Rumor: 2022-2023 Trade Rumors and Free Agency: Let’s Run it Back!

[dahrougem2]

View attachment 565722

This person should be fired.

 

[Richard88]

Another hypothetical lineup for the Avs that fits under the cap... Crazy? Yes. But theoretically doable? Also yes.

- Nuke 7x5.5M
- Lehky 4x4M
- Geogriev 2x2.75M
- Jack Johnson 1x800k
- Trocheck 6x5.75M
- Larsson 2x2.0M
- CDH 1x1.5M

- Trade Alex Newhook + 2023 1st to Chicago for Patrick Kane + Calvin De Haan UFA rights
- Trade Sam Girard to NYI for Scott Mayfield + 2023 1st & 3rd round picks



Nuke - Mack - Mikko
Landy - Trocheck - Kane
Lehky - Larsson - JTC
LOC - Meyers - Cogliano
Sedlak


Toews - Makar
Byram - Mayfield
CDH - Johnson
JMFJ - MacDermid


Georgiev
Francouz


About ~81.8M.

It seems pretty unlikely that Sakic would trade Girard with all the capspace he has available. Kane can also be added at the deadline instead so you can keep Girard.

I like the Larsson and CDH additions though. One of the benefits of a cheap goalie is that Avs can afford to make a couple of good depth signings like that.

 

[Pierce Hawthorne]

Very optimistic numbers for Lehky and Nuke.

Lehky is not optimistic at all. $4M is exactly in the neighborhood of his projected value.


Its perhaps a touch optimistic for Nuke... But that roster only comes in at about $81.75M, so they have 700k of wiggle room on that front. But honestly I dont think they should be going above $6M for Nuke anyway. At that point as much as I am a big fan of him, you're paying too much for your wingers to have 3 guys signed over $6M+ long term. If Nuke can get $6.5M elsewhere he should take that and the Avs should instead look elsewhere.

 

[Colorado Avalanche]

If we get 2 years of starting goaltending for two 3rd picks and a 5th that's a real good deal.

Look at what we paid for rentals.

I guess when you put it that way, it's good of course.

BUT I think Joe is trying to find that medium-term solution. Even he realizes he kinda made mistake with Kuemper, because he left again. He can't afford to spend that many assets every summer. Also too much hassle.

 

[hockeyfish]

View attachment 565722

Pretty much the same with me and GM names.

 

[cinchronicity]

IMO, unless he was willing to take a huge discount (like staying around $5M - $6M) as a UFA to stay, it would be a 1-year thing, especially with new deals for Mack and Bo due after next season.

Just my two cents. Mortgaging the future for a 2nd cup might not be dumb. But completely annihilating the entirety of the future trading for 1 year then off to UFA players is. As noted earlier in this thread, the Avs have given away quite a bit looking for a goalie, and now have two backups competing for the starter job. I like both backups a great bit. But Kuemper's trade emptied part of the cupboard. Kane would require, at minimum, a #1 and Newhook / Girard / Compher (who, as I believe Pierce mentioned, would probably look great between Kane and Rantanen, so maybe he stays) So that is even more of the future gone.

 

[Pierce Hawthorne]

We don't have too many draft picks left and not too many prospects either, what can we send to Chicago for Kane? Of course, based on the CAT trade, maybe they don't need much.. Hah.

Newhook + 1st would get it done.

 

[Colorado Avalanche]

Lehky is not optimistic at all. $4M is exactly in the neighborhood of his projected value.


Its perhaps a tough optimistic for Nuke... But that roster only comes in at about $81.75M, so they have 700k of wiggle room on that front. But honestly I dont think they should be going above $6M for Nuke anyway. At that point as much as I am a big fan of him, you're paying too much for your wingers to have 3 guys signed over $6M+ long term. If Nuke can get $6.5M elsewhere he should take that and the Avs should instead look elsewhere.

I think Nuke is as good as gone if we don' go over 6 million.

 

[Mighty Makar]

Patiently waiting for @Bill Peckerskull to post more tweets.

 

[The Merchant]

 

[Colorado Avalanche]

It seems pretty unlikely that Sakic would trade Girard with all the capspace he has available. Kane can also be added at the deadline instead so you can keep Girard.

I like the Larsson and CDH additions though. One of the benefits of a cheap goalie is that Avs can afford tommake a couple of good depth signings like that.

True. Sakic will definitely save some assets for moves at the trade deadline. It's easier to see what your team misses at that point.

View attachment 565725

Juicy. Juicy!!! Bring it on!

 

[Pierce Hawthorne]

I think Nuke is as good as gone if we don' go over 6 million.

And again, the Avs could go up to ~$6.25M just fine.

 

[Balthazar]

I don't think Kane comes here but he's only making 6.9M (in real $$) this season and there's a 4M signing bonus that's already paid.

So Kane will only make 2.9M for the rest of the season, retaining 50% for Chicago is nothing.

 

[Cousin Eddie]

If I'm Georgiev I want 2 years. That's when the Avs will have the strongest team and then I hit the UFA market with stellar numbers at age 28. $$$$$$$$

I want nothing to do with that 3rd year.

If I’m Sakic I say fine, if you want 2 years you need to come in below your QO.

Can’t the Avs do club elected arbitration to kinda threaten him into signing a multi year deal? Might be a little odd to do that with a brand new acquisition however based on Gorg’s numbers last year he could actually be awarded a lower salary than his QO (can’t be any lower than 85% I believe). I

 

[Colorado Avalanche]

I don't think Kane comes here but he's only making 6.9M (in real $$) this season and there's a 4M signing bonus that's already paid.

So Kane will only make 2.9M for the rest of the season, retaning 50% for Chicago is nothing.

How does that actually work then? TEchnically they paid it already? Retaining should be very easy yes in that case.

And again, the Avs could go up to ~$6.25M just fine.

I hope that's enough!

 

[redacted]

If I’m Sakic I say fine, if you want 2 years you need to come in below your QO.

Can’t the Avs do club elected arbitration to kinda threaten him into signing a multi year deal? Might be a little odd to do that with a brand new acquisition however based on Gorg’s numbers last year he could actually be awarded a lower salary than his QO (can’t be any lower than 85% I believe). I

Not for a multi year deal, but can do club arbitration to get lower. That would really be starting the relationship on the wrong foot though.

 

[Bender]

This person should be fired.

Immediately made me think of this :

 

[Balthazar]

How does that actually work then? TEchnically they paid it already? Retaining should be very easy yes in that case.

He makes 6.9M and already got paid 4M. Then the remaining 2.9M is spread over 82 games.

His cap hit is still 10.5M though.

 

[Pierce Hawthorne]

I would easily prefer 2 years over 3 with Georgiev. 3 years is risky, I'm not convinced he's the solution as the #1G so I wouldn't want to commit to 3 years either. Plus 2 should mean a cheaper cap hit for those 2 years.

 

[Avaholic29]

I guess when you put it that way, it's good of course.

BUT I think Joe is trying to find that medium-term solution. Even he realizes he kinda made mistake with Kuemper, because he left again. He can't afford to spend that many assets every summer. Also too much hassle.

I highly doubt sakic and his third Stanley cup ring have any regrets about the kuemper deal.

 

[hockeyfish]

I would easily prefer 2 years over 3 with Georgiev. 3 years is risky, I'm not convinced he's the solution as the #1G so I wouldn't want to commit to 3 years either. Plus 2 should mean a cheaper cap hit for those 2 years.

If the number is right, I'd prefer three years. The risk runs both ways.

 

[Colorado Avalanche]

I would easily prefer 2 years over 3 with Georgiev. 3 years is risky, I'm not convinced he's the solution as the #1G so I wouldn't want to commit to 3 years either. Plus 2 should mean a cheaper cap hit for those 2 years.

Even 3 years at 3 million shouldn't be a problem to trade away. It's not that big of a risk but could be a huge benefit IF he works out.

Otherwise, he will demand 6-7 million in year three, which we have to walk away again.

To me, three years offers way more upside than downside, so happy to gamble three. It's a gamble though.

 

[Pierce Hawthorne]

If the number is right, I'd prefer three years. The risk runs both ways.

I dont see how 2 years is any more risky for the Avs.


Unless you think there's a chance Georgiev becomes a Top 5 goalie with us? Otherwise I think there's very little risk signing him for say 2x2.75 versus 3x3.25 for us.


He's not very good, best case scenario is we're getting average level goaltending. Worst case scenario we get sub .900 level goaltending. That worst case is far more likely IMO.

 

[Balthazar]

Even 3 years at 3 million shouldn't be a problem to trade away. It's not that big of a risk but could be a huge benefit IF he works out.

Otherwise, he will demand 6-7 million in year three, which we have to walk away again.

To me, three years offers way more upside than downside, so happy to gamble three. It's a gamble though.

3 is best for the team, 2 is best for the player. We'll see who wins.

 

[Colorado Avalanche]

3 is best for the team, 2 is best for the player. We'll see who wins.

True true.