Salary Cap: Chris MacFarland - Record as Avalanche GM (Updates In First Post)

[Avsfan1921]

I think my argument is the alternative path gives them more money to upgrade on other areas, like the defensive depth, and goalies. I've always preferred the path I'm suggeting.

I'm not sure Toews just needs to get healthy, unless he's played injured for almost three years now.

It's not that Toews sucks, it's that the top pair has a certain level of play he needs to be capable of, and even more so when paired with Cale playing as a rover at times, and it's even more important when you lack quality on some of the other pairs.

With his level of play post Cup, and him getting further and further away from 30 every year, it's less and less likely he can gt back to that level of play. They placed a big gamble on him, and so far it hasn't worked out. And that's just in terms of him. Keeping him has other impacts on the team as I mentioned.

I respect that you see things differently though.

I lean more to the_fan on this one. Toews hasn’t been spectacular but replacing him with an upgrade is near impossible . We don’t have the cap space nor assets to pull it off. Girard has looked ok with Makar and shifting those two with each other on a more consistent basis may be the in-house solution to what needs to be done. And imo, the team defence is more of an issue than the actual defencemen. There’s no cohesion on the ice and that is a far bigger problem than who we have on the bottom pair. So in essence, downgrading from Toews to whoever just to add defensive depth should be a no go imo.

 

[Foppa2118]

I lean more to the_fan on this one. Toews hasn’t been spectacular but replacing him with an upgrade is near impossible . We don’t have the cap space nor assets to pull it off. Girard has looked ok with Makar and shifting those two with each other on a more consistent basis may be the in-house solution to what needs to be done. And imo, the team defence is more of an issue than the actual defencemen. There’s no cohesion on the ice and that is a far bigger problem than who we have on the bottom pair. So in essence, downgrading from Toews to whoever just to add defensive depth should be a no go imo.

My argument isn't that they could have replaced Toews with an upgrade. It's that they could have gotten a similar player, or even a slight downgrade, and with the cap savings have been a better team.

The problem isn't Toews per se. It's his cap hit for the top pair role he plays, combined with his level of play. If he played on the 2nd pair it wouldn't be an issue, but with his cap hit, you can't have him on the 2nd pair either. It's a catch 22.

I've never been a fan of the Girard-Makar pairing. It's been victimized many times, that's why Bednar hasn't used it in years. It may work at times during the regular season, but it will very likely have issues in the playoffs.

Net front coverage especially is an issue for all the defenseman on the team aside from Manson, and Manson has trouble staying healthy, so they need another guy who can help in that area.

Neither Toews or Makar are great at defending the front of the net. With how many minutes they play, it's a liability when both guys have a big vulnerability in one area. Girard for all his elite puck moving ability, is worse in this area than Toews.

Defending the front of the net is a must in the playoffs, when scoring goes down, and teams up their compete level, and their battle in front of the net for greasy goals, while the refs put whistles away and let defenseman get away with more liberties defending.

The Avs need to improve in this area, because this has led to a lot of big goals against in the playoffs, especially last year. It's their biggest weakness in terms of personnel IMO.

 

[the_fan]

I think my argument is the alternative path gives them more money to upgrade on other areas, like the defensive depth, and goalies. I've always preferred the path I'm suggeting.

I'm not sure Toews just needs to get healthy, unless he's played injured for almost three years now.

It's not that Toews sucks, it's that the top pair has a certain level of play he needs to be capable of, and even more so when paired with Cale playing as a rover at times, and it's even more important when you lack quality on some of the other pairs.

With his level of play post Cup, and him getting further and further away from 30 every year, it's less and less likely he can gt back to that level of play. They placed a big gamble on him, and so far it hasn't worked out. And that's just in terms of him. Keeping him has other impacts on the team as I mentioned.

I respect that you see things differently though.

I also respect your take and I do understand what you’re saying. It’s the same discussion which often goes on here about Mikko. If we trade Mikko we can improve the Avs overall depth. Here is why I don’t agree with it, and don’t see it happening.

If we trade Mikko or Toews to improve depth, obviously we can’t trade them for players that make the same money, so we have to trade them for cheaper players, but that will downgrade the top of the lineup. We will have better bottom 6 forwards and bottom pair d-men, but our top end will be downgraded.

The issue with that is, if we’re doing that l, we have to completely change the identity of the team. Will need to change the coaches, implement a new system where we play more of a grinding defensive style game.

Without Mikko, we’re losing 50 goals and 100 points, and no matter how much depth we gain by trading him, and how much better our 3rd and 4th lines get, it’s not gonna cover the point production we lose with Mikko gone, which also means Nate’s production will go down as well.

Same with replacing Toews with cheaper d-men to improve the bottom pairings. Our top pair will be downgraded. We have to become one of those defensive minded, grinding teams, and I don’t think Avs will ever change their identity that way

 

[Foppa2118]

I also respect your take and I do understand what you’re saying. It’s the same discussion which often goes on here about Mikko. If we trade Mikko we can improve the Avs overall depth. Here is why I don’t agree with it, and don’t see it happening.

If we trade Mikko or Toews to improve depth, obviously we can’t trade them for players that make the same money, so we have to trade them for cheaper players, but that will downgrade the top of the lineup. We will have better bottom 6 forwards and bottom pair d-men, but our top end will be downgraded.

The issue with that is, if we’re doing that l, we have to completely change the identity of the team. Will need to change the coaches, implement a new system where we play more of a grinding defensive style game.

Without Mikko, we’re losing 50 goals and 100 points, and no matter how much depth we gain by trading him, and how much better our 3rd and 4th lines get, it’s not gonna cover the point production we lose with Mikko gone, which also means Nate’s production will go down as well.

Same with replacing Toews with cheaper d-men to improve the bottom pairings. Our top pair will be downgraded. We have to become one of those defensive minded, grinding teams, and I don’t think Avs will ever change their identity that way

I think the important distinction there though is that Mikko can still play at a very high level. While Toews has regressed, this is probably the best Mikko has ever played.

I also think that with Mikko's pure skill level that Toews doesn't really have, along with how Mikko is built, and his athleticism, and diet, he can play at a high level into his 30's the way Malkin and others have.

I acknowledge it's an unknown on how well he will actually play post contract year though.

 

[the_fan]

I think the important distinction there though is that Mikko can still play at a very high level. While Toews has regressed, this is probably the best Mikko has ever played.

I also think that with Mikko's pure skill level that Toews doesn't really have, along with how Mikko is built, and his athleticism, and diet, he can play at a high level into his 30's the way Malkin and others have.

I acknowledge it's an unknown on how well he will actually play post contract year though.

I’d like to know what type of injury Toews is playing with, and how he will play if he’s 100% before I can say he’s regressing

 

[Foppa2118]

I’d like to know what type of injury Toews is playing with, and how he will play if he’s 100% before I can say he’s regressing

Can we agree that this is the third year in a row we've been discussing Toews regression though, and that it's very unlikely he's been injured the whole time?

Most all of 22-23 was an issue.

From about Jan-March in 23-24 was the only time it wasn't an issue IMO, and that was after he called out the new guys, and had to back it up with his own play.

It dipped right before the playoffs again, and then wasn't great in the playoffs either, and has continued this year.

He hasn't been a total sieve, it's mostly just because of the level of play required playing so many minutes on the top pair, while being a safety net for Cale, combined with having a top heavy D core that places even more importance on the top pair playing well.

 

[the_fan]

Can we agree that this is the third year in a row we've been discussing Toews regression though, and that it's very unlikely he's been injured the whole time?

Most all of 22-23 was an issue.

From about Jan-March in 23-24 was the only time it wasn't an issue IMO, and that was after he called out the new guys, and had to back it up with his own play.

It dipped right before the playoffs again, and then wasn't great in the playoffs either, and has continued this year.

He hasn't been a total sieve, it's mostly just because of the level of play required playing so many minutes on the top pair, while being a safety net for Cale, combined with having a top heavy D core that places even more importance on the top pair playing well.

I think he was fine last year and year before. Put up his usual 50 points and was a plus 39 and 28. I think this year is a noticeable regression but again, if he’s not 100%, Im hoping he’ll get there and start playing better, but I’m ok with the contract extension

 

[Foppa2118]

I think he was fine last year and year before. Put up his usual 50 points and was a plus 39 and 28. I think this year is a noticeable regression but again, if he’s not 100%, Im hoping he’ll get there and start playing better, but I’m ok with the contract extension

IIRC it was pretty widely agreed upon that he was not playing well in 22-23, and in the first half of last season, before he called out the new guys.

I'm talking defensively. Offensively he's fine, and he's always going to have a good +/- playing with Cale, and matched with MacKinnon's line almost every shift.

I didn't think he was great from around April through the playoffs last year either, but that's more subjective on my part.

 

[shadow1]

	GP	G	A	P	+/-	CF%	xGF	xGA	ATOI
First Half	15	1	4	5	-6	52.5	2.56	2.55	22:42
Second Half	15	0	8	8	+9	56.7	2.67	2.26	25:19

As far as this year goes, the October injury did a number on Toews.

But if we split his season in half, during the ass half portion he's got the highest even-strength goal differential on the team at +10 (T-4th in the NHL). And that split includes a few dubious games, like the Tampa Bay filleting.

2021-2022 was his peak, but he's still a top-pairing guy now. As long he keeps up his "second half" play, at least.

 

[the_fan]

IIRC it was pretty widely agreed upon that he was not playing well in 22-23, and in the first half of last season, before he called out the new guys.

I'm talking defensively. Offensively he's fine, and he's always going to have a good +/- playing with Cale, and matched with MacKinnon's line almost every shift.

I didn't think he was great from around April through the playoffs last year either, but that's more subjective on my part.

Well his points have dropped this year as well. He’s on pace for 35 points I believe