That is way too much for a guy that has never put up or paced 50 points before this year. Probably not far off what he'll get in UFA though, which is why trading him is the only thing that makes sense.
Speculation: 2023-24 Roster Thread
- Thread starter Leonardo87
- Start date
- Status
That is way too much for a guy that has never put up or paced 50 points before this year. Probably not far off what he'll get in UFA though, which is why trading him is the only thing that makes sense.
- Sep 21, 2018
- 3,872
- 6,138
He won't get that much in free agency either.
He's a career 40 point middle 6 winger who is a month away from turning 30. One good year doesn't amplify things to that degree, especially when there's still time left for him to regress. In fact, he already has. After his hot start, he's got just 13 points in his last 26 games which is right in line with his career average.
I like Vatrano as much as the next guy (which is why I don't want him traded) but the numbers you guys are tossing around are just plain stupid.
The Midnight Burrito
True Fan
It's disingenuous. The theory of trading him now only works if Frank doesn't come down to normal next season but the argument in favor of trading him now is to maximize his return which presumes that he DOES come down to normal. That gives up the game. People prioritize assets over contributions. And we hear that Frank can be replaced by whoever but as the response to @DavidBL keeps showing, no one has any real replacement in mind. Because it doesn't actually matter in that universe.
I don't think he'll get 6 AAV but something near 5 wouldn't surprise me with the amount of stupid things GM's do in free agency. I want no part of that kind of deal if it's more than 3 years.
robbieboy3686
Registered User
- Jan 17, 2016
- 3,393
- 2,298
We will offer him 4x 4.5 they will settle on 4x5 or else he’s traded mid way thru next season
- Sep 21, 2018
- 3,872
- 6,138
4 x 4 would be my guess. That's a $5+ million total raise that would take him to age 35. I doubt any competitive team near the cap would offer more than that.
MMC
Global Moderator
MMC
Global Moderator
Smirnov2Chistov
Fire Greg Cronin!
I wonder how this injury will affect Killorn moving forward. I have a strange feeling his tenure in Anaheim will mirror Silfs.
I think a knee operation is a good deal less significant than a hip operation + blood clots
robbieboy3686
Registered User
- Jan 17, 2016
- 3,393
- 2,298
This. I mean how serious can it be, given he just had surgery a few weeks ago: and he’s back skating already
Hockey Duckie
Registered User
I didn't realize CapFriendly has rating system, which is found in their Depth Chart link. The number represents the overall rating when weighted against equal counterparts at their talent level. (The color level also represents the rating.) The L# represents the talent level such as L1 = first line, P1 = first pairing, and ML = Minor League.
Minty with an 89 rating as a first pairing d-man! But adjacent to Minty is Killorn at 85 rating as a 2nd liner... hmmm... Welp, at least it's new stuff to look at.
Minty with an 89 rating as a first pairing d-man! But adjacent to Minty is Killorn at 85 rating as a 2nd liner... hmmm... Welp, at least it's new stuff to look at.
anezthes
Registered User
- Mar 20, 2014
- 4,796
- 3,206
Henrique doing everything he can to get the **** out of town.
11 points in 7 games.
16 points in 13 games.
11 points in 7 games.
16 points in 13 games.
If he doesn’t net a 1st will truly question Verbeek’s ability to negotiate a trade.
- Jul 25, 2012
- 42,936
- 39,959
Ya it should be a no brainer 1st…. And I’d be disappointed if he didn’t get a decent asset on top of the 1st
Rico is playing his best hockey in years and still think he has a good couple of years in him. Don’t see how we cannot really cash in on him. The market has been set pretty much and I expect us to get a very nice haul.
Hate to lose him but he is 34 yo and it’s what’s best for the team’s future.
Vatrano makes it a little more difficult, he is only 29 and would still fit into the window of us competing again.
- Jul 25, 2012
- 42,936
- 39,959
Only thing that I like be concerning with Vatrano was what he’s looking for on next contract
robbieboy3686
Registered User
- Jan 17, 2016
- 3,393
- 2,298
Hockey Duckie
Registered User
Verbeek did sign a 34-year old to a 4-year contract worth $6.25 mil AAV last year. IMO, Rico is more valuable than Killorn. If Rico doesn't want to stay, then it's best to get something instead of nothing.
Rico and Silf are in the positive +/- ratings for our forwards. I'm gonna miss those two.
On a brighter note, Gudas was a steal of a signing!
Rooch
Registered User
- Jul 22, 2021
- 580
- 1,234
The story of so many of the past few trade deadlines has been moving out expiring contracts for prospects, and I suspect this deadline will fit that same pattern. I look forward to the day when our trade deadlines are about filling in holes to make a playoff run. When do we get to the part where we're actually building this team? When does the focus shift from looking ahead to competing? Feel like we've been in this rut of "getting the kids reps" for too many years.
More specifically, we're pretty certain that the expiring contracts of Henrique, Silf, and Carrick will be shipped out. We all assume that the desired return for them is good prospects or draft picks, which infuses more youth into our roster. But at some point there has to be a shift away from accumulating promising kids and toward trying to be a competitive hockey club. When does that shift occur? When do we start to leverage our youth to acquire players who can get us to the Cup?
We just traded away a player who many believed was a core element of this team (Drysdale) to acquire a prospect who's still in college. Younger. Always younger. Does Verbeek's timeline indicate that we just wait until all of these kids are bona fide NHL players? Or is there a plan to be competitive sooner? Kind of getting tired of sucking.
More specifically, we're pretty certain that the expiring contracts of Henrique, Silf, and Carrick will be shipped out. We all assume that the desired return for them is good prospects or draft picks, which infuses more youth into our roster. But at some point there has to be a shift away from accumulating promising kids and toward trying to be a competitive hockey club. When does that shift occur? When do we start to leverage our youth to acquire players who can get us to the Cup?
We just traded away a player who many believed was a core element of this team (Drysdale) to acquire a prospect who's still in college. Younger. Always younger. Does Verbeek's timeline indicate that we just wait until all of these kids are bona fide NHL players? Or is there a plan to be competitive sooner? Kind of getting tired of sucking.
- Jul 25, 2012
- 42,936
- 39,959
I think PV inherited a roster with no plan…. He’s basically starting a fresh rebuild. I hope this offseason we’ll see more aggressive moves in terms of trades, to better the roster.
I think BM for sure had a plan. It just wasn't the same as his.
AngelDuck
Rak 'em up
- Jun 16, 2012
- 23,782
- 18,248
BM failed to identify that we needed to sell hard sometime between 2018-2020 and is the reason our rebuild has 2 years left right now
Not trading Gibson for a 1st+ and Rakell for a 1st+top prospect in 2019 was really really bad
He might have had a plan but not a very good one
Not trading Gibson for a 1st+ and Rakell for a 1st+top prospect in 2019 was really really bad
He might have had a plan but not a very good one
Youre not wrong, but cut him some slack. I doubt the owners would have been fine with a full on rebuild less then 2 years after a CF loss.
But, if they had been okay with a rebuild at the 2019 deadline they could have dealt Silfverberg during his career year at the 19 deadline instead of resigning him and Rakell when he still had a ton of value because of his contract.
If they were able to do what the Rangers did for example they would have been in a much better situation.
I just don't see it. I don't see any players late in the first rounds of those 19 and 20 drafts that change the our situation. We had 3 firsts in those drafts as well. It's not like we didn't fall in the standings anyway. I'd put money that BM was trying to do what LA did. Except our top picks in those years are doing much better than LAs. We're also assuming that these great returns we wanted were actually available.
- Status
