SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

yesyesyes

Member Since
Apr. 30, 2019
Favourite Team
Toronto Maple Leafs
2nd Favourite Team
Columbus Blue Jackets
Forum Posts
329
Posts per Day
0.2
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 17, 2019 at 1:02 p.m.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>BurgerBoss</b></div><div>It'd be wise for TOR to move players under the offer sheet threat at the draft. But I don't see that many teams paying so big amounts...offer sheet would be much more lucrative option, don't you think.

Latest offer sheet was in 2012-13, when CGY tried to offer sheet Ryan O'Reilly. No offer sheets after that. I'd like to see it changed, otherwise the whole idea of it should just be removed completely.</div></div>

In a vacuum an offersheet holds a lot of appeal but in a 31 team league it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Is team A a preferred location for Player A? No then he won't be interested in an offer sheet. Also he can only sign one deal so if he is looking for an offer sheet other teams will have to compete salary wise with each other meaning the contract could go up substantially.

So trading for the player may cost more or the same in assets but save money cap wise.

The only way it makes sense is if there is 1 team interested in a player, then if a trade price is too much they can wait and just outbid the team the player is on. (The vacuum reference) That isn't reality though.

So if a player looks like they won't stick around, you trade them for a fair price. This is the exact reason why TO isn't in a bad spot. They need to clear space but really only have to deal with a bad contract for 1 year in Marleau. They can fit Marner easy enough and still structure the team to add at the deadline if a young inexperienced defence is really bad. If its good they can add somewhere else or stand pat and next year have a lot more flexibility.

The doom and gloom is massively overblown.
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 17, 2019 at 12:03 p.m.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>LoganOllivier</b></div><div>2 years older and coming off a career year where he was key in giving Tavares and Marner the space and time to do what they do. Stop reading James Tanner, the guy doesn't know hockey. He reads stats and is a fan boy. Anyone who thinks its 1) possible 2) smart 3) possible to move Marleau is delusional.

Moore has looked good on the bottom 6 but that doesn't mean anything. I like him and have him on the team but Hyman isn't going anywhere. We really could do well with a couple more Hymans.</div></div>

I assume you mean basic stats as Hyman has great underlying metrics. He will never live up to his xGF as the guy has stone hands but he plays with JT and Marner, Hyman doesn't have to score.
<img class="for_img" src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D6x950EXkAAl6aG.png" alt="D6x950EXkAAl6aG.png">

On the Marleau thing, if they an find a way to Orpik him without any consequences for a fair price, I think a Marleau trade would be considered smart. I know it is very unlikely but I felt like picking nits here.

Moore might be a FUTURE replacement for Hyman (think in the expansion year) but as of now, Hyman should be held onto very tightly.

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>LoganOllivier</b></div><div>Because look how awesome that defence played against a top team in Boston. Overrated.</div></div>

I've been saying that for months now... Glad someone has caught on. Welcome to the delusional Leafs fan club. Your membership card and complementary therapy session will be arriving shortly

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>bkt42bkt42</b></div><div>It just isnt real realistic. Most experts are calling for 11 and 10 minimum. Of course to a Leafs fan it makes 100% sense.... about as much as Ottawa taking all that payroll off your hands in that unrealistic trade lol</div></div>

Experts aren't calling for 10-11 minimum, they are saying Marner is asking for that. Their source is literally Marner's agent lol. Sources from inside the Leafs are saying they refuse to go above 9.5aav.
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 17, 2019 at 11:58 a.m.