Rumor: 2024-2025 Trade Rumors and Free Agency - Offseason Edition

Status
Not open for further replies.

Grigowski

Registered User
Jul 6, 2016
3,422
4,316
I wonder if CMac asked Walsh how comfortable Drouin would be in waiting until say November 16 to actually sign his deal?
Whast.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill Peckerskull

LOFIN

Registered User
Sep 16, 2011
16,768
23,735
3) Trade Rantanen for B. Tkachuk (in before @henchman21 says the Sens aren't trading him)
What else are you sending to the Sens? Because it sure as hell wouldn't be 1 for 1. Sens hang up immediately. Rantanen, 1st and Ritchie would be a starting point. Another possibility would be Rantanen + Girard for Tkachuck and Chychrun. Still up for it?

Pointless exercise anyways, because I f***ing doubt Rantanen would waive for Ottawa (I'd be surprised if they were not on his NTC), nor would they entertain trading Brady.
 

LOFIN

Registered User
Sep 16, 2011
16,768
23,735
UPL + Levi reminds me of the Quick + Bernier situation in LA. Quick was suppose to be a stopgap until Bernier was ready, but Quick ended up a franchise goalie and Bernier never reached his potential.
I like UPL, but let's get real here. Georgiev wasn't the reason we lost this year. And I'm fine with upgrading, but if we upgrade let's f***ing upgrade properly. If we are not going to get Saros, Markström or Ullmark, forget it. UPL is one of those moves that doesn't move the needle.
 

Muffin

Avalanche Flavoured
Aug 14, 2009
17,717
20,897
Edmonton
What else are you sending to the Sens? Because it sure as hell wouldn't be 1 for 1. Sens hang up immediately. Rantanen, 1st and Ritchie would be a starting point. Another possibility would be Rantanen + Girard for Tkachuck and Chychrun. Still up for it?

Pointless exercise anyways, because I f***ing doubt Rantanen would waive for Ottawa (I'd be surprised if they were not on his NTC), nor would they entertain trading Brady.
No way in hell is Colorado adding in that deal unless we're talking about an unsigned Rantanen. If that deal was to happen I assume it'd come with a Rantanen extension.
 

LOFIN

Registered User
Sep 16, 2011
16,768
23,735
No way in hell is Colorado adding in that deal unless we're talking about an unsigned Rantanen. If that deal was to happen I assume it'd come with a Rantanen extension.
I'm pretty sure whatever team would acquire Rantanen would want to do the signing by themselves, so from their perspective it doesn't add value. It's a one year deal.
 

dahrougem2

Registered User
Dec 9, 2011
39,374
43,763
Edmonton, Alberta
I like UPL, but let's get real here. Georgiev wasn't the reason we lost this year. And I'm fine with upgrading, but if we upgrade let's f***ing upgrade properly. If we are not going to get Saros, Markström or Ullmark, forget it. UPL is one of those moves that doesn't move the needle.
UPL had a 2.81 GSAA on a Sabres team that dgaf about defending.

Georgiev had a -6.56 GSAA.

There is a big difference between the two. Georgiev didn't help the Avs win in the playoffs, he just didn't outright cost them games like he did during the regular season.

UPL isn't amazing, but he's much better than Georgiev.
 

AslanRH

Not a Core Poster
Sponsor
Jun 5, 2012
15,653
2,464
Wyoming, USA
I think we should always side with the younger less tested goalie.
It's the only way to control costs.
Look at our former goalies and their contract-performance ratio. No one wants that
 

henchman21

Mr. Meeseeks
Feb 24, 2012
67,065
53,516
George was not the reason the Avs lost to Dallas, but he was also a contributing factor. It gets glossed over because he didn't have outright terrible games and the Nuke situation. In all situations, George ended up with a -.73 GSAA in the Dallas series per NST (-.11 per 60). That's not outright horrible, but when facing a goalie that is positive... it is a contributing factor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: missionAvs

LOFIN

Registered User
Sep 16, 2011
16,768
23,735
UPL isn't amazing, but he's much better than Georgiev.
And no-one is disputing that. But I'm not really interested in wasting time and resources for a better goalie with so much other stuff going on. For a much better goalie, as in a potential Vezina candidate (on any given team), that I might be interested in.
 

dahrougem2

Registered User
Dec 9, 2011
39,374
43,763
Edmonton, Alberta
And no-one is disputing that. But I'm not really interested in wasting time and resources for a better goalie with so much other stuff going on. For a much better goalie, as in a potential Vezina candidate (on any given team), that I might be interested in.
This team with a goaltender in the positive GSAA category has a chance to compete for a Cup. UPL has shown statistically he is capable of that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: missionAvs

dahrougem2

Registered User
Dec 9, 2011
39,374
43,763
Edmonton, Alberta
The Kings seriously should do it. The guy is trash, he doesn't give a f*** about playing hard, he's now either asked out or been run out of potentially three organizations in a five year span.

Players like PLD shouldn't get more than 2.5M per season at best because you don't know if you're getting a guy who cares, but he's talented enough to give you ~40-45 points.

Blake doesn't strike me as the brightest GM, though, so he probably doubles down and keeps Dubois on the roster next season while once again ignoring the glaring goaltending issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Colorado Avalanche

Avsfan1921

Registered User
Oct 5, 2019
1,933
2,153
No way in hell is Colorado adding in that deal unless we're talking about an unsigned Rantanen. If that deal was to happen I assume it'd come with a Rantanen extension.
The question then becomes, “how do we convince Rantanen to sign with Ottawa” lol. Not a very realistic outcome imo.

Edit: I misread, I think you mean Avs sign him and then trade him and in that case it becomes the equally baffling question of “how do we convince him to waive for Ottawa”.
 

Muffin

Avalanche Flavoured
Aug 14, 2009
17,717
20,897
Edmonton
The question then becomes, “how do we convince Rantanen to sign with Ottawa” lol. Not a very realistic outcome imo.

Edit: I misread, I think you mean Avs sign him and then trade him and in that case it becomes the equally baffling question of “how do we convince him to waive for Ottawa”.
It'd have to be one of those trades where Ottawa is allowed to talk to his agent to work out an extension before he's traded.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad