Yes, a Kadri re-sign would have been problematic on its own, obviously no one expected him to repeat his stellar career year and that deal would've aged like milk left outside. It just irritates me to no end that there was no Plan B whatsoever. They just threw up their hands and said "Eh, we'll just go with center-by-committee (again) and figure it out at the deadline," which of course they didn't.
And I don't believe for a second that the Avs truly believed Newhook would evolve into a viable #2 center. At least the coaches had to have known at that point. If management didn't, then they were either deluding themselves or are even worse at talent evaluation than I feared.
It's just stupid to me that the team won a Cup and followed up their title defense by failing to shore up the very weakness that, when addressed, directly led to their first championship in over 20 years.
Again, getting Manson was a great idea. Keeping him was not.
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.
I think I have read everyone's stance on this board at least hundred times, but in case anyone wants a reminder of mine, I always thought the plan was to see whether having 4 difference makers as wings (plus MacKinnon) would be enough to carry the team. As it turns out, by the last games of the Seattle series, we only had 2 of those wingers in the lineup (a situation that we're facing again as we start this season), so the experiment was never properly tested. That being said, in retrospect, I do believe it's possible that I was undervaluing the importance of center depth.I simultaneously can't believe but also can believe that we're re-litigating decisions made two off-seasons ago
I think I have read everyone's stance on this board at least hundred times, but in case anyone wants a reminder of mine, I always thought the plan was to see whether having 4 difference makers as wings (plus MacKinnon) would be enough to carry the team. As it turns out, by the last games of the Seattle series, we only had 2 of those wingers in the lineup (a situation that we're facing again as we start this season), so the experiment was never properly tested. That being said, in retrospect, I do believe it's possible that I was undervaluing the importance of center depth.
If Kadri signed here it would've been for less than Calgary. Probably ~6milx8 if I had to guess. It all hinged on EJ going to Anaheim really.$2.5M difference though. That's meaningful. If Kadri would have signed for $4.5M, he'd be wearing an Avs jersey.
The Avs build their teams by having certain roles they can't spend too much on, like 2C, 1G, and 4th liners. That's why they needed to sign Mitts short term, to keep his AAV down.
OK my dear contrarian, you are absolutely right and I am totally wrong. I'm baffled that I didn't realize it earlier. It should have been obvious to me that when the Avs didn't have a 2C last year, and you repeatedly mentioned that it wasn't that hard to acquire one, if I was to dare say that you mentioned at that time, in the context that the Avs should acquire a 2C, that a handful was being moved every year, it would be a voluntary, mischievious behavior on my part, akin to twisting words and attempting to change your statement. I obviously hurt your ego with this purposeful, savy maneuver and I apologize for it.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.
You’re giving too much credit in terms of having a master plan. If you want clarity, just consider 2023 started with an 11M third line. Johnson declined the trade so the Avs were left with the results. No back up plan other than Compher/ Newhook. This was the vision. Oh. And also Landeskog was two years from returning yet the Avs took the cap hit that year.
Long vision planning? You’re giving a lot of credit.
Yup... and New Jersey has an excellent cap situation for the next 3 years. The only big name up for contract next year is Luke Hughes. Then in 2 seasons it is only Nemec and Markstrom (if they keep him at that time). the 3rd year they now have Hischier and Mercer come due... but drop off Palat and Dillon. They are very nicely structured moving forward. They have to take the step forward this year though.steal
That's...fine. The best way NJ can maximize the value of that deal though is to flip him for a decent return before it expires.
Eh...wouldn't go that far.steal
Has yet to miss a NHL game. 2 time 20g scorer (averaging 22 a season). Should be a 40+ point guy (2 40+ seasons) and has a 56 point season under his belt. About half of that in a 3rd line role. Wing and center versatility. Plays in all situations and is arguably their top PK guy (him or Haula). He wasn't amazing last year, but to date, he's had a fantastic start to his career.Eh...wouldn't go that far.
Ritchie or Makar?
His value has peaked, trade him!
His value has peaked, trade him!