Toggle sidebar

Rumor: 2020-21 Trade Rumours and FA Part XII: Dietary Discourse

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
f*** this @SoundwaveIsCharisma, we’re GETTING AT LEAST 2 MORE!

tenor.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: SaltySkywalker, Peter Peckerwood, Ararana and 5 others
I will set the deadline as all the way up to the start of the expansion draft, I await your worthy post count boosting escapades.

I will set some ground rules, repeat/duplicate posts will be deleted cause no one wants to get there with that. The second is, we are technically supposed to be somewhat PG, so don’t get yourselves banned. Lastly, we will consider “1000” as the point of closure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrickNHL
SoundwaveIsCharisma said:
I will set the deadline as all the way up to the start of the expansion draft, I await your worthy post count boosting escapades.

I will set some ground rules, repeat/duplicate posts will be deleted cause no one wants to get there with that. The second is, we are technically supposed to be somewhat PG, so don’t get yourselves banned. Lastly, we will consider “1000” as the point of closure.
Click to expand...
Should it not be the 28th when the calendar flips?
 


Anyone think Kahkonen could be a starter for a cup contender line "this team."

On one hand, it would probably be expensive asset wise. On the other hand, the cap space...
 
hockeyfish said:
Should it not be the 28th when the calendar flips?
Click to expand...

Nah, I think the Seattle expansion should be the start personally since they are going to be the first major changes for the 21-22 season, but I’ll let the majority decide on whether it’s going to be tomorrow (hard mode) or the 28th (you died too many times in the first stage and the game made you choose this option).
 
hockeyfish said:


Anyone think Kahkonen could be a starter for a cup contender line "this team."

On one hand, it would probably be expensive asset wise. On the other hand, the cap space...
Click to expand...

I would imagine that Seattle view Kahkonen's waiver exempt status as extremely valuable, particularly if they also pick Bishop or Price.

If Bishop/Price is healthy they can ride a Bishop/Price and Driedger tandem with Kahkonen as No.3 with no risk of losing to waivers. But if Bishop/Price are injured they can still roll with Driedger and Kahkonen. That's so much flexibility in the short term, and keeping Kahkonen also offers them a potential starter long term too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Northern Avs Fan, The Kingslayer and hughdreamz
Richard88 said:
I would imagine that Seattle view Kahkonen's waiver exempt status as extremely valuable, particularly if they also pick Bishop or Price.

If Bishop/Price is healthy they can ride a Bishop/Price and Driedger tandem with Kahkonen as No.3 with no risk of losing to waivers. But if Bishop/Price are injured they can still roll with Driedger and Kahkonen. That's so much flexibility in the short term, and keeping Kahkonen also offers them a potential starter long term too.
Click to expand...
Good point.
 
Northern Avs Fan said:
So, $60M would be $7.5M X 8 years, or $8.5M X 7 years.

Those aren’t numbers I’d go to. Good to hear he thinks the Avs are going to hold back of that too.
Click to expand...

When you consider that Anders Lee and Evander Kane signed for 7 years X $7M and Brayden Schenn signed for 8 years X $6.5M - I feel that Landeskog is better than both Lee and Kane and probably on par or a little better than Schenn, I can certainly see Landeskog's perspective for wanting a bigger contract.

I don't really get why the Avs wouldn't want to get to that number. Why is it that all the other teams take chances and are willing to pay these guys into their 30s but we don't want to risk it? I understand that you want to give yourself as much flexibility as possible but I don't think you want to lose a player like #92 for nothing. I doubt very much that he's going to become the next Andrew Ladd or Loui Eriksson where they aren't even NHL players shortly after signing their big, mega deals. I think Landeskog on a long-term deal would age probably better and maybe similar to a player like Dustin Brown where he'll have some good seasons and some not so good seasons but at the back-end of his contract, he'll still be a useful player and whatever the AAV will be, it's not going to look as bad in 5-6 years.

One thing I will say - IF for whatever the Avs don't sign Landeskog and for me, I think that's a really big "IF", the only reason better be that it's because you've got something HUGE coming down the pipe and you've made a hockey decision to improve the team at another position at the expense of first line Left Wing.

In the end though, I think the Avs and Landeskog agree to terms on 8 years @ $6.75M per year or somewhere around there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom