Rumor: 2024-2025 Trade Rumors and Free Agency Talk | The Slow Crawl to the Season

[MarkT]

On the cap hit... instead of a Manson/ERod combo, it would have been a Kadri/Schenn type combo instead (remember Avs had EJ still at this point).

On RD that could have been had, we saw Tanev at the last deadline (and the Avs were in it). Avs clearly got Manson in a trade. Savard was also moved. Those two fit the exact same mold. Then you have different molds of players in different ways... say a left shot that can play the right side, like Orlov or Ekholm. Or a different type of RD like Hronek. Or slightly lesser versions. Every year these types of defenders trade places. They aren't necessarily cheap, but they can be had. Along with this, the Avs had Byram as a floater #5 that would play both sides and all the pairings at different times to get him minutes. They already had 4 guys for top 4 roles. They could have moved forward with that... and that group would be stronger than today's group.

With Newhook, it was simply a misevaluation and a bad move. Skill sets matter and if a player is deficient in something, they need to make it up elsewhere in drastic ways. It isn't like it wasn't clear to see with Newhook. It was chattered about prior to his drafting, after he was drafted, and when he was in the NHL. The Avs even made moves to ensure he wasn't even playing center, on any line, for the Cup run. Arguably, his miss (amongst others) cost 2 scouts their jobs. He was a western Canada guy (so Klipp was his regional scout) and Hepple had to ensure Sakic Newhook was the guy. Both have now been phased out. The move to esure Newhook wasn't playing center makes the whole thing more egregious IMO. The Avs already saw the struggles and just said they were okay with it. You can't just do that with important positions like the 2nd line center spot.

On the defense side, I think you're talking out of both sides of your mouth a bit. You're clearly suggesting that the Avs should have gone with a top four of Makar, Toews, Girard, and Byram, meaning a top 4 with no big physical D. That's fine if that's your philosophy, but I personally think you need guys who can be matched against the other team's physical players and stand a chance. Yes, you could make the bottom pair be your physical guys, but then you've got the problem of needing to shelter them. The advantage of having Manson in the top 4 is you can play him against top lines if that's where the other team has their physical forwards.

So what I mean by the both sides of your mouth comment, if I don't see how you can have a top 4 like that, sign Kadri, and still go after and afford guys like Savard, Orlov, Ekholm or Hronek - all guys who make at leats top 4 (or top 2) money and/or would take major assets to acquire. And Tanev only became available this past deadline - so he's irrelevant when it comes to converations about replacing Manson if we didn't sign him.

So I think what you're really suggesting is they should have let Manson walk, then go with a small, puck moving top 4, and maybe cheaper physical guys in the bottom pair.

I think it's just that before we got Manson, I felt for a long time that the Avs biggest need was a physical right side defenseman who was better than EJ. If you subtracted Manson, that need would pop right back up.

As for Newhook, I don't disagree with your assessment, but again, we're operating with hindsight - you can't claim that the Avs knew Newhook couldn't take over as 2C - sure it was a big risk, but I think it would also be a big risk to sign a 30+ player coming off an outlier career year to a big long term contract. So as far as I'm concerned the Avs were taking a big risk either way, and they bet on their 1st round draft pick - I can't fault them too much for that. If you're not going to trust your top scouts and talent evaluators, what's the point in having them?

 

[The Moops]

Hindsight. It's not unheard of for players to take major steps forward from one season to the next, especially after they got the chance to take part in a run to the cup. It was a difficult situation. The choice was either commit to a guy already on the wrong side of 30, or gamble on your first round draft pick to work out for you. I don't know if you remember, but there's video of the Newhook draft where Sakic confirms that Newhook is "top 6" before committing to the pick. The expectation within the organization was clearly that Newhook was going to be a 2C for them, and at his age at the time, it was too early to declare him a bust.

Now, ideally, if they were letting Kadri walk, they would at least need a stopgap 2C to fill the spot until Newhook was ready, but I don't recall the Avs having much cap space, and 2Cs don't grow on trees. I expect they looked at JT as that stopgap player, and hoped that Newhook would be able to earn that spot sooner or later.

There's taking a step... and then there is total blind hope that he's going to replace Kadri. Here's a picture of NewJost's stats in the playoffs for the Avs up to that point. Management thinking he'd slide into 2C and not getting a stop-gap was an incredibly naive decision. No justification that he was ready for that. We burned a year of our window partially because that position was un-filled. No excuse

 

[MarkT]

The owner is an absolute idiot but he can sign these players simply because people here just don't care about these things.

Ah. Just a case of people having more important things to worry about. That makes sense.

 

[MarkT]

View attachment 907714

There's taking a step... and then there is total blind hope that he's going to replace Kadri. Here's a picture of NewJost's stats in the playoffs for the Avs up to that point. Management thinking he'd slide into 2C and not getting a stop-gap was an incredibly naive decision. No justification that he was ready for that. We burned a year of our window partially because that position was un-filled. No excuse

I've already replied to this kinda in my previous comment, but I don't think they expected Newhook to step in immediately. But I'll bet they did expect him to at least take a bigger step forward than he did. It certainly didn't help that Landeskog wasn't there to help. Remember, Landeskog essentially played center for this team (at least defensively), so if they had been able to pair Newhook with Landeskog they could have sheltered him.

Also, maybe my memory is faulty, but didn't they have like no cap space left to sign a stopgap? I mean ERod had played center in the past, so maybe that was meant to be him.

 

[EdAVSfan]

On the defense side, I think you're talking out of both sides of your mouth a bit. You're clearly suggesting that the Avs should have gone with a top four of Makar, Toews, Girard, and Byram, meaning a top 4 with no big physical D. That's fine if that's your philosophy, but I personally think you need guys who can be matched against the other team's physical players and stand a chance. Yes, you could make the bottom pair be your physical guys, but then you've got the problem of needing to shelter them. The advantage of having Manson in the top 4 is you can play him against top lines if that's where the other team has their physical forwards.

So what I mean by the both sides of your mouth comment, if I don't see how you can have a top 4 like that, sign Kadri, and still go after and afford guys like Savard, Orlov, Ekholm or Hronek - all guys who make at leats top 4 (or top 2) money and/or would take major assets to acquire. And Tanev only became available this past deadline - so he's irrelevant when it comes to converations about replacing Manson if we didn't sign him.

So I think what you're really suggesting is they should have let Manson walk, then go with a small, puck moving top 4, and maybe cheaper physical guys in the bottom pair.

I think it's just that before we got Manson, I felt for a long time that the Avs biggest need was a physical right side defenseman who was better than EJ. If you subtracted Manson, that need would pop right back up.

As for Newhook, I don't disagree with your assessment, but again, we're operating with hindsight - you can't claim that the Avs knew Newhook couldn't take over as 2C - sure it was a big risk, but I think it would also be a big risk to sign a 30+ player coming off an outlier career year to a big long term contract. So as far as I'm concerned the Avs were taking a big risk either way, and they bet on their 1st round draft pick - I can't fault them too much for that. If you're not going to trust your top scouts and talent evaluators, what's the point in having them?

I think Hench’s main premise is that the defense of Girard, Makar, Toews and Byram is more than adequate for the regular season. Simply target a Manson replacement at the deadline.

 

[henchman21]

On the defense side, I think you're talking out of both sides of your mouth a bit. You're clearly suggesting that the Avs should have gone with a top four of Makar, Toews, Girard, and Byram, meaning a top 4 with no big physical D. That's fine if that's your philosophy, but I personally think you need guys who can be matched against the other team's physical players and stand a chance. Yes, you could make the bottom pair be your physical guys, but then you've got the problem of needing to shelter them. The advantage of having Manson in the top 4 is you can play him against top lines if that's where the other team has their physical forwards.

So what I mean by the both sides of your mouth comment, if I don't see how you can have a top 4 like that, sign Kadri, and still go after and afford guys like Savard, Orlov, Ekholm or Hronek - all guys who make at leats top 4 (or top 2) money and/or would take major assets to acquire. And Tanev only became available this past deadline - so he's irrelevant when it comes to converations about replacing Manson if we didn't sign him.

So I think what you're really suggesting is they should have let Manson walk, then go with a small, puck moving top 4, and maybe cheaper physical guys in the bottom pair.

I think it's just that before we got Manson, I felt for a long time that the Avs biggest need was a physical right side defenseman who was better than EJ. If you subtracted Manson, that need would pop right back up.

As for Newhook, I don't disagree with your assessment, but again, we're operating with hindsight - you can't claim that the Avs knew Newhook couldn't take over as 2C - sure it was a big risk, but I think it would also be a big risk to sign a 30+ player coming off an outlier career year to a big long term contract. So as far as I'm concerned the Avs were taking a big risk either way, and they bet on their 1st round draft pick - I can't fault them too much for that. If you're not going to trust your top scouts and talent evaluators, what's the point in having them?

i'm saying that top 4 is plenty good enough to work with in the regular season, and then you use assets to buy rentals to shore up the defense for a run. You can find rentals in each season that play a physical brand of hockey. A lot of them are either right shots or can play the right side (and with Byram in the fold, you didn't have to be choosy on sides). The Avs would have to grab a guy to shore up the defense, but they didn't have to do it at the expense of the 2C spot. Yes it costs assets, it always does. But in the long-run, this approach actually had a higher acquisition cost. With the cap, especially if you're going after rentals, the hits are able to be absorbed.

On Newhook, I'm not operating with hindsight at all. There is a very long history of me saying he wouldn't work there. All the signs were there that it wouldn't work. People here tried to convince me and state reasons why it would, for years. It was blatantly obvious to me that he wasn't 2C material. The fact that the Avs couldn't see that early is a sign of poor scouting and evaluation. The fact that they made moves to avoid Newhook playing center during the Cup run and then they still went down that path is an even more egregious mistake. Newhook is a perfectly fine, and legit NHL player. I wouldn't be surprised at all if he puts up a 25g-30a season this year. He is just in no way a 2C on a contending team. Maybe you get a Kerfoot like 2C on a bad team, but you're better off planting him on the wing and having him as a complementary 2nd liner. That is his skill set, always has been. People (and I include the Avs in that) just didn't want to admit that.

 

[AvsMakar08]

There's no Cup without Manson.

And there was never going to be a 2nd Cup with that core without Landy, regardless if they shipped out G to keep Kadri or not.

That team captured lightning in a bottle, had one of, if not the best TDL in franchise history and went on to completely dominate the playoffs as a result. Replicating that feat is nearly impossible, so I'm just happy they did what they did.

I don't expect another Cup

@Sea Eagles Avs have a good chance to win at least 1 Cup in the next 3 years if they don't make mistakes.

 

[Bill Peckerskull]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1836436997470069203

I know a guy that's probably available on the cheap. However, he can't play till mid-late November

 

[Pierce Hawthorne]

Toews - Makar
Girard - Andersson/Weegar


I bet that's the defense we're looking at this year if the Avs had kept Kadri and let Manson go.

 

[GoNordiquesGo]

Just like you're saying Dmen are easily available at the deadline, you also said many times that 2C are easily available and a handful at least are traded every year... So its the same situation. The Avs didn't put all their eggs in the Newhook basket. They simply said we'll give it a try to start the season and will acquire one at the deadline if it doesn't work. That's where the shit hit the fan. They failed (or declined) to acquired a proper 2C, plus Landeskog never came back and Nichushkin messed-up.

That forward group was plenty good enough for the seasona nd only needed to shore up the 2C at the deadline.

They had the choice of keeping Manson and the rest and let Kadri walk, with the intent of acquiring a 2C later.

Or the choice of keeping Kadri, get rid of another player to compensate the $2.5M difference and acquire a physical D later.

They wasted a season by failing to acquire the 2C in 22-23. Not two years since they did get Mitts last year. The reason why this decision is so badly vilified is because of that failure. If they had acquired Mitts last yeat (and Landeskog had came back for the playoffs and Nichushkin hadn't messed-up), we would be saying that we dodged a bullet with the Kadri contract... So many factors come into play. The failure was to not acquire what was needed at the deadline, whether it was a 2C or a physical Dman.

 

[henchman21]

Just like you're saying Dmen are easily available at the deadline, you also said many times that 2C are easily available and a handful at least are traded every year... So its the same situation. The Avs didn't put all their eggs in the Newhook basket. They simply said we'll give it a try to start the season and will acquire one at the deadline if it doesn't work. That's where the shit hit the fan. They failed (or declined) to acquired a proper 2C, plus Landeskog never came back and Nichushkin messed-up.

That forward group was plenty good enough for the seasona nd only needed to shore up the 2C at the deadline.

They had the choice of keeping Manson and the rest and let Kadri walk, with the intent of acquiring a 2C later.

Or the choice of keeping Kadri, get rid of another player to compensate the $2.5M difference and acquire a physical D later.

They wasted a season by failing to acquire the 2C in 22-23. Not two years since they did get Mitts last year. The reason why this decision is so badly vilified is because of that failure. If they had acquired Mitts last yeat (and Landeskog had came back for the playoffs and Nichushkin hadn't messed-up), we would be saying that we dodged a bullet with the Kadri contract... So many factors come into play. The failure was to not acquire what was needed at the deadline, whether it was a 2C or a physical Dman.

If you're speaking to me on this, you're twisting words. I haven't said a handful a year are moved. 1-2 top 6 centers a year are moved, and they are available. Odd years you may get 3, but 1 or 2 is normal. I've spoken that they can grab one, you just have to be willing to pay the cost. They are typically much more expensive than a physical #4D. Just look at Manson vs Mitts... 2nd + B prospect vs Byram. Or Lindholm vs Manson (Lindholm 1st rounder + 2 Bs prospect + roster player). Or Horvat vs Manson (1st + B+ prospect + roster player). That's a very significant cost difference and one the Avs eventually had to make.

If Mitts had been acquired at the 23 deadline it wouldn't be crowed about. Going 1.5 seasons without a 2C, trying to stopgap it, and eventually having to pay a large cost played a large role in the failures of the last two seasons. Just getting Mitts at the deadline doesn't absolve what they did prior, and with that, they had to rob Peter to pay Paul. They addressed the 2C issue, but it cost a large asset (and a large asset to get rid of the stopgap).

The Avs were a weaker team, with a more expensive and more difficult hole to fill, with Manson and without Kadri. This should be very clear now, and IMO was very clear at that time. It took them until this past deadline to really rectify the problem and it cost them the single most valuable asset that was expendable.

 

[ANewHope]

Avs could have got rid of EJ and kept both Manson/Kadri.

I know they were discussing a deal but I really don't think the Avs wanted to pay Kadri long term.

 

[henchman21]

Avs could have got rid of EJ and kept both Manson/Kadri.

I know they were discussing a deal but I really don't think the Avs wanted to pay Kadri long term.

As far as I know, there were two deals on the table at the end. A 6 year deal with similar AAV to Calgary and an 8 year deal with a significant lower AAV. The 8 year deal was supposedly agreed contingent they could get EJ to accept the trade.

 

[Pierce Hawthorne]

Kadri took 7x$7M from Calgary, I'd bet money he was willing to take like 8x$6M to stay with the guys he just won a cup with. Maybe even lower then that.

 

[ANewHope]

I don't get the hate for the Manson deal. Avs could have moved either EJ or even Girard and it has no impact on keeping Kadri. The mistake was keeping EJ/Girard. You had a top 4 of Makar, Toews, Manson, Byram. Signing Manson was fine but keeping the entire defence together was a mistake.

EJ/Girard/1st to dump EJ for Kadri/Manson/whatever you got back in the G trade.

As far as I know, there were two deals on the table at the end. A 6 year deal with similar AAV to Calgary and an 8 year deal with a significant lower AAV. The 8 year deal was supposedly agreed contingent they could get EJ to accept the trade.

So the Avs were willing to pay and wanted Kadri enough to give him 8 years but not enough to use a 1st to dump EJ? There was multiple ways to keep Kadri/Manson. Seems like they picked every other option over Kadri which makes me think they were less serious about keeping Kadri long term than they let on.

 

[chet1926]

Lol on the Kadri talk. Not sure where people are thinking it was Manson or Kadri. Like the numbers don't even remotely add up. One makes 4.5 the other makes 7.

It was Kadri or Nuke. Which they made right choice because we didn't know that Nuke was going off the rails.

Or it could have been Kadri or Manson and Lehk. They could have chosen Kadri but both Manson and Lehk would be gone. So once again they made the right choice.

Or they could have traded someone like G to make space.

 

[henchman21]

I don't get the hate for the Manson deal. Avs could have moved either EJ or even Girard and it has no impact on keeping Kadri. The mistake was keeping EJ/Girard. You had a top 4 of Makar, Toews, Manson, Byram. Signing Manson was fine but keeping the entire defence together was a mistake.

EJ/Girard/1st to dump EJ for Kadri/Manson/whatever you got back in the G trade.


So the Avs were willing to pay and wanted Kadri enough to give him 8 years but not enough to use a 1st to dump EJ? There was multiple ways to keep Kadri/Manson. Seems like they picked every other option over Kadri which makes me think they were less serious about keeping Kadri long term than they let on.

Avs had a deal line up with EJ and a 1st to Anaheim… EJ nixed it.

 

[henchman21]

Lol on the Kadri talk. Not sure where people are thinking it was Manson or Kadri. Like the numbers don't even remotely add up. One makes 4.5 the other makes 7.

It was Kadri or Nuke. Which they made right choice because we didn't know that Nuke was going off the rails.

Or it could have been Kadri or Manson and Lehk. They could have chosen Kadri but both Manson and Lehk would be gone. So once again they made the right choice.

Or they could have traded someone like G to make space.

Manson and ERod. ERod was added only after Kadri signed in Calgary. He wouldn’t have been added and a near minimum defensemen would have been added.

 

[ANewHope]

Avs had a deal line up with EJ and a 1st to Anaheim… EJ nixed it.

So it was impossible to move EJ at any point for Kadri? If Kadri was willing to sign for a lower AAV at 8 years and it was agreed on than couldn't they have moved Girard? If you wanted to keep Kadri so badly than why keep Nuke/Lehky/Manson?

Avs had multiple ways to keep Kadri and they chose multiple players over him including Manson.

 

[LOFIN]

Wish we could have the Rantanen extension already so this board would have something other to bitch about than not re-signing Kadri.

 

[henchman21]

So it was impossible to move EJ at any point for Kadri? If Kadri was willing to sign for a lower AAV at 8 years and it was agreed on than couldn't they have moved Girard? If you wanted to keep Kadri so badly than why keep Nuke/Lehky/Manson?

Avs had multiple ways to keep Kadri and they chose multiple players over him including Manson.

It wasn’t impossible, and the Avs tried to make it happen. EJ just didn’t accept it. It was very close.

The Avs have never wanted to move Girard. He’s not untouchable, but he’s been way down the list. Partially because they like G, partially because the value isn’t there compared trading other players.

The Avs did chose others over Kadri and that’s the crux of this. It also clearly hurt the quality of the team.

 

[GoNordiquesGo]

If you're speaking to me on this, you're twisting words. I haven't said a handful a year are moved. 1-2 top 6 centers a year are moved, and they are available. Odd years you may get 3, but 1 or 2 is normal. I've spoken that they can grab one, you just have to be willing to pay the cost. They are typically much more expensive than a physical #4D. Just look at Manson vs Mitts... 2nd + B prospect vs Byram. Or Lindholm vs Manson (Lindholm 1st rounder + 2 Bs prospect + roster player). Or Horvat vs Manson (1st + B+ prospect + roster player). That's a very significant cost difference and one the Avs eventually had to make.

I'm not twisting your words. You can replace my term "handful" with "multiple" if it makes you happy, but they are as close to synonymous as it gets. This is NOT twisting your words at all... When they were in need of a 2C, you went on and on about the fact they could easily get one if they really wanted to.

 

[henchman21]

I'm not twisting your words. You can replace my term "handful" with "multiple" if it makes you happy, but they are as close to synonymous as it gets. This is NOT twisting your words at all... When they were in need of a 2C, you went on and on about the fact they could easily get one if they really wanted to.

Handful is 5 unless you've been playing with fireworks or have a family tree that doesn't branch. In the world of availability of players 1-2 a year is a completely different realm than 5 a year. So it is twisting it quite a bit.

I've always stated you can get players, it just takes a willingness to pay the price. The Avs were not willing to pay the price for a long time, eventually they relented. Prior to trading Byram, I stated fairly often that he was the piece to use for that trade because he had the combo of expendability and value. Many scoffed at that idea. The Avs could have solved the 2C issue right after keeping Manson by trading Byram then. None of this would be talked about because they would have addressed the 2C spot immediately and not waited 1.5 seasons to do so.

The 2C spot is the primary issue. Avs thought they could buck history and cheap out on that spot. Which you can find a few times where it has happened. But generally (like 90++% of the time) you need to be strong down the middle in the NHL to contend for Cups. In the end, the Avs agreed. It just took them a while.

I am baffled that people are 100% okay with how the Avs approached things since the Cup. I don't blame them for last season as much. From where they were after 22-23 and the pieces they had... They tried and it just didn't work. 22-23 was a pretty epic failure that put 23-24 behind the curve, maybe to a point where it isn't recoverable for this core. If the Avs only win 1 Cup with this core, the 2022 offseason will be one of the largest reasons why.

 

[Ceremony]

Wish we could have the Rantanen extension already so this board would have something other to bitch about than not re-signing Kadri.

The Kadri chat will still be going on long after Rantanen has retired

 

[The Abusement Park]

I think a lot of you guys have a ton of recency bias when it comes to Kadri. Yes, he was incredible during the cup run and became a core player during that season. But have you all forgotten what he was like before that? He was a complete net negative player, dragging down his linemates and wasting offensive chances. How were the Avs supposed to know which version of Kadri they were going to get long term, especially as age caught up with him? Signing 30+ year old players to big, long term deals is exactly how you guarantee our window closes at some point.

As much as I love him, I'm glad the Avs didn't give Kadri the deal he got in Calgary.

As for Manson, if they let him walk, they would immediately need to go looking for a replacement. It's not like you can easily just go out and find big physical top-4 right d who aren't complete liabilities offensively.

I think re-signing Manson was the right move, because it allowed the team down the line to deal from a position of strength - they could afford to trade whoever made the most sense out of Toews, Byram, Girard and Manson when the time came, leaving them still with a very solid top 4. And I personally don't blame them for not going with a top four of Makar, Toews, Byram and Girard.

.

So signing Kadri would be a mistake because he’s older and past his prime. But signing Manson, who was 30 and had an extensive injury history made sense because he filled a certain role? I understand letting Kadri go, but for the same reasons people didn’t want to bring Kadri back is the close enough to the same reasoning Manson shouldn’t have been brought back.