Toggle sidebar

Proposal: Col-Cbj

Meeqs

Registered User
Aug 23, 2012
9,295
1,677
USA
Cbj:
Atkinson
Hartnell @4m

Col:
2017 2nd
2017 3rd/2018 2nd
Mitchell

This is a cap clearing move for CBJ where they clear almost 8m off the books while still getting a decent return and Avs get 2 wingers.

What are your thoughts? Are 2 2nds too much from the Avs?

Also with the buyout of Tyutin if you don't feel the CBJ should move Atkinson to clear cap please simply state that you don't feel that it is a move they need to make . Please don't try and derail others conversation of the thread as this being a cap clearing move is the main driving point from CBJ's side.

Thanks you to all who reply.
Click to read more...
 
CBJWennberg41 said:
No interest or reason to move Atkinson.
Click to expand...

I figured there would be a good deal of CBJ fans who wouldnt want to move Cam.

The trade is essentially 2 2nds + taking on Hartnells contract and Mitchell for him. Getting him would be the reason the Avs do it and thats not a bad return.

Its kind of the concept of teams asking for a player to take on a contract merged with a normal trade for him. A lot of this depends on how badly CBJ wants to clear cap.
 
I don't think it's a terrible trade -- especially during the long run. Short term it really hurts though because that's 100+ points just evaporating and losing some veterans
 
Meeqs said:
I figured there would be a good deal of CBJ fans who wouldnt want to move Cam.

The trade is essentially 2 2nds + taking on Hartnells contract and Mitchell for him. Getting him would be the reason the Avs do it and thats not a bad return.

Its kind of the concept of teams asking for a player to take on a contract merged with a normal trade for him. A lot of this depends on how badly CBJ wants to clear cap.
Click to expand...

I don't think Columbus should be looking to package a higher value asset in order to move Hartnell.

In a vacuum, they'd be able to move Hartnell straight up for a 2nd or 3rd round pick. We aren't operating in a vacuum, though. CBJ could look at adding a 3rd or something to get a team to bite. Maybe retain a percent. Should not be looking to package him with a player like Atkinson or (I fear) Milano.

There are worse scenarios than being stuck with Hartnell.
 
Good trade for the Aves but can we afford that much salary with MacKinnon and Barrie going to eat up a ton of cap space?
 
Maybe if we think we can get Stamkos? But we cant and thats not gonna happen. We're losing two of our top scorers for picks, its just not gonna happen.
 
BrickAHL said:
Good trade for the Aves but can we afford that much salary with MacKinnon and Barrie going to eat up a ton of cap space?
Click to expand...

The Avs will have roughly ~7m to sign 2 wingers and a depth dman. With Mitchell going back it should work out perfectly for them to fill all the roles and resign all of their RFA's
 
The whole point of CBJ moving Hartnell is so CBJ don't have to lose a guy like Atkinson in the ED.
 
tucker3434 said:
Avs can't afford to take that much salary this year.
Click to expand...

It works out. If you are gracious and assume barrie and Mack get 6m each, Grigs and Picks eat up 4m then the Avs are still under the Cap after this deal with about 1m to sign a 7th D
 
Curufinwe said:
The whole point of CBJ moving Hartnell is so CBJ don't have to lose a guy like Atkinson in the ED.
Click to expand...

Teams can ask any player to waive their NMC for the ED. I'd think this would be less of an issue than having the Cap to sign the insane amount of talented Prospects coming up through their pipeline.
 
I'm just going to go with "no", because my initial reaction had more profanity-masking asterisks than all other characters combined.


EDIT: To provide more clarity: that $8m is not helpful to us if acquired this way because we would be massively downgrading on any ONE of those two guys with anyone we tried to pick up with it.
 
Meeqs said:
It works out. If you are gracious and assume barrie and Mack get 6m each, Grigs and Picks eat up 4m then the Avs are still under the Cap after this deal with about 1m to sign a 7th D
Click to expand...

We're going to need more than $1m for the defender we get.
 
Wouldn't move Atkinson alone for that package, and Hartnell does not have negative value like some would suggest. He may be on the move for cap purposes, or he may not be, but he's valued here in Columbus as a scorer and mentor.
 
Meeqs said:
Teams can ask any player to waive their NMC for the ED. I'd think this would be less of an issue than having the Cap to sign the insane amount of talented Prospects coming up through their pipeline.
Click to expand...

And these players will say yes and happily uproot their families to move to Vegas because...?
 
Curufinwe said:
And these players will say yes and happily uproot their families to move to Vegas because...?
Click to expand...

For one, Hartnell seems willing to be traded. So he seems willing to uproot at the moment.

Second, a guy like Clarkson knows he isn't going to get selected. So no point in not waiving it. There's 0% chance he gets picked and he's only hurting the team.
 
Johansen2Foligno said:
I don't think it's a terrible trade -- especially during the long run. Short term it really hurts though because that's 100+ points just evaporating and losing some veterans
Click to expand...

I doubted this, so I googled it, and wow... both of these guys had good seasons, why is Columbus wanting to trade them? Particularly Atkinson?
 
AvsGuy said:
I doubted this, so I googled it, and wow... both of these guys had good seasons, why is Columbus wanting to trade them? Particularly Atkinson?
Click to expand...
In Hartnell's case, it's been worries about cap space and a desire to get something of value in the process; the Tyutin buyout has made this far less pressing. In Atkinson's case... we kinda don't. ;)
 
Viqsi said:
In Hartnell's case, it's been worries about cap space and a desire to get something of value in the process; the Tyutin buyout has made this far less pressing. In Atkinson's case... we kinda don't. ;)
Click to expand...

...and he's 34. He's had pretty surprising longevity already. He could drop off at literally any second. We've got Iggy. We know
 
tucker3434 said:
...and he's 34. He's had pretty surprising longevity already. He could drop off at literally any second. We've got Iggy. We know
Click to expand...

That's a risk the team acquiring him would assume, yes. But that's why Columbus isn't asking for full value of a player with his current production.
 
Crede777 said:
That's a risk the team acquiring him would assume, yes. But that's why Columbus isn't asking for full value of a player with his current production.
Click to expand...

But that's why he's out there. CBJ is wanting to shift that risk elsewhere, and it isn't hard to see why.
 
tucker3434 said:
But that's why he's out there. CBJ is wanting to shift that risk elsewhere, and it isn't hard to see why.
Click to expand...

Right. He wouldn't be available if he weren't 34. Columbus says his value is high. Colorado says his value is low. They meet in the middle (hence why he's not a negative value, closer to a 0 value).
 
Crede777 said:
Right. He wouldn't be available if he weren't 34. Columbus says his value is high. Colorado says his value is low. They meet in the middle (hence why he's not a negative value, closer to a 0 value).
Click to expand...

I hope you'll have better luck elsewhere. Iginla just pulled that one over on us and we'll be happy when that $5.3 is off the books.

But I do admit that Hartnell would be exactly the type of guy Roy would love to have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom