Rumor: 2024 Trade Rumors and Free Agency Thread: Post Deadline

[Richard88]

It does when you sign Pionk in the off-season and trade Manson to make room.

Nice pipedream. Pionk is getting paid this off season.

 

[Richard88]

The more I think about it the more it makes sense to move Manson and re-sign Lindgren.

We're getting a look at what a D group without Manson looks like right now, and we're seeing Girard-EJ playing really well together (as they've always done), as well as Malinski and Lindgren dovetailing nicely. That's two balanced bottom 4 pairings, with Middleton as 7D.e

Yes, I know EJ shouldn't be playing top 4 minutes on a contender at his age. You simply deploy him situationally with heavy PK minutes which he's still very much capable of doing. And if he's having a bad game you can give Lindgren and Malinski more minutes next to Girard with EJ being the clear no.6.

Lindgren would cost no assets to bring back, whilst Manson at $4.5m for 1 year would bring back a decent return in the offseason to help re-tool on the fly. Same with Colton. Those assets can then be used to snag a RHD at the TDL next year to push EJ down to 7D.

 

[Richard88]

A look ahead to the 2026 offseason:

2025:

Nelson $7m
Drouin $3.5m
Kiviranta $1.5m
Lindgren $4.5m
Malinski $1.5m
EJ $800k
+ Trade Colton, Wood, Manson

22 man roster, $55k under the cap ceiling:

2026:

Necas $10m
Drury $3.5m
Kelly $1m
Ivan $800k
Nabokov $925k

22 man roster, $1.56m under the projected cap ceiling:

I quite like where the Avs roster is at. Some people call it "cap hell", but it's actually not a bad situation at all. The "worst" case scenario is that they have to trade Colton and Wood for cap room, and maybe they also choose to move Manson to re-sign Lindgren. Either way both Colton and Manson would return decent assets that can be used at the draft or at the 2026 TDL.

 

[Balthazar]

Do you move Manson before you move Colton?

If the goal is to make cap space that'd be pure insanity

 

[MarkT]

Malinski is developing well, but there's a reason he was healthy scratched right before the deadline by CMac pending a possible trade, and why a lot of posters here wanted to bring in a more veteran RHD. He's played great since the deadline but he has a long way to go before he can be thought of as a no.3 on a contending team.

As for free agents that can be puck movers at a lower caphit, I immediately think of Kylington and Brannstrom who were brought in for exactly that purpose, and both of which didn't impress. Are there any specific free agents you'd be targeting this offseason if you traded Girard? Presumably those free agents would be the $1m caphit variety since you signed Lindgren at $5m... so more of the Kylington/Brannstrom types who are cheap for a reason.

I actually thought Kylington was starting to play quite well and would have been fine as the #6 guy if we didn't pick up Lindgren. But I don't think $1m or less is necessary. Of the free agents the only one who seems a fit is maybe Matt Grzelcyk. I'd prefer to go the trade route though so we can find a younger, cost-controlled guy. There may also be a decent waivers option, since every year teams try to sneak NHL-ready guys through. We could just run Middleton/Behrens until the right option comes along or one of those guys solidifies the position.

On Malinski, my plan would have him as the #5, not #3. To refresh your memory, my defense would look like this:

Toews - Makar
Lindgren - Manson
Middleton/Behrens/Grzelcyk/Trade - Malinski

Girard is not a depth defenseman.

I guess we have different definitions of the term. On a team with Lindgren and Manson, Girard is somewhere between 3rd and 5th on the defense depth chart depending on the opponent and type of game. In the playoffs, he's probably #5.

I don't want to remove Manson for picks/assets. Moving Colton and Wood would open enough to get guys signed.

Literally the whole argument started because I had Girard ahead of Manson in terms of who I would move out for cap relief. If moving just Colton and Wood is enough, then I wouldn't trade Girard either. Do we even disagree?

From your roster I'd simply let Lindgren walk and keep Girard. Losing Lindgren sucks but bottom pairing LHD's are one of the easiest positions to fill at the TDL each year so I wouldn't lose much sleep over that one. If Nelson decides to walk though I'd happily re-sign Lindgren though.

The roster below has 22 guys and is $55k under the cap ceiling. I've traded Colton and Wood, just as you've done. If you need to find more money for someone else you simply let Kiviranta walk. He'll probably be asking for closer to $2m after a 16 goal season anyhow which might be too much. In fact, it would probably be wise to let Kiviranta walk and use that money to get an extra year or two from Malinski (eg. $2m x 3 years instead of $1.5m x 2 years). RHD's are harder to find than bottom 6 wingers, and he is trending well right now.

Ideally we'd find a ~$800k LHD for the bottom pairing to partner Malinski and to push Middleton to no.7, but for the purpose of this exercise I've just used EJ at $800k.

View attachment 996806
View attachment 996810

I assume they plan to re-sign Lindgren given what they paid to acquire him. He also gives the team some much-needed grit for when Manson gets injured. Also, he's not bottom pairing. He certainty wasn't in New York and he hasn't been here so far. He's averaging 19 minutes per game and looking very solid. So I gave myself the challenge of fitting Nelson, Lindgren, and Drouin in the lineup. I agree Kivi is probably gone, but I'd try to resign him because he's so useful even if his scoring dries up. But the way it looks to me, after moving Wood and Colton, if Landeskog is back, we need to lose another significant cap hit, and the obvious place to look is at Lindgren, Girard, and Manson. Dropping Lindgren nets us nothing but cap space, so asset management-wise that makes the least sense. Moving Girard would provide us with some much needed cap space, and if possible we could even target a team with a guy who could fill our #6 LD need, and get him as part of the trade. Then we'd have one year to plan on how to find a Manson replacement, and if we lose Lindgren, we'd be right back to square 1 in a year in terms of grit on the back end. Another option would be to try for the Manson replacement as part of the Girard trade - say to Monteal for Arber Xhekaj+, who now that I think of it would fill both needs - bottom pair LD and long-term grit.

 

[RoyIsALegend]

Live look at Puckpedia GM tool after @Richard88 creates 25 rosters per day:

 

[Richard88]

If the goal is to make cap space that'd be pure insanity

If that's the only goal then yes I agree. But there's some validity to the idea of trading Manson and re-signing Lindgren at a similar caphit. That wouldn't be a move purely for capspace.

Lindgren plays a similar style and is exactly the type of Dman we'll need to replace Manson with anyhow, apart from the fact that he shoots left instead of right. He's available for free without giving up any assets (beyond those paid at the TDL), while Manson could return a decent pick or two which is badly needed right now. So it makes sense from an asset management perspective, which is important given how few assets the Avs have.

Then there's the question of age. Lindgren just turned 27 in February. Manson will be 34 in October when next season starts. That's 6.5 years difference, which is a big deal, especially considering how physical they both play and how much Manson's body is breaking down.

In his last 3 seasons Manson has played 27, 76, and 48 games. Including the rest of this season (since he's been ruled out for 3-4 weeks) he'll have played a possible 151 out of 246 games. In other words, he's only been available for 61.3% of our regular season games the last 3 years.

Prior to signing his current contract with the Avs he also had 3 years where he missed a considerable amount of games. From 2019 to 2022 he played 50, 23, and 67 games. That's 140 of 246 games, 56.9% availability. Seems like the Avs actually got lucky getting 76 games out of him last year, but that's clearly the outlier. Across his last 6 seasons he's played 291 of 492 games, or 59.1%. And as he turns 34 that trend isn't likely to get better next season.

Considering that he takes a handful of games to get back up to his best after a long injury he's effectively only available and playing at a top 4 level a little over half the time. That's pretty bad value for a contending team tightly navigating the cap.

For comparison Lindgren since 2021 has played in 280 of a possible 309 games, or 90.6% of games.

When this trade was made I figured that Lindgren would be purely a rental, especially given the question marks about his play and analytics the last two years, but seeing how quickly and well he's slotted into the Avs system it's looking more and more like the Avs will want to find a way to keep him around. And the way to do that is quite clearly to move Manson.

 

[Balthazar]

If that's the only goal then yes I agree. But there's some validity to the idea of trading Manson and re-signing Lindgren at a similar caphit. That wouldn't be a move purely for capspace.

Lindgren plays a similar style and is exactly the type of Dman we'll need to replace Manson with anyhow, apart from the fact that he shoots left instead of right. He's available for free without giving up any assets (beyond those paid at the TDL), while Manson could return a decent pick or two which is badly needed right now. So it makes sense from an asset management perspective, which is important given how few assets the Avs have.

Then there's the question of age. Lindgren just turned 27 in February. Manson will be 34 in October when next season starts. That's 6.5 years difference, which is a big deal, especially considering how physical they both play and how much Manson's body is breaking down.

In his last 3 seasons Manson has played 27, 76, and 48 games. Including the rest of this season (since he's been ruled out for 3-4 weeks) he'll have played a possible 151 out of 246 games. In other words, he's only been available for 61.3% of our regular season games the last 3 years.

Prior to signing his current contract with the Avs he also had 3 years where he missed a considerable amount of games. From 2019 to 2022 he played 50, 23, and 67 games. That's 140 of 246 games, 56.9% availability. Seems like the Avs actually got lucky getting 76 games out of him last year, but that's clearly the outlier. Across his last 6 seasons he's played 291 of 492 games, or 59.1%. And as he turns 34 that trend isn't likely to get better next season.

Considering that he takes a handful of games to get back up to his best after a long injury he's effectively only available and playing at a top 4 level a little over half the time. That's pretty bad value for a contending team tightly navigating the cap.

View attachment 996848

For comparison Lindgren since 2021 has played in 280 of a possible 309 games, or 90.6% of games.

View attachment 996852

When this trade was made I figured that Lindgren would be purely a rental, especially given the question marks about his play and analytics the last two years, but seeing how quickly and well he's slotted into the Avs system it's looking more and more like the Avs will want to find a way to keep him around. And the way to do that is quite clearly to move Manson.

If you move Manson you're left with either Malinski or a lefty playing top 4 minutes on the right side. You don't want either.

Malinski and EJ on the right works for a short period of time but it's not a long term solution.

 

[Richard88]

Live look at Puckpedia GM tool after @Richard88 creates 25 rosters per day:

View attachment 996850

Thanks for your appreciation

 

[Richard88]

@MarkT

Thanks for the discussion

I actually thought Kylington was starting to play quite well and would have been fine as the #6 guy if we didn't pick up Lindgren. But I don't think $1m or less is necessary. Of the free agents the only one who seems a fit is maybe Matt Grzelcyk. I'd prefer to go the trade route though so we can find a younger, cost-controlled guy. There may also be a decent waivers option, since every year teams try to sneak NHL-ready guys through. We could just run Middleton/Behrens until the right option comes along or one of those guys solidifies the position.

On Malinski, my plan would have him as the #5, not #3. To refresh your memory, my defense would look like this:

Toews - Makar
Lindgren - Manson
Middleton/Behrens/Grzelcyk/Trade - Malinski

I agree, Kylington was doing a bit better. A bottom pairing of Kylington-Malinski wouldn't be ideal for the playoffs though. And a big missing element was the fact that Kylington isn't a PK'er. Lindgren brings that.

Grzelcyk would probably be of some interest to the Avs. His name was also mentioned in some Avs related rumours a bit last summer if I recall.

The trade route seems a bit optimistic given how few assets we have. Waivers has worked for the Avs in the past, like with Nemeth and NAK. Most recently they grabbed Ludvig which gave them some short term relief when there were multiple guys out. Getting someone better than that with how low the Avs will be in the waiver wire seems optimistic though.

Thanks for clarifying your top 6. I posted some underlying metrics relating to Malinski yesterday in this thread which showed how terrible the Middleton-Malinski pairing was this year. Hopefully that's not something the Avs front office plan to have as a regular pairing on the 3rd pair next year.

Behrens will need to play as much as possible next year after missing the whole season, but I'd expect that the Avs will have him in mind as a possible callup option a little bit into the season rather than as an everyday 6/7D.

I guess we have different definitions of the term. On a team with Lindgren and Manson, Girard is somewhere between 3rd and 5th on the defense depth chart depending on the opponent and type of game. In the playoffs, he's probably #5.

I don't consider top 4 Dmen to be "depth". Those are key pieces of the roster. Depth Dmen to me are the 6, 7, 8 guys.

The Avs also typically like to have 5 top 4 Dmen for the playoffs, and the TOI for guys 3-5 vary quite a bit rather than there being a rigid hierarchy.

Literally the whole argument started because I had Girard ahead of Manson in terms of who I would move out for cap relief. If moving just Colton and Wood is enough, then I wouldn't trade Girard either. Do we even disagree?

I suppose we agree

In having this discussion and reading posts from others I've started warming up more to the idea of moving Manson to re-sign Lindgren. But my general order of who I'd move first hasn't changed:

Wood
Colton
Manson (if they can re-sign Lindgren)

I assume they plan to re-sign Lindgren given what they paid to acquire him. He also gives the team some much-needed grit for when Manson gets injured. Also, he's not bottom pairing. He certainty wasn't in New York and he hasn't been here so far. He's averaging 19 minutes per game and looking very solid. So I gave myself the challenge of fitting Nelson, Lindgren, and Drouin in the lineup. I agree Kivi is probably gone, but I'd try to resign him because he's so useful even if his scoring dries up. But the way it looks to me, after moving Wood and Colton, if Landeskog is back, we need to lose another significant cap hit, and the obvious place to look is at Lindgren, Girard, and Manson. Dropping Lindgren nets us nothing but cap space, so asset management-wise that makes the least sense. Moving Girard would provide us with some much needed cap space, and if possible we could even target a team with a guy who could fill our #6 LD need, and get him as part of the trade. Then we'd have one year to plan on how to find a Manson replacement, and if we lose Lindgren, we'd be right back to square 1 in a year in terms of grit on the back end. Another option would be to try for the Manson replacement as part of the Girard trade - say to Monteal for Arber Xhekaj+, who now that I think of it would fill both needs - bottom pair LD and long-term grit.

I agree with everything you've said, except for Girard/Manson. I'd be looking to move Manson well before I consider trading Girard.

As I posted above, Manson is turning 34 next year and has only played in 59% of games the last 6 seasons. Conversely Girard is still only 26 and has played in 87% of games the last 3 years (201 of 230 games). If the aim is to keep the cup contending window open for as long as possible you obviously need to keep the guy in his prime who's actually available to play, rather than the guy who is rapidly declining and missing half your teams' games.

 

[Richard88]

If you move Manson you're left with either Malinski or a lefty playing top 4 minutes on the right side. You don't want either.

Malinski and EJ on the right works for a short period of time but it's not a long term solution.

I agree that the handedness isn't ideal.

As you said, Malinski and EJ would only work for a short period. They should be fine for the regular season though until the TDL, at which point they could focus their assets on adding the best possible 2 RHD as that would be the one and only glaring hole on the roster (assuming Nelson re-signs of course).

Replacing Manson with Lindgren also buys some time. If they let Lindgren walk they're under the gun to replace Manson long-term by the time his contract expires in 2026. If they sign Lindgren and trade Manson though they'll have four top 4 Dmen already on the roster signed beyond 2026, and they can perhaps be a little bit more patient in finding the right long-term RHD (though in an ideal world they'd find that RHD sooner rather than later).

 

[MarkT]

Since I want to get on the Richard88 PuckPedia train, here's a couple of rosters that could potentially work for next year:

Feel free to replace Olausson, Felhaber, and Robinson with Ivan Ivan or Nikita Prishchepov if you like.

 

[Richard88]

Since I want to get on the Richard88 PuckPedia train, here's a couple of rosters that could potentially work for next year:


View attachment 996873

View attachment 996877

Feel free to replace Olausson, Felhaber, and Robinson with Ivan Ivan or Nikita Prishchepov if you like.

Me reading through your roster and seeing Olausson on the 3rd line:

Yeah I think we'll go ahead and bump O'Connor up and swap Olausson out for Ivan or Prischepov.

 

[MarkT]

@Richard88 Okay so it looks like we largely agree. I just want to see who you honestly would have as our #2 RD next season? EJ? Malinski? Lindgren or Girard on their off side? None of those are ideal options to me, whereas Manson is. Yes, he's unlikely to play the whole season, but as we've seen Malinski can play that position for stretches, especially if he has a good partner. Meanwhile, as you can see in my roster above, if we move Girard, we still have a solid top 4, and we have decent bottom pair options to move up if someone gets hurt. Oh, and if we lose Manson and keep Lindgren, and don't play Middleton or EJ every game (which we shouldn't), we have a tiny defense core that can get easily outmuscled by a lot of teams. It's not a coincidence that the Avs claimed Ludvig and called up Middleton with Manson in and out of the lineup. The Avs need to have at least some size on the backend or they tend to get cycled to death and dominated in front of their own net.

Oh, and if you're wondering where we get assets to trade for a Girard replacement, I point to the assets we get for trading Wood, Colton, and Girard himself.

 

[MarkT]

Me reading through your roster and seeing Olausson on the 3rd line:

Yeah I think we'll go ahead and bump O'Connor up and swap Olausson out for Ivan or Prischepov.

I decided to be optimistic and have faith in Cogliano's abilities as a development coach, but it wasn't a really serious suggestion - just a placeholder since any minimum salary guy could have that roster spot.

 

[Cake Malar]

Something people are sort of skipping over here in this Girard v Lindgren v Manson debate is that simply Manson doesn't have the same availability as the other two. Since the 2021 season, Manson has played in approximately 66% of the available games (if he is indeed out for the rest of this regular season). And he isn't getting any younger. So while we're all rosterbating with available cap space, you need to consider that Manson is going to miss at least a third of the games.

From my perspective, given how tight the cap is anyway (and if indeed Landeskog comes back), Manson is the guy you cut loose simply because he doesn't have the same availability as the others. It sure would be nice to be able to bank cap space again to be used at the trade deadline.

 

[MarkT]

Thanks for the discussion

I forgot to say - it's a pleasure debating this with you. I wish we were neighbors.

 

[MarkT]

Something people are sort of skipping over here in this Girard v Lindgren v Manson debate is that simply Manson doesn't have the same availability as the other two. Since the 2021 season, Manson has played in approximately 66% of the available games (if he is indeed out for the rest of this regular season). And he isn't getting any younger. So while we're all rosterbating with available cap space, you need to consider that Manson is going to miss at least a third of the games.

From my perspective, given how tight the cap is anyway (and if indeed Landeskog comes back), Manson is the guy you cut loose simply because he doesn't have the same availability as the others. It sure would be nice to be able to bank cap space again to be used at the trade deadline.

Look at my response to Richard88 above. Feel free to respond to it if you have answers to that. It's not so simple. I'd rather have Manson 66% of the time than 0% of the time.

 

[Richard88]

@Richard88 Okay so it looks like we largely agree. I just want to see who you honestly would have as our #2 RD next season? EJ? Malinski? Lindgren or Girard on their off side? None of those are ideal options to me, whereas Manson is. Yes, he's unlikely to play the whole season, but as we've seen Malinski can play that position for stretches, especially if he has a good partner. Meanwhile, as you can see in my roster above, if we move Girard, we still have a solid top 4, and we have decent bottom pair options to move up if someone gets hurt. Oh, and if we lose Manson and keep Lindgren, and don't play Middleton or EJ every game (which we shouldn't), we have a tiny defense core that can get easily outmuscled by a lot of teams. It's not a coincidence that the Avs claimed Ludvig and called up Middleton with Manson in and out of the lineup. The Avs need to have at least some size on the backend or they tend to get cycled to death and dominated in front of their own net.

Oh, and if you're wondering where we get assets to trade for a Girard replacement, I point to the assets we get for trading Wood, Colton, and Girard himself.

Yeah I think we agree on the general approach. I don't think there's necessarily a "right" answer here either, which is why the discussion has good points on both sides. I also suspect that my opinion on how to approach the D group will change multiple times down the stretch and during the playoffs depending on how guys are playing (and in Manson's case, IF he is even playing).

The ideal scenario if you trade Manson would be to A) re-sign Lindgren, and B) use the assets from trading Colton/Manson/Wood to acquire a RHD, ideally someone relatively young and who would be an ideal partner for Girard on the 2nd pairing.

Toews - Makar
Girard - RHD
Lindgren - Malinski
Middleton - EJ

Ideally that move would be done in the offseason, but if it has to wait until the 2026 TDL that would probably be fine too as the Avs should be good enough to make the playoffs even with a combination of Lindgren/EJ/Malinski holding down that 2 RHD spot by committee until then.

Also want to point out the age profile of the blueline which would be much improved if you trade Manson instead of Girard:

Toews (30) - Makar (26)
Girard (26) - RHD
Lindgren (26) - Malinski (26)
Middleton (26) - EJ (36)

Girard is obviously right in line with the age profile of the rest of the group since they're all 26 and in their prime. Conversely Manson is turning 34 in October. To me it makes very little sense to trade Girard at this point in time. Maybe that's a conversation you can have in 2026 though when Girard is one year away from UFA, especially if Behrens has made the team by then.

 

[RoyIsALegend]

I don’t think we can afford, cap-wise, going into the season with 5 “top 4” defensemen. I also don’t like playing D on their off hand. I also don’t want to trade Girard.

For that reason, I’d let Lindgren walk. Malinski with some bozo on the third pairing until the TDL.

Now, I’m not opposed to moving Manson and he would still get a decent return, but we would have to bring in a RD for the second pairing. Ideally somebody in their 20s and reliable health wise.

If we could acquire one for Colton, the assets from moving Manson and something else small, I would be all for it.

 

[Richard88]

Something people are sort of skipping over here in this Girard v Lindgren v Manson debate is that simply Manson doesn't have the same availability as the other two. Since the 2021 season, Manson has played in approximately 66% of the available games (if he is indeed out for the rest of this regular season). And he isn't getting any younger. So while we're all rosterbating with available cap space, you need to consider that Manson is going to miss at least a third of the games.

From my perspective, given how tight the cap is anyway (and if indeed Landeskog comes back), Manson is the guy you cut loose simply because he doesn't have the same availability as the others. It sure would be nice to be able to bank cap space again to be used at the trade deadline.

I agree. I mentioned exactly that just a few posts above yours, in bold below. Moving Manson in favour of Lindgren is definitely the prudent move from an asset management perspective.

CMac hasn't tended to trade guys with term left on their deals, but recently with Georgiev, Mittelstadt, and Rantanen he's shown a ruthlessness that suggests that he'll move Manson if he thinks that's the best course forward even if he has term left. Ditto for Colton/Wood as well.

If that's the only goal then yes I agree. But there's some validity to the idea of trading Manson and re-signing Lindgren at a similar caphit. That wouldn't be a move purely for capspace.

Lindgren plays a similar style and is exactly the type of Dman we'll need to replace Manson with anyhow, apart from the fact that he shoots left instead of right. He's available for free without giving up any assets (beyond those paid at the TDL), while Manson could return a decent pick or two which is badly needed right now. So it makes sense from an asset management perspective, which is important given how few assets the Avs have.

Then there's the question of age. Lindgren just turned 27 in February. Manson will be 34 in October when next season starts. That's 6.5 years difference, which is a big deal, especially considering how physical they both play and how much Manson's body is breaking down.

In his last 3 seasons Manson has played 27, 76, and 48 games. Including the rest of this season (since he's been ruled out for 3-4 weeks) he'll have played a possible 151 out of 246 games. In other words, he's only been available for 61.3% of our regular season games the last 3 years.

Prior to signing his current contract with the Avs he also had 3 years where he missed a considerable amount of games. From 2019 to 2022 he played 50, 23, and 67 games. That's 140 of 246 games, 56.9% availability. Seems like the Avs actually got lucky getting 76 games out of him last year, but that's clearly the outlier. Across his last 6 seasons he's played 291 of 492 games, or 59.1%. And as he turns 34 that trend isn't likely to get better next season.

Considering that he takes a handful of games to get back up to his best after a long injury he's effectively only available and playing at a top 4 level a little over half the time. That's pretty bad value for a contending team tightly navigating the cap.

View attachment 996848

For comparison Lindgren since 2021 has played in 280 of a possible 309 games, or 90.6% of games.

View attachment 996852

When this trade was made I figured that Lindgren would be purely a rental, especially given the question marks about his play and analytics the last two years, but seeing how quickly and well he's slotted into the Avs system it's looking more and more like the Avs will want to find a way to keep him around. And the way to do that is quite clearly to move Manson.

 

[Richard88]

Look at my response to Richard88 above. Feel free to respond to it if you have answers to that. It's not so simple. I'd rather have Manson 66% of the time than 0% of the time.

It's not that simple though.

It's more like:

A) Lindgren 90% of the time + Girard 87% of the time

VS

B) Lindgren 90% of the time + Manson 59% of the time (based on his last 6 seasons)

With Girard you're getting ~28% more games than with Manson. That's 23 games, or roughly a quarter of the season.

So with Manson you know you're going to have to roll with an no.7/8/AHL'er on your roster for a quarter of the season more than if you kept Girard.

EDIT: And that also has knock-on effects like forcing Makar and Toews to play close to 30 minutes a night for a quarter of the season because Manson is out. All that fatigue adds up.

 

[MarkT]

It's not that simple though.

It's more like:

A) Lindgren 90% of the time + Girard 87% of the time

VS

B) Lindgren 90% of the time + Manson 59% of the time (based on his last 6 seasons)

With Girard you're getting ~28% more games than with Manson. That's 23 games, or roughly a quarter of the season.

So with Manson you know you're going to have to roll with an no.7/8/AHL'er on your roster for a quarter of the season more than if you kept Girard.

EDIT: And that also has knock-on effects like forcing Makar and Toews to play close to 30 minutes a night for a quarter of the season because Manson is out. All that fatigue adds up.

Well, for one thing, injuries are not guaranteed. Second, that's why you want to be able to afford some depth.

Anyway, I took a stab at a roster without Manson and with Landeskog.

I ended up having to let Lindgren walk as well, since the Manson replacement costs money. Perbix doesn't replace Manson's toughness, but he's got size and seems to play a style that suits the Avs. You could in theory dump Drouin and Kiviranta to keep Lindgren, or hope some of the cap hits are lower on guys like Nelson, but to me this looks like a roster that is going to be very weak on defense.

I'd probably prefer something like this. A little more balanced:

 

[SoundwaveIsCharisma]

Well, for one thing, injuries are not guaranteed. Second, that's why you want to be able to afford some depth.

Anyway, I took a stab at a roster without Manson and with Landeskog.

View attachment 996915
I ended up having to let Lindgren walk as well, since the Manson replacement costs money. Perbix doesn't replace Manson's toughness, but he's got size and seems to play a style that suits the Avs. You could in theory dump Drouin and Kiviranta to keep Lindgren, or hope some of the cap hits are lower on guys like Nelson, but to me this looks like a roster that is going to be very weak on defense.

I'd probably prefer something like this. A little more balanced:
View attachment 996921

You just know we'd injure our Perbix right away

 

[The Moops]

Nemec is the guy the Avs need to be pushing for this offseason.

He's stuck in the depth chart behind Hamilton, Pesce, and Kovacevic, all three of whom are signed for $4m+ for 4-6 years. Hamilton has a NMC, Pesce has a NTC, and Kovacevic's contract only starts next season. Clearly there's no room there for Nemec.

View attachment 996191

Looking at NJ's offseason roster the only big contract they have to deal with is Luke Hughes. Signing him at around $7m, plus depth guys like Bastian and Sprong, would leave them with about $5m for one last forward. They have Glass to sign too but that probably isn't a huge priority if they can make a bigger move for a top 6 forward...

View attachment 996197
View attachment 996198

With that said, what would work cap-wise for them might be something around Lehkonen/Nemec (adding 1sts/lesser picks/prospects as appropriate).

Not sure if 2 years of Lehkonen at $4.5m before he hits UFA in 2027 would be enough as the central piece, but maybe it would at least give them something to think about. A proven winner and glue guy like him would be a nice add for a young team looking to take the next step. The Avs probably don't have any futures to outbid other teams with so that would likely be the only avenue to get it done.

From the Avs perspective they're already pretty full on the wings, especially if Landeskog returns and if they re-sign Drouin as one would expect they will. Losing Lehkonen would hurt obviously, but filling the 2 RHD spot long-term would be important.

Given that Nemec is still on an ELC a trade around Lehkonen and Nemec would also save the Avs $3.5m in capspace which could feasibly give the Avs enough capspace to re-sign guys.

Nelson $6.5m x 4-5 years
Drouin $4m
Lindgren $4m
Kiviranta $1.5m
Malinski $1.5m
+ Trade Colton and Wood for capspace, and roll with the roster below.

Manson/Nemec/Malinski would rotate in the bottom 4 depending on who's healthy, and then in 2026 Nemec would take over from Manson full-time. Manson's $4.5m rolling off would cover a raise for Nemec.

New Jersey would have to REALLY like Lehkonen to do that admittedly. They're likely going to have 20+ teams calling and making offers for Nemec so it's quite a long-shot that he'd end up on the Avs. But it would be pretty nice if it happened.

View attachment 996208
View attachment 996209

Never trade Lehky under any circumstance