Willian_Cardoso

Let's go Pens!
Member Since
Mar 2, 2017
Birthday
Oct 9, 1986
Forum Posts
1564
Posts per Day
1.81
Forum Threads
157
Forum: Armchair-GM3 hours ago
Thread: No cap space for Marner
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Laudan</b></div><div>Wrong...even at 10,568,590 for Marner ( lets neglect Term for now ) there will be 13M Cap space for filling three D spots on 22 men roster in 2020/2021, if we assume Sandin and Liljegren will be ready for 3rd Pair and Cap will be go up for 2,5M, so 84M.

Tho i have to say the trade looks good for our Fan base</div></div>

As I just said, I'd never accept my team (I'm a Pens fan) using almost 50% of their salary cap in just 4 players. And the worst part of that in this case is that all of them are offensive ones. That's a stupid cap management. Specially when you look to how team are winning cups lately. ALL OF THEM had solid D and a great goalie. Toronto can't build a team like that in mid/long terms signing Marner. It'd compromise their future. That's for sure.
Forum: Armchair-GM3 hours ago
Thread: Agressive trade to get Marner
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>TooMalevolent</b></div><div>He would never sign it. His ask is shorter term and more dollars (11/5yrs). You put his signing at 10.5 for full 8 years. If he ever signed that (again, he never would), leafs brass would be dancing. You clearly do not really have an understanding of the Marner discussions- which is totally fine, you are a NJ fan. But with that considered, you should not be arguing this awful position.</div></div>

Just a mistake of yours. I'm a Pens fan. As for 10.5 or 11M, those numbers would put Leafs in a cap hell situation anyway. When you have just 4 players (Tavares, Matthews, Marner and Nylander) being responsible for almost 50% of your salary cap, you're in a DEEP TROUBLE. That'd be a stupid decision and would compromise Toronto's future. Chicago was in a similar situation lately and I'm pretty sure that they're regret it. The reality in cap leagues is that you cannot keep all your top players. You Toronto's fans will have to face it and move on from Marner. Or pay the price to keep him...
Forum: Armchair-GMSat at 10:38 pm
Thread: Agressive trade to get Marner
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>YMB2019</b></div><div>Everyone here is seriously undervaluing Bratt. Last season he was on pace for 53 points, the previous season he was on a 38 point pace. Obviously pace cant be taken as gospel but thats more points that everyone on the leafs except for Rielly, Matthews, Tavares, and Marner. He is easily a top 6 player.

Bratt, Vatanen, Boqvist, 2 firsts, and a possible second is a ludicrous overpay for Marner who wants a short deal and more money than he is worth. What leafs fans never take into consideration when they try to evaluate trades is cap space and its infuriating.</div></div>

Now is you who's undervalueting Marner. The kid is just 22 and he had one 69 season and another 94. He's already a real deal and has upside to get even better. I think I'm offering enough. But maybe not enough to Toronto accept. It's possible that better offers than that come to them. I'll try to make another armchairs to get Marner for another possible fits.
Forum: Armchair-GMSat at 6:52 pm
Thread: Agressive trade to get Marner
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>TooMalevolent</b></div><div>Lol Bratt is a fine player, but will not play in the leafs top 6, even with a Marner trade, and Vatanen is a UFA that is overated. Leafs got a better RD and forward in the Kadri trade. We are talking about Marner here. Boqvist is a good piece, but not the upside leafs would look for. Truth is any Marner trade talk starts with Hughes, which of course NJ says no. And then it moves to a reasonably discussion that starts with Hischier +, which I imagine NJ does not want as well. Truth is they just are not good trading partners- they would not want to give up anything that the leafs would desire in a Marner trade. And all of this just does not matter because Marner would never take 10.5 at full term. And if he did want to, leafs would have done it yesterday. In the end, only way devils get Marner is with an "aggressive" offer sheet. Which he most likely does not sign because he wants to stay in Toronto.</div></div>

As for Vatanen, he's better than Ceci. And Ceci will be their 2nd pair D.
Forum: Armchair-GMSat at 6:46 pm
Thread: Agressive trade to get Marner
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>glc_0908</b></div><div>i know thats my point



the assets for marner are the hischier hughes assets, not the retained vatanen assets

If toronto wants 2 firsts mcleoud rooney and bratt sure, but the trade in this post is more of a return and its still not close (per the responses)..The only point i was making, is one kid said we dont have assets, we do, but theyll be devils for a long time, they arent on the block for an awesome young winger looking for 12MM and a short term deal to cash in after the tv deal...I love marner, I'd give 4 firsts before Id trade hischier or hughes</div></div>

Hughes is completely off the table. He's considered the best prospect since McDavid. Devils would be stupid to do that. But they won't. I wouldn't trade Hischier as well.
Forum: Armchair-GMSat at 6:44 pm
Thread: Agressive trade to get Marner
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>TooMalevolent</b></div><div>Lol Bratt is a fine player, but will not play in the leafs top 6, even with a Marner trade, and Vatanen is a UFA that is overated. Leafs got a better RD and forward in the Kadri trade. We are talking about Marner here. Boqvist is a good piece, but not the upside leafs would look for. Truth is any Marner trade talk starts with Hughes, which of course NJ says no. And then it moves to a reasonably discussion that starts with Hischier +, which I imagine NJ does not want as well. Truth is they just are not good trading partners- they would not want to give up anything that the leafs would desire in a Marner trade. And all of this just does not matter because Marner would never take 10.5 at full term. And if he did want to, leafs would have done it yesterday. In the end, only way devils get Marner is with an "aggressive" offer sheet. Which he most likely does not sign because he wants to stay in Toronto.</div></div>

Bratt has POTENTIAL to be a top 6. I didn't say he already is. Not even in NJ. If I were Devils GM I wouldn' trade Hischier and trade Hughes would be insane. Hughes is considered the best prospect since McDavid. Even better than Matthews and Eichel. We'll see if he'll confirm the expectations...as for Marner, if I were him I'd wanna stay as well. But the fact is he can't. As I said, sign him will put Toronto in a cap hell situation for many many years. They must trade him or let him go for a offer sheet.
Forum: Armchair-GMSat at 9:38 am
Thread: Agressive trade to get Marner
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>tomato43</b></div><div>If Marner was going to accept a deal anywhere close to that he would just do it with the Maple Leafs. A 28 year old oft injured soon to be UFA Vatanen isn't enticing in the least no matter how much is retained. Bratt isn't anything special, and while Boqvist is an intriguing prospect these spare parts dont come close to the value of Marner. Good youngish player(s) with term and a blue chip prospect in addition to the draft picks will be needed to get Toronto to even think of a trade.</div></div>

Man, Toronto don't have cap space to keep Marner. They would have to trade role players to sign with him and they'd have 3 players getting more than 10M, 3 players getting more than 33M. 4 players getting 40M when you put Nylander's salary. That's almost 50% of the ENTIRE salary cap. That's INSANE in a cap league!!! Sign Marner will put Toronto in a cap hell situation, like Chicago was recently. I agree that Toronto can get better assets than Devils can offer. But no matter which assets they'll get, they MUST trade Marner to build a competitive team for the next seasons.
Forum: Armchair-GMJul 4 at 8:56
Thread: What we should have done in Free Agency
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>vic997</b></div><div>Honestly, it was to move out a lot of cap space. I know it won't be cheap to move a guy like Johnson with over 8 years of bad analytics.
Our top-six is vastly improved with this even with the removal of Kessel. Jordie Benn is a lot better for bottom pairing.
and we have a lot of cap remaining for next year's signings.</div></div>

I'm not questioning Jordie Benn signing or either your moves but JGP one. I'm sure it won't cost us that much to get rid of JJ. His contract is more a matter of term than salary. Which is something good. Or at least less worse. Tanev contract is much worse than JJ. I never thought that JR was able to make a worse signing than JJ. But unfortunately for us, he was...we'll have to buy his contract out in 2 years or something.