Toggle sidebar

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

  • Xenforo Cloud is doing server maintenance Thurdsay 13th at 9 AM GMT. Downtime is to be expected during the process. Server changes were implemented recently to cope with the traffic surge last week. This seems to be affecting the user login, so please anyone experiencing this, log out and clear the browser cache. We expect to have this issue solved once the maintenance is complete.
  • We are currently aware of "log in/security error" issues that are affecting some users. We apologize and ask for your patience as we try to get these issues fixed.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Muffin said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Muffin said:
Because advanced stats tends to not favor stay at home physical defenseman like Manson but benefits defenseman that moves the puck.
Click to expand...
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
 
Muffin said:
Because advanced stats tends to not favor stay at home physical defenseman like Manson but benefits defenseman that moves the puck.
Click to expand...
That’s not true. There are many stay at home guys who are gods analytically
 
Balthazar said:
Nuke's 8 years: age 27 to 35
Toews' 8 years: age 30 to 38

No team wants 35+ players making big money
Click to expand...

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.
 
MacKaRant said:
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.
Click to expand...
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: MacKaRtin
henchman21 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
MacKaRant said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yeah and the even narrowed those 35+ implications in the latest MOU. At this point, teams can avoid the 35+ tag pretty easily.
 
Mighty Makar said:
I hope I’m wrong, but this could very well be Toews’ last year with the Avs.
Click to expand...
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.

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom