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

[Richard88]

@MarkT

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

You're right, injuries aren't guaranteed. But when you have 6 years of track record indicating that a guy is injury prone, it's pretty likely that the trend will continue. Especially when a guy plays a physical brand of hockey and is 34 years old.

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.

As you said, that blueline is going to be really weak. Behrens shouldn't be a regular after missing a whole year. You need to keep one of Lindgren or Manson for sure, which can be done if you don't sign Perbix and if you go cheaper on Kiviranta and Malinski.

I'd probably prefer something like this. A little more balanced:
View attachment 996926

There's a real risk that Nelson walks, in which case this lineup would be fine. But I'd hope that they manage to sign Nelson.

 

[Richard88]

Never trade Lehky under any circumstance

To be clear, I'd only do that if all other avenues for a 2 RHD failed. Hopefully CMac will be able to scrounge together enough assets from moving Colton/Wood/Manson and the 2027 1st, 2nd, etc, to find a 2 RHD before having to resort to moving Lehkonen.

 

[MarkT]

One thing I like about the roster going forward is that if if we can just get through this offseason crunch (and that crunch only happens if Landeskog can play next year), then we should be set up really well for the next several years at least.

I was playing around with a 27-28 roster, and it looks like we'd have tons of depth if we want it. The key would be signing a Manson replacement next offseason (or getting one in a trade at some point) because I don't see any in the 2027 free agency pool. Take a look at this beauty:

Feel free to replace Ivan or Behrens with a 2m free agent as well. Batherson was also pure luxury so that money could go elsewhere as well.

 

[BobRossColton]

We really do need to find a way to trade Wood, I know it's not much, but that 2.5 could be used for a Nelson, Lindgren re-signing.

 

[Cake Malar]

We really do need to find a way to trade Wood, I know it's not much, but that 2.5 could be used for a Nelson, Lindgren re-signing.

I think they might just have to bite the bullet on Wood and buy him out. I don't think they have the assets to move him.

 

[Balthazar]

We really do need to find a way to trade Wood, I know it's not much, but that 2.5 could be used for a Nelson, Lindgren re-signing.

You're assuming that a team will take him with 4 years left and send no bad contract back. You shouldn't.

 

[Avsfan1921]

@MarkT


You're right, injuries aren't guaranteed. But when you have 6 years of track record indicating that a guy is injury prone, it's pretty likely that the trend will continue. Especially when a guy plays a physical brand of hockey and is 34 years old.


As you said, that blueline is going to be really weak. Behrens shouldn't be a regular after missing a whole year. You need to keep one of Lindgren or Manson for sure, which can be done if you don't sign Perbix and if you go cheaper on Kiviranta and Malinski.



There's a real risk that Nelson walks, in which case this lineup would be fine. But I'd hope that they manage to sign Nelson.

On Manson, love him but I’m ready to move on. Even when he’s in the lineup this year the rust/lingering effect of injury is drastically effecting his play. He’s always made questionable decisions at times, and that’s ok for a certain level of play, but he just hasn’t hit that level this year imo.

 

[RoyIsALegend]

You're assuming that a team will take him with 4 years left and send no bad contract back. You shouldn't.

There's no way any team can believe he'd be a useful addition for 4 more years at $2.5m per season.

We will need to add Colton, Manson, or a draft pick to him for somebody to even bite.

 

[RoyIsALegend]

One thing I like about the roster going forward is that if if we can just get through this offseason crunch (and that crunch only happens if Landeskog can play next year), then we should be set up really well for the next several years at least.

I was playing around with a 27-28 roster, and it looks like we'd have tons of depth if we want it. The key would be signing a Manson replacement next offseason (or getting one in a trade at some point) because I don't see any in the 2027 free agency pool. Take a look at this beauty:
View attachment 996941Feel free to replace Ivan or Behrens with a 2m free agent as well. Batherson was also pure luxury so that money could go elsewhere as well.

You wouldn't be able to get that roster to the 2027-28 cap over the next 2 years.

Also, where the hell did Drake Batherson at $5m come from? He'll be a UFA and will make way more than $5m.

 

[Pokecheque]

I think they might just have to bite the bullet on Wood and buy him out. I don't think they have the assets to move him.

If that ends up happening it is the ultimate F-U from the Avalanche organization. We all know how much they HATE to buy out players, they'd rather trade for another problem player with a slightly less painful contract or find a way to move it outright. But if they decide to go the buyout route, that means they really, really hated the player (or in Beauchemin's case, just had to because of the expansion draft rules, but I imagine they didn't like him either).

 

[Colorado Avalanche]

I think they might just have to bite the bullet on Wood and buy him out. I don't think they have the assets to move him.

This sounds horrible but if the rumours about his back issues are true we need to use it. LTIR.

His level isn't anywhere close to his pay.

 

[GirardSpinorama]

Man, if only Nuke doesnt get himself suspended every year, his 6M is such a steal as a hockey player.

 

[Colorado Avalanche]

On Manson, love him but I’m ready to move on. Even when he’s in the lineup this year the rust/lingering effect of injury is drastically effecting his play. He’s always made questionable decisions at times, and that’s ok for a certain level of play, but he just hasn’t hit that level this year imo.

I agree and he could still have some value around the league because he is a bad ass and good player but we can't afford a guy who only plays so few game a season.

I think his profile is very wanted around the league though.

 

[NorthernAvsFan]

Never trade Lehky under any circumstance

The Moops, when asked what he’d do to keep Lehky in an Avs uniform:

 

[Richard88]

One thing I like about the roster going forward is that if if we can just get through this offseason crunch (and that crunch only happens if Landeskog can play next year), then we should be set up really well for the next several years at least.

I was playing around with a 27-28 roster, and it looks like we'd have tons of depth if we want it. The key would be signing a Manson replacement next offseason (or getting one in a trade at some point) because I don't see any in the 2027 free agency pool. Take a look at this beauty:
View attachment 996941Feel free to replace Ivan or Behrens with a 2m free agent as well. Batherson was also pure luxury so that money could go elsewhere as well.

Yeah it's really only this offseason where there's a cap crunch where they're forced to choose between Colton/Drouin and Lindgren/Manson effectively.

In 2026 the rising cap (projected to be $104.4m) will take care of raises for Necas and Drury which are the only two notable contracts that year. 2027 will have Lehkonen, Girard, and Makar up which will potentially require some maneouvering again.

In 2025 there's $8.7m in space to re-sign Nelson, Drouin, Kiviranta, Lindgren, and Malinski. Or make that $11.2m if you send Miles Wood away (which they absolutely need to do).

If they move Wood the $11.2m in capspace basically breaks down to:

• $7m Nelson
• $1,5m Malinski
• $800k for a 6/7 Dman (eg. EJ)
• $1.7m for two depth forwards (12F and 13F) at up to $850k each

Those moves already make a 22 man roster with little to no capspace to spare. After that you essentially have two decisions:

1. Keep Colton at $4m VS Trade Colton and sign Drouin for up to $4m.

2. Keep Manson @ $4.5m VS Trade Manson and sign Lindgren for up to $4.5m.

If there's any change left over from Drouin/Lindgren that can go towards Kiviranta or giving Malinski a bit more for an extra year.

From an asset management standpoint it makes sense to move Colton and Manson and re-sign Drouin and Lindgren.

 

[BobRossColton]

You're assuming that a team will take him with 4 years left and send no bad contract back. You shouldn't.

Oh I know it'll cost some other asset, I assumed that was a given.

 

[Chiarelli]

If there is a 2nd pairing RHD available/willing to sign then you move Manson, otherwise you gotta keep him. Hopefully there is because Manson would return the most out of Wood/Colton/Girard/Manson.

Took a look at Brock Nelson’s career. He’s much more sniper than playmaker but still decent stats there. He has played 81 or more games 7 of the last 10 seasons and I believe has the ability to again this year. He’s really only missed significant time in one season, if he takes care of himself there’s no reason to believe he can’t be good for another few seasons.

 

[Richard88]

I think they might just have to bite the bullet on Wood and buy him out. I don't think they have the assets to move him.

A silver lining with Miles Wood's contract is that it's been frontloaded quite a bit. By this summer he'll have received $6.5m of $15m instead of just $5m had there not been frontloaded.

That means that there's 'only' $8.5m left (rather than $10m had it been $2.5m each year), which should in theory make him easier to trade. Teams who don't operate near the cap ceiling will essentially view his contract as $2.5m for one year followed by $2m x 3 years, rather than $2.5m x 4. Or in effect it's like a $2.125m x 4 year contract rather than $2.5m.

The fact that he has a higher caphit than actual salary in the last 3 years may also be slightly helpful for teams trying to reach the cap floor. The rising cap may be a serious concern for some teams with an internal budget who operate near the bottom, so there may be teams willing to take on contracts like this with higher caphits than actual salary.

The frontloaded contract also makes a potential buyout slightly cheaper. Without the frontloading a buyout would cost 2/3 of $10m, so $6.67m. But since it's front loaded it's just 2/3's of $8.5m, so $5.67m. So a buyout would be $1m cheaper due to the frontloaded contract.

The first year of a June 2025 buyout (shown below) would cost only $708,333. Still annoying, but easily a manageable amount. If one takes the view that the Avs contending window lasts until 2026 then a buyout might make some sense if it's too expensive to trade him. The issue would then be having $1.2m on the roster the 3 years after that though; and then $708k the 4 years after that (though by then the window is likely shut anyways).

A June 2026 buyout (shown below) wouldn't really make a big difference compared to a 2025 buyout, as you'd still have about $1.2m on the roster between 2026-2029. But waiting until then means you have to navigate the 2025 offseason crunch with his $2.5m on the roster.

 

[expatriatedtexan]

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.

Sounds like Colton Parayko's music.... except it would be something else large... not small.

 

[Richard88]

Josh Manson's contract is also front loaded, so he'll only have $3.5m left in the last year. And $1m of that is in a July 1st signing bonus. So if he's traded after July 1st his new team will only have to pay $2.5m in real salary, with a $4.5m caphit. That'll probably be pretty attractive to cap floor teams, beyond the fact that he's a RHD with intangibles and just one year of term.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

Yeah it's really only this offseason where there's a cap crunch where they're forced to choose between Colton/Drouin and Lindgren/Manson effectively.

In 2026 the rising cap (projected to be $104.4m) will take care of raises for Necas and Drury which are the only two notable contracts that year. 2027 will have Lehkonen, Girard, and Makar up which will potentially require some maneouvering again.

In 2025 there's $8.7m in space to re-sign Nelson, Drouin, Kiviranta, Lindgren, and Malinski. Or make that $11.2m if you send Miles Wood away (which they absolutely need to do).

If they move Wood the $11.2m in capspace basically breaks down to:

• $7m Nelson
• $1,5m Malinski
• $800k for a 6/7 Dman (eg. EJ)
• $1.7m for two depth forwards (12F and 13F) at up to $850k each

Those moves already make a 22 man roster with little to no capspace to spare. After that you essentially have two decisions:

1. Keep Colton at $4m VS Trade Colton and sign Drouin for up to $4m.

2. Keep Manson @ $4.5m VS Trade Manson and sign Lindgren for up to $4.5m.

If there's any change left over from Drouin/Lindgren that can go towards Kiviranta or giving Malinski a bit more for an extra year.

From an asset management standpoint it makes sense to move Colton and Manson and re-sign Drouin and Lindgren.

I am with you on the numbers and decision points but I like what Lindgren brings, Manson for handedness and I like recent flashes from Malinski to cover for the inevitable Manson injury. Trade Girard, recoup some assets.

 

[Balthazar]

If that ends up happening it is the ultimate F-U from the Avalanche organization. We all know how much they HATE to buy out players, they'd rather trade for another problem player with a slightly less painful contract or find a way to move it outright. But if they decide to go the buyout route, that means they really, really hated the player (or in Beauchemin's case, just had to because of the expansion draft rules, but I imagine they didn't like him either).

Buying Wood out means he'll be on the books for 8 years. Not happening.

 

[Pokecheque]

I'd promote MacDonald to pair with Malinski and have a full-blown YOLO third pairing. Bednar (if he's still around by then) would have Ray Bennett's hairdo by the end of the season.

 

[Pokecheque]

Buying Wood out means he'll be on the books for 8 years. Not happening.

Yeah I agree.

 

[The Abusement Park]

Moved the discussion here to not derail the Landeskog thread.

For context: this started by me saying if Landeskog is back and we face a cap crunch and needed to shed salary, I would move (in order): Wood, Colton, Girard, Manson. There has been pushback on me having Girard at #3.

You've missed the point entirely. The scenario we're talking about is one where the Avs are at a cap crunch, which means staying equally good and deep is simply not an option. Replacing Manson's 4.5m cap hit with Murphy's 4.4m cap hit makes no sense. Also, why would Malinski be on the 2nd pair if Manson is still on the team? See below for more of a response to your post.

I've numbered the points.
1. I said they could replace his role, not everything he does or do it as well as he can. If we're shedding salary, we are going to get a bit worse. But Malinski taking on Girard's PP and puck moving duties would not be a massive downgrade. I was also referring to free agents as possible guys who could be puck movers for us at a lower cap hit.

2. I agree the Avs should keep him, but if they are at the cap ceiling, they can't afford a 5m depth defenseman.

3. If you remove Manson for picks/assets, you'd be weakening what is the most important part of the team in the playoffs. The playoffs rely on having players who can withstand the physical nature of play, clear the front of the net, and intimidate opposing players, which Manson is extremely good at. If we have Makar, Toews, Lindgren, Manson and Malinski, I think we have a very solid defense group, especially if you add a decent cheaper puck mover to that group.

I think though what we're missing is clarity. Here's a potential roster. Who are you moving off this roster before Girard? Or do I have the cap hits completely wrong?
View attachment 996608

I mean I would assume there'd be retention in a Murphy deal as he'd be on an expiring contract.

As for who I'd move before Girard in the scenario above. I wouldn't re sign Lindgren at 5mil per year, his body will spontaneously combust at some point with how he plays. I'd also move Manson before Girard as well and maybe Coyle... But not 100% sure on that. I get that Manson fills a role we need, but the dude has played only 291 games out a possible 549 games over the last 6 7/8 seasons. Like... yes he fits a role but does he really fill that role if he's only available for ~50% of games? And he's also just been objectively bad this year. I really don't think it'd be terribly hard to replace Manson at his current level right now in the summer or at the deadline. It'd be expensive, but so would replacing Girard.

Toews/Makar/Lindgren/Manson/Malinski is a decent d core no doubt, but that much loss in the PMD department would be not be great if Bednar is still the coach. We've seen what happens to this team when there's a lack of PMD and transition ability and it isn't pretty.