SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

T0R

Member Since
Aug. 7, 2020
Favourite Team
Toronto Maple Leafs
2nd Favourite Team
Colorado Avalanche
Forum Posts
3608
Posts per Day
2.6
Forum: Armchair-GMDec. 15, 2023 at 10:16 a.m.
Thread: Maybe
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Ennis</b></div><div>Nashville isn’t much of a better defensive team. We’ve been leaving Saros out to dry on a nightly basis. Sammy got carried last season and was never really THAT guy. I’m not opposed to the trade but I dunno how keen Trotz will be on acquiring an unwanted goalie</div></div>

Im more wondering about the owners wanting to pay an additional 1.5 million in actual money for a 4th round pick. It is essentially what the trade breaks down to. Our cheaper backup for their more expensive backup (Woll should be starter) and a pick. Value wise seems fine. We only let saros sit 20-25 games a year unless there is injury anyways. Samsonov walks at end of year or maybe signs a 1 year cheap deal if he rebounds a little or edmonton signs him after buying out campbell.
Forum: Armchair-GMDec. 14, 2023 at 12:51 p.m.
Thread: Leafs Blueline Upgrade 23-24
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>AC14</b></div><div>This is the thing that's hard to convey to people.

We do NOT need salary cap flexibility by moving Parayko. It actually gives us less flexibility. Not only are we then needing to find a Defenseman who can play defensive zone draws strictly in matchup situations, we are also needing one that is comfortable doing so 25+ minutes a night. That's not asked of anyone in the league aside from Parayko, and in all reality, nobody could thrive under those circumstances. So what we then would have to do is find a 3rd pairing guy and get him and his partner hammered in for 20+ minutes a night, which effectively makes us 10 times worse.

What we need to do is gain cap flexibility by trading an expendable guy like Krug/Leddy/Faulk. Not the only pillar on defense we have. Pick 25 and Niemela isn't really worth the headache of trying to replace what probably cannot be replaced. 4-5 years down the road sure this trade will make things better for us. But it essentially puts us in a long term rebuild, which Armstrong has displayed reluctance (thus far) to do.</div></div>

Your last sentence kind of nails it. This type of trade is only done if Blues are going full re-build. I don't think the suggested offer is bad...but only if that's the direction the Blues are headed...otherwise I agree, absolutely no incentive to move him
Forum: Armchair-GMDec. 1, 2023 at 7:44 a.m.
Thread: Why are people trading for Seth Jones
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Affectionate_Side_64</b></div><div>No, I don't. It is solid of course, but not only are you overrating it, they are also years away from being game changers in the NHL. As in, more than 1-2. I think you have a very poor understanding of the timeline a scorched earth rebuild sets, and this is not so much an opinion as it is common knowledge. I appreciate your self-assuredness, but I promise you that you're smart enough to step back and figure this out yourself. I'm out, best of luck with your journey of learning.</div></div>

You have no clue what you are talking about. Our prospect pool is fantastic, and with five 1st round picks and eight 2nd round picks in the next 3 drafts, it is only going to get better. We have no reason to move Jones. Your proposed return wouldn't be enough for him WITHOUT RETENTION, let alone with it. Just stop. If you want him, pay up or look elsewhere.
Forum: Armchair-GMNov. 7, 2023 at 11:58 a.m.