SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

mvp13

Member Since
Jun. 27, 2019
Favourite Team
New York Rangers
2nd Favourite Team
Dallas Stars
Forum Posts
1916
Posts per Day
1.1
Forum: NHL TradesMar. 8 at 12:10 a.m.
Thread: (PIT/CAR) - Guentzel, Smith for Bunting, Koivunen, Ponomarev, Lucius, 2024 2nd (PHI), 2024 5th (CAR)
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>mvp13</b></div><div>Not getting a guaranteed 1st is absolutely terrible considering this alleged bidding war. Unless these prospects are the second coming of McJesus, I don't get it. Not an expert but I don't believe any of those are their best.</div></div>

My first two thoughts:

1. Dubas tried to pressure teams into better offers by putting an early deadline on a deal and it backfired, reducing the competition.
2. Are GMs finally regaining their sanity and pushing back against rental prices?

With so many teams going all in the last couple of seasons and multiple GMs being faced with serious pick/prospect shortages, maybe the analysts are getting through with data about just how effective deadline additions are and what acceptable risk is with respect to cost/benefit.

Bad negotiating, buyer's market, or paradigm shift?
Forum: Armchair-GMJan. 30 at 8:28 p.m.
Thread: 3C scoring top 6 winger heavy bottom 6 winger
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>mvp13</b></div><div>I'd have no problem swapping Jones and Trivago for 2 other offensive prospects like Berard and Sykora if that'd make it work. Or Robertson on D. I think only Perrault and Othmann would be off the table.

It's hard to know every team's prospect needs, I was more going with Kakko and the 1st as the main thing, while giving ANA an NHL ready D and a close to NHL forward. I feel like ANA wants to get closer to competing while still gaining future assets, so that's why I was trying more NHL ready guys. Thanks for understanding</div></div>

I totally hear you. Ultimately it’d come down to Verbeek’s belief in Kakko turning it around. Which I’m personally not very bullish on. So even with those tinkers I’d just rather keep Vatrano for another year.My argument is really just that in terms of value it’s not egregious.

Our own young players on the roster need the vet leadership and example he sets, and we’re already likely going to lose some of that from Henrique, Lyubushkin, and possibly Silfverberg and Carrick. Unless an offer blows us away, I’d rather just take less in a year
Forum: Armchair-GMJan. 30 at 12:01 p.m.
Thread: 3C scoring top 6 winger heavy bottom 6 winger
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>GiggywithGibby</b></div><div>I guess I have to wonder where you are valuing Kakko, Jones, and Trivigno at?

Kakko is a bust/ big project, I wouldn't pay much to acquire him from Anaheim and hope a fresh start fixes him.

Jones is the type of undersized, offense first LHD we already have to many of, he adds minimal value.

Trivigno is an AHL player and provides zero additional value.

So why is Anaheim considering this when we would probably ask for a 2nd and Kakko for just Henrique with retention? That's not even beginning to scratch the ask for Vatrano.</div></div>

I feel like we’ve got to be more realistic here, right? Henrique is worth a 2nd and ‘meh’ prospect more likely than not. While Kakko has been disappointing, he’s still 22/23 years old as a former 2nd overall pick and does have over 100 NHL points. Is he a project? Yes. But I’d have to think you’d take him easily over a package of a 2nd and ‘meh’ prospect. So Kakko &gt; Henrique for sure

That leaves a 1st, a LHD (which is of no interest to ANA) and an AHLer for Vatrano. Is that enough to make it worth moving him? No. But there is a bit of spillover value from the Henrique/Kakko swap.

Would I take this? Honestly probably not, I think we should be holding Vatrano u til next TDL and gladly taking back a bit less value. But I don’t think it’s fair to say that this is far off