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

[Tommy Shelby]

Even if they had addressed the 2C issue properly the first time, Nuke would have f***ed us regardless

So f*** Val Nichushkin

 

[missionAvs]

IMO, we should’ve started the rebuild before game 6 and called up the Eagles roster to close out the SCF.

I really wish you were the GM. I agree with this.

 

[Ararana]

Even if they had addressed the 2C issue properly the first time, Nuke would have f***ed us regardless

So f*** Val Nichushkin

*checks who the Avs would have played if they beat Seattle

Yeah, no the Avs were losing regardless.

 

[The Merchant]

Even if they had addressed the 2C issue properly the first time, Nuke would have f***ed us regardless

So f*** Val Nichushkin

It cannot be understated how he single-handedly derailed two Cup-window playoff runs. Criticize the FO for making or not making the right moves all you want, but they had no control over Nuke heel-turning into a complete f***up.

 

[henchman21]

It cannot be understated how he single-handedly derailed two Cup-window playoff runs. Criticize the FO for making or not making the right moves all you want, but they had no control over Nuke heel-turning into a complete f***up.

Dude has had this rep forever… very clearly a great hockey player. Just a complete mess of a person.

 

[Ararana]

And Nuke didn't tank the '23 run. cMac did.

'24 was all Nuke though. You couldn't have asked for a better deadline than what cMac did.

 

[henchman21]

And Nuke didn't tank the '23 run. cMac did.

'24 was all Nuke though. You couldn't have asked for a better deadline than what cMac did.

I'd say 24 wasn't Nuke either. The Avs were just a good chunk behind. Even prior to getting popped, Dallas was clearly winning that series. The FO actually tried in 24, so they shouldn't take heat for last year's efforts. Their efforts from the Cup through the 23 playoffs were pretty abysmal and set them back.

In the end, actually trying to win and trying to address roster issues is what should be expected going forward. Winning another Cup is pretty unlikely, but another 22-23 performance by the front office is exactly what shouldn't happen. The 23-24 performance should be the expectation. At least until there is nothing left to spend and regression is hitting hard.

 

[Balthazar]

The 23-24 performance should be the expectation. At least until there is nothing left to spend and regression is hitting hard.

We're getting close to that point

 

[henchman21]

We're getting close to that point

We're probably in the 2-4 season range of it, yeah. Right now Goulash, Behrens, Ritchie and 26-28 1sts and 25-28 2nds are the bigger pieces to spend. I'd venture to guess a few of those are off the table for most trades or the Avs will refuse given how they project prospects into roles quickly. ~5 will probably be utilized over the next 2 seasons. Which leaves years 3 and 4 in question on what will be left.

My guess.... they will be giving 3 kicks at the can over a 4 years span. Either 25-26 or 26-27 will be a punt year. I'd bet 25-26.

 

[Ararana]

Still got a first and two seconds over the next two years to play with. I'd make Gulyayev available as well, his timeline is irrelevant to this Avs core.

Maybe they end up Newhook-ing Ritchie at some point.

 

[henchman21]

Maybe they end up Newhook-ing Ritchie at some point.

Gonna be unpopular, but say Ritchie goes back to the OHL and dominates (as should be the expectation)... trading him for a young, cost controlled asset wouldn't be the worst idea. Just tossing names out and not trying to be realistic... but say a Nemec, Farabee, Durzi etc type comes up. Not the worst idea to capitalize at the top of the future hype, and grab a player that can help now and 2-4 more years.

 

[BobRossColton]

Gonna be unpopular, but say Ritchie goes back to the OHL and dominates (as should be the expectation)... trading him for a young, cost controlled asset wouldn't be the worst idea. Just tossing names out and not trying to be realistic... but say a Nemec, Farabee, Durzi etc type comes up. Not the worst idea to capitalize at the top of the future hype, and grab a player that can help now and 2-4 more years.

If Ritchie goes off like that, use him and 1st for Kakko and Schneider

Too much?

 

[henchman21]

If Ritchie goes off like that, use him and 1st for Kakko and Schneider

Too much?

Way too much IMO... Kakko isn't worth much until he actually shows something.

 

[GoNordiquesGo]

It never means one… unless a person is being a handful. You’re taking a number that is very low and tweaking it up. It is clearly intentional on your part here.

You do have a history of this stuff. You can’t call it moving goalposts when you deliberately misrepresent what people say.

Funny enough on that MacK contract… the Avs haven’t been close since the extension kicked in and it is a large factor why they couldn’t afford both…

See, you're the one twisting my words... I NEVER meant handful to mean either ONE, nor a very high amount. Handful means a small quantity... otherwise you use expressions like "a lot", "many", "multiple"... I said that when the Avs were looking for a 2C last year, YOU said many times that it wasn't that hard for a team to find a 2C when a team really wanted to and that you said there is a handful of 2C being traded every year. That is what I said and that is what I meant. Nothing more, nothing less. You're the one inventing word twisting somehow, somewhere in this. Thre is no such thing.

You claim I have a history of twisting words. I'm very open to debate this, because I disagree. And you have a history of being a contrarian , so I'm curious to see where this is going.

So are you back to saying the window closed with the Mack contract ?

 

[Balthazar]

Gonna be unpopular, but say Ritchie goes back to the OHL and dominates (as should be the expectation)... trading him for a young, cost controlled asset wouldn't be the worst idea.

Like Askarov?

Too late.

 

[GoNordiquesGo]

The failure itself wasn’t not re signing Kadri. Realistically not re signing Kadri was probably the right move. But almost every move they made after that was a complete failure from a roster composition standpoint. Moving on from Kadri is fine if you want to not spend the money/term on someone his age, but not addressing a major position like the 2C signals you aren’t contending whether they meant that or not.

They had the assets to fill that hole, didn’t and because of that had to had use a far more major asset than they wanted or needed to.

The deadline was 100% a failure, but leaving such a major position to fill for the deadline is just an unnecessary choice they made. Again the deadline was a failure, but they could’ve made it so much easier on themselves by filling the C role first and replacing Manson at the deadline which would’ve been far cheaper and easier to do.

Yup. Fully agree. The Mitts move was supposed to happen a year ago. Compound that with the realistic possibilities that Landeskog was going to come back healthy for the playoffs and the Nichushkin thing never happening and suddenly, the AVs were likely a very solid, top contenders that year and the following years as well. And the mere mention that the window was closed would be hilarious.

Its a bit of a perfect storm. They messed-up and it got compounded by bad luck.

 

[henchman21]

See, you're the one twisting my words... I NEVER meant handful to mean either ONE, nor a very high amount. Handful means a small quantity... otherwise you use expressions like "a lot", "many", "multiple"... I said that when the Avs were looking for a 2C last year, YOU said many times that it wasn't that hard for a team to find a 2C when a team really wanted to and that you said there is a handful of 2C being traded every year. That is what I said and that is what I meant. Nothing more, nothing less. You're the one inventing word twisting somehow, somewhere in this. Thre is no such thing.

You claim I have a history of twisting words. I'm very open to debate this, because I disagree. And you have a history of being a contrarian , so I'm curious to see where this is going.

So are you back to saying the window closed with the Mack contract ?

I said 1-2 or couple. I have not said a handful of top 6 centers or many in the context of a single season. I have probably said many over of the course of a few years. That's that context here that is being ignored. 1-2 frequently move a season, 3 in an odd year. That's it. Saying I said many in a single season is twisting or inserting words. I have said MANY times that getting a top 6 center is not hard (even in this conversation), it is just expensive... and it was. The wherewithal to address the center position had to be there.

People label me a contrarian, and I honestly don't care what people label. But I simply speak as I see things, nothing more, nothing less. Sometimes that will be contrarian to some things, sometimes that will be negative. Sometimes it will be positive and fit with different widely held narratives. Naturally, the viewpoints that I have that are different get amplified. As an example, my viewpoints on Byram and Newhook were amplified and trolled upon, which is all part of the fun of a hockey forum. Where I speak from is just what I see though, not in a manner to be different.

I have never said the window closed then or would definitely close. You can't speak in definites in these things. Teams typically don't know windows close until way after the fact, which I have talked about extensively. I have said many times that MacK's extension and the issues around it would be a point where a window could definitely close. It was a clear point where depth would suffer and the Avs would be getting out of a the excess value of their contract. We won't know for sure for years on this. If the Avs never reach serious contention again though, it is very possible it did shut then. A first round exit and a badly lost 2nd round exit really point to not contending the past two seasons. If similar results happen this and next season, I think you can make a strong case the window shut in the 22 offseason.

 

[GoNordiquesGo]

I said 1-2 or couple. I have not said a handful of top 6 centers or many in the context of a single season. I have probably said many over of the course of a few years. That's that context here that is being ignored. 1-2 frequently move a season, 3 in an odd year. That's it. Saying I said many in a single season is twisting or inserting words. I have said MANY times that getting a top 6 center is not hard (even in this conversation), it is just expensive... and it was. The wherewithal to address the center position had to be there.

Geez...
So you agree that you have "said 1-2 or couple", "I have probably said many over of the course of a few years."

I used the expression: "you said there are a handful per year".

And you read in this that I am TWISTING your words ? Because I used "handful" and you agree that you said "Two" ? Come-on man... its OK to let go... You thought "handful" meant 5. I educated you that "handful" means "a little". Maybe you initially felt I twisted your words because you erroneously thought handful meant 5... Now you learned that it means a few. Its OK to agree that I didn't twist your words...

 

[GoNordiquesGo]

I have never said the window closed then or would definitely close. You can't speak in definites in these things. Teams typically don't know windows close until way after the fact, which I have talked about extensively. I have said many times that MacK's extension and the issues around it would be a point where a window could definitely close. It was a clear point where depth would suffer and the Avs would be getting out of a the excess value of their contract. We won't know for sure for years on this. If the Avs never reach serious contention again though, it is very possible it did shut then. A first round exit and a badly lost 2nd round exit really point to not contending the past two seasons. If similar results happen this and next season, I think you can make a strong case the window shut in the 22 offseason.

I absolutely agree that absolutes/definites are not appropriate in this debate. But I think we can establish that there was one camp that was saying it is "Most likley" that the window will close with the Mack contract and one camp that was saying it is "Most likely" that the window will stay open for another 3-4 years. If that wasn't the case, then there wouldn't have been so much debate. So its not about absolutes/definites but about Most Likely.

I think the Avs would have been definitely equipped to be a contender the last two years. But unfortunately, the Landeskog and Nichushkin situations have costed dearly and have severely hampered the success of the last two years. So it is valid to question what is happening with the window, I admit that. But funny enough it has nothing to do with the Mack contract... it is bad luck events...

 

[henchman21]

Geez...
So you agree that you have "said 1-2 or couple", "I have probably said many over of the course of a few years."

I used the expression: "you said there are a handful per year".

And you read in this that I am TWISTING your words ? Because I used "handful" and you agree that you said "Two" ? Come-on man... its OK to let go... You thought "handful" meant 5. I educated you that "handful" means "a little". Maybe you initially felt I twisted your words because you erroneously thought handful meant 5... Now you learned that it means a few. Its OK to agree that I didn't twist your words...

To me, taking a '1-2 or couple per year' and turning that into 'a handful per year' is changing the wording. In doing so, you're changing the wording and context. You're taking something I said rather specifically and changing it to something else that has a wider range. In doing so, you're attempting to change my previous statement and make that what I said instead of my more specific statement with context.

If there was not previous history here, no big deal. It happens. Memories aren't perfect and the internet is just not great with nuance. Move on. When it is a repeated pattern though, I just don't feel it should be overlooked. As the next time this comes around, it'll get stretched again and again, until the previous context and meaning are lost.

 

[henchman21]

I absolutely agree that absolutes/definites are not appropriate in this debate. But I think we can establish that there was one camp that was saying it is "Most likley" that the window will close with the Mack contract and one camp that was saying it is "Most likely" that the window will stay open for another 3-4 years. If that wasn't the case, then there wouldn't have been so much debate. So its not about absolutes/definites but about Most Likely.

I think the Avs were definitely equipped to be a contender the last two years. But unfortunately, the Landeskog and Nichushkin situations have costed dearly and have severely hampered the success of the last two years. So it is valid to question what is happening with the window, I admit that. But funny enough it has nothing to do with the Mack contract... it is bad luck events...

I'd say the results of the past two seasons show how far the Avs have been from contention. Losing to Seattle is inexcusable for a team that considers themselves a contender. Losing to the Stars isn't bad in itself, how lopsided it was should be eye opening to people.

It absolutely has something to do with the MacK contract. It is never just one thing, but the loss of 6.3m in cap space is enormous. If MacK was still making 6.3m today, Kadri would have never left. The Avs wouldn't have had to move Byram for Mitts. It would be a drastically different situation here if the Avs had that money to spend.

 

[EdAVSfan]

Like Askarov?

Too late.

I think Hench should’ve added « more proven » to his description.

 

[henchman21]

I think Hench should’ve added « more proven » to his description.

I'm going to have to be ultra specific on everything I say!

 

[Balthazar]

I think Hench should’ve added « more proven » to his description.

No one is going to trade a proven, young, cost controlled player for Ritchie unless the upside is nowhere near Ritchie's though.

If we're talking about a guy out of his ELC with no contract like Cole Perfetti that's not really cost controlled and we don't have the money for that.

Usually good, signed, young players aren't available unless they want out (which very rarely happen).

Otherwise you get the high upside but unproven guys that want out like Cutter Gauthier and Askarov.

 

[henchman21]

No one is going to trade a proven, young, cost controlled player for Ritchie unless the upside is nowhere near Ritchie's though.

If we're talking about a guy out of his ELC with no contract like Cole Perfetti that's not really cost controlled and we don't have the money for that.

Usually good, signed, young players aren't available unless they want out (which very rarely happen).

Otherwise you get the high upside but unproven guys that want out like Cutter Gauthier and Askarov.

Ritchie wouldn’t be the the only piece, but the centerpiece in this fantasy situation.