Rumor: 2023-24 Trade Rumors and Free Agency: Season Thread

  • PLEASE check any bookmark on all devices. IF you see a link pointing to mandatory.com DELETE it Please use this URL https://forums.hfboards.com/
Status
Not open for further replies.

EdAVSfan

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Aug 28, 2009
7,556
4,580
Matches the eye test too. No matter how good Girard looks skating the puck out of the zone he's going to have limitations defending due to his size. Now that he's completely off the PP he's just not worth his contract. You can't be paying a small defenseman that's not even on the PP that kind of money.
Over the last 2 seasons, Girard has been 60th overall in time on ice per game for defensemen.

If you remove his PP time and just look at Even strength ice time, he moves up to 35th and 41st in time on ice per game for dmen.
 

The Abusement Park

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Jan 18, 2016
34,893
26,052
Because advanced stats tends to not favor stay at home physical defenseman like Manson but benefits defenseman that moves the puck.
They don’t benefit those guys because they aren’t good hockey players majority of the time. But there’s plenty of stay at home guys who have fine to even great analytics
 

henchman21

Mr. Meeseeks
Feb 24, 2012
65,813
51,400
Because advanced stats tends to not favor stay at home physical defenseman like Manson but benefits defenseman that moves the puck.
That’s not true. There are many stay at home guys who are gods analytically
 

MacKaRant

Registered User
Sponsor
Jul 27, 2021
2,368
3,632
Nuke's 8 years: age 27 to 35
Toews' 8 years: age 30 to 38

No team wants 35+ players making big money

I think it's exactly this. Team gave Miles of Wood six years to drive down AAV, it's not term that's the issue per se, but rather the 35+ status of the contract and the incumbent cap rules.
 

henchman21

Mr. Meeseeks
Feb 24, 2012
65,813
51,400
I think it's exactly this. Team gave Miles of Wood six years to drive down AAV, it's not term that's the issue per se, but rather the 35+ status of the contract and the incumbent cap rules.
I agree the Avs don't want olds... but be be clear, there are no 35+ cap rules that would apply to any of these contracts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MacKaRant

MacKaRant

Registered User
Sponsor
Jul 27, 2021
2,368
3,632
I agree the Avs don't want olds... but be be clear, there are no 35+ cap rules that would apply to any of these contracts.

Yes, you are correct. I've had another look and the rule only applies to contracts signed when the player is 35+. I think I was conflating with the cap recapture penalties that we've seen on those long contracts from the previous CBA.
 

henchman21

Mr. Meeseeks
Feb 24, 2012
65,813
51,400
Yes, you are correct. I've had another look and the rule only applies to contracts signed when the player is 35+. I think I was conflating with the cap recapture penalties that we've seen on those long contracts from the previous CBA.
Yeah and the even narrowed those 35+ implications in the latest MOU. At this point, teams can avoid the 35+ tag pretty easily.
 

chet1926

Registered User
Jan 9, 2008
12,799
6,268
Denver
I hope I’m wrong, but this could very well be Toews’ last year with the Avs.
Unless Cmac is willing to move G then this is entirely possible.

Part of being a good team with lots of good players is potentially having good players price themselves out of what is doable.

Personally I view Toews in the group of guys you can't move. That group for us is 29, 96, 92, 8 and Toews IMO. Basically your top line and top pair. Byram is close to this as he has elite potential.

Everyone else should be moved prior to losing one of the above mentioned guys.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad