalo eventually receives for Eichel if they actually trade him will be less.
Forum: Armchair-GMTue at 2:04 pm
Thread: Expansion draft trades
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>skrymir</b></div><div>Maybe I misunderstood you, I thought you meant giving an RFA player a qualifying offer, which does not make them meet exposure requirements. Again, I don't think players will be willing to sign contracts just to be offered up as fodder in the expansion draft, but I could be wrong.</div></div>

Yes, you're absolutely right on both counts -- offering a qualifying offer to a RFA doesn't meet the exposure requirements, and that's not what I meant.

I like your Minnesota idea. I'm surprised none of the really knowledgeable Wild guys have commented on it. <a href="/users/Tansor" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@Tansor</a> <a href="/users/wabit" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@wabit</a> <a href="/users/OutCold13" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@OutCold13</a> sorry I'm limited to three pings and can't tag Lightman13 and jnowariak