Bender
I'll eat pancakes on his grave!
- Sep 25, 2002
- 18,070
- 10,389
Oh it will be special alright - Georgiev going to UFA !!!!
Rumor: 2024-2025 Trade Rumors and Free Agency Talk | The Slow Crawl to the Season
- Thread starter forsbergavs32
- Start date
-
Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
- Status
expatriatedtexan
Illegitimati non carborundum
- Aug 17, 2005
- 19,948
- 17,386
I know Gibby is better than George Yougetagoalandyougetagoalandeveryobodygetsagoaliev, what I don't understand is the cost. I've heard both reasonable and unreasonable ideas of what the deal looks like. I know we've got to pay if we want retention and that will most likely involve a third team...but seriously, what is the true cost of getting him on the team?
- Aug 28, 2009
- 7,829
- 5,031
Depends on the retention requirement.
The Avs have probably in the 4M dollar range of space with a 23 man roster (assuming George goes the other way in the trade)
Then, depending on any other LTIR candidates (namely 2.5 from Wood), you could have additional space. You could also drop the roster to 22 to get an additional 700-800K of space.
IMO, the bigger cost will be the retention. If Anaheim is trading him with 0 retention, you have to think the cost is minimal.
But the Avs prob need 30-40% retention at least (2-2.6M). I don’t think it’s an exorbitant cost for that level of retention.
But it really matters how many more moves the Avs have to make to the roster and how much extra space they want to keep.
Using my supreme evaluation skills obtained via HFBoards and various NHL video gaming, I’d price the whole cost around 1st + prospect or 2nd + couple of prospects.
Bender
I'll eat pancakes on his grave!
- Sep 25, 2002
- 18,070
- 10,389
I think it's difficult to gauge.
If you're talking about a straight-up 1-for-1 deal of Gibson for Georgiev with no retention and their contracts being the way they are, before the season started, I think the Ducks would have done it to save that cap space and real money.
Considering that they would have been trading a goalie with a below .900 SV% for the past 2 years (and around .900 SV% for the past 5 years) and getting out from under that contract and getting a goalie who led the league in wins the past 2 years on an expiring contract.
However, because of the start that both Georgiev has had and the start that Gibson has had and the obvious desperation that the Avs have, I personally don't believe that kind of offer would be on the table. I think the Ducks would want at least a 2nd round pick and potentially a decent prospect thrown into that deal and I'm not really sure they want to retain on Gibson either.
So I think the retention becomes the issue. Finding another team that actually can and wants to retain for 2.5 years is going to be a challenge. The Sharks would probably do it but can't (they are retaining on Burns, Karlsson and Hertl), Utah aren't the Coyotes anymore and probably want to shed that reputation. Chicago makes sense as they are unlikely to need that cap space between now and then but it would take something decent to retain for longer than the current season.
For all those reasons, a deal for Gibson is more complicated than a straight up trade for Blackwood, Mrazek of VeggieMelta unless the Avs make some other trades and take Gibson on at his full $6.4M contract and I'm not sure I see them doing that.
The issue with Blackwood is that it's an easier trade, but he's going to make more next year that the Avs are willing to pay - so it's the Kuemper trade all over again. Gibson trade is more complicated but you (hopefully) solve the goaltending issue for another 2 years
expatriatedtexan
Illegitimati non carborundum
- Aug 17, 2005
- 19,948
- 17,386
How much, if any, does the fact that Mikko's contract for next season is unresolved plays a part in the search for our goalie? What is the absolute maximum payroll we are willing to go with?
Bender
I'll eat pancakes on his grave!
- Sep 25, 2002
- 18,070
- 10,389
I'm not sure if it does - when you think about it, Mikko currently makes $9.25M and they already know how much they want to spend to keep him or not.
I think they have that factored-in when looking at what their available options.
Foppa2118
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2003
- 52,832
- 32,608
They've got 4 pending UFA's aged 28-33 making $2.75-4M though, so they could shed some salary in the off season for younger players during their rebuild. Might also move Fowler at the deadline.
Still a bit of a tough sell to retain for 2 more years though I agree.
Bill Peckerskull
Fargin' Icehole
- Oct 24, 2008
- 25,995
- 43,501
The cap is expected to go from $88m up to $92-$94m. It already raised from $83.5m to $88m this year. Friedman expects it to potentially reach $100m by 2026-27 season.
Mikko’s roughly $3m raise would be covered in the cap increase. It’s not an issue.
Mikko’s roughly $3m raise would be covered in the cap increase. It’s not an issue.
Bill Peckerskull
Fargin' Icehole
Foppa2118
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2003
- 52,832
- 32,608
dahrougem2
Registered User
It's a catch-22.
We would trade for him believing he COULD be a good #1 goalie and return to form. However, we wouldn't be valuing him at that because he hasn't been that for several years.
The Ducks are likely valuing him as a surefire #1 guy, too. It's why I believe they have yet to move him despite seemingly having him on the block for three-plus seasons now. That, and a refusal to retain any money on his deal.
I maintain that if the Ducks were willing to take Georgiev, Wood, and Kylington to offset salaries the Avs could make the rest work picks/prospect wise. Problem is I do not believe the Avs have an interest in moving Wood, nor do I believe Anaheim wants to take money back for Gibson.
If Brady is available, you do what it takes. CMac better be in those discussions.
- Aug 28, 2009
- 7,829
- 5,031
- Aug 28, 2009
- 7,829
- 5,031
They might love to have him. But that would also entail The Moose wanting to be in Ottawa.
Just copycat his brother's trade. Tkachuk for Mikko + Manson (or Girard, but I imagine they'd prefer to keep him). Of they'd prefer futures for some reason, you do Mikko + Ritchie or Mikko + picks.
expatriatedtexan
Illegitimati non carborundum
- Aug 17, 2005
- 19,948
- 17,386
I would think any trade involving Rants now would require a new contract for Mikko being part of the deal. I just can't imagine giving up a signed Tkachuk for a maybe Mikko.
- Aug 28, 2009
- 7,829
- 5,031
Mikko is worthless unless he wants to sign in Ottawa.
The rangers could just move Laf.
You can create as many Mikko+ proposals you want. But the elephant in the room is Mikko is a UFA, with 0 ties to Ottawa. And without him, the Avs are nowhere in a Tkachuk trade.
dahrougem2
Registered User
Several media members already came out and refuted Larry Brooks, who has a history of being very incorrect and a rumour starter. He's basically Dater.
- Oct 24, 2008
- 25,995
- 43,501
1. Mikko has a 9 team no-trade list and the Canadian teams are most certainly on the list. The Senators suck. Why would he waive to go there?
2. Even if he waived to go to Ottawa, he would be a pure rental. Why does Ottawa want a soon-to-be UFA for one of their most valuable assets?
3. The Avs won’t trade Rantanen in a Cup contending season. He extends or he walks.
Now, my opinion…
4. Tkachuk isn’t as good as Rantanen. Period. Overrated player. Can’t play centre effectively and is actually not good defensively despite a reputation. He’s a 35 goal scorer who takes bad penalties and isn’t good in his own zone.
Tommy Shelby
Registered User
- Feb 26, 2012
- 8,084
- 6,099
dahrougem2
Registered User
I've long felt the same way. Brady has this weird rep of being a "warrior" and a guy who leads his team into the battle, etc.
I see a guy who gets pissy when he's losing and likes to start fighting when the game means nothing.
That should be Stutzle's team.
- Status
