Kerfoot
You took that word decent, and just went wee wee wee all the way home with it, but not before stopping by to toss a flaming bag of poop on a few doorstep lmao.
Rumor: 2023-2024 Trade Rumors and Free Agency: Offseason Edition
- Thread starter forsbergavs32
- Start date
- Status
You took that word decent, and just went wee wee wee all the way home with it, but not before stopping by to toss a flaming bag of poop on a few doorstep lmao.
SoundwaveIsCharisma
Moderator
Jeannot just returned a fortune, Wilson is several steps up offensively, defensively and even from a physical intimidation standpoint
Gruyeriev
Shut your five hole
- Apr 14, 2021
- 4,589
- 4,706
Well he is younger and also it was TB. They have had to overpay the last few years. Don’t get we wrong Wilson is a good unique player about to turn 30. He’s kind of like Landeskog. I would still take Landy though. Also if the Leafs offered up Marner or Matthews you’d be stupid not to take that. Nylander I understand the hesitation but that’s just me. He was the Leafs best forward in the 2nd round but whatever.
Age and player control play a massive factor though.
Jeannot being 3 years younger and an RFA likely about to sign for 5+ years at $2-3M is a substantial difference.
If Wahlstrom is the best G can return in trade we are f***ed.
G better be a piece used for a 2C. Maybe if we are getting Nelson along with Wahlstrom I'd start listening.
TruePowerSlave
Registered User
- Jun 27, 2015
- 7,539
- 9,133
Depends if there is any interest trading a #2C for Sammy G. I doubt GMs are really that excited to offer real value for the midget.
Well... We're probably f***ed in your words. He's pretty unlikely to get us a 2C after his last 2 years.
Fortunately, we're not actually f***ed. We still have other assets that would be appealing to teams that are trading 2nd line Centers. And we can always trade G for more of those type of assets that can be package for said 2C.
Agreed. While i like Toews, it makes more sense to keep Girard. Toews might be somewhat better player for now, but it may not be true 2 years down the road. We have Byram to replace Toews anyway.
The Abusement Park
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2016
- 35,110
- 26,301
I love how this board has had nothing but the biggest hate boner for Girard and his play the last two years. But now that it’s time to potentially trade him he’s supposed to bring back a major piece. Makes sense.
- Apr 25, 2006
- 52,178
- 56,428
We can't keep Toews after his current contract (and we shouldn't anyway). So if we trade G that means that 2 years from now we'll have Byram, Makar and a bunch of scrubs on D.
If we keep G at least we'll still have 3 top 4 dmen.
If we keep G at least we'll still have 3 top 4 dmen.
I wouldn’t, no.
dahrougem2
Registered User
You can't think of the team in that regard. If the Avs trade Girard, they're likely re-signing Toews.
They also might think of Behrens as a future 2nd pairing guy on the left side.
You don't keep Girard just because you think you'll lack defensemen in two years.
If there's a team out there willing to give value for him (shocking IMO) you move him immediately.
Cousin Eddie
You Serious Clark?
- Nov 3, 2006
- 40,203
- 37,463
Guys, how much more of a sample size do we need to see to finally recognize that removing Sam Girard from this lineup in the playoffs isn’t the detriment people believe it is.
Look, he’s a great puck moving defenseman. In fact he’s a real good hockey player overall. Problem is, that’s only occurred in the regular season. The playoffs are a different sport plain and simple and Girard has failed there over and over again.
Girard is trade bait. He was trade bait last summer to the point where his teammates expected him gone. He’s a luxury to this team but now the Avs can’t really afford a 5 million dollar luxury. He’s a good player, on a good contract but I feel pretty confident that his time is up to address a bigger need.
Look, he’s a great puck moving defenseman. In fact he’s a real good hockey player overall. Problem is, that’s only occurred in the regular season. The playoffs are a different sport plain and simple and Girard has failed there over and over again.
Girard is trade bait. He was trade bait last summer to the point where his teammates expected him gone. He’s a luxury to this team but now the Avs can’t really afford a 5 million dollar luxury. He’s a good player, on a good contract but I feel pretty confident that his time is up to address a bigger need.
- Aug 28, 2007
- 3,960
- 538
Having 3 top flight LDs was a luxury this team can't afford anymore, and honestly probably shouldn't have done last year with the hole at C. I maintain they wanted to give Newhook the shot and then make a trade if he wasn't working out, and then the C market dried up way more than expected.
Anyways, one LD must go. I really don't care which, as long as we get value in a big trade for a C.
Anyways, one LD must go. I really don't care which, as long as we get value in a big trade for a C.
Mighty Makar
I hate this fu*ken team
- May 24, 2016
- 15,227
- 16,866
- Apr 25, 2006
- 52,178
- 56,428
Which we can't do. He's going to ask for 7M+ (just like Byram) and will be old. We aren't keeping 2 LHD making 7-8M each on top of what Makar makes. That just can't happen even if the cap goes way up.
So we can't trade Girard, it's that simple.
Last edited:
- Apr 25, 2006
- 52,178
- 56,428
He wasn't terrible in the last playoffs. You need dmen that can eat minutes and Girard can do that. You don't want Hunt, MacDermid and 37 yo JJ to play 15 min a game do you?
Also regular season will be more and more important in the upcoming years. Avs are no longer a sure thing to make the playoffs.
Peter Peckerwood
Registered User
True, but to be honest, I have a boner most of the time.
Cousin Eddie
You Serious Clark?
- Nov 3, 2006
- 40,203
- 37,463
There’s a happy medium between Girard and guys like Hunt/Macdermid though. I realize those are the only options right now but there are external options who can play 3rd pairing minutes adequately for 1-5-2.5M.
Trading Girard doesn’t mean we have to dress AHL quality players. It just means we aren’t paying a guy 5M to play on the bottom pair.
GoNordiquesGo
Registered User
Cousin Eddie
You Serious Clark?
- Nov 3, 2006
- 40,203
- 37,463
One guy I’d like the Avs to sign (I thought they should have last year) is Janmark. Give him a little bit of term to lower AAV and make him a 4th line staple for 3-4 years who can move up to the third line when absolutely needed.
Mighty Makar
I hate this fu*ken team
- May 24, 2016
- 15,227
- 16,866
He’s a bandaid, so he’ll fit right in. Not a bad player, though.
Mighty Makar
I hate this fu*ken team
- May 24, 2016
- 15,227
- 16,866
dahrougem2
Registered User
Byram is not asking for 7M right now. I feel like you're thinking of these requests and not thinking of the cap rising. You can't keep those two things separate. Rise in cap hits of certain players is accompanied by the rise in salary cap. Yes, it's only going to be 1M next season but there's a strong chance it goes up by several million by the time Byram for example needs a new deal.
So yes, we absolutely can trade Girard for forward help. I don't know why any team would desire him unless they have a Josh Manson-like defender who can be paired with him at all times, but he needs to go. You don't win playoff hockey games with Sam Girards.
- Status
