2020 Roster and Fantasy GM Thread II
- Thread starter Zombotron
- Start date
-
HF Sportsbook has been reset for the new season - Click here to play.
- Status
You have got to be kidding me. Tony Tanti once outscored a prime Oilers Wayne Gretzky!
Just so we're clear : spending $10 million on Tyler Myers and Michael Ferland is a great idea, according to Hoghandler. But spending $10 million on a recent NHL MVP to anchor an elite 2nd line (or a monster first line next to Pettersson) is a terrible idea!
Just A Bit Outside
Playoffs??!
- Mar 6, 2010
- 17,607
- 17,265
If Tanev cannot be resigned, I’d look hard at bringing Schenn back.
I’d play him with Hughes and just tell him to keep things simple and get the puck to Quinn.
Is he really a Top 4 dman? No. But I’d rather have Schenn playing with Hughes than Myers or someone else (Stecher, Rafferty).
Could be had at a fraction of what it would cost to retain Tanev especially when looking to cut costs to potentially sign Markstrom and/or Toffoli.
I’d play him with Hughes and just tell him to keep things simple and get the puck to Quinn.
Is he really a Top 4 dman? No. But I’d rather have Schenn playing with Hughes than Myers or someone else (Stecher, Rafferty).
Could be had at a fraction of what it would cost to retain Tanev especially when looking to cut costs to potentially sign Markstrom and/or Toffoli.
VanillaCoke
Registered User
- Oct 30, 2013
- 26,148
- 12,835
He was having a very good season but also IIRC 8-10 of those points were on empty nets so it might be a bit misleading.
VanillaCoke
Registered User
- Oct 30, 2013
- 26,148
- 12,835
You defended both of those contracts, and your inability to see in the mirror what a 'poor look' is is fascinating. Or that you are constantly throwing up strawmen. I'm still waiting to hear where I mentioned Andrew Ladd yesterday.
Peen
Rejoicing in a Benning-free world
- Oct 6, 2013
- 31,368
- 27,605
But, we aren't paying Myers 4.5 for short term. He's got a lot of years left at #1 salary and we're paying for his downtrend years where he doesn't project well.
I wouldn't disagree. He was acquired as a negative-value cap dump and has played himself out of that with a point total that is a bit of a mirage.
He's very unlikely to be re-signed next summer so if you have to cut costs and dump a player this would seem a better option than moving a guy like Virtanen. I mean, I wouldn't love moving Pearson either because he's a useful player and you'd like to get that last year out of him before moving on in 2021, but gaining $4 million by losing 1 year of Pearson is much more palatable than gaining $2.5 million by losing 3+ years of Virtanen.
Bleach Clean
Registered User
- Aug 9, 2006
- 27,461
- 7,158
There it is. Not ideal. And so, presenting a non-ideal asset exchange to be of the same level as a normal asset exchange is obviously faulty logic.
This isn’t a ‘cap space matters’ (general) argument. In case you were still having trouble following? It’s a cap space vs RFA asset valuation. Normally, the cap space gained by moving a RFA asset is not worth the exchange. Dumping the player is not preferred. The TBay example is proof.
Last edited:
Bleach Clean
Registered User
- Aug 9, 2006
- 27,461
- 7,158
He knows this, he’s just caught in his poor attempts to justify his position. Not to worry. People see it.
I think he feels this is a valid escape plan. (It’s not)
Anyway, Hoggy’s argument is essentially promoting specific contexts as parallels to the viability of cap dumps in general. This is wrong. Though, he will never say that Virtanen is worth less than the cap space he would garner because he knows that is a very stupid statement to make outright.
Last edited:
Bleach Clean
Registered User
- Aug 9, 2006
- 27,461
- 7,158
What does “all things being equal” mean to you? Once you figure that out, apply it to Tampa’s situation versus the field.
This isn’t hard. You’re making it that way because you’ve been caught stating a faulty premise.
Last edited:
It's always the same thing with this poster. Lose an argument and then :
1) Try to deflect from the discussion toward arguing semantics that have nothing to do with anything, as is the case here.
2) Resort to personal attacks.
3) Start bringing up opinions from years ago (that have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion) of the poster he's arguing with in an attempt to deflect, while he himself refuses to divulge the handles he posted under before last July, so nobody can do the same to him and bring up his old opinions.
Today he's touched all the bases - impressive performance.
VanillaCoke
Registered User
- Oct 30, 2013
- 26,148
- 12,835
604
Registered User
- Nov 1, 2011
- 7,378
- 1,604
The thought is that to sign Tiffoli + Tanev you'd probably have to offer them around $11M/season total, the thinking is that Pietrangelo would cost about the same.
VanillaCoke
Registered User
- Oct 30, 2013
- 26,148
- 12,835
It means nothing. If a team has depth at a certain position, and feels there is a law of diminishing returns by keeping too many players at said position, and they can get better value by making a trade and re-balancing their roster, they should do it. Whether they are a 90 point team or a 110 point team is completely irrelevant.
If Markstrom is re-signed, a Demko trade should be looked at as well, for the same reason.
Bleach Clean
Registered User
- Aug 9, 2006
- 27,461
- 7,158
How is the team getting better value by dumping a good asset? You're talking about the next move. You're not speaking about the move itself.
Dumping good assets for space is not trading them for value. To continue to confuse the two, or level the impact of both, only serves to reiterate how poor your initial argument had been. The choice is still yours to change it though.
Tampa traded Miller because they had too many good players on normal contracts, Miller being on of them. In your example Virtanen would be traded along with a bad contract because the team has too many bad contracts. If you cant see the difference, its not even worth to discuss any further.
Virtanen would be dumped due to the clubs depth chart on RW, not because he has to be used to rid the team of Sven Baertschi. That’s the point you’re conflating.
Re-signing Toffoli closes the door for Jake to play in the top 6, while Josh Leivo can fill in on the 3rd line at around the half the salary of Virtanen. While MacEwen has shown enough to earn the 4th line RW spot, that leaves little need for Jake.
So regardless of moving a contract like Baertschi, I would still be looking to deal Virtanen for picks at the draft to recoup some of the assets lost in the Miller/Toffoli trades.
Tampa traded Miller because they had a lot of depth on the wings and wanted to free up cap space to retain players they deemed more valuable.
If Virtanen is dealt, it’s because the Canucks have a lot of depth on the wings and wanted to free up cap space to retain players they deemed more valuable.
THAT is the motivation behind moving those players. Baertchsi wouldn’t have to be included in that Virtanen deal. Virtanen could be traded alone for picks, just like Miller was.
604
Registered User
- Nov 1, 2011
- 7,378
- 1,604
I think a first pair RD is the last major piece of the puzzle.
Letting Tiffoli and Tanev walk + trading Demko + Eriksson for nothing, assuming you re-sign Markstrom + RFAs and lower tier UFAs leaves:
Miller - Patterson - Boeser
Pearson - Horvat- Virtanen
Baertschi - Gaudette - Ferland
Leivo - Sutter - MacEwen
(Motte - Beagle - Roussel)
Graovac - Bailey
Hughes - Pietrangelo
Edler - Stecher
Rathbone - Myers
(Benn)
Juolevi - Rafferty
Markstrom
Demingue
That's a roster ready to compete (and there would obviously be some cost cutting at the bottom of the roster for cap reasons).
Adding a top 5 RD essentially puts every major piece in place for us to chase the Cup for the foreseeable future (until Petey and Hughes are done).
- Status
