SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

SP17

Member Since
Dec. 15, 2018
Forum Posts
159
Posts per Day
0.1
Forum: Armchair-GMFeb. 11, 2019 at 4:13 p.m.
Forum: Armchair-GMFeb. 10, 2019 at 1:09 a.m.
Thread: 19-20 Dzingel and Pirri sign and trade for 2 dmen
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>BCAPP</b></div><div>Honest question: why would the opposing teams want your depth players and at max a 2nd for one of their top prospects/first round pick in last few years. Because that is what most of them are outside of Murray</div></div>

Specifically I'm thinking that Sutter or Goldobin would be close to enough for Roland McKeown. And then if Baerstchi is healthy him and a 2nd rounder might get you Fabbro. I don't think Timmons or Juulsen would happen but Colorado does have a lot of RHD, Nick Meloche would probably be a more reasonable guy to target there. It's more so a list of guys I think they should target and for the right dman pairing one of these guys possibly with a prospect or 2nd rounder would be worth it.
Forum: Armchair-GMFeb. 6, 2019 at 4:28 p.m.
Thread: Point trade in offseason - input value
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Hellochris06</b></div><div>This is tough to say. I think in some ways Point is definitely helped by being on Tampa (See Namestnikov). I think you could turn him into Pesce and maybe Necas or possibly another prospect and a pick (more likely), but I don't think you get the first as well in that current trade scenario. Tough to say. There are many cautionary tales about basing value on big outliers. Tampa's cap dance will be interesting this offseason for sure.</div></div>

Thanks for the input. Always interesting when people describe their thought process a bit rather than the old "no chance" "TBL declines" responses.

I believe TBL will have to sign Point to a 3-4yr bridge deal in order to maneuver the cap and I feel like he might be okay with that. Doesn't mean he will leave when the deal is over but at that time Killorn, Palat, Johnson will all have modified NTC instead of full NTC and they can create the space for Point. 3-4yrs of Point sounds like a reasonable championship window for their current roster. The window can extend past that for sure but I think a large part of the team will change around that time.
Forum: Armchair-GMFeb. 6, 2019 at 2:29 p.m.
Thread: 19-20 Stone Kapanen 3 Young RD
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>bb1983</b></div><div>One of the better ones I've seen so far.

Like the idea of getting Fabbro out of Nashville.

Goldobin for Honka is probably overpayment on our part.

Kapanen offer sheet is realistic. I have to think Toronto trades him before he's eligible though.

I doubt it will be that easy to get rid of Sutter and Gudbranson, sadly.

I think you're underpaying Stone by $500K, and Edler and Boeser by about $1M, but we have the cap space to absorb that.</div></div>

Thanks. Probably a bit of an underpayment on some of those guys ya but like you said not a big deal if it's a bit more.

Maybe you get a mid pick in the Goldobin trade as well. DAL could definitely use the skill he brings.

I think Sutter has a bit of value still as a 3rd 4th line vet to a team that doesn't have to worry about cap space over the next 2 years but is looking at playoffs. CAR doesn't give up much in this as McKeown is probably blocked at the NHL by Fox and their current roster (even if they trade a RHD from their roster).

Gudbranson I'm thinking maybe a team like NJ with lots of capspace and in a rebuild wouldn't mind a tough veteran dman for leadership over the next 2 seasons and a 5th isn't much to give up.

But yes, I could definitely be wrong on this and Sutter, Gudbranson could be more difficult to move than I think.
Forum: Armchair-GMFeb. 2, 2019 at 7:41 p.m.
Thread: BOS NSH FLA new D-core
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>ItsBlowTime</b></div><div>Canucks would have to ask to speak to Fabbro prior to the trade or orchestrate a sign&amp;trade with NSH because losing a prospect like DiPietro only to have Fabbro still go to FA is a move that could get JB fired.

And honestly, I'd rather keep Virtanen. If he is able to develop into a 20 goal scorer, the Canucks could be looking at a player with the same impact Wayne Simmonds had. True power forwards are like unicorns. Would rather see this:

Juolevi, Tanev, 3rd for Carlo &amp; Backes

Carlo &gt; Juolevi</div></div>

Ya Fabbro would have to come with a signature on the contract for sure.

Boston probably won't trade Carlo unless something were to blow them away but I would love if the Canucks could make it happen somehow.
Forum: Armchair-GMFeb. 2, 2019 at 7:15 p.m.
Thread: BOS NSH FLA new D-core
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>ItsBlowTime</b></div><div>Personal Opinion: I don't understand CapFriendly's Canucks members fixation on a Guddy for Pysyk trade.. Pysyk is, imo, barely an upgrade and why would FLA trade down for Guddy?

I like the NSH trade,, but I'd like to see a) what Demko does with a bigger role before deciding on which goalie to keep, and b) how DiPietro fairs in AHL. Also, NSH wants to sign Fabbro, and unless he suits up for the Preds he has to wait until 2020 to hit FA. That give the Canucks an extra year to make this trade.

Gross overpayment for Carlo. Lose Virtanen and make it a 3rd and Nucks consider it.</div></div>

I agree Carlo is an overpayment. I'd be willing to leave Virtanen but remove the 2nd. Carlo would be a huge piece longterm for the Canucks and hopefully the perfect partner for Hughes.

My thoughts on the Fabbro trade is that the Canucks trade for his rights then sign him and he plays 2019-2020 season with Vancouver.

Guddy trade I see on here all the time. That trade doesn't really make a difference because I assume him or Pysyk would be the 7th dman anyways.
Forum: Armchair-GMJan. 28, 2019 at 7:14 p.m.
Thread: Trading for D and cap space
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Jamiepo</b></div><div>Islanders have the cap space and who better than Lou knows the actual value of those two players. Yo be honest I went overboard with saving on cap and paid marner and Matthews about 500k each more than I anticipate their contracts will be. To be honest In this agm zaitsev could stay and we would still be under the cap. We could also take money back on the trade.</div></div>

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>palhal</b></div><div>Agree with Goulet that Marner and Matthews contracts are too high. Pesce for Nylander seems logical. Don't think the Isles want all that cap differential.</div></div>

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Goulet</b></div><div>Didnt we learn from the Larsson/Hall debacle.

Waaaaaay too much for Marner and Matthews.</div></div>

I like the Marner Matthews numbers. Nobody knows whether they will take discounts and what not. I find it refreshing to show what the cap would look like if they both sign for the upper end of whats expected. At least that way you can say "okay even if they both sign for a ton of money, making these moves would still allow for ample cap space"
Forum: Armchair-GMJan. 24, 2019 at 7:13 p.m.
Thread: Huberdeau Hamilton
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Kosterjr</b></div><div>Huberdeau is having a great year plus I never said he wouldn’t be traded I said the team would have to overpay for him</div></div>

I partially agree. I think if they were to trade him for picks and prospects package then the team would have to overpay. But I think if it’s a “hockey deal” where they are getting a proven player of similar age, caliber, salary in an attempt to change the makeup of their team then it is much more likely that that the deal wouldn’t have to be an overpayment.

It’s ACGM of course the teams would negotiate in IRL maybe Carolina uses a higher pick or Ferland is part of the deal or maybe it’s less and just a 1for1. This is just a starting point that I think both GMs would potentially be interested in negotiating from.