Rumor: 2020-21 Trade Rumours and FA Part VIII: Intra-Playoff Edition?

[Pokecheque]

I don't know how you can say that. Outside of 16-17 disaster, Varlamov was great for us. Arguably the only reason we were respectable as a team. Grubauer came in as a backup, so to me he was a clear downgrade to start from Varlamov.

No he wasn't. The one and only time he was truly "great" for the Avalanche was 2013-14 when he basically carried a deeply flawed team into a division title and the postseason. Apart from that he ranged from good to acceptable to awful. Most times when he was bad, IMO at least, he was likely fighting through injury.

Also, I don't know how "respectable" the Avs were in those intervening years. Apart from that one crazy run under Roy, they were quite bad, and in one season, the worst team of the modern age.

 

[redacted]

I don't know how you can say that. Outside of 16-17 disaster, Varlamov was great for us. Arguably the only reason we were respectable as a team. Grubauer came in as a backup, so to me he was a clear downgrade to start from Varlamov.

I don't see how you can say great. Varly was great in one year, good in a couple others, and solid overall. Grubs also didn't come in as the backup... the org traded for him and gave him a 3 year deal at double the going rate for backups. He was brought in to replace Varly... Bednar just didn't trust him at the beginning.

If you go back year through year, you see that Varly is the starter, but beyond a stretch early in the Roy era... he really wasn't that much better than his backups.

18-19: Worse numbers than Grubs and lost the starting job
17-18: This was a good year for him. Better than Bernier... not by a huge amount though
16-17: Complete disaster, was out performed by Pickard and basically lost his starting job temporarily
15-16: Starter and had a solid year... but Berra and Pickard had better numbers
14-15: Good year and was the clear starter... Pickard was an unreal backup that year and Berra was solid
13-14: Great year and a year he should have won the Vezina with some Hart love. Giggy was clearly on the downturn.
12-13: Another pretty bad year, Giggy was better
11-12: Solid year, not great or even good. Giggy was better

IMO a lot of the Varly opinions function on him being absurdly good in 13-14 then playing solid for a bit under Roy (which his system inflated goalie numbers).

 

[Pokecheque]

Out of curiosity, why did Roy's system inflate Varly's numbers that one season and not others? I didn't really care for it, it was man-to-man and lent itself to guys getting pulled way out of position rather easily.

 

[redacted]

Out of curiosity, why did Roy's system inflate Varly's numbers that one season and not others? I didn't really care for it, it was man-to-man and lent itself to guys getting pulled way out of position rather easily.

It inflated all goalie numbers in general... more shots faced typically means a higher save percentage. Varly in the Roy era .921 (Picks .927, Giggy .913, and Berra .915). Varly Avs post Roy era .911 (Picks .904). Varly Avs pre Roy era .909. It is a pretty simple statistically thing and simply math. In general the NHL is a 2-5 goal league where teams will settle in somewhere in there to win. Usually with 3-4 goals. 3-4 goals on 30 shots is a much different percentage than 3-4 goals on 40 shots... they typically equate to the same result in the end.

 

[Pokecheque]

It inflated all goalie numbers in general... more shots faced typically means a higher save percentage. Varly in the Roy era .921 (Picks .927, Giggy .913, and Berra .915). Varly Avs post Roy era .911 (Picks .904). Varly Avs pre Roy era .909. It is a pretty simple statistically thing and simply math. In general the NHL is a 2-5 goal league where teams will settle in somewhere in there to win. Usually with 3-4 goals. 3-4 goals on 30 shots is a much different percentage than 3-4 goals on 40 shots... they typically equate to the same result in the end.

Oh, so simply because they gave up so many shots . I know they tried to limit them from high-danger areas but I'm not sure how successful they actually were in that regard.

 

[redacted]

Oh, so simply because they gave up so many shots . I know they tried to limit them from high-danger areas but I'm not sure how successful they actually were in that regard.

Yeah... in Varly's peak year, he was looking at close to 34 a game and in other years he was more around 30-32. Seems like a small difference, but give up 3 on each and you have a range of .900 to .912... or the difference between a bad goalie and a solid goalie on paper.

The ideal of what Roy really wanted to run (at least when teamed up with Tourigny) was what Tampa is running now. Tampa just has the horses on the back end to do it, better defensive forwards, and an absurd neutral zone scheme. If things breakdown, your elite goalie will keep you in the game. That didn't really last though... By last half of the 2nd season, Roy was throwing every bit of crap at the wall and changing things all the time. His final season was a messy box zone plus 1 with a 2-1-2 predominantly that sometimes went to a narrow 1-2-2. That was Roy giving into what Sakic wanted to bring in with Pratt's defensive scheme and just ended up a mess. I'm pretty sure the shots against improved over the time, but nothing was meshing together because Roy wanted to do different things than Pratt and the team wasn't built for either.

 

[Foppa2118]

Varly was always better than his backups unless he was playing injured. He never fully got the respect he was due because some people just didn't like him.

You can't place any importance on backups like Giggy, Bernier, or Berra having better numbers when they played 20-30+ games less than Varlamov. The backup role is entirely different with less work load against easier competition. I had countless discussions about this back then when people would try to claim the backups were better than Varly.

Varly was good in 13-14, 14-15 (less so than the year prior but still good on a bad team) 17-18 and was decent in 11-12 and 15-16. He was clearly better than Bernier in 17-18 as evidenced by his .920 save percentage in a starters role compared to Bernier's .913 in a backup role.

People were livid that the Avs protected Varly instead of Pickard in expansion, but given Varly has continued to be a world class goalie and Pickard hasn't been able to stick in the NHL, it was obviously the right decision.

The Avs just broke him physically making him stand on his head making 35+ saves every night to cover for that awful defense.

 

[dahrougem2]

No he wasn't. The one and only time he was truly "great" for the Avalanche was 2013-14 when he basically carried a deeply flawed team into a division title and the postseason. Apart from that he ranged from good to acceptable to awful. Most times when he was bad, IMO at least, he was likely fighting through injury.

Also, I don't know how "respectable" the Avs were in those intervening years. Apart from that one crazy run under Roy, they were quite bad, and in one season, the worst team of the modern age.

That's just the thing - under Roy and even under Sacco the fact that we were "middle of the pack" is a testament to Varlamov. The teams were downright bad.

I don't see how you can say great. Varly was great in one year, good in a couple others, and solid overall. Grubs also didn't come in as the backup... the org traded for him and gave him a 3 year deal at double the going rate for backups. He was brought in to replace Varly... Bednar just didn't trust him at the beginning.

If you go back year through year, you see that Varly is the starter, but beyond a stretch early in the Roy era... he really wasn't that much better than his backups.

18-19: Worse numbers than Grubs and lost the starting job
17-18: This was a good year for him. Better than Bernier... not by a huge amount though
16-17: Complete disaster, was out performed by Pickard and basically lost his starting job temporarily
15-16: Starter and had a solid year... but Berra and Pickard had better numbers
14-15: Good year and was the clear starter... Pickard was an unreal backup that year and Berra was solid
13-14: Great year and a year he should have won the Vezina with some Hart love. Giggy was clearly on the downturn.
12-13: Another pretty bad year, Giggy was better
11-12: Solid year, not great or even good. Giggy was better

IMO a lot of the Varly opinions function on him being absurdly good in 13-14 then playing solid for a bit under Roy (which his system inflated goalie numbers).

Disagree, it doesn't come from that 13-14 season. It comes from him being a legitimately good-to-great goaltender for this team during his tenure here. Obviously not the greatest we've seen (Grubauer recently has been better) but let's not discredit Varly here.

Also I think you're misunderstanding what I'm arguing here. Grubauer at the time coming in as a backup in Washington was seen as a "downgrade" from Varlamov as the starter, that's what I'm saying. He's clearly proven himself since then. And the argument was in relation to bringing a current "backup" to be replacing Grubauer and what he's done this season. It'd be a "downgrade" until proven otherwise.

 

[Pokecheque]

I'm not really trying to diss Varly here--rather the bad management that threw an unprotected 1st rounder to get him and just a month or so previously, literally downgraded the team in front of him. They spent what ended up being a high pick for a potential franchise goalie and then wasted a bunch of prime years doing NOTHING. That said, I don't think he's been this elite netminder except for one season. He was...good, sometimes very good. But that's it. I think it was an overpayment but, the Avs stupidly went out of their way to make it a higher pick than it should've been. Don't trade for the guy if you're going to spend the next 2-3 seasons tanking. That was beyond idiotic.

The only real drawbak on Varly IMO was his propensity for injury. Yes, I know, Grubs has pretty much been as injury prone, and certainly moreso last season than Varlamov was for New York.

 

[Foppa2118]

I'm not really trying to diss Varly here--rather the bad management that threw an unprotected 1st rounder to get him and just a month or so previously, literally downgraded the team in front of him. They spent what ended up being a high pick for a potential franchise goalie and then wasted a bunch of prime years doing NOTHING. That said, I don't think he's been this elite netminder except for one season. He was...good, sometimes very good. But that's it. I think it was an overpayment but, the Avs stupidly went out of their way to make it a higher pick than it should've been. Don't trade for the guy if you're going to spend the next 2-3 seasons tanking. That was beyond idiotic.

The only real drawbak on Varly IMO was his propensity for injury. Yes, I know, Grubs has pretty much been as injury prone, and certainly moreso last season than Varlamov was for New York.

I don't think they intentionally tried to tank after they got Varly. I think they were just still building and that 2013-14 season tricked them and many of us into thinking they were closer to being done building than they actually were.

The defense was just never anywhere near good in front of Varly and the workload he was asked to carry IMO led to many of his injury problems, which led to his inconsistency.

If Varly had the team Grubauer has now, I bet he would have stayed a lot healthier, been a lot more consistent, and probably won a Vezina or two. He should have won in 2013-14 IMO too.

 

[PAZ]

I'm not really trying to diss Varly here--rather the bad management that threw an unprotected 1st rounder to get him and just a month or so previously, literally downgraded the team in front of him. They spent what ended up being a high pick for a potential franchise goalie and then wasted a bunch of prime years doing NOTHING. That said, I don't think he's been this elite netminder except for one season. He was...good, sometimes very good. But that's it. I think it was an overpayment but, the Avs stupidly went out of their way to make it a higher pick than it should've been. Don't trade for the guy if you're going to spend the next 2-3 seasons tanking. That was beyond idiotic.

The only real drawbak on Varly IMO was his propensity for injury. Yes, I know, Grubs has pretty much been as injury prone, and certainly moreso last season than Varlamov was for New York.

Varly was our first starter we could feel comfortable heading into the season since Roy, before that it was just a rotating carousal.

While we overpaid to get Varly, I would do that trade again. You can't win and players can't develop if they don't have faith in their goaltending, and looking back I wouldn't have trusted the Avs to find a starting goaltender. Forsberg would be absolutely amazing on this team, but ultimately our team would look drastically different if he was here.

 

[Pokecheque]

I don't think they intentionally tried to tank after they got Varly. I think they were just still building and that 2013-14 season tricked them and many of us into thinking they were closer to being done building than they actually were.

The defense was just never anywhere near good in front of Varly and the workload he was asked to carry IMO led to many of his injury problems, which led to his inconsistency.

If Varly had the team Grubauer has now, I bet he would have stayed a lot healthier, been a lot more consistent, and probably won a Vezina or two. He should have won in 2013-14 IMO too.

The team's top shutdown pairing was Ryan O'Byrne and an old, nearly washed-up Jan Hejda. They were still a cap floor team until the new CBA was put in place right when Nathan MacKinnon joined the team. They shipped away their best puckmoving defenseman and offensive catalyst in John-Michael Liles and became a one-dimensional dump-and-chase team with no real puckmoving ability. Erik Johnson even said Sacco wouldn't let them skate the puck up the ice.

Intentionally tanking? No, but they most assuredly were still tanking. The VERY NEXT SEASON, they were the sixth worst team in shots against, fourth worst in goals against, and the second-worst team in the NHL. Good thing too, because they won the lottery!

Varly was our first starter we could feel comfortable heading into the season since Roy, before that it was just a rotating carousal.

While we overpaid to get Varly, I would do that trade again. You can't win and players can't develop if they don't have faith in their goaltending, and looking back I wouldn't have trusted the Avs to find a starting goaltender. Forsberg would be absolutely amazing on this team, but ultimately our team would look drastically different if he was here.

Naw. I wouldn't. I liked what Sherman did the first time, he went and got a capable backup who might be ready for a starter's role for relatively cheap in Craig Anderson. Guess what? That's what Sakic did with Grubauer. Didn't work out long-term with Andy but that doesn't mean you just abandon the plan. I might not have hated the move so much in hindsight had some actual building been taking place. It wasn't, as we now know.

Also, that was a MASSIVE investment in a very talented, but also very injury prone goalie. That's ultimately the reason why the Avs decided to move on.

This is also why I would never pay through the nose to get John Gibson. An elite netminder does you no good if he can't stay on the ice.

 

[redacted]

That's just the thing - under Roy and even under Sacco the fact that we were "middle of the pack" is a testament to Varlamov. The teams were downright bad.

Disagree, it doesn't come from that 13-14 season. It comes from him being a legitimately good-to-great goaltender for this team during his tenure here. Obviously not the greatest we've seen (Grubauer recently has been better) but let's not discredit Varly here.

Also I think you're misunderstanding what I'm arguing here. Grubauer at the time coming in as a backup in Washington was seen as a "downgrade" from Varlamov as the starter, that's what I'm saying. He's clearly proven himself since then. And the argument was in relation to bringing a current "backup" to be replacing Grubauer and what he's done this season. It'd be a "downgrade" until proven otherwise.

Varly was excellent for one season. Good for two. Then a bunch of average years around that to end with a good season. Varly was not on great teams and the Avs failed that rebuild. That is not on him. Beyond one season, Varly was in that 10-15 range for starters. Average to good. He was the best starter the Avs had since Roy left and solidifying that position I think leaves a shine on his legacy that people hold on to. Especially since the one season his obvious talent came together lead the team on a wild ride. I'm not saying he was terrible by any stretch, he was a starter... he just wasn't a great starter.

So any team grabbing a young backup from elsewhere is downgrading? That is one of the big ways to get future starters and has been common throughout the league for a long time. That isn't downgrading as much as trying to secure a future at the position. Grubi was the goalie of the future for the Avs and Varly was the lameduck.

 

[dahrougem2]

Varly was excellent for one season. Good for two. Then a bunch of average years around that to end with a good season. Varly was not on great teams and the Avs failed that rebuild. That is not on him. Beyond one season, Varly was in that 10-15 range for starters. Average to good. He was the best starter the Avs had since Roy left and solidifying that position I think leaves a shine on his legacy that people hold on to. Especially since the one season his obvious talent came together lead the team on a wild ride. I'm not saying he was terrible by any stretch, he was a starter... he just wasn't a great starter.

So any team grabbing a young backup from elsewhere is downgrading? That is one of the big ways to get future starters and has been common throughout the league for a long time. That isn't downgrading as much as trying to secure a future at the position. Grubi was the goalie of the future for the Avs and Varly was the lameduck.

No, but given how Grubauer's career had looked up until that point, especially how his playoff stint ended that Capitals cup run it's fair to say Grubauer coming in was going to be a downgrade from Varlamov until proven otherwise - which he has proven otherwise.

The Grubauer we know now is not the Grubauer that's always been here. Lest we forget we had a very large group of posters on here clamouring for Pavel Francouz to be handed the starting gig to make up for Grubauer's poor play at one point in time.

 

[redacted]

No, but given how Grubauer's career had looked up until that point, especially how his playoff stint ended that Capitals cup run it's fair to say Grubauer coming in was going to be a downgrade from Varlamov until proven otherwise - which he has proven otherwise.

The Grubauer we know now is not the Grubauer that's always been here. Lest we forget we had a very large group of posters on here clamouring for Pavel Francouz to be handed the starting gig to make up for Grubauer's poor play at one point in time.

I thought Grubi was a great pickup and had a lot of promise as a future guy. Risk worth taking IMO.

The group here has been always jumping at the bit to hate on him. No idea why this fan base has hated him so much, but even now people don’t want to resign him.

 

[The Abusement Park]

I thought Grubi was a great pickup and had a lot of promise as a future guy. Risk worth taking IMO.

The group here has been always jumping at the bit to hate on him. No idea why this fan base has hated him so much, but even now people don’t want to resign him.

Because he isn’t Roy probably.

 

[PAZ]

I thought Grubi was a great pickup and had a lot of promise as a future guy. Risk worth taking IMO.

The group here has been always jumping at the bit to hate on him. No idea why this fan base has hated him so much, but even now people don’t want to resign him.

Because he's the opposite of a flashy goalie.

 

[Gatorbait19]

That’s definitely the way to go for a rebuilding team right? Let’s not only find a way to waste a valuable pick, but try and screw up our chances at getting a top 3 pick in next years draft!

 

[Gatorbait19]

@henchman24 as a jackets fan would you trade all 3 firsts this year for Eichel (not sure if buff would get a better offer though)? Eichel could be a game changer there, although I’d be very concerned with his attitude/reputation. Risky, but if I’m Columbus though I think eichel is the one go for it move I’d consider.

 

[The Abusement Park]

@henchman24 as a jackets fan would you trade all 3 firsts this year for Eichel (not sure if buff would get a better offer though)? Eichel could be a game changer there, although I’d be very concerned with his attitude/reputation. Risky, but if I’m Columbus though I think eichel is the one go for it move I’d consider.

If it keeps Jones than 100%.

Even with Jones getting traded for a haul I think it makes a lot of sense. They still have a 1D to build around in Werenski and then they get an elite 1C which is their biggest need. Add the haul they get back for Jones and that’s a really nice way to kickstart the franchise.

 

[Hasbro]

An Avalanche-Ning Finals and I think an arms race starts for star power among the contenders that fell short. ThinkVegas goes hard for Eich, Toronto dumps Marner on another contender to open space for Seth Jones.

Montreal in the Semis could mean the Ducks getting their door beat down for Gibson.

 

[redacted]

@henchman24 as a jackets fan would you trade all 3 firsts this year for Eichel (not sure if buff would get a better offer though)? Eichel could be a game changer there, although I’d be very concerned with his attitude/reputation. Risky, but if I’m Columbus though I think eichel is the one go for it move I’d consider.

I wouldn't say I'm a Jackets fan... I'm a hockey fan and just love the sport. The only team I actively cheer for is the Avs.

I would absolutely trade all 3 for Eichel. He's a franchise changing talent for them. Even if it didn't keep Jones, it goes a long, long ways to keeping Werenski. Even when Columbus loses Jones, they still have a #1D and #1G... and with Eichel they'd have a #1C. If Roslovic ended up solidifying as a #2C... they have the toughest 4 positions on a roster to fill, filled. Defensive pool would be rather weak with 'sure thing' talent, but that is a solid base to build a playoff team from.

 

[dahrougem2]

So who does Columbus have for picks? They've got their own at 5th overall and they've got Toronto's pick. Who is the third team?

You offer up three 1st round picks + for Eichel, especially when one of those is a top-5 pick and I don't know how Buffalo says no to that. Especially if the offers out there are mundane in terms of prospects.

 

[nammerus]

So who does Columbus have for picks? They've got their own at 5th overall and they've got Toronto's pick. Who is the third team?

You offer up three 1st round picks + for Eichel, especially when one of those is a top-5 pick and I don't know how Buffalo says no to that. Especially if the offers out there are mundane in terms of prospects.

Tampa’s pick.

 

[Colorado Avalanche]

So who does Columbus have for picks? They've got their own at 5th overall and they've got Toronto's pick. Who is the third team?

You offer up three 1st round picks + for Eichel, especially when one of those is a top-5 pick and I don't know how Buffalo says no to that. Especially if the offers out there are mundane in terms of prospects.

Eichel and Columbus sounds like a bad fit.

I'd give him two years and he would want out.