Value of trade assets.

[krsmith17 7,191]

9 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Nice edit after the fact lol

I edited long before you responded... Keep trolling though. Looks good on you.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

3 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

I edited long before you responded... Keep trolling though. Looks good on you.

I've put forth clear arguments with reasoning to back them. That's trolling in your book lol?

Sounds more like you've just run out of ammo to support your top4 puck moving D-man theory

[PavelValerievichDatsyuk 1,935]

1 minute ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

His numbers this year have been worse than Howard's ever have in his whole career. He's been about as effective as Coreau, which isn't saying much.

His playoff performance last year was NOT good.

The rest of your post I agree with. Mraz absolutely did steal Jimmys job before losing it again, and I hope he does it again without losing it this time.

There is no clear choice, you are correct. However, Howard has a good track record. He goes up and down like all goalies do, but he is a proven commodity in the NHL, unlike Mrazek. And has never dipped as low as Mrazek has. Howard isn't 37+ yet either. Regardless, I'm not going to pick my goalie based age and newness.

True, but we don't have a whole season of Mrazek's numbers so comparing to Howard's past full years isn't quite fair. If you look at rough segments of 20-25 games that Howard's had throughout his career, maybe the numbers dip as low as Mrazek's or maybe not. We'll see at the end of the year where Mrazek's numbers are at.

I thought he was good in the playoffs. Apparently Blash and Holland did too since they named him #1 after it. His stats for the 3 games were SV%: .945, GAA: 1.36. That's pretty damn good - especially considering the rest of the team didn't play so well.

And for the record, I wasn't saying choose Mrazek only for his age - just that consideration of age is a factor for a team that's building for the future.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

7 minutes ago, PavelValerievichDatsyuk said:

True, but we don't have a whole season of Mrazek's numbers so comparing to Howard's past full years isn't quite fair. If you look at rough segments of 20-25 games that Howard's had throughout his career, maybe the numbers dip as low as Mrazek's or maybe not. We'll see at the end of the year where Mrazek's numbers are at.

I thought he was good in the playoffs. Apparently Blash and Holland did too since they named him #1 after it. His stats for the 3 games were SV%: .945, GAA: 1.36. That's pretty damn good - especially considering the rest of the team didn't play so well.

And for the record, I wasn't saying choose Mrazek only for his age - just that consideration of age is a factor for a team that's building for the future.

He was pulled in favor of Howard in the playoffs. Wasn't the narrative from management "He's still number 1 going into the season despite his playoff performance"? They really wanted him to regain confidence and succeed. He hasn't.

[krsmith17 7,191]

22 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

I've put forth clear arguments with reasoning to back them. That's trolling in your book lol?

Sounds more like you've just run out of ammo to support your top4 puck moving D-man theory

Yup, because that's exactly what I was referring to...

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

21 minutes ago, krsmith17 said:

Yup, because that's exactly what I was referring to...

This is in reference to the fact that I quoted you, and you edited that quote while I was writing my response, and I mentioned that fact? That's trolling?? Mate, if your gonna be salty about trolling do it when you actually get trolled.

[PavelValerievichDatsyuk 1,935]

28 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

He was pulled in favor of Howard in the playoffs. Wasn't the narrative from management "He's still number 1 going into the season despite his playoff performance"? They really wanted him to regain confidence and succeed. He hasn't.

That's not true, though. Howard played game 1 and game 2. 

Both goalies were rough at the end of last season, but Howard had a couple good games right at the end so he got the nod.

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

3 minutes ago, PavelValerievichDatsyuk said:

That's not true, though. Howard played game 1 and game 2. 

Both goalies were rough at the end of last season, but Howard had a couple good games right at the end so he got the nod.

Didn't Mraz get yanked for Howard in the last game? Or I am not remembering correctly?

[PavelValerievichDatsyuk 1,935]

4 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Didn't Mraz get yanked for Howard in the last game? Or I am not remembering correctly?

Mraz was never pulled in the series. We lost 1-0 and the lightning scored with minute or two left to go. He played great that game, but the goal was a result of him playing the puck and giving it away. 

[ChristopherReevesLegs 7,022]

http://www.thefourthperiod.com/news/det170117.html

From this sounds like Holland will try to extend Vanek and if he cant, move him at the deadline. Also Jurco sounds to be as good as gone.

[krsmith17 7,191]

37 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

http://www.thefourthperiod.com/news/det170117.html

From this sounds like Holland will try to extend Vanek and if he cant, move him at the deadline. Also Jurco sounds to be as good as gone.

If Holland tries to extend Vanek, his best trading chip to help the team beyond this season, he is an idiot. If he tries to trade Jurco when his value is at an all time low, he is an idiot...

[LeftWinger 4,948]

37 minutes ago, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

http://www.thefourthperiod.com/news/det170117.html

From this sounds like Holland will try to extend Vanek and if he cant, move him at the deadline. Also Jurco sounds to be as good as gone.

Ugh, I do like the idea of Re-signing him, but can't we just have a back door agreement to sign with us after the expansion draft? We'd have to protect him otherwise. You better believe AA and Mantha will get a protect, Nielsen must, that leaves 3 up front, now what?

[LeftWinger 4,948]

I waive Ericsson tonight.

[kickazz 5,459]

8 hours ago, krsmith17 said:

On a really good team, he may slide down to the number 5 slot, but on most teams, he is a top 4 in my opinion.

And we would like to be a really good team.. so the end result for him should be nothing past 5th or 6th D-man if we ever get back to being really good. 

Anyways, by the time we do get really good, Smith will be on the other side of 30 years old and likely not on this team. His decline will start in about 3-4 years. 

Edited January 21, 2017 by kickazz

[kliq 3,755]

I dont have any major issues with Smith, but unfortunately with our current situation of having so many vets under contract, I think we need to let him walk, or trade him.

Now, if we could rid ourselves of Kronwall and E there is a good chance I may change my tune, but unfortunately that is not happening and we cant have Kronwall, E, and Smith in our top 6 with DD/Green already taking 2 spots and guys like XO, Sproul, Russo, etc in the system especially if we plan on adding a Trouba or Fowler.

Vegas.....please please please take E! I know it wont happen, but to clear a spot on D, and to add that much cap space would be huge!

[LeftWinger 4,948]

Just a general observation, it is painfully obvious Colorado is tanking on purpose, there is no way that in this age of salary cap and parity, there could ever be a team that will finish that low in the standings.  Especially them, it wasn't but a couple of season ago they were doing very well with a load of good young players... Maybe they should've drafted Jones when they had the chance!

I would venture to say the same about Arizona.  All other teams have at least 43 points and you're telling us that those two can't get above 30? Well ARI has 32, but c'mon! They are both tanking for that #1 for sure!

[LeftWinger 4,948]

5 hours ago, kliq said:

I dont have any major issues with Smith, but unfortunately with our current situation of having so many vets under contract, I think we need to let him walk, or trade him.

Now, if we could rid ourselves of Kronwall and E there is a good chance I may change my tune, but unfortunately that is not happening and we cant have Kronwall, E, and Smith in our top 6 with DD/Green already taking 2 spots and guys like XO, Sproul, Russo, etc in the system especially if we plan on adding a Trouba or Fowler.

Vegas.....please please please take E! I know it wont happen, but to clear a spot on D, and to add that much cap space would be huge!

It's amazing how backed up we are at the D position, and yet don't have a clear cut top 2 player.

Perfect scenario before next season starts is Kronwall retires, Ericsson get dealt, claimed or waived or bought out. Smith gets dealt or walks July 1.  We acquire a legit top 2 defender.

TOP DEFENDER - GREEN

DEKEYSER - SPROUL

XO - JENSEN

MARCHENKO

If we have to trade one of the younger D in a deal, then we can re-sign Smith to a sub $1.5M contract to be our #7 relief guy. Not that I don't like him, but I just like our younger guys better. They have a bit more chemistry as well after playing a few years in GR together.

[LeftWinger 4,948]

So here's the question, If you are 4-6 points out of the playoff spot come trade deadline morning, what do you do? Buy, Sell or stand pat...

My answer would be stand pat and let these guys try to make it.

BUT...

The perfect missing the playoffs scenario is, for me:

I would love to sell Vanek for a 1st, but ONLY a 1st, and that hurts because I like Vanek. I'd try ship (if possible) Green, Ericsson, Smith and one of Nyquist/Tatar off for more picks if I were selling. Not because of any hatred towards them, but to stockpile on picks. We've already broke the streak, no need to hang on to players that don't contribute, lets go rebuild and start a new steak.

I wouldn't BUY because I'd hate to deplete our future to just try to make the playoffs.

But honestly, if we're going to miss the playoffs, I want that top 5 pick to trade away. So if we're out buy deadline, I hope we're OUT...way out.  I then follow my sell plan.

Which poses another question. What do you want to do with a top 5 pick?

My answer, as it has been for a bit now, is to offer it to Calgary or Winnipeg for their 1st and Hamilton or Trouba respectively. So we'd get a legit top 2 defender PLUS a nice mid teens pick where we could possibly snag Foote or Hague for the future. Plus I still have the 1st from the Vanek deal.  The other guys I trade, I'd like to stockpile 2018 picks. But if I cannot trade those guys, even if I cannot trade Vanek, I still hope for a top 5 and try my hardest to make deal for Hammy or Trouba.

[LeftWinger 4,948]

I hate to keep being the only one posting, but I am at work and have a lot of down time right now.

All this talk about Vanek fetching us a 1st round pick, what about the idea that Anaheim (who is in 1st place in their division) offers up Fowler for Vanek? Hmmm.... I think I'd rather take that than a 1st rounder from Chicago. Then if we still tank out and get that top 5 pick, I STILL try and do the Calgary/Winnipeg deal and have TWO of what I need.  I know I'd need to make room, but in my head, I am already dumping E however I can. If I cannot trade him, I waive him, if nobody claims him I buy him out. Sure we'd have to pay him for 6 years, but the hit is only $1.6M the first year and then 5 years of $1.3M.  I know it's dead money, but that's still a nice savings and opening up his spot would be wonderful!   I am also hedging that Smith walks if not traded, although I could deal Marchenko instead...either way. But now my 2017-18 D may resemble something like this:

Fowler - Hamilton

Dekeyser - Green

XO - Jensen

Sproul or Marchenko)

Plus with my trade for #1 D, I also draft Foote or Hague hopefully if they're still on the board. I think that would be a great way to start the rebuild for sure! I know Kronwall isn't there, but if he doesn't retire or go LTIR, odds are he won't be in the lineup too often anyhow due to injuries.

[sjr2012 439]

3 hours ago, LeftWinger said:

I hate to keep being the only one posting, but I am at work and have a lot of down time right now.

All this talk about Vanek fetching us a 1st round pick, what about the idea that Anaheim (who is in 1st place in their division) offers up Fowler for Vanek? Hmmm.... I think I'd rather take that than a 1st rounder from Chicago. Then if we still tank out and get that top 5 pick, I STILL try and do the Calgary/Winnipeg deal and have TWO of what I need.  I know I'd need to make room, but in my head, I am already dumping E however I can. If I cannot trade him, I waive him, if nobody claims him I buy him out. Sure we'd have to pay him for 6 years, but the hit is only $1.6M the first year and then 5 years of $1.3M.  I know it's dead money, but that's still a nice savings and opening up his spot would be wonderful!   I am also hedging that Smith walks if not traded, although I could deal Marchenko instead...either way. But now my 2017-18 D may resemble something like this:

Fowler - Hamilton

Dekeyser - Green

XO - Jensen

Sproul or Marchenko)

Plus with my trade for #1 D, I also draft Foote or Hague hopefully if they're still on the board. I think that would be a great way to start the rebuild for sure! I know Kronwall isn't there, but if he doesn't retire or go LTIR, odds are he won't be in the lineup too often anyhow due to injuries.

just got out myself i like the idea 

[LeftWinger 4,948]

I wish I was out! I am on 0500 to 2230 today...ugh... every FRI/SAT.

[krsmith17 7,191]

First off Lefty, you've mentioned this trade of our first for Trouba or Hamilton plus their first countless times now, and there's no way either Cheveldayoff or Treliving are that dumb. Maybe they would trade one of them without adding their first, for our first (if it's top 5) plus Ouellet or Sproul, but no way do they even think about your proposed trade.

Also, there's zero chance Murray gives any thought to a Vanek (pending UFA) for Fowler (top 3 defenseman, just turned 25, with a great cap hit for another season) trade. 

The way I see it, if there's a trade you're thinking about, first think, would I do it from the other side... If the answer is no (which it most certainly should be in these two cases) you're probably right...

Anyway, I think any upgrades to this team should happen in the offseason. We shouldn't even be thinking about upgrading at the deadline. The prices are always way too high, it's a sellers market.

Vanek should be the one player that must be traded. If we want to re-sign him after the expansion draft, fine, but re-signing him before then would be a huge mistake. Vanek should easily fetch us a 1st or 2nd plus prospect the way he's currently producing. I'd also throw out other names, including Green (could fetch a 2nd, maybe more), Smith, Marchenko, Tatar (could be an attractive piece for a team looking for depth on the wing, cost controlled RFA), Ott and Miller (if a team is looking for super amazing shutdown / penalty killers...).

If any team has any interest in Ericsson or Howard, we do what we can to make a deal work. If we have to eat a portion of the contract, we do it. People keep saying so and so is untradeable, but if the Leafs have proven anything over the past few years, it's that no player or contract is untradeable. Although, I do think either of those trades would have to wait until the offseason, and I don't have much confidence that Holland could pull it off. Not because they're untradeable, but Holland may not be willing to sell low on such "valuable pieces" to this team...

[LeftWinger 4,948]

I understand what you're saying, but I am just not so sure either of the trades are out of the realm of possibility. I am all for throwing some extra out there for Fowler, in the LONG post I made in the GM thread I actually added Marchenko to our trade with Calgary or Anaheim that I'd like to see...maybe that sweetens it up some...

[nyqvististhefuture 1,002]

On 1/19/2017 at 6:42 PM, ChristopherReevesLegs said:

Yup Howard is mediocre. He's also an established league goaltender. Mrazek is doing god awful and has no such reputation to lean on.

You seem very certain that Howard will definitely never win anything and Mrazek will definately bounce back. But you don't know either of those things. That's just what you would personally like to happen.

You also seem to not understand what an NTC or NMC are.

if he was so established we wouldnt be having problems to trade him contract or not (we tried in the off season so teams had time to fix their cap) 

 

i do know mrazek has already done more than howard has and hes 7 years younger , howards never won anything or stolen a series and most likely never will ... howards been mediocre here for years and now sts hes had a great 20-25 games you want to keep him??? teams should always sell players when the stock is high, now (or the off season) is the time to trade him if we can

lets not forget our defense has been awful this season , mrazek will bounce back he just needs to be fed more starts to get going, and we obviously need help on the back end 

as for howards no trade clause , hes already agreed to waive it , we just couldnt find a taker 

Edited January 21, 2017 by nyqvististhefuture

[nyqvististhefuture 1,002]

23 hours ago, marcaractac said:

Why does Mrazek get torn to shreds for going from Vezina numbers for a large chunk of last season to going through some struggles, yet Howard has been the definition of inconsistency. Howard had a great first half of the season and everyone quickly forgets how much of a train wreck he has been for large chunks of his career. Howard will never be the guy this team wins with. The jury is still out on Mrazek, but that is where the potential is. 

As for Howard's trade value? Despite how he has played this season, it is still pretty low. Anyone taking on that cap hit would be doing this team a huge favor. Sadly if the past is anything to go by,  Howard will be a sieve once he returns. 

thank you for that .... everyone seems to have forgotten all the times howard has under achieved as a redwing