Avatar

pavelski_tip_in

Member Since
Mar. 30, 2022
Favourite Team
San Jose Sharks
Forum Posts
94
Posts per Day
0.2
Forum: Armchair-GMMon. at 12:29 p.m.
Thread: Leafs 23-24 Off-Season Augmentation I
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Hockey_Hippy</b></div><div>Compare this to the Meier deal. Both team exchanged multiple players and the Sharks ate half of Meier's last year. Meier is three years younger and is an RFA when his contract is up.

The best prospect in the Meier deal was Mukhamadullin, who was 20th overall. Agreed, early returns look very good on him.

Zetterlund, after two years in the AHL had played 80 games and had 38 points (.475 PPG). Abruzzese has only played one year and in that time has 48 points in 69 games (.695 PPG). He was also point a game at 2022 Olympics. Zetterlund's AHL career spans 128 games over three years in which time he has amassed 90 points (.703 PPG). SDA has played 107 games over that same span of time and has totaled 76 (.710 PPG). They are all the same age but the last two have no been afforded the same opportunities as pros because the Leafs are a much deeper team up front than New Jersey.

Okhotiuk is 6'1" 195. In 111 AHL games he has 24 points. Kral is 6'2" 198. In 92 AHL Games he has 29 points. I watched the Utica/Toronto series this year (I have the AHL package). Okhotiuk's most noticeable moments happened after the whistle. That's not saying much. Kral, were it not for the fact that this version of the team has signed Graves, would be the Leafs third pairing LHD next season.

Next time you are tempted to make a snap judgement on prospect value, don't.</div></div>
What are you talking about? Zetterlund and Okhotiuk were like the 4th and 5th most important pieces in that deal.

You included nothing close to Mukhamadullin or a 1st round pick in value.
Forum: Armchair-GMFri. at 12:21 p.m.
Thread: Karlsson with retention for Campbell
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>AStovetop</b></div><div>With this retention you'd essentially be paying Campbell 8.5 mil. I'd rather have EK65 at 11.5 than 8.5 for Campbell. He's straight up not good, he's only had good numbers as a backup. This would be awful for the Sharks cap situation. Campbell is not in any EK package unless there's 0 retention</div></div>
One dumb idea that I had that wasn't included here was for the Oilers to retain a little bit on Campbell (like $1M). That way if you buy out Campbell in 2025 then his cap hit is under $2M for 4 years. Very palatable.

I think Campbell has to be included in any Oilers-Karlsson trade unless they do something like Yamamoto + Foegle + Ceci but then they'd have no depth and we'd have many players we don't want. Maybe that's better than one Jack Campbell.

This definitely would be a move with an eye towards tanking: no offense without Karlsson and no good goaltending is a recipe for another top 5 pick.
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 18 at 6:41 p.m.
Thread: Sharks fans - What do you think
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>kman0101</b></div><div>If you trade EK anywhere he will need retention... for 4 more years. My angle here is JT will not waive for SJ, but he'd consider waiving for COL. retention for SJ is only two years vs 4... and you get more assets than with just Karlsson alone. I think it speeds up the potential for Grier to flip picks for talent, clear cap sooner (nobody has the ability or current cap structure to take on that full contract - except ONE)... and you guys could be turned around within 2 years just in time for JT's retention to expire.

JT can exit with honour from TO... and compete for a cup with COL and great talent.</div></div>
Congrats on coming up with something original and interesting. I think if you could find more interesting prospects to replace Timmins and Robertson, the Sharks would have more interest. In the end they get back a B+ prospect plus 2 late firsts and a late second for Karlsson and $8M retained.

The reason that Robertson doesn't move the needle is that he matches the profile of what the Sharks already have in their pool. His injury history also doesn't inspire hope.
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 16 at 9:50 p.m.
Thread: All In One more Run
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>csick</b></div><div>I was thinking only 1 1st but the pick is late and Hertl is a point per game player so idk what his value would be</div></div>
That's a good question, but I think you've slightly exaggerated his production. He's more like a 0.8 point per game player although I think he's checked out now that Meier is gone.

It's hard to identify any team that would want to add a player with 7 years left at an AAV that probably suits his current production, but leaves doubts about his future value.

Sharks should have offloaded him at least year's deadline, and should field offers for him since he doesn't match the window. However, he has a NMC and Grier has stated he's the one untouchable player. I think that's more a function of Hertl stating he wants to stay in San Jose (for geographic preferences) more than Grier falling in love with his game.

You structured the trade well, but I don't think the Leafs should be interested. I would love to see Hertl with better linemates though.
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 11 at 9:34 a.m.
Thread: Selling off as much as possible
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>MeetYourMakar</b></div><div>He stated his age range and the common thing that happens to older players, that is not a put down.

No team should be trading premium assets for a player going into his 35 year old season. Buy out option is not much of a savings and not a great selling point.</div></div>
It's poor critical thinking motivated by simplistic categorical thinking. "If age 35+ players decline, then Couture likely will decline." My point is that Couture has a low propensity to lose value so rapidly because: 1) he has almost no injury history 2) his game relies less on athleticism than others 3) his production has showed no signs of slowing and even recently improved 4) a good Avs team would likely improve his numbers since he's frequently surrounded by fringe NHLers currently.

I saw a lot of the same misguided analysis of the Burns situation. Now he's on one of the best contracts in the league and the Hurricanes are loving life with a top 10 defenseman (by impact numbers) on less than $6M AAV.

I get it. Don't trade Newhook for Couture. But don't suggest Couture is not very attractive at $4.5M.

Also the buyout is very reasonable. Idk what you're talking about. The option to just walk away from a player is very attractive. Something like $2M dead cap hit one year and $1M the next if bought out in 2026. Relatively unlikely to be necessary, especially since Couture can continue to PK and provide great defense from C.
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 11 at 8:38 a.m.
Thread: Selling off as much as possible
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>NMAvsFan</b></div><div>Couture is far too old for the Avs. The likelihood his production drops off a cliff is high.</div></div>
Employing a good 2C for only $4.5M is a bargain. If Coututre were a Free Agent, I could easily see him get a 4 yr $18M contract. If he has declined significantly in his age 38 season, he would probably still be putting up $3-4M in value, but cap will have increased substantially by then. A buyout would also be very manageable by that stage.

Great on the penalty kill, provides good defense, still manages to produce offensively despite horrid wingers, no sign of any decline so far.

Same argument was used against Pavelski and Burns. Both are top players in the league.

Despite all that, I can see the Avs passing with their cap crunch and not wanting to give up a young cost controlled NHLer. I just don't think you need to unfairly put down Couture to justify your reasoning.