You can’t really trade Forsberg without bringing in another goalie unless you’re tanking. You’d have no depth in goal in the event of injuries. At one point both Merilainen and Sogaard were injured, so in that case you’d have Malcolm Subban backing up Ullmark lol.
Proposal: Free agency edition Trade Rumours/Proposals [MOD - Stay on Topic] 5
- Thread starter AchtzehnBaby
- Start date
frightenedinmatenum2
Registered User
I would imagine that Tokarski would come back from Carolina. He is waiver exempt, so that gives us a combo of Tokarski/Sogaard/Merailanen that we can pass through waivers and have take the backup job by commission.
Sogaard has had a very rough year, which might have bought Forsberg time. If they trade Forsberg, I would guess it is because they have a deal to use that cap space on an upgrade somewhere else in the lineup. Trading him for the sake of trading him might not make sense without a direct replacement because backup goalies are really hard to find right now. But if trading him opens up cap to add another D, and they think they might be able to have three waiver exempt goalies handle the backup load (assuming Tokarski comes over), then maybe it makes sense.
UglyPuckling
Registered User
- May 14, 2021
- 1,523
- 813
I’d imagine Forsberg will be OK in Carolina if he was ever moved there in the same way that Korpisalo has done OK in Boston: 6 wins in 11 games, .901 sv% and 2 shutouts.
I have no idea if they think Leevi is ready for NHL duty though, or what they’d do if they think he is not.
This place is bouncing off the walls lately though. Some are thinking Rangers will implode and we’ll take advantage of the largesse. Just as likely, or more likely that nothing happens.
I have no idea if they think Leevi is ready for NHL duty though, or what they’d do if they think he is not.
This place is bouncing off the walls lately though. Some are thinking Rangers will implode and we’ll take advantage of the largesse. Just as likely, or more likely that nothing happens.
frightenedinmatenum2
Registered User
If I recall, Kakko has been available on and off forever. I don't know if I'd call us giving them an asset for him taking advantage if that's the one you're referring to. They might even be selling high if they get a 2nd.
frightenedinmatenum2
Registered User
It happens every offseason that players like him end up going unqualified because the criteria that is admissible for arbitration leads to a situation where they could get an offer that isn't reflective of their current market value, but isn't high enough to meet the walk-away threshold. Combine that with the competitive disadvantage of having to leave a large chunk of cap unoccupied until August when the hearing takes place because they don't know exactly what the player will get.
He is producing this year, but he is not playing a major role or anything. It becomes a moot point if he goes to a new team and breaks out, because at that point he is obviously worth at least 4.74M. Not qualifying becomes relevant when he's not worth 4.74M.
Pay a bit more and try to get Quick or another cheaper goalie back in the return as well.
Forsberg + 3rd + 4th -> Kakko 50% + Quick
or whatever works out.
UglyPuckling
Registered User
- May 14, 2021
- 1,523
- 813
Responding to hypotheticals is something I’ll leave to other posters. I'm using language and/or concepts that is used by others if that helps you understand my post better.
Forsberg’s best game in his career was against Carolina wasn’t it?
I’ve used Marchand before, specifying the 40-50 point early career version. I still think Greig could reach that. He won’t ever breakout into a 60+ point guy.
Same with the Kadri comparisons I’ve seen, they’ve always been “poor man’s”.
BoardsofCanada
Registered User
Some of you seem obsessed with Kakko. He was healthy scratched one game and now you're convinced he's been shopped? Has anyone confirmed this.. like Lebrun?
I don't see why the Rangers would want to dump a 23 year forward (former 2nd overall). He hasn't lit the world on fire but he's a smart, defensively sound player. Unless he's told the Rangers he wants a ridiculous amount on his next deal, why would they get rid of him?
I don't see why the Rangers would want to dump a 23 year forward (former 2nd overall). He hasn't lit the world on fire but he's a smart, defensively sound player. Unless he's told the Rangers he wants a ridiculous amount on his next deal, why would they get rid of him?
I’m just not sure what Sogaard or Merilainen have done this year to merit that kind of decision. Neither seems ready for NHL backup duties, so it feels like you’re relying on Tokarski a bit too much. Not that Forsberg has been good this year, but I am not sure the 2 million dollar dman you acquire is going to be worth that exchange.
It’s been discussed quite a bit by the media. Larry Brooks wrote an article, Chris Johnston said he thinks he’ll be traded but after the freeze etc. just off the top of my head but it seems like a foregone conclusion.
Senovision
Registered User
- May 23, 2011
- 2,995
- 2,068
I'll wait until Larry Brooks has confirmed it then
You can take it to the bank.
When has that guy ever stretched the truth....oh wait....Lol
He has 3 sources that are drinking out of brown bags on 52nd Street that he relies on.
You can take it to the bank.
When has that guy ever stretched the truth....oh wait....Lol
He has 3 sources that are drinking out of brown bags on 52nd Street that he relies on.
Last edited:
frightenedinmatenum2
Registered User
Has it been reported that they want to move on from Kochetkov?
I think the motivation with acquiring Forsberg is to have a tandem. Andersen is possibly out until sometime in February. That's assuming no setbacks.
They acquired Tokarski because they don't have a backup. They also don't have anybody in the system who is close. Spencer Martin played his way out of the job.
If they have a standing offer, it wouldn't surprise me if the standing offer is closer to Forsberg for FC or a late pick than it is to Forsberg for assets. The logic being, 2.75M in cap is the asset going back to Ottawa. It would make sense if that was the "standing offer", because Ottawa only pulls the trigger if they have a trade where they can use that 2.75M. Because they are in LTI, they aren't going to bank that cap, and with Sogaard only recently returning from injury, there wouldn't be a lot of incentive to move on from Forsberg for nothing unless they can use that cap right away to get something.
Qward
Because! That's why!
Okay, I have a great plan.
We convince Rangers to trade Kakko for Amadio maybe a late pick too. They get a guy for their 3rd line that actually works on the 3rd we get Kakko.
We then take Kakko and JBD and ship him to Buffalo for Peterka.
Tkachuk/Norris/Batherson
Peterka/Stutzle/Giroux
We convince Rangers to trade Kakko for Amadio maybe a late pick too. They get a guy for their 3rd line that actually works on the 3rd we get Kakko.
We then take Kakko and JBD and ship him to Buffalo for Peterka.
Tkachuk/Norris/Batherson
Peterka/Stutzle/Giroux
Micklebot
Moderator
- Apr 27, 2010
- 57,810
- 35,756
Actually, if we were to trade Forsberg, that would be enough Cap out to bring us under our cap hit from when we put Zub on LTIR, so we actually would bank the cap, LTIR basically puts your new CAP at the amount you were at when the player went on LTIR, you can still accumulate if you go under that new "Cap" but most teams are using the LTIR relief to get a player in the lineup replacing the hurt guy.
LTIR is weird.
What's scary is that Forbserg is 37th in save percentage. He's statistically a middle of the pack back up but then again goaltending is so up and down that Staios would be nuts to not try to make an upgrade. Still can't believe the Canes were interested in him
BonHoonLayneCornell
Registered User
I think the issue is not the overall save %, it's the wild swing in quality starts. He needs to figure out a way to be reasonably consistent for a backup. Iirc the stats Micklebot had posted a few times were showing it's been 3 quality starts and 7 disaster starts. His record being 4-6 seems to show the team was only able to overcome 1 of those bad ones.
