Armchair GM: Offseason Roster Moves and Rumors

[squashmaple]

Brady Tkachuk is a whiny, reactive baby who takes too many stupid penalties, and let's not mistake that for being an "alpha dog." He's not Nathan MacKinnon, who is a psychopath while also being a top threeplayer in the league. That said, I would also love to have BTkachuk on this team.

 

[DoingItCoolKiwi]

That is what I call insanity. No way to I want Marner for 9 years at that type of financial commitment. I think he's a great player but we're now chewing up MORE CAP on a player that isn't much different than we're trading away? and now we have one less center of value (Yes, I think Voronkov is a value guy). I may be on an island but there is no way I'm going that big for that guy. He's been playing with elite players on an excellent team (just can't seem to get over the hump). Columbus is NOT that and is a ways from being close to that.

I may have went a bit overboard with 13.5m, but Marner will for sure get max years with +12m somewhere in the league. The point wasnt really that we'd want that, it's just what I think he'll realistically get with full NMC and upcoming UFA status

 

[majormajor]

I may have went a bit overboard with 13.5m, but Marner will for sure get max years with +12m somewhere in the league. The point wasnt really that we'd want that, it's just what I think he'll realistically get with full NMC and upcoming UFA status

If he's getting a $100m contract I think most of us would have little interest in Marner.

For me this discussion was a hypothetical "what would you be willing to pay in assets if Marner was willing to sign here for $11m per?"

I'm not sure whether he gets $12m+ or not, there are other factors in play beyond a player maximizing his paycheck, and he hasn't burnished his credentials as a championship type of player.

 

[GoJackets1]

On the Brady Tkachuk front -- there have been two times I identified a player who I thought would be a perfect fit for the Jackets prior to them even being considered available or included in rumors of any kind. Just players in the league who fit a need and made the overall roster better. Eventually, both of those players were traded for by the CBJ. One was Antoine Vermette, the other was Nick Foligno.

Now, I have no love for the Tkachuk family, so I've never allowed myself to have any feeling regarding bringing them to Columbus. Doesn't mean it couldn't happen.

Vermette and Foligno were also Sens players. Coincidence???

 

[cbjthrowaway]

Marner, imo is redundant is some respects to JG. Marner is a much better defender than JG, but offensively redundant as a perimeter player.

where is everyone getting this idea that teams cannot be successful if they have one or more 'perimeter' players on their roster?

nikita kucherov is a perimeter player. artemi panarin is a perimeter player. patrick kane is a perimeter player. the notion that teams can't succeed with more than one is the very reason why the hawks traded panarin for saad!

the jackets issue isn't "too much skill" or "not enough size" or "too many perimeter players" – their issue is that the roster is bad. that's it, full stop.

adding a 100-point forward who plays selke-level defense and kills penalties goes a long way toward fixing that problem. it adds a legit game changer to the top of the lineup and gives them asset flexibility to move younger guys for players who are more role-appropriate in the middle of the lineup.

also, having a guy like marner who can carry a scoring line, crush tough matchups and draw attention from other teams can only help guys like gaudreau, laine and fantilli. it either frees up space for them (if on the same line) or leads to them getting easier matchups (if on different lines).

contenders are built from the top.

They need Fantilli to be the next Alpha Dog - but he's not ready yet and won't be for a few years - and until someone shows him how it's done.

it's not mutually exclusive, though. it's not "add marner OR add a guy who can show fantilli how to be an alpha dog" – they can do both.

 

[DoingItCoolKiwi]

If he's getting a $100m contract I think most of us would have little interest in Marner.

For me this discussion was a hypothetical "what would you be willing to pay in assets if Marner was willing to sign here for $11m per?"

I'm not sure whether he gets $12m+ or not, there are other factors in play beyond a player maximizing his paycheck, and he hasn't burnished his credentials as a championship type of player.

My reasoning comes from Nylander and the rising cap. Nylander got 11.5x8 without testing UFA market. Most of the year Marner is considered better player both ways (also plays PK). He gets an extensive amount of shit from fans for playoffs, but no other market has that kind of pressure so gms have an easy excuse to bet on him.

 

[cbjthrowaway]

If he's getting a $100m contract I think most of us would have little interest in Marner.

For me this discussion was a hypothetical "what would you be willing to pay in assets if Marner was willing to sign here for $11m per?"

to add to this:

1. the cap is going to go way up in the coming seasons. a $12m contract will be much easier to stomach 3-4 years from now than it is today. the blue jackets star young players are ~3 years away from getting paid if they hit, which is not a guarantee
2. toronto is looking to keep contending, so this wouldn't be a "sell the farm" trade but would be a "multiple pieces for one big fish" move, which lines up with CBJ's current roster math

to add to the hypothetical, i think a mutually beneficial framework would be something like:

• boone jenner
• ivan provorov (50% retained)
• one of the russian forwards
• a dumais or svozil-tier prospect

toronto would get a 'hard to play against' guy they've had their eye on, a big-minutes defenseman to shore up a weak position group, an exciting scoring winger with size, and a quality prospect with a quicker NHL ETA than a draft pick would have.

columbus would get a building-block player at the top of their lineup, which would free them up for additional moves to shore up weak areas, while also clearing some of the pipeline for guys like brindley and the 2024 pick.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

Vermette and Foligno were also Sens players. Coincidence???

You see what I'm saying?

 

[stevo61]

I just wonder if we do happen to name Mark Hunter as GM if that legitimately changes anything with a potential interest in Marner or vice versa

 

[Forepar]

Man that sounds like someone a team trying to take the next step could use. Ottawa could use 1 of them, I bet they'd be a contender with an "alpha

Man that sounds like someone a team trying to take the next step could use. Ottawa could use 1 of them, I bet they'd be a contender with an "alpha do

I'd be the first to admit that having an Alpha Dog is a want/need for most teams - lol.
You can always use more of them - only a very few teams would say no at the right price, and even then only if the acquisition upset current effective team balance/leadership on a perennially contending team.

Ottawa is supposedly farther along in their rebuild than CBJ, but are the Sens really a long-term threat to do damage in the NHL Eastern Conference?
OTT's new coach is Travis Green (hired earlier today). Does that fit Tkachuk? Do the arena issues in OTT bother him (it is a ride to get there).
OTT has missed playoffs 7 consecutive years - Tkachuk is admittely unhappy about the losing, but may or may not be enough fuel a desire to be out of there. CBJ's youth group easily covers OTT's cupboard without a blink.

Granted, CBJ may also be looking at a new coach - does PV or a new CBJ coach fit Tkachuk?

It would not be easy to get Tkachuk here, no doubt. There would need to be a haul given up. But OTT has Claude Girioux as a griseled alpha dog. They have a little bit more leadership group generally than CBJ. They are nonetheless struggling to find traction. OTT would do the deal for the right price.
CBJ has NO Alpha Dogs on its roster at all - thus imo the need for CBJ is greater than for other teams to obtain an Alpha Dog and why they should make it happen if they possibly can.

It's why the discussion of "redundant" players is important to me. Does it make sense to have multiple players in the mold of JG/KJ (and to a lesser extent even Chinakov/Marchenko/Texier) when you have the need for something else? Imo, the answer is no, no matter how talented the group of smaller (or passive) players may be - hard decisions need to be made by the new GM about which of those players you keep and which players you use to acquire what you need. The current roster just doesn't cut it. The players to move out may be from a different group on the roster than listed above. Imo only Fantilli, Z and Mateychuk should be off the table at this point. So put a proposal together with the players that you decide are redundant (or a player who Tkachuk replaces). It's why you pass on a Marner at this juncture. TCB just are not ready for Marner yet, just like they weren't ready for JG.

 

[Xoggz22]

he's far more than 'incrementally' better than laine, marchenko and chinakhov – three talented but inconsistent players who struggle in their own end. marner is arguably the best defensive winger in the league and scores at a higher rate than johnny gaudreau.

he is significantly better than gaudreau. he's bolded, all-caps SIGNIFICANTLY better than laine. and there may not be a word strong enough to describe the chasm between marner and the other wings (kj, chinakhov, marchenko) on the roster.

it's like saying jarmo shouldn't have bothered giving up saad to get panarin.


mitch marner plays 21+ minutes a night, and absolutely demolishes tough matchups at both ends of the ice. as good as gaudreau is, he doesn't do that.

it's not "marner or gaudreau" because the idea is to have marner and gaudreau, whether on the same line or on different lines with JG feasting on easier matchups on L2.

the "current needs" angle is way overstated.

that list of needs is a relic left by a dead regime. why even bring in a new GM if the directive is to stay the course with a few patchwork fixes? that's not how it works.

it's a young roster that just finished bottom-five two years running. aside from fantilli, none of the young guys profile to be nearly the player that mitch marner is.

even with cbj being relatively stronger on the wing compared to other positions, acquiring a player of marner's caliber turns it into a bona fide strength relative to the rest of the league. they can then weaponize that depth to address other needs or make more substantial improvements.


that's fine, my position is that a team constructed with fantilli + marner as the top two forwards has a significantly stronger foundation than any feasible alternative.

Who is our Mathews? Tavares? Reilly? Nylander? You left a lot out of the reply to my position. I can't disagree with what you wrote here, but there is more in there that isn't addressed. And what does Gaudreau look like in the Leafs? I'll bet back to a 100pt player. He's not nearly as good defensively, I'll give you that, but he's not the hole you make it sound like. The rosters have a huge impact on performance. Marner is not going to change this team. Besides, no chance he comes and stays so it's all moot. I do enjoy the discussion. Thank you

 

[Ice9]

The rubber-meets-the-road issues with any attempt to acquire Marner is that the Leafs would be looking to add the very (kind of) players we can't afford to lose.

And the rubber is pulverized into the road when you throw in that Marner would probably rather retire than play here. I don't get the discussion...

 

[cbjthrowaway]

Who is our Mathews? Tavares? Reilly? Nylander?

1. marner is absolutely not a product of those guys, he is an elite player in his own regard
2. laine/gaudreau aren't that far off nylander
3. the idea with fantilli is that he will become a matthews-level player

you're getting too hung up on having a specific order of operations. you don't wait until you have a matthews to add a marner, you add marner because he's really good and then try to find a matthews.

The rosters have a huge impact on performance. Marner is not going to change this team. Besides, no chance he comes and stays so it's all moot. I do enjoy the discussion. Thank you

he absolutely would change this team. he's a perfect linemate for fantilli. he would either create a ton of space for gaudreau/laine or free them up for easier matchups. he'd turn the PK into a weapon.

there's no single move that the jackets could make, assuming marner is available and would come here, that would have near the same level of impact.

 

[koteka]

there's no single move that the jackets could make, assuming marner is available and would come here, that would have near the same level of impact

My goal is to win a Cup. Would highly paid Mitch Marner make the CBJ a better team? Yes. Would acquiring a highly paid Mitch Marner eventually lead us to a Cup? I really doubt it.

 

[Xoggz22]

1. marner is absolutely not a product of those guys, he is an elite player in his own regard
2. laine/gaudreau aren't that far off nylander
3. the idea with fantilli is that he will become a matthews-level player

you're getting too hung up on having a specific order of operations. you don't wait until you have a matthews to add a marner, you add marner because he's really good and then try to find a matthews.

he absolutely would change this team. he's a perfect linemate for fantilli. he would either create a ton of space for gaudreau/laine or free them up for easier matchups. he'd turn the PK into a weapon.

there's no single move that the jackets could make, assuming marner is available and would come here, that would have near the same level of impact.

You and I simply aren't going to agree on this and that's OK. Again, it's moot as Marner is not coming to Columbus now or in the future.. I'm not hung up on a specific order of operation. Marner (1.04 2015), Matthews (1.01 2016), Reilly (1.05 2012) and Nylander (1.08 2014) were all draft picks by Toronto. Home grown, high picks. They did well there. They then added Tavares when they matured and showed they were the core. I think they established the core first and then added. I don't know that CBJ has demonstrated they have a new core to build on. We think they do, but Fantilli, Jiricek, 2024 1st and Kent Johnson haven't shown they are a core to build around yet. They surely don't tell me they are Marner, Matthews, Nylander and Reilly level yet. I see Marner (or Gaudreau for that matter) as our Tavares, but we added Gaudreau too soon (granted, hard to pass up a talent like that but I think that was a push that was too early in the rebuild).

I want a cup contender. I don't want another team that is a perpetual 1st round loser.

 

[Forepar]

where is everyone getting this idea that teams cannot be successful if they have one or more 'perimeter' players on their roster?

nikita kucherov is a perimeter player. artemi panarin is a perimeter player. patrick kane is a perimeter player. the notion that teams can't succeed with more than one is the very reason why the hawks traded panarin for saad!

the jackets issue isn't "too much skill" or "not enough size" or "too many perimeter players" – their issue is that the roster is bad. that's it, full stop.

adding a 100-point forward who plays selke-level defense and kills penalties goes a long way toward fixing that problem. it adds a legit game changer to the top of the lineup and gives them asset flexibility to move younger guys for players who are more role-appropriate in the middle of the lineup.

also, having a guy like marner who can carry a scoring line, crush tough matchups and draw attention from other teams can only help guys like gaudreau, laine and fantilli. it either frees up space for them (if on the same line) or leads to them getting easier matchups (if on different lines).

contenders are built from the top.

it's not mutually exclusive, though. it's not "add marner OR add a guy who can show fantilli how to be an alpha dog" – they can do both.

A. Agree with the bolded. If we could get both, or two players similar to them (under the cap), I am all for it. That would change the trajectory of the rebuild quickly. Not immediately but quickly. Neither player likely available, let alone both. Also not enough cap-space available or trade assets without losing some mid- to high-level current players (for cap and as trade assets). Probably would need to drop salaries of Laine (tbd as to his availability to play, be traded (needs to play first) or LTIR), Elvis, Jenner and/or Severson. I would rather keep Jenner but not sure there is enough cap space and other assets to make those 2 moves possible even if both wanted to come here.

B. With regard to the number of perimeter players, there is no magic number. You need both. My opinion is that CBJ already has too many perimeter-minded players who are not good defensively.

C. I admittedly am not a big fan of Marner - I am not arguing that he's not a talented player. Maybe it's the TML thing, maybe it's the disappearing act in the playoffs (although all of TML's big guns disappeared). I just don't like the fit (given current roster) or projected contract cost for CBJ. I concede my view of Marner likely caused an overreaction on my part favoring Tkachuk as strongly as I wrote, but adding Marner without much else changing does not make this team better in the long run. Adding Tkachuk alone makes a bigger impact, imo, not so much in immediate success but in getting things in order and moving what we think is the CBJ's young core forward. Tkachuk is a pain in the ass - and CBJ needs one imo NOW, internally. They are too soft on one another and for some reason current coach apparently thinks only the C should say anything.

 

[JohnnyJacket13]

I wonder if Nashville would consider something around Laine for Saros

 

[koteka]

So, I have been wondering if there is a way to get rid of Elvis without a buyout. I think there is, but it leads to a big trade with Buffalo.

It starts with Elvis (3 years left with a cap hit of $5.4 million). Now, why would Buffalo want Elvis? They have Jeff Skinner that they would like to get rid of (3 years left with a cap hit of $9 million). Skinner is still decent, but overpaid.

So Buffalo could save a bunch of cap space and we get get a guy who is a solid but overpaid veteran.

But, you say, why would Columbus take the bad Skinner contract? Well, the answer would be that Buffalo would sweeten the pot.

So, two teams that look like potential trade partners are Columbus with a bunch of right D and Buffalo with lots of potentially elite left D but a need for right D. So what if the basis of a trade is

Elvis and Jiricek for Skinner and Owen Power.

Now, people can argue that Columbus is giving up too much or Buffalo is giving up too much so we can start adding more guys

Elvis, Jiricek, Chinakhov for Skinner, Power, Topias Leinonen (good goalie prospect) could be a trade that makes both teams better.

More pieces can be added if necessary. We could give up Provorov for example. They could add right shot D prospect Vsevold Komarov.

 

[Viqsi]

So, I have been wondering if there is a way to get rid of Elvis without a buyout. I think there is, but it leads to a big trade with Buffalo.

It starts with Elvis (3 years left with a cap hit of $5.4 million). Now, why would Buffalo want Elvis? They have Jeff Skinner that they would like to get rid of (3 years left with a cap hit of $9 million). Skinner is still decent, but overpaid.

So Buffalo could save a bunch of cap space and we get get a guy who is a solid but overpaid veteran.

But, you say, why would Columbus take the bad Skinner contract? Well, the answer would be that Buffalo would sweeten the pot.

So, two teams that look like potential trade partners are Columbus with a bunch of right D and Buffalo with lots of potentially elite left D but a need for right D. So what if the basis of a trade is

Elvis and Jiricek for Skinner and Owen Power.

Buffalo's counteroffer would be Skinner and Cozens for Merzlikins and Fantilli. Not so much because that's sane value but because it gives you the same "wait a minute what the actual f*** are you thinking" reflexive response that they get the instant you mention Owen Power.

 

[koteka]

Buffalo's counteroffer would be Skinner and Cozens for Merzlikins and Fantilli. Not so much because that's sane value but because it gives you the same "wait a minute what the actual f*** are you thinking" reflexive response that they get the instant you mention Owen Power.

I get that and I have no interest arguing with Buffalo fans who simultaneously believe Power needs to be better and is also untouchable and also Buffalo’s cap will be way out of balance soon, so I put it here.

How would you try to get rid of Elvis without a buyout? A few people have thrown out ideas and they immediately get attacked. Mostly by people who don’t offer an alternative.

 

[cbjthrowaway]

How would you try to get rid of Elvis without a buyout? A few people have thrown out ideas and they immediately get attacked. Mostly by people who don’t offer an alternative.

i mean… just buy him out! they're not hurting for cap space and the buyout isn't all that cost-prohibitive. he has zero signing bonus remaining and his contract was front-loaded, so the actual buyout cost is pretty low.

he has $15.75m left on his deal. a buyout would eliminate $5.25m of that and spread the remaining $10.5m across the next six years.

• 24-25: $4.250m savings ($1.15m dead cap)
• 25-26: $3.775m savings ($1.625m dead cap)
• 26-27: $2.475m savings ($2.925m dead cap)
• 27-28: -$1.75m dead cap
• 28-29: -$1.75 dead cap
• 29-30: -$1.75m dead cap

trading him at 50% retention, on the other hand:

• 24-25: $2.7m savings / $2.7m dead cap
• 25-26: $2.7m savings / $2.7m dead cap
• 26-27: $2.7m savings / $2.7m dead cap

they'd save $10.5m in cap over the next three years by buying him out compared to $8.1m by trading him at 50%, and the trade-off is a manageable dead cap hit from 27-28 through 29-30.

 

[Aaaarrgghh]

i mean… just buy him out! they're not hurting for cap space and the buyout isn't all that cost-prohibitive. he has zero signing bonus remaining and his contract was front-loaded, so the actual buyout cost is pretty low.

he has $15.75m left on his deal. a buyout would eliminate $5.25m of that and spread the remaining $10.5m across the next six years.

• 24-25: $4.250m savings ($1.15m dead cap)
• 25-26: $3.775m savings ($1.625m dead cap)
• 26-27: $2.475m savings ($2.925m dead cap)
• 27-28: -$1.75m dead cap
• 28-29: -$1.75 dead cap
• 29-30: -$1.75m dead cap

trading him at 50% retention, on the other hand:

• 24-25: $2.7m savings / $2.7m dead cap
• 25-26: $2.7m savings / $2.7m dead cap
• 26-27: $2.7m savings / $2.7m dead cap

they'd save $10.5m in cap over the next three years by buying him out compared to $8.1m by trading him at 50%, and the trade-off is a manageable dead cap hit from 27-28 through 29-30.

The issue with this is that Columbus are probably going to have significant cap flexibility during the two first seasons (with the cap rising), i.e. the ones when retaining yields more dead cap than a buyout does.

 

[koteka]

i mean… just buy him out! they're not hurting for cap space and the buyout isn't all that cost-prohibitive. he has zero signing bonus remaining and his contract was front-loaded, so the actual buyout cost is pretty low.

We are not winning the Cup in the next three seasons. My goal is to win the Cup. I am fundamentally opposed to kicking current problems out 5 or 6 seasons when we possibly could be in the hunt. I’d rather loan Elvis to the Swiss league or send him to Cleveland and eat the cap than buy him out.

eta - @cbjthrowaway , you do give a very logical argument for a buyout, and I compliment you for that. It just doesn’t seem to support my #1 goal of winning a Cup.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

My goal is to win a Cup. Would highly paid Mitch Marner make the CBJ a better team? Yes. Would acquiring a highly paid Mitch Marner eventually lead us to a Cup? I really doubt it.

I'm a huge Mitch Marner regular season guy. But-as you asked-would he lead the CBJ to a Cup?

A President's Cup? Maybe. A Stanley Cup? No player who is so obviously scared to get hit is of any use in the playoffs. To anybody.

In gambling parlance, Marner is a "sucker's bet".

 

[CBJWerenski8]

So not to start a fire but if/when the Rangers win the cup with the roster mostly constructed by Gorton/JD are we still going to say he doesn’t know how to build a winner? Or is he too far removed, even though it’s mostly his guys, so he still gets no credit.

Just trying to see how I’m supposed to feel