Iceberg
Registered User
- May 4, 2002
- 4,796
- 1,134
There is no hate, i actually love the little guy. But i want my team to win the Stanley Cup above all, and i don't believe we can do it with the current D core.
Rumor: 2020-21 Trade Rumours and FA Part VIII: Intra-Playoff Edition?
- Thread starter SoundwaveIsCharisma
- Start date
-
Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
- Status
There is no hate, i actually love the little guy. But i want my team to win the Stanley Cup above all, and i don't believe we can do it with the current D core.
TL;DR - Yes, but not since 1990. Matt Grzelcyk and Ryan Ellis are the best comparables.
I'm not a G hater, but I was curious to know the answer to this. I think the primary issue with G's size is weight, not height. Guys like Boyle, Campbell, and Rafalski were all listed between 190 and 200. G is listed at 170. That's a very big difference. I know those numbers can be inflated or deflated by the team. Nevertheless, I looked at defensemen who played at least 20 playoff games, were born after 1939, and were listed as weighing 180 or less. This is what I discovered:
There are only 26 players who meet that criteria. Only five of those guys won Cups:
1. HHOFer Jacques Laperriere (6'2", 180) who won a bunch with the Canadiens in the '60s and '70s.
2-4. Don Awrey (6', 175), Gary Doak (6'1, 175), and Dallas Smith (6'1", 180) who won the Cup together in '70 for Boston. The average size of their D was 5'11", 187. Awrey and Smith won again in '72 with Boston. Awrey won a third with Montreal.
5. Reijo Ruotsalainen (5'8", 165) who won Cups with Edmonton in '87 and '90.
There are only four recent players (besides G) who meet that criteria:
1. Jared Spurgeon (5'9", 167)
2. Kris Russell (5'10", 170)
3. Matt Grzelcyk (5'9", 174)
4. Ryan Ellis (5'10", 180)
Both Grzelcyk and Ellis have been to and lost Cup finals. In 2019, Grzelcyk averaged 16:27 ATOI in 20 of 24 games playing behind McAvoy, Krug, Carlo, and Chara. He tied for the worst +/- at -3 but had 8 points (tied for 2nd among Boston D). In 2017, Ellis averaged 23:26 playing with Josi. Subban/Ekholm was the other top pair. All four had about the same stats.
dahrougem2
Registered User
flyfysher
Registered User
- Mar 21, 2012
- 6,602
- 5,249
Josi as a partner to be able to achieve comparable stats? That should tell you something.
Foppa2118
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2003
- 52,954
- 32,820
SoftMittsHardSticks
Registered User
- Jan 3, 2014
- 206
- 270
With so many people on this board beating the "trade Girard" drum, I am curious to know who you all believe holds more trade value between Girard and Byram. I understand the sentiment behind replacing Girard with a grittier big booty bitch. But the defensive core that the Avs deployed this year was phenomenal for a vast majority of the season. If we're looking for an experienced, impact defenseman to shore up our D lines, wouldn't it make sense to add to an already successful formula via trading Byram rather than trading out an integral piece of our league topping defense?
dahrougem2
Registered User
No, because Byram projects to be able to do all of the things Girard can do while being able to physically defend much better.
Foppa2118
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2003
- 52,954
- 32,820
I don't think they need to actively be looking to trade G. He's a very good defenseman and he'll help any team, especially an up tempo team like the Avs.
It's just that they need a big man who's capable of being a regular top 4 guy, and that might mean they need to move G to open up room in the top 4, possibly open up PP time, cap space, and also to use him as an asset so you don't weaken other positions.
If they can address that weakness on the blueline without moving G that would be great, but it's going to be hard to do. Especially cap wise.
Even though G is probably a bigger part of the team than Toews, they just re-signed Toews semi long term and usually you don't see teams trade players a year after signing, because of the precedent it sets for future RFA's who may push for more money, since they may not have the location stability they hoped for on that team with a long term deal.
They're going to need Byram's cheap ELC the next couple years, and if they bridge him after that, he'll be relatively cheap for about 4 years or so.
If they do some sort of G for Jones type deal, then I'd expect them to move on from Toews either next off season to replace Kadri with a more expensive 2C, or the off season after that when Nate is due a raise. Instead of a Big 4 they'll have a Big 3 on the blueline, which would emulate the Big 3 that gave the Avs their 2001 Cup, and they tried repeatedly to duplicate afterwards with little success.
It's just that they need a big man who's capable of being a regular top 4 guy, and that might mean they need to move G to open up room in the top 4, possibly open up PP time, cap space, and also to use him as an asset so you don't weaken other positions.
If they can address that weakness on the blueline without moving G that would be great, but it's going to be hard to do. Especially cap wise.
Even though G is probably a bigger part of the team than Toews, they just re-signed Toews semi long term and usually you don't see teams trade players a year after signing, because of the precedent it sets for future RFA's who may push for more money, since they may not have the location stability they hoped for on that team with a long term deal.
They're going to need Byram's cheap ELC the next couple years, and if they bridge him after that, he'll be relatively cheap for about 4 years or so.
If they do some sort of G for Jones type deal, then I'd expect them to move on from Toews either next off season to replace Kadri with a more expensive 2C, or the off season after that when Nate is due a raise. Instead of a Big 4 they'll have a Big 3 on the blueline, which would emulate the Big 3 that gave the Avs their 2001 Cup, and they tried repeatedly to duplicate afterwards with little success.
SoftMittsHardSticks
Registered User
- Jan 3, 2014
- 206
- 270
Projecting to reach that level is one thing, but this team is capable of winning the cup right now. If trading Byram brings in the pieces that push us over the top and brings a cup (or two) back to Denver, then we should do it now. Sure, it will hurt if we hear that Byram is blossoming elsewhere. But, a wise man one said: "I can't really hear, because I've got my two Stanley Cup rings plugging my ears"
dahrougem2
Registered User
Byram already showed this season what he could do. A second season - a full season - in the NHL is going to show a lot of people just how ready he is for a full time top-4 role.
Girard can also bring back that piece. I'm taking Byram over Girard all day.
Bone Breaker
Registered User
your logic is flawed in the sense that if projecting Byram to be a top D is just a possibility, well, winning one or two cups with the Byram more experienced replacement is also a possibility. there is zero guarantee that you will win a cup if you trade away Byram. Id even argue that winning a cup would actually be MORE DIFFICULT, since by moving Byram's ELC and adding one more expensive contract on D would necessarily make you weaken either the offense or goaltending. both areas which, btw, have a thinner pipeline in our system nowadays.
Avs_19
Registered User
- Jun 28, 2007
- 85,970
- 35,502
Toews-Makar
Girard-Oleksiak
Byram-Timmins/EJ(?)
That's the way.
Girard-Oleksiak
Byram-Timmins/EJ(?)
That's the way.
- Jan 18, 2016
- 35,513
- 26,860
At this moment Girard has more value. Even with the poor playoffs he’s proven to be a 35-45 point dman who’s good on the PP and is arguably THE best transition defenseman in the league. All for 5mil for 6 years. Insane value in that contract. Byram could be the better player of the two, but he still has to prove it. And chances are you don’t get a contract nearly as good as you get with Girards out of his ELC.
- Apr 25, 2006
- 53,467
- 59,325
If you put Girard on the left side (and leave him there) and pair him with a bigger RDH who can help him with the physical stuff you'll get most of the good and not much of the bad out of him.
Girard and EJ was working well for a reason.
When Girard is asked to play with another lefty who has limitations and doesn't help him much for the defensive stuff he'll struggle.
Girard and EJ was working well for a reason.
When Girard is asked to play with another lefty who has limitations and doesn't help him much for the defensive stuff he'll struggle.
hockeyfish
Registered User
I think we need to step back and realize that this team was 5 minutes from taking a 3-0 lead against Vegas. It’s not like they got embarrassed with a sweep. The previous two years were also exceedingly close to breaking though to the semifinals. Tweets need to be made, as always. But this team was incredibly close to being a cup team.
It is a Cup team. They won the President's Trophy, for f***s sake. The concern is that the only recognizable pattern they've displayed in the playoffs so far is choking. With the season they had anything less than making the third round was a failure. Not only did they not accomplish that, they couldn't even take Vegas to 7 games. It's unacceptable, flat out.
- Apr 25, 2006
- 53,467
- 59,325
Iceberg
Registered User
- May 4, 2002
- 4,796
- 1,134
I've talked about the need to add size to our defense, and grit to our bottom lines, since before the season began. I'm not overreacting because we lost to Vegas.
- Jan 18, 2016
- 35,513
- 26,860
I mean this stuff is said about literally every team until they win a cup. And winning a cup is f***ing hard. 2 years ago the Tampa Bay Lightning were choke artists. Now they’re looking to be one of the best teams of the last ~20 years. Let’s hope Sakic makes the changes necessary to get that cup.
- Apr 25, 2006
- 53,467
- 59,325
I'm going to post it for you then
I called an Eichel for Tkachuk+ trade a while ago...let's see if I was right.
Nihiliste
Registered User
- Feb 8, 2010
- 11,511
- 4,732
Good post, it’s not his height, it’s his lack of strength. Some of the toughest players in history have been on the shorter side, but they were much stronger
Northern Avs Fan
Registered User
- May 27, 2019
- 21,970
- 29,649
I’d definitely take Tkachuk, but I don’t see him as a fit.
He’s going to command a big contract and doesn’t fill the Avs biggest need. If he was a centre, I’d want the Avs to move aggressively.
He’s going to command a big contract and doesn’t fill the Avs biggest need. If he was a centre, I’d want the Avs to move aggressively.
- Status
