Proposal: Led Zubpelin's When The Leddy Breaks: COL + DET + OTT

[Number1RedWingsFan52]

It's tough to know what each player's motivation will be as they sign what will be the richest contract of their career, so this does assume a player's desire is to play in Colorado and their willingness to compromise in order to facilitate that...

For example, while MacKinnon would almost certainly command a max salary on the open market, but as with all Colorado players I could see him settling for below market value, say 11 million per season to remain with the Avs

Fun fact: MacKinnon is 1 day older than Barkov

Over the last 4 seasons, MacKinnon has averaged 1.30 PPG, while Barkov has averaged 1.06 PPG... which means MacKinnon has out-scored him by 20 points per 82 games over that stretch

Assuming Barkov wants to join the Avs, and is made aware of MacKinnon's intention to re-sign for 11 million per, I find it hard to believe he would insist on being the team's highest paid player, so maybe he agrees to come in for 10.5 million...

So...

MacKinnon 11
Barkov 10.5
Rantanen 9.25
Makar 9
Landeskog 7
Girard 5
Toews 4.1
Compher 3.5
Jost 2
O'Connor 1.05
Newhook .9
Byram .9

= 64.2 million for 12 players

Johnson's 6 million cap hit is absent, as the Avs will have to pay another team to take it off their hands. Compher's 3.5 million cap hit could be moved as well, but I'll keep it on the roster for now

With the cap expected to rise to 82.5 million next season, that leaves 18.3 million remaining for 11 players...

Assuming re-signing Burakovsky would be a priority, he re-ups for 5 million per

Set the budget for a starting goalie at 4 million, with the back up making 1.3 million

That leaves 8 million to fill out the remaining 8 roster spots... the league minimum salary is $750k

A talented core like that with a chance at a Cup will almost certainly attract veterans willing to play for a million or less as they near the end of their careers...


Where things get tricky is when Byram and Newhook are due for extensions...

Replacing Compher and Jost with cheaper options would create an additional 4 million in cap space, but if Byram and Newhook are trending towards reaching their potential, it's likely the final year of Toews' contract would have to be dealt in order to clear an additional 3.3 million

Assuming the cap increases to 83.5 million for the 2024 season, if the Avs filled out the remainder of their roster with players on their ELC and vets playing for the league minimum, they'd have approx. 10 million in cap space... 6 million of which could go to Byram with 4 million to Newhook, both on 2 year bridge deals... as those bridge deals are set to expire, Rantanen's 9.5 million cap hit will be coming off the books


Ta-da!

Dude you're totally delusional if you honestly think that Aleksander Barkov is signing for 7 x $10,500,000 from Colorado. He's basically getting 8 x $10,500,000 in tax free Florida to sign with Colorado you're easily looking at McDavid money if not slightly higher.

 

[Perennial]

Oh gee i touched a nerve, So ask me genius. How do you propose to offer Barkov 7 x $13,000,000 and Mackinnon 8 x $10,500,000 or so without moving out some high price players?

I'm going to excuse myself from having to view anymore of your comments...

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

How much do you expect a team to pay for Burakovsky if he hits the open market? And is he going to give up a chance to have some meaningful playoff runs playing alongside Barkov so he can make an extra 500k in Detroit or New Jersey?

RNH just re-signed for a little over 5 million after averaging .82 PPG over the last 4 seasons

Come comparables to Burakovsky who recently signed for under 5 million include Garland, Toffoli, and Tatar

So, if he's not excited about staying in Colorado and making 5 million to play alongside Barkov, you wish him well, and find someone in free-agency who is


As for the goalie situation, I actually think 4 million might be more than what needs to be spent on a starting goaltender in Colorado...

Grubauer just provided Vezina quality goaltending last season with a cap hit of 3.3 million

The season before Francouz went 21 - 7 with a 2.41 GAA, and a .923 SV%, despite a cap hit just under a million

Jack Campbell will be a UFA next summer, if he has a solid season maybe he's worth bringing in for a few million, or if the Leafs opt to re-sign Campbell, maybe they look to clear Mrazek's 3.8 million off the books

Georgiev on the Rangers could be another option through trade

Fleury will be a UFA next season and may see Colorado as his best shot to win another Cup if he continues playing

Maybe Seattle's open to moving Driedger's 3.5 million cap hit

Detroit only had to give up a 3rd rd pick for Nedejkovic, and then was able to sign him at 3 million

The point is, there are affordable options available to Colorado, so if the opportunity presents itself to sign Barkov to a team-friendly contract, they should bloody well do it

With that said, it looks like Florida and Barkov are working on an extension, so it may all be a moot point

Blake Coleman just got 4.9 with massive term. Zach Hyman got 5.5 with massive term.
Some team will pony up for Burakovsky.

Affordable goalie options mean that you're basically punting the position and hoping to god it doesn't cost you. You get what you pay for. If you're signing 2M goalies assuming that you'll land a Grubauer, you're going to be stuck with an Aaron Dell or Jonas Gustavsson. Goalies who play for cheap are cheap for a reason.

Thing is, Barkov doesn't sign for a team friendly deal. Not after being on an uber team friendly deal for his whole second contract. Same with MacKinnon. I think the PA might murder MacKinnon in cold blood if he were to take a massively cheap deal again after taking a 6M deal.

 

[Number1RedWingsFan52]

I'm going to excuse myself from having to view anymore of your comments...

Oh gee my feelings are truly hurt, Who freaking cares Barkov and the Panthers are close to a deal anyways.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

How much do you expect a team to pay for Burakovsky if he hits the open market? And is he going to give up a chance to have some meaningful playoff runs playing alongside Barkov so he can make an extra 500k in Detroit or New Jersey?

RNH just re-signed for a little over 5 million after averaging .82 PPG over the last 4 seasons

Come comparables to Burakovsky who recently signed for under 5 million include Garland, Toffoli, and Tatar

So, if he's not excited about staying in Colorado and making 5 million to play alongside Barkov, you wish him well, and find someone in free-agency who is


As for the goalie situation, I actually think 4 million might be more than what needs to be spent on a starting goaltender in Colorado...

Grubauer just provided Vezina quality goaltending last season with a cap hit of 3.3 million

The season before Francouz went 21 - 7 with a 2.41 GAA, and a .923 SV%, despite a cap hit just under a million

Jack Campbell will be a UFA next summer, if he has a solid season maybe he's worth bringing in for a few million, or if the Leafs opt to re-sign Campbell, maybe they look to clear Mrazek's 3.8 million off the books

Georgiev on the Rangers could be another option through trade

Fleury will be a UFA next season and may see Colorado as his best shot to win another Cup if he continues playing

Maybe Seattle's open to moving Driedger's 3.5 million cap hit

Detroit only had to give up a 3rd rd pick for Nedejkovic, and then was able to sign him at 3 million

The point is, there are affordable options available to Colorado, so if the opportunity presents itself to sign Barkov to a team-friendly contract, they should bloody well do it

With that said, it looks like Florida and Barkov are working on an extension, so it may all be a moot point

Depending on how he plays this season, I could easily see someone offering Burakovsky $7m to play on their top line. He has the 18th highest PPG among all LW in the NHL over the last two years, and will be 27 years old in February. 5 years, $35m might be a slight overpay, but that's fully expected in UFA.

RNH wanted to stay in Edmonton for some reason, and gave them a team friendly discount. Garland has 1 season over 0.6 PPG, so there's risk for even giving him $4.9. Toffoli and Tatar were ~50 point players who put up good numbers one season after getting a reasonable contract for a ~50 point player. Not sure any of them are great comparables.

Kreider got $6.5m, despite scoring less than Burakovsky. Hayes got $7.14m. Hyman got $5.5m. Why is Burakovsky worth significantly less than any of them, despite scoring at a higher rate? And, who exactly are we going to find someone AS GOOD as Burakovsky in UFA if he's too expensive to keep? Your strategy of lowballing everyone and signing a perfect replacement for less money in UFA doesn't work in reality.

And, sure, the Avs can continue to roll the dice and bring in young goalies who might be ready, but that seems like a big risk for a team that's going all to win a Cup. They'd also need to constantly acquire new, cheap goalies, when the guys who actually play well inevitably to expensive to keep after a year or two. Why is Sakic painting himself into this corner? Do you think he learned nothing from losing Grubauer to Seattle?


Regardless, this whole exercise of showing how the Avs can destroy their team in order to afford Barkov has been a complete waste of time, because as everyone but you has said, Barkov isn't available. So, my question of who is available who gives us a better shot at the Cup than Byram does still stands. Until you can come up with a realistic answer to that question, there's no point in the Avs considering moving Byram.

 

[Perennial]

Depending on how he plays this season, I could easily see someone offering Burakovsky $7m to play on their top line. He has the 18th highest PPG among all LW in the NHL over the last two years, and will be 27 years old in February. 5 years, $35m might be a slight overpay, but that's fully expected in UFA.

RNH wanted to stay in Edmonton for some reason, and gave them a team friendly discount. Garland has 1 season over 0.6 PPG, so there's risk for even giving him $4.9. Toffoli and Tatar were ~50 point players who put up good numbers one season after getting a reasonable contract for a ~50 point player. Not sure any of them are great comparables.

Kreider got $6.5m, despite scoring less than Burakovsky. Hayes got $7.14m. Hyman got $5.5m. Why is Burakovsky worth significantly less than any of them, despite scoring at a higher rate? And, who exactly are we going to find someone AS GOOD as Burakovsky in UFA if he's too expensive to keep? Your strategy of lowballing everyone and signing a perfect replacement for less money in UFA doesn't work in reality.

And, sure, the Avs can continue to roll the dice and bring in young goalies who might be ready, but that seems like a big risk for a team that's going all to win a Cup. They'd also need to constantly acquire new, cheap goalies, when the guys who actually play well inevitably to expensive to keep after a year or two. Why is Sakic painting himself into this corner? Do you think he learned nothing from losing Grubauer to Seattle?


Regardless, this whole exercise of showing how the Avs can destroy their team in order to afford Barkov has been a complete waste of time, because as everyone but you has said, Barkov isn't available. So, my question of who is available who gives us a better shot at the Cup than Byram does still stands. Until you can come up with a realistic answer to that question, there's no point in the Avs considering moving Byram.

That was an unnecessary dig... especially since at no point did I say Barkov was available... only that he hadn't yet signed an extension, and if he hadn't signed by the deadline, I would look to move him if I were Florida...

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

That was an unnecessary dig... especially since at no point did I say Barkov was available... only that he hadn't yet signed an extension, and if he hadn't signed by the deadline, I would look to move him if I were Florida...

The question was "who is AVAILABLE and gives the Avs a better chance than simply keeping Byram?". You answered that question with Barkov, which strongly suggests that you're saying he's available. Otherwise, why bring him up as someone who is both available and gives the Avs a better chance than keeping Byram does, if you're not saying he's available?

 

[Perennial]

The question was "who is AVAILABLE and gives the Avs a better chance than simply keeping Byram?". You answered that question with Barkov, which strongly suggests that you're saying he's available. Otherwise, why bring him up as someone who is both available and gives the Avs a better chance than keeping Byram does, if you're not saying he's available?

The Barkov answer was a result of my misinterpretation of your question, which I acknowledged in post #138...

So, I think we got our signals crossed, and I misread your previous comment, however, since you didn't answer any of the questions in my message before that one, we'll call it even...

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

The Barkov answer was a result of my misinterpretation of your question, which I acknowledged in post #138...

So, I think we got our signals crossed, and I misread your previous comment, however, since you didn't answer any of the questions in my message before that one, we'll call it even...

And yet the very next sentence of post #138 was you explaining how Barkov might be available at some point in the near future, as if you were doubling down on the idea that the Avs should consider trading Byram for him. If you meant to admit that you were wrong in suggesting Barkov might be remotely available, and that there isn't anyone who is potentially available who will do more for the Avs than a 20 year old franchise 1D like Byram, you chose a really weird way of saying it.

 

[Perennial]

And yet the very next sentence of post #138 was you explaining how Barkov might be available at some point in the near future, as if you were doubling down on the idea that the Avs should consider trading Byram for him. If you meant to admit that you were wrong in suggesting Barkov might be remotely available, and that there isn't anyone who is potentially available who will do more for the Avs than a 20 year old franchise 1D like Byram, you chose a really weird way of saying it.

I never suggested the Avs should consider trading Byram for Barkov... hence when I was calculating the cap implications of Barkov signing in Colorado , Byram was still a member of the Avs

Nor did I suggest Barkov might be available in trade (though I did say he was a UFA next summer)... I simply stated a scenario in which I would make him available if I were Florida

Again, I've already said this was all based on my misunderstanding of your question... there's no need to keep picking at it

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

I never suggested the Avs should consider trading Byram for Barkov... hence when I was calculating the cap implications of Barkov signing in Colorado , Byram was still a member of the Avs

Nor did I suggest Barkov might be available in trade (though I did say he was a UFA next summer)... I simply stated a scenario in which I would make him available if I were Florida

Again, I've already said this was all based on my misunderstanding of your question... there's no need to keep picking at it

Again, because of your misunderstanding of what was being asked, you actually did suggest the Avs should consider trading Byram for Barkov. But, since you want to pretend that never happened, let's go back to where you misunderstood things and try it again.

You asked whether I would give up Byram in a number of different scenarios where the Avs win Cups or make multiple finals. I asked you to clarify who is on the list of available players who realistically gives the Avs a better chance at making those scenarios come true than Byram does. Now that we've established that Barkov isn't the right answer, for a multitude of reasons, who else do you have on that list? Who is realistically available that makes the Avs a better team than they would be if they simply added their 20 year old potential franchise 1D with 2 ELC years left to the roster?

 

[Perennial]

Again, because of your misunderstanding of what was being asked, you actually did suggest the Avs should consider trading Byram for Barkov. But, since you want to pretend that never happened, let's go back to where you misunderstood things and try it again.

You asked whether I would give up Byram in a number of different scenarios where the Avs win Cups or make multiple finals. I asked you to clarify who is on the list of available players who realistically gives the Avs a better chance at making those scenarios come true than Byram does. Now that we've established that Barkov isn't the right answer, for a multitude of reasons, who else do you have on that list? Who is realistically available that makes the Avs a better team than they would be if they simply added their 20 year old potential franchise 1D with 2 ELC years left to the roster?

Here's what I said...

Barkov is a UFA next summer...

You think if Byram was traded for Barkov, that wouldn't improve Colorado's chances of winning the Cup this year?

That's a question, not a suggestion...

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Here's what I said...

Barkov is a UFA next summer...

You think if Byram was traded for Barkov, that wouldn't improve Colorado's chances of winning the Cup this year?

That's a question, not a suggestion...

I asked - "Who do you realistically think is remotely available that makes the Avs an even better team than they will be by simply adding Byram to the defense?"

You answered "Barkov is a UFA next summer...", end of sentence. That's your answer, and then your next stentence tried to justify your answer by asking a leading/loaded question. And, the phrasing of your "question" also strongly suggests that you think that trading Byram for Barkov would improve Colorado's chances of winning the Cup this year, and were trying to bait me into disagreeing. Why phrase it this way if that isn't your intent? You think that putting a question mark on it makes what you're doing less obvious?

 

[Perennial]

I asked - "Who do you realistically think is remotely available that makes the Avs an even better team than they will be by simply adding Byram to the defense?"

You answered "Barkov is a UFA next summer...", end of sentence. That's your answer, and then your next stentence tried to justify your answer by asking a leading/loaded question. And, the phrasing of your "question" also strongly suggests that you think that trading Byram for Barkov would improve Colorado's chances of winning the Cup this year, and were trying to bait me into disagreeing. Why phrase it this way if that isn't your intent? You think that putting a question mark on it makes what you're doing less obvious?

This back and forth is the very definition of unpoductive, and isn't how I want to spend my time at HFBoards...

 

[Voodoo Glow Skulls]

This back and forth is the very definition of unpoductive, and isn't how I want to spend my time at HFBoards...

How do you want to spend it?

(Not being a jerk)

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

This back and forth is the very definition of unpoductive, and isn't how I want to spend my time at HFBoards...

Any chance you've come up with the name of someone who is both available and gives the Avs a better chance of winning Cups over the next few years/decade/whatever than Byram does? That was the question that you apparently misunderstood. I asked it again a few posts ago, but you unfortunately chose to continue to litigate what you said instead of getting back to hockey talk.

Regardless of what you did or didn't say, unless you can provide that name, then I completely agree that this entire trade proposal was unproductive, because Byram simply isn't getting moved. Just like most of the other guys you're including in the other pointless threads you keep starting.

 

[Perennial]

Any chance you've come up with the name of someone who is both available and gives the Avs a better chance of winning Cups over the next few years/decade/whatever than Byram does? That was the question that you apparently misunderstood. I asked it again a few posts ago, but you unfortunately chose to continue to litigate what you said instead of getting back to hockey talk.

Regardless of what you did or didn't say, unless you can provide that name, then I completely agree that this entire trade proposal was unproductive, because Byram simply isn't getting moved. Just like most of the other guys you're including in the other pointless threads you keep starting.

Another unnecessary shot... you're getting good at those!

So, as Paulie would say, now I gotta turn my back on ya...

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Another unnecessary shot... you're getting good at those!

And now, as Paulie would say, I gotta turn my back on ya...

Thanks for confirming that you don't have any interest in an honest discussion about hockey and just want to play the victim when people point out the obvious truth about your horrible trade suggestions.

 

[topshelf15]

Doesnt work for any team,Ottawa and Detroit need the players involved.. And have great defensive prospects...Col will need good cheap young players to replace older expensive one,s

 

[Perennial]

Doesnt work for any team,Ottawa and Detroit need the players involved.. And have great defensive prospects...Col will need good cheap young players to replace older expensive one,s

I disagree...

Neither team is a likely playoff contender this year or next, so it's just not good asset management to hold onto win-now players who will be UFAs in 2 years...

So, why exactly do they "need" those players... so they finish 7th last instead of 2nd last, and end up with the 6th overall pick instead of the 3rd?

 

[topshelf15]

I disagree...

Neither team is a likely playoff contender this year or next, so it's just not good asset management to hold onto win-now players who will be UFAs in 2 years...

So, why exactly do they "need" those players... so they finish 7th last instead of 2nd last, and end up with the 6th overall pick instead of the 3rd?

Meh ,not sure about Detroit ..But Ottawa really isnt looking to draft again in the bottom 5 ..We have enough young prospects we need actual legit nhl players,both Brown and Zub are exactly this and are pretty important players for us moving forward...Maybe this changes later but for right now Ottawa wont make this move

 

[Perennial]

Meh ,not sure about Detroit ..But Ottawa really isnt looking to draft again in the bottom 5 ..We have enough young prospects we need actual legit nhl players,both Brown and Zub are exactly this and are pretty important players for us moving forward...Maybe this changes later but for right now Ottawa wont make this move

Well, "important players for us moving forward" could be no more than 2 years, since they're both UFAs in a couple of summers...

So, if you're a team like Ottawa who isn't likely to be a playoff contender this season, what's better asset management?

a) keeping them both and hoping to sign them to extensions next year
b) trading them as rentals at next year's deadline for a lower return than you'd get today
c) trading them now for a highly touted prospect like Newhook, and then hoping to re-sign them in 2 years if/when they hit UFA and your team is closer to contending because you've got Newhook (hopefully) emerging as a legit top 6 contributor


Brown and Zub are role players, and though they be quality ones at that, it's easier to replace with guys that offer similar production than it is to add the type of player that Newhook has the potential to become

Newhook could end up having a Barzal-type impact at the NHL level... would you trade Brown and Zub for a 20 year old Barzal?

 

[topshelf15]

Well, "important players for us moving forward" could be no more than 2 years, since they're both UFAs in a couple of summers...

So, if you're a team like Ottawa who isn't likely to be a playoff contender this season, what's better asset management?

a) keeping them both and hoping to sign them to extensions next year
b) trading them as rentals at next year's deadline for a lower return than you'd get today
c) trading them now for a highly touted prospect like Newhook, and then hoping to re-sign them in 2 years if/when they hit UFA and your team is closer to contending because you've got Newhook (hopefully) emerging as a legit top 6 contributor


Brown and Zub are role players, and though they be quality ones at that, it's easier to replace with guys that offer similar production than it is to add the type of player that Newhook has the potential to become

Newhook could end up having a Barzal-type impact at the NHL level... would you trade Brown and Zub for a 20 year old Barzal?

I get what you are trying to say...But Ottawa isnt going to trade good nhl players for prospects right now,if they fall out of the race maybe..Check back in at the TDL

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

This is dreadful from a Detroit perspective.

Yzerman doesn't lose a lot of trades, but he will have to get an absolute killing to move Larkin. I think he is the one player he legitimately needs Ilitch permission to move. People can keep throwing his name out, but I would be stunned to see him moved before he declines an extension next summer. Like a .0000001%chance unless you offer something outrageous not them getting ripped off like this.

 

[Perennial]

I get what you are trying to say...But Ottawa isnt going to trade good nhl players for prospects right now,if they fall out of the race maybe..Check back in at the TDL

I'm not interested in what Ottawa would do, I'm sharing what I would do...