Proposal: Yet another Toronto/Anaheim proposal
- Thread starter SuperGM17
- Start date
Ducks Nation*
Registered User
- Mar 19, 2013
- 16,329
- 4
SuperGM17
Registered User
Halla
Registered User
- Jan 28, 2016
- 14,727
- 3,779
this offer isnt very good. Hunwick is probably only worth a 3rd, but stoner is probably worth a negative 2nd and 3rd.
Fowler is basically JVR, 2nd,3rd,3rd in this proposal.
I think if the leafs are taking on a bottom pairing dman making 3.25 with term, and unloading a guy making 1.2 with an expiring contract, they need a sweetner.
Fowler,Stoner,2nd rd, 3rd rd for JVR,Hunwick
Would that save enough cap to sign? Or would Ana need more going out? Kesler? To cgy? For Backlund + 2nd + Klimchuk
Toronto should at least get a couple of picks for Stoner because it's basically JVR for Fowler, which is fair, but then Toronto takes Stoner for free.
Leafs aren't taking Stoner.
How about this....Fowler, Anaheim 1st in 17 for JVR (50% retained)
That should give you enough room to sign Lindholm. Once you demote Stoner or trade him.
How about this....Fowler, Anaheim 1st in 17 for JVR (50% retained)
That should give you enough room to sign Lindholm. Once you demote Stoner or trade him.
Another "everyone wants Anaheim's top young D but doesn't want to pay anywhere near enough" thread.
An absolute fact in this situation is JVR by himself won't net Fowler right now. It just won't. So offer more or stop asking for Fowler and be content with having the worst blueline in the league while your media makes headlines like "Frederik Andersen with another brutal effort throwing the game away...".
Always the goalies fault. The city has ran 4-5 good quality goalies out of town because of their inability to realize how bad their defense is. Last game their top-4 defenders by ice time: Rielly, Zaitsev, Carrick, Hunwick. That is undoubtedly the worst in the NHL by far.
You want to talk about Anaheim's bargaining power reduced by "needing to trade a D". Well Toronto's bargaining power is about the same as Edmonton's was, in that, "they have to acquire a D". Because their defense is absolutely terrible and their forwards and goaltending are good. Toronto has no bargaining power over Anaheim. If you want Fowler, pay up a lot. Because Fowler does not need to be traded, he's a key part of a cup contending team on an excellent contract.
The key point being missed is while teams may have leverage when negotiating for Stoner, Despres, that same power does not exist for Fowler. Because, again, the team has no, zero, ziltch, none, 0, intention or need to be trading him.
An absolute fact in this situation is JVR by himself won't net Fowler right now. It just won't. So offer more or stop asking for Fowler and be content with having the worst blueline in the league while your media makes headlines like "Frederik Andersen with another brutal effort throwing the game away...".
Always the goalies fault. The city has ran 4-5 good quality goalies out of town because of their inability to realize how bad their defense is. Last game their top-4 defenders by ice time: Rielly, Zaitsev, Carrick, Hunwick. That is undoubtedly the worst in the NHL by far.
You want to talk about Anaheim's bargaining power reduced by "needing to trade a D". Well Toronto's bargaining power is about the same as Edmonton's was, in that, "they have to acquire a D". Because their defense is absolutely terrible and their forwards and goaltending are good. Toronto has no bargaining power over Anaheim. If you want Fowler, pay up a lot. Because Fowler does not need to be traded, he's a key part of a cup contending team on an excellent contract.
The key point being missed is while teams may have leverage when negotiating for Stoner, Despres, that same power does not exist for Fowler. Because, again, the team has no, zero, ziltch, none, 0, intention or need to be trading him.
SprDaVE
Moderator
- Sep 20, 2008
- 54,832
- 39,123
This doesn't work for Toronto. We're essentially giving up 2 good to solid assets for a very bad one and a good one.
I like Fowler myself and I think, at least on paper, a base of JVR for Fowler makes some sense. Similar contracts and value to their current team. If you need to get rid of Stoner though, Toronto can definitely take him over but it will require some additional value attached to him.
I like Fowler myself and I think, at least on paper, a base of JVR for Fowler makes some sense. Similar contracts and value to their current team. If you need to get rid of Stoner though, Toronto can definitely take him over but it will require some additional value attached to him.
SprDaVE
Moderator
- Sep 20, 2008
- 54,832
- 39,123
What's the fact about this? Do you know what a fact is? I'm pretty sure what you wrote is an opinion.
JVR for Fowler is pretty fair to me. The OP has us taking on Stoner who's got very bad value too. The only fact we have here is that Anaheim needs to find cap/budget space to sign their top player and the proposal made by the OP does aim to do that.
So you can think Fowler is worth so much more than JVR but if you're talking about OPs proposal, it has us taking a very bad contract in the deal which should bring that deal to fair value in your eyes.
SprDaVE
Moderator
- Sep 20, 2008
- 54,832
- 39,123
We can manage a lot of bad contracts. Our cap situation is very flexible. We're not in the business of taking on bad contracts for fun though.
Finnish your Czech
J'aime Les offres hostiles
I wouldn't trade JVR for Fowler straight up, so I wouldn't come close to doing this if I was Lou.
dubplatepressure
Registered User
- Jul 10, 2007
- 15,979
- 3,627
Number1RedWingsFan52
Registered User
Totally agree, I would think that the Leafs would need JVR a lot worse then they would need Fowler. Just can't see the Leafs doing a JVR for Fowler swap. Do they even have the pieces to replace his lost production any ways.
I think a base of Fowler for JVR is selling Fowler short here.. He's a similar player to Rielly (in some ways) right now and I don't think we would give up Morgan for, admittedly, an injury prone, yet 30-30 winger when healthy. Also JVR is our best veteran upfront and trading him would open a huge hole on the first line with no one really up to the task of filling it (not yet at least).
Ducks in a row
Go Ducks Quack Quack
RomanianLeafs
Registered User
u're dreaming if u think we have to add to JVR for fowler..reality is that Fowler alone does not get u JVR..we need a right handed d not left handed..Anaheim are contending? for what ? with Carlyle?? hahaha
We are not trading JVR for 2 years of Cam Fowler... Contract status is the same, two years to UFA. Dumb point. Value is damn near equal, 1st line LW for 2/3D both on great contracts. at most a mid round pick out.
The two foundations that make sense are JVR at 50% for Fowler and Hunwick for Stoner. In both situations the swap of on ice value is pretty equal and the Leafs eat ~4 million over two seasons to free up duck cap space. The cost of that will be significant. Ideally we'd want one of 1st/Larsson/Montour, but none of those are likely to happen, so then we're looking at our 2nd back +. Not sure on that + though. Petterson or similar prospect, next year 2nd/3rd etc.
dracom
Registered User
The only difference is the Leafs could afford to re-sign Fowler, no way Ducks will be able to afford to re-sign JVR.
Not the other teams problem, doesn't effect the value of the asset changing hands. Unless of course Fowler is currently worth less because the Ducks won't be able to re-sign him either?
Ducks Nation*
Registered User
- Mar 19, 2013
- 16,329
- 4
Hunwick is worse than Stoner, luckily for him he doesn't have Stoners **** contract. Stoner really isn't that bad as a #5/6 with a puck mover.
Ad
Latest posts
-
GDT: Your struggling, "in Dire Straits" Preds at New Jersey -- 11/25/2024- Latest: nine_inch_fang
-
Speculation: Roster Building Thread - Part XIII (Nanaki edition)- Latest: McRanger92
-
-
-
