Member Since
Feb 15, 2019
Favourite Team
Vancouver Canucks
2nd Favourite Team
Philadelphia Flyers
Mar 1, 2001
Forum Posts
Posts per Day
Forum Threads
Forum: Armchair-GM15 hours ago
Forum: Armchair-GM17 hours ago
Forum: Armchair-GMFri at 12:21 am
Forum: Armchair-GMOct 11 at 9:56
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Random2152</b></div><div>MIN has no reason to do any of these. More, older and expensive players that don't make the team better.</div></div>

I think that description applies to the Dubinsky trade. That an equivalent to the thought process of Lucic-Neal. And so far that trade has worked for one team (early judgement, yes). Both of these players had some impact in the past. They might not rebound to any reason, but a swap of equivalents, or a lesser player at lower term is still value. This trade doesn't fit the MIN management perspective though.

Staal - Rask makes lots of sense to me. It's an exact swap of needs. MIN needs depth defense and to free up their forward positions for their prospects. Does it make them better? I think it does. Staal might be fading, but he is still a far better defenseman than Rask is a forward. It's only Staal's contract that balances the value difference. And this works for the Rangers in that they get their much needed cap relief next year (they can't do any buyouts next year). IF it doesn't work for the Wild, buying out Staal's remaining year (2 year buyout) is much easier to handle than Rask (assuming they bought him out next year) over a span of four years. Staal might cost more overall, but term/length is more valuable than individual dollars.

The Okposo trade mirrors your Ryan trade. Okposo is slightly worse than Ryan, the difference being weighed in the 1.25 M less. That's 2M less considering I have Okposo heavily retained. Okposo is far better than Rask, and has bounceback appeal. The reasons for BUF are similar to the Rangers. BUF might let him stay as their fourth line center next year though or experiment him in a scoring role again.
Forum: Armchair-GMOct 11 at 9:08
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Random2152</b></div><div>1) Has nothing to do with cap space and everything to do with money paid out (and signing bonuses in particular). Ottawa is tanking at the moment and so there is no reason for them to keep the better player over the financially sound move.
2) Somewhat valid point. I imagine you could convince him a change of scenery would be beneficial. Look what it did for Staal's career.
3) Losing the Rask contract for an actual player may not make them younger, but it does make them better and that is what the owner seems to be going for. I agree that they SHOULD be re-building, but their ownership doesn't want that so this is one way to get better on the cheap.

MIN doesn't move Rask for JJ because JJ is a buyout candidate as well and RASK would be cheaper for less term in that sense due to SB's.
I don't think Smith is still an NHL player which is the essence of this move, getting something for 'nothing' so again I don't think either of those moves work.</div></div>

The point I was making is I don't think Ottawa is desperate enough to move Ryan for a healthy scratch, and even though it makes MIN better (and that might be what their management desires), it's a worse move for them overall long-term. Ottawa is definitely tanking, however Ryan has been a good (and one of only) veteran presences on this team that has the ability to have some impact.
Not faulting the trade. Typically the best trades require the most in-depth analysis.
Forum: Armchair-GMOct 11 at 8:42