Silver Booster
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Buppy

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

8,834 profile views
  1. Best part is that 15g, 37p isn't even bad. It's still top-6 range.
  2. 3 million or so reasons. Retaining $900k is better than paying Pavelec $3.9 million to play in the AHL.
  3. Kings currently have about $16M in cap space. 2.5 if they send us Zatkoff. Waive Budaj when Quick comes back put's them at 3.1, or 3.4 if they waived Howard. So the cap would work if we retained $1.9M or more. They probably wouldn't want Howard anyway, since they're not exactly overflowing with cap space next year. But maybe they think Vegas would take him if his salary was only $3M-ish. Pavelec would be more attractive though, and the Jets wouldn't have to retain as much. All in all, I'd give a 0.03% chance. Maybe 0.04% if Jimmy makes himself look good tonight.
  4. One thing to note; despite what the article claims Russo is still waiver exempt next season. Of all the jokes in that post, this was by far the funniest. It is overpaying. Grossly even.
  5. No misinterpretation at all. I'm not arguing with the concept. I was arguing with the reality of the suggestion to trade Mrazek for Trouba. I brought up the Jets because Trouba plays for them. He's (arguably) their third best defenseman. He hasn't made their defense good enough. So why would people think he would come here, as our #1, and make our defense so good? Same thing I meant when I responded to you. Doesn't matter that a great defense can make up for a less-than-great goalie; Trouba wouldn't make us a great defense.
  6. You think Trouba makes us the Blackhawks?
  7. How's that been working for the Jets?
  8. Vezina goalies lose games too. Sometimes they let in bad goals, get lit up, and look bad. Fair point, but there's always the option of lottery protection. Also, being that Fowler and Trouba are still pretty young, it's not like it'd be some big hit to our future.
  9. Well, it's not something that requires convincing. It's not an opinion, it's factual data. But my point was just that Glendening shouldn't be lumped in with Miller and Ott, which you seem to agree with anyway. I'm not sure replacing Miller with Mantha, regardless of how the lines are put together, would really change anything, but I'm not opposed to it. And I'm sure Mantha will see a fair number of games this year anyway. I assume AA, as long as he's healthy, will be in more often than not, and every game if he looks like he did last year.
  10. Technically, if we could permanently LTIR Kronwall, it would work even without the unrealistic waivers. Moot point though, because we can't LTIR Kronwall. We'd need to clear about $3.5 million for Fowler, and we'd have to remove a player anyway. Smith would probably be pretty easily movable, and would create most of the room we'd need. Given that Kronwall isn't expected to be out long, and we'd have 8 D at that point, you can trade or waive either of Ouellet or Marchenko. Trouba would require more cap, probably looking at replacing Nyquist with Mantha, plus moving Smith or Marchenko. The upside of that is that Nyquist probably wouldn't be tough to move, and Smith could potentially be something the Jets would actually want in a trade. The real question is whether we could actually put together a package that the Ducks or Jets would accept. Our 1st would have to be included I'm sure. Jets might like Smith. Then some extra, probably another pick and/or maybe they'd like Coreau. Outside of Mantha or AA, or another high pick, I don't know that the Ducks would be interested in what we have. Not sure that's a good price for Fowler.
  11. Ott and Miller maybe, though it's debatable. And I think AA is good enough that he'll keep one of them out when we're healthy. Glendening though, while a bad possession player, isn't hurting us. All that negative possession isn't turning into goals against, which is what actually matters. And despite a lack of shots for, offensive production with him on the ice hasn't been bad. Over the last two years, we have more GF than GA with him on the ice 5v5. While he's not an elite PKer, neither are any of our other options.
  12. But you're wrong. We can do that, we'd just have to move some cap in a separate deal. Worst case would be trading someone like Smith or Tatar for well under their value, which ultimately would be no different than if we had let Abby walk. Also, the Ducks have to clear some cap space. Moving Fowler would be one way of doing that, but not the only way. They do not have to trade him. Also, remember this summer when everyone was so certain that Nyquist+ was enough to get Fowler? You thinking "should do it" doesn't mean "would do it". You think Mantha and AA have such low potential that we'd be stupid not to trade one (plus a pick) for Fowler, what could possibly make you so sure the Ducks would be interested? There is no right way to rebuild. Everything has been tried, and everything fails more often than not. The reality is that building a contender is, more than anything, about just getting lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time to get a superstar or two. Building the secondary cast is also vital, but it won't do anything without the stars. But if you don't want to pay "average" players or offer any term, you're not going to sign anyone. You're not going to build that secondary. Ok, maybe you wouldn't be bitching if we had a worse-but-cheaper team. Kind of the nature of disgruntled-fandom to do so when things aren't going well, and there's no end to hypotheticals one could image that would conceivably be better, but whatever. You'd be happy as a clam no doubt. We have some short-term cap issues, but it's not reasonable to think we're going to be real contenders over the next few years anyway, short of getting extremely lucky with some of our kids. Longer-term, we're fine, and having solid veteran leadership, even if they're over-payed role-players by then, will be a valuable asset to the young stars we'll hopefully have. And if we don't have the young stars, it won't matter.
  13. Sure, there are "cheaper" ways to get everything, and I'm sure if Holland had gone that route you'd be bitching about him being cheap. If we could acquire Fowler or Trouba for a price we thought was fair, I'm sure it would have happened already. It wouldn't be that hard to clear out some cap. Getting high-end players is a lot harder than figuring out how to pay for it. Following your 'don't ever pay anyone' philosophy would only leave us with a s***tier team and some unused cap space.
  14. I think you're confusing "top-6" and "star". I suppose you could argue that anyone could produce like he has if given the same opportunity. Kind of hard to argue against a pure hypothetical. But does it really even matter? So what if he can only produce like that because of his linemates when playing him in the top 6 means he'll have those linemates. It's not like every team (or any really) is getting significantly better production from their 6th forward.
  15. As was pointed out earlier, the number of players we've lost isn't all that unusual. The recent surge is really the result of having a better than normal level of drafting success. Also, and I've said this many times, but normally when we have actual good prospects, they are on the team before running out of exemptions. Filppula, Hudler, Helm, Abby, Smith, Nyquist, Sheahan, Jurco, Larkin, Mrazek, Marchenko, and now AA. Sometimes they make it from camp, some have had to wait for injuries. Tatar was more aberration than norm. Fringe players like Mursak, Ritola, Emmerton, Andersson, Nestrasil, and Frk would have been in the minors in pretty much any organization. Two years ago, Frk wasn't even able to stick with GR all year. If we'd made a decision on him before this summer, he'd be in Europe. Ouellet, Sproul, and Pulk probably would have been on the team earlier if we hadn't had so many other young guys. Losing Pulk and Frk was as much about keeping AA, Ouellet and Sproul as it was about Miller and Ott. Pulk's injury probably cost us. If he'd stayed healthy and continued to produce as he had been, we probably don't look at Vanek. If he'd stayed healthy and stopped producing, lost his spot that way, he'd probably be in GR right now, or Europe (and no one would care). As for Sproul, if he was that good, I have to believe he would have been up by now. It's not like Marchenko is that high a bar to get over.