Wqrrior

Wqrrior
Member Since
Feb 15, 2019
Favourite Team
Vancouver Canucks
2nd Favourite Team
Philadelphia Flyers
Birthday
Mar 1, 2001
Location
Vancouver
Forum Posts
1848
Posts per Day
7.45
Forum Threads
733
Forum: Armchair-GM15 hours ago
Thread: Sorry Western Conference
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>JeffW</b></div><div>Dont like it.. murray is okay but girard is the avs best player tight now, zadorov is looking good and I like his physicality, and Cole is probably the most underrated guy going, so there is no room for murray and byram could make the team next year

I think that is a waste of 5 million dollars, a 5 mill player on the 3rd line when you could use someone way cheaper and better defensively, unless you drop donskoi down but you still have compher and jost and kaut... just doesnt make a whole ton of sense</div></div>


Clearly you prefer a more conservative route to wait a few years before making a hard push for the cup. I don't see any second year builds in your recent repertoire of AGMs. What's your ideal team next year?
Forum: Armchair-GM17 hours ago
Thread: Sorry Western Conference
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>JeffW</b></div><div>Burakovsky is working out just like sakic had thought.. why bring in galenchyuk who's underwhelmed and push bura to the 3rd line??

Also kamanev (maybe bowers) and Greer are the top choices to replace bellemare and calvert, who again are killing it so far, this team has 15 out of a possible 16 points, let's let it play out before we pull the team apart</div></div>

Lines aren't done according to reality. I just split them to balance everything. Even if Galchenyuk played the third line, that would be a pretty darn good third line. I see Alex being a good fit on this team. It's not a long contract, so there isn't much to lose. Better than letting 5M in cap sit. (Hard for anyone to play with Mac and Mikko without producing. Especially a playmaker.)

I have heard mixed opinions from multiple people in regards to what Bowers will be. Mind giving me insight on him for my future builds?

What are your opinions on Murray as a rental next year?
Forum: Armchair-GMFri at 12:21 am
Thread: Following the Rumors
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Subbanator7667</b></div><div>Guy is 32 making $7 million for 7 more years.... last 4 years of that contract is likely him in the AHL. Marleau costs the Leafs a 1st to get rid of 1 year at 6.25, by that math San Jose will have to pay 4 first round picks and that's giving him the benefit of playing 3 more years at a high level.

You're kidding yourself if you think SJ is getting anything if quality for him</div></div>

You're also kidding yourself to believe that overall he is worthless. I don't think this trade SHOULD happen from MTL's perspective. This rumor is up for a reason, and if there is interest, there is no way they should expect to RECEIVE to get him. Habs fans, like normal, set standards for themselves to believe in without considering the fact.
Again, I am not saying this is the best long term trade. This will be a bad contract near the end. But if they are truly after him, expect to give up a middle six forward (which tatar is, a 2nd line forward on most teams) and a defenseman. I probably could show my agreeance to your point on the contract by adding retention.
Forum: Armchair-GMOct 11 at 9:56
Thread: The Three OTHER Rask trades - evaluation desired
<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
Thread: Rask for Ryan - A bold idea for MIN to get SOMETHING out of him
<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
Thread: Rask for Ryan - A bold idea for MIN to get SOMETHING out of him
This might be the one time I see in theory a legitimate trade and don't side with it.

1. Ottawa is the team that doesn't do this. Ryan is still a decent mentor and the cap space issue is pretty much irrelevant. They are pretty full on center and Rask would most likely be a healthy scratch.
2. Lots of times we make trades with guys who have NMC and assume they waive it. I get this trade was made with that conclusion, but I cannot see Ryan waiving to play on what some might consider a team with a worse future ahead of them.
3. Minnesota is trying to get younger, not older. Rask might not fetch a young talent, but if he is a scratch, do they really want to pay a guy 7.25M to take a spot from a 2nd/3rd line prospect in development (Ex. Kunin playing on the fourth line)


I typically make these longer replies for trades that are legitimately worth considering. This is a decent look and I am treating this as a legitimate proposal instead of a hypothesis. It's the minor details that I see overturning this.
(Rask for Smith on NYR and JJ on PIT are still the two trades I see having most sense value, because even though those defensemen are quite bad (horrible factoring in their contracts), Minnesota has a weak third pairing and it wouldn't take much to build on that need)