Lenny Levino
Registered User
- May 15, 2024
- 337
- 328
Nikolaj Ehlers will be UFA in a couple of months. He's 28 though, but should be good for another 4-5 years.
Mitch Marner is another possibility.
Mitch Marner is another possibility.
It's Barzal not Barzel and no. This trade doesn't even help the Islanders rebuild, it just makes them worse and offsets it by adding in a 1st and Lekkerimaki. You want Barzal, remove Hoglander and Garland and upgrade the player substantially to something close to Barzal in terms of puck possession and skillset. Not a 3rd liner in Hoglander (who's a whopping 5'9) and an undersized grinder who's projected to have a career year. Barzal isn't the guy you sell off anyways and I could name the pieces to move out on the Isles roster.You know who they should target? Mathew Barzel.
Garland, Hoglander, Lekkerimaki, 1st for Barzel, 3rd. Cap evens out pretty good. NYI can take this as a jump start on a rebuild. Looking at their roster, I don't see a lot of hope for the near future, nor do I see a ton of young assets that make me think it's worth holding on to mediocrity. Sell off Barzel and Dobson for good returns, sell of the older guys like Nelson, JGP, etc as needed, and look to rebuild.
Vancouver gets a replacement 1C/2C that they desperately need.
After all the terrible trade offers on here for Barzal posted by Canucks fans, you guys are adding in the picks.What pick and % of retention are you sending Vancouver's way to take him?
Or just don’t use the term. Better ring to that"Unmoveable within reason" just doesn't have the same ring to it
Or, you know, one could just know what is meant by it and move on. Do we really need to language police each other? Everyone else seems fine with how unmoveable is used with regard to prospects.Well duh, that goes without saying, but stop using that phrase then? He’s not unmovable - he’s totally movable for the right price. Hence, it’s a bad, nay, stupid phrase
SealBound is good and definitely the most underrated poster atmThat would be a great trade for Van and also makes sense for NYI. Garland could easily fetch a 1st as well
Or just don’t use the term. Better ring to that
It's going to be Owen Tippett. He's been sitting out of the lineup with an "undisclosed injury" and fits the criteria.
Nah, it rubs me the wrong way. Shows how delusional fans of sports teams can be in discussions of fictional scenarios on an internet forum.Or, you know, one could just know what is meant by it and move on. Do we really need to language police each other? Everyone else seems fine with how unmoveable is used with regard to prospects.
I think this is a really good shout. Mid 20's, definitely makes too much money, completely anonymous at times. But he goes fast in a straight line and can rip the puck. Frustrating player but I think there is a 35-goal guy in there somewhere.It's going to be Owen Tippett. He's been sitting out of the lineup with an "undisclosed injury" and fits the criteria.
Nah, it rubs me the wrong way. Shows how delusional fans of sports teams can be in discussions of fictional scenarios on an internet forum.
It's going to be Owen Tippett. He's been sitting out of the lineup with an "undisclosed injury" and fits the criteria.
Sorry, the Kings already traded PLD.The way that is worded makes it sound like they would be willing to take on a highly salaried guy with lots of years left who may have soured in their current situation when it comes to production/availability versus contract length and hit.
So yeah, kind of like a Norris/Cozens area where they will attempt to lower the asset cost by saying "hey, we are willing to take on this big, gnarly long-term contract if you are willing to come to the table and discuss".
I'm not saying that other teams will just buy into this - but there are only so many mid-20's players making big bucks on huge deals that would even be remotely available that wouldn't be automatically completely cost-prohibitive to acquire.
Damn, in what universe does Miller have multiple 100 point seasons ?they traded a 100 point center for a 26 year old 40 point scorer with back problems.
they’re looking for a lot of things.
Nah, it rubs me the wrong way. Shows how delusional fans of sports teams can be in discussions of fictional scenarios on an internet forum.
Career center who is currently at wing. I would move him back to center.Is Barzal a C or more so a winger?
I mean, I disagree, but that's what this thread is for. I'm not sure what player the Canucks would upgrade to that even makes sense. The idea would be, you are adding young assets like the 1st which is currently sitting at 16th OV and the starting point. I imagine you'd be getting a similar return from Dobson. Say you just double that return, 2 1sts and two Lekkerimaki level prospects is a really good foundation.It's Barzal not Barzel and no. This trade doesn't even help the Islanders rebuild, it just makes them worse and offsets it by adding in a 1st and Lekkerimaki. You want Barzal, remove Hoglander and Garland and upgrade the player substantially to something close to Barzal in terms of puck possession and skillset. Not a 3rd liner in Hoglander (who's a whopping 5'9) and an undersized grinder who's projected to have a career year. Barzal isn't the guy you sell off anyways and I could name the pieces to move out on the Isles roster.
After all the terrible trade offers on here for Barzal posted by Canucks fans, you guys are adding in the picks.
We can’t do Garland and lekk and a 1st.You know who they should target? Mathew Barzel.
Garland, Hoglander, Lekkerimaki, 1st for Barzel, 3rd. Cap evens out pretty good. NYI can take this as a jump start on a rebuild. Looking at their roster, I don't see a lot of hope for the near future, nor do I see a ton of young assets that make me think it's worth holding on to mediocrity. Sell off Barzel and Dobson for good returns, sell of the older guys like Nelson, JGP, etc as needed, and look to rebuild.
Vancouver gets a replacement 1C/2C that they desperately need.
Impact forward !How about 2 of themYou can say that again!
You know who they should target? Mathew Barzel.
Garland, Hoglander, Lekkerimaki, 1st for Barzel, 3rd. Cap evens out pretty good. NYI can take this as a jump start on a rebuild. Looking at their roster, I don't see a lot of hope for the near future, nor do I see a ton of young assets that make me think it's worth holding on to mediocrity. Sell off Barzel and Dobson for good returns, sell of the older guys like Nelson, JGP, etc as needed, and look to rebuild.
Vancouver gets a replacement 1C/2C that they desperately need.
The issue is that the pieces don't do anything except basically give the Isles the equivalnt to the insult of an offer the Rangers sent Vancouver for JT Miller with a prospect added in. It's not so much the doubling it, its the adding in 3rd liners and bottom pairing defenseman with the hopes the prospects develop properly that's the issue while offsetting 2 pieces that would be main parts to build around going forward. Hoglander and Garland are not what I would call assets cashing in on, they're at best solid middle six complimentary players that most teams have equivalent's of. Neither are anywhere near the gamebreaker Barzal has shown he is and will continue to do even on a team that's starving for offense year after yearCareer center who is currently at wing. I would move him back to center.
I mean, I disagree, but that's what this thread is for. I'm not sure what player the Canucks would upgrade to that even makes sense. The idea would be, you are adding young assets like the 1st which is currently sitting at 16th OV and the starting point. I imagine you'd be getting a similar return from Dobson. Say you just double that return, 2 1sts and two Lekkerimaki level prospects is a really good foundation.
The problem I have with "you move other guys before Barzal" is, while you're not wrong, by the time the returns you get for guys like Palmieri, JGP, and Nelson become regular players, Barzal will likely be early to mid 30s. His prime will be over and his value will drop. And as I pointed out, I don't see a lot of short-term reinforcements to bolster the lineup. That's why I said "keep you out of mediocrity". The team sans those three plus FA additions likely keep in you in the hunt for 2WC but you're certainly not going to be a cup contender.
This is a calculated move to cash in on two major assets and retool. I don't think many opportunities to move Barzal's deal with no retention will come up.