Roster Building/Team Building/Future Trade/Drafting thread.

[Dreakmur]

Is it? I think it's deeper than one player.

I didn’t say solve completely… I said make the largest positive impact.

 

[ACC1224]

It’s going to make the biggest positive change to the culture.

By removing the most popular player?

 

[Rare Jewel]

I didn’t say solve completely… I said make the largest positive impact.

We don't know if it's positive yet.

But if you're looking for the most cultural change in one move, surely it's #34.

 

[sxvnert]

The future Misa/Bedard duo will be terrorizing teams next season.

Misa-Bedard-Nazar

 

[horner]

At this point - if Matthews is forcing a trade to one team you have no leverage. You'd have to be happy to get Chicago's first this year and move on. None of their prospects are that enticing anyway.

Obviously we wouldn't trade him until the offer was good enough.
We don't need to appease him.

 

[TheGreenTBer]

So why is it only Marner?

You've got to be prepared to crack some eggs to make a new omelet.

Not saying i agree or disagree with the line of thought, but my guess is that because of Mitch's contract status moving on from him and JT is relatively straightforward. The justification for re-signing Tavares would be that like half the NHL is looking for a 2nd line center right now so we'd have to overpay to replace him.

In reality, I don't believe Marner is any more guilty than Matthews or Nylander at this point. They are all underachievers.

 

[Rare Jewel]

Not saying i agree or disagree with the line of thought, but my guess is that because of Mitch's contract status moving on from him and JT is relatively straightforward. The justification for re-signing Tavares would be that like half the NHL is looking for a 2nd line center right now so we'd have to overpay to replace him.

In reality, I don't believe Marner is any more guilty than Matthews or Nylander at this point. They are all underachievers.

His contractual status is part of it, and I've in the past thought that moving one will change the feel, but really, I'm not convinced of it now.

If they do fumble the series, I don't think change should be locked behind "oh this player has NMC, so he can't go" and "this one's contract is up."

 

[TheGreenTBer]

His contractual status is part of it, and I've in the past thought that moving one will change the feel, but really, I'm not convinced of it now.

If they do fumble the series, I don't think change should be locked behind "oh this player has NMC, so he can't go" and "this one's contract is up."

How else do you propose we make a core change?

 

[Dreakmur]

By removing the most popular player?

Is he the most popular?

I have heard he’s not particularly well like in the room. His antics have become tiresome.

 

[Rare Jewel]

How else do you propose we make a core change?

Well, to be honest, this is a conversation for when and how they go out.

But, for example, just because Marner's contract is up, doesn't mean he's one to go, and NMCS shouldn't be an obstacle to making the best move.

 

[ACC1224]

Is he the most popular?

I have heard he’s not particularly well like in the room. His antics have become tiresome.

I've never heard differently. What are his tiresome antics?

 

[Dreakmur]

I've never heard differently. What are his tiresome antics?

Being relentlessly chatty and childish. It’s funny at first, but gets old fast.

 

[ACC1224]

Being relentlessly chatty and childish. It’s funny at first, but gets old fast.

I've never heard that. He's even very popular around the league.
Never a bad word said about him that I know of.

 

[TheGreenTBer]

Well, to be honest, this is a conversation for when and how they go out.

Yes of course, I'm speaking hypothetically.

But, for example, just because Marner's contract is up, doesn't mean he's one to go,

If they somehow get reverse swept by the Ottawa Senators I don't want to see Mitch, Auston, Willy or Tavares ever wearing this great uniform ever, ever again.

2 of those guys control their own destiny. 2 of them don't.

and NMCS shouldn't be an obstacle to making the best move.

Shouldn't be an obstacle, what? It literally IS an obstacle by design. That is exactly why a player negotiates a NMC, because it literally makes it impossible to move the player without their consent. It IS an obstacle. If Matthews and Nylander, as guilty as they are, don't want to move there ain't shit we can do about it.

 

[Rare Jewel]

If they somehow get reverse swept by the Ottawa Senators I don't want to see Mitch, Auston, Willy or Tavares ever wearing this great uniform ever, ever again.

2 of those guys control their own destiny. 2 of them don't.

Contractual status is hapanstance. If Marner had 1 more year left on his deal, would you still stay with the status quo if they lose to Ottawa or Florida?

I've been quite hard on Marner over the last 9-12 months, but I've been won over by his season/4 nations and the first few games of this series. Some of his statistics concerning the playoffs aren't great, but trying to keep a single standard for evaluating the core, Matthews has 2 goals in his last 16 playoff games...

That's the highest-paid player in the league and supposedly the best scorer in the league. So, if he was the one with a few months left on his deal, would we walk away?

Shouldn't be an obstacle, what? It literally IS an obstacle by design. That is exactly why a player negotiates a NMC, because it literally makes it impossible to move the player without their consent. It IS an obstacle. If Matthews and Nylander, as guilty as they are, don't want to move there ain't shit we can do about it.

It is, and it may be awkward, but that's where, as a management group, you've got to be firm and make a change. We've seen teams do it, i.e Trouba, and you can include Rielly in that as well. But simply taking one or particularly Marner out of the team and thinking that is going to dramatically shift things, I think, is quite naive.