Jump to content

The 2021 Offseason Thread


jagknife
 Share

Recommended Posts

56 minutes ago, NJDevils1214 said:

It's possible. 

You’re telling me that in a split second that it takes for a puck to traverse that area, you are losing track of the puck because it appears to be going under the ad rather than over the ad?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

You’re telling me that in a split second that it takes for a puck to traverse that area, you are losing track of the puck because it appears to be going under the ad rather than over the ad?

Yes, not only is it distracting but I have a hard time tracking it. That is what I am telling you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NJDevils1214 said:

Yes, not only is it distracting but I have a hard time tracking it. That is what I am telling you.

Alright. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There a lot about M Tkachuk wants out from flames. Stlouis and sens can give a lot, but if it’s true and flames will be sellers this summer, Fitz must make everything. Tkashuk has no nmc or ntc, and if Calgary will trade him, they will trade him wherever they want. Zacha + Holtz + 4th pick + 28th pick for Tkachuk + flames pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Guadana said:

There a lot about M Tkachuk wants out from flames. Stlouis and sens can give a lot, but if it’s true and flames will be sellers this summer, Fitz must make everything. Tkashuk has no nmc or ntc, and if Calgary will trade him, they will trade him wherever they want. Zacha + Holtz + 4th pick + 28th pick for Tkachuk + flames pick.

I think that cost is too high. 

Even if its not, he would be a UFA in 2023-24, so you'd have to re-sign him as an RFA and get significant term into his UFA years to make a deal worth it. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Guadana said:

There a lot about M Tkachuk wants out from flames. Stlouis and sens can give a lot, but if it’s true and flames will be sellers this summer, Fitz must make everything. Tkashuk has no nmc or ntc, and if Calgary will trade him, they will trade him wherever they want. Zacha + Holtz + 4th pick + 28th pick for Tkachuk + flames pick.

Jeez, I know Tkachuk is good but when did he turn into Nate MacKinnon?   That’s way too much to give up.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

I think that cost is too high. 

Even if its not, he would be a UFA in 2023-24, so you'd have to re-sign him as an RFA and get significant term into his UFA years to make a deal worth it. 

1year +8years. 
he is close to pt per game and will help first overalls to make next step. He is skilled, he is strong and aggressive, he can shot and play on the slot, he is useful in forechecking. Holtz and Zacha are useless in forechecking. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Lateralous said:

Jeez, I know Tkachuk is good but when did he turn into Nate MacKinnon?   That’s way too much to give up.   

A second liner (at best) on a playoff contender + 3 unknowns for a known high-end winger with term and RFA in 3 years?  Sorry, but guys like him don't grow on trees and I would even make this trade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, DevsMan84 said:

A second liner (at best) on a playoff contender + 3 unknowns for a known high-end winger with term and RFA in 3 years?  Sorry, but guys like him don't grow on trees and I would even make this trade.

One might say you just traded a 0.70 ppg LW who mostly played out of position this year AND two Top 7 picks for a 0.76 ppg LW.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lateralous said:

One might say you just traded a 0.70 ppg LW who mostly played out of position this year AND two Top 7 picks for a 0.76 ppg LW.   

This season: 

Zacha .70 ppg  Tkachuk .76 ppg

Career:

Zacha .45 ppg  Tkachuk .79 ppg

 

So in other words, Tkachuk had a normal season while Zacha played above his average and Tkachuk is a year younger to boot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DevsMan84 said:

This season: 

Zacha .70 ppg  Tkachuk .76 ppg

Career:

Zacha .45 ppg  Tkachuk .79 ppg

 

So in other words, Tkachuk had a normal season while Zacha played above his average and Tkachuk is a year younger to boot.

I know Tkachuk is more valuable and my response was somewhat tongue in cheek but I still think that package is way too expensive.  

If the Vegas expansion draft taught us anything it’s that some guys just develop later than others.   I wouldn’t be too quick to dismiss last year as an above average season for Zacha as opposed to just being the next step in his development curve.   

That being said, Tkachuk is fantastic and i would do Zacha + 1 of those top 10 pieces to secure a top line LW but both seems like overpayment.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lateralous said:

I know Tkachuk is more valuable and my response was somewhat tongue in cheek but I still think that package is way too expensive.  

If the Vegas expansion draft taught us anything it’s that some guys just develop later than others.   I wouldn’t be too quick to dismiss last year as an above average season for Zacha as opposed to just being the next step in his development curve.   

That being said, Tkachuk is fantastic and i would do Zacha + 1 of those top 10 pieces to secure a top line LW but both seems like overpayment.   

Tkachuk is a top end talent.  We don't have a PLD that Columbus did when they got Laine (unless you want to trade either Hughes or Nico), so we have to give up more on the top 10 pieces to get Tkachuk.

True that some players develop later, but I am not going to ignore the rest of Zacha's body of work just for 1 above-average season (for him).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, DevsMan84 said:

A second liner (at best) on a playoff contender + 3 unknowns for a known high-end winger with term and RFA in 3 years?  Sorry, but guys like him don't grow on trees and I would even make this trade.

If I am not mistaken, he would be UFA eligible after the 2022-23 season because he will have played 7 seasons. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

If I am not mistaken, he would be UFA eligible after the 2022-23 season because he will have played 7 seasons. 

Rfa. Check capfriendly.

 

Zacha is one year older and he may played his best season. Even if he turn the corner and this is his new level, he is older anyway and he is worse than Tkachuk.

If they ask less - ok. But Zacha+Holtz or Zacha+4th is a real price for him, they can ask more. Easily. And if they ask, I will give, hope Fitz too. Because this enough of safe Johnsson/Gusev/Siegentahler trades. It doesn’t make us better. It was working with palmieri, it doesn’t work in other cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DevsMan84 said:

I just double-checked, he is a RFA after 21-22 season.

https://www.spotrac.com/nhl/calgary-flames/matthew-tkachuk-20286/  

Yes. And as I mentioned above, his first UFA Year would be 2023, unless he were signed to a longer term deal that extends into his UFA years. 

So unless he signs a deal that extends well past 2023, that package isn’t worth it. If he signs a 7 or 8 year deal as an RFA, he would be giving up 6-7 UFA years, it’s a different story. 

My concern being he would not want to lock in here, would play out his contract, sign a very short deal as an RFA, and then bounce as a UFA in 2 years. 

Edited by mfitz804
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something we should keep in mind about last season. Sure it was frustrating and all and many wished we could have got more skilled players or sign or trade for someone.

Well, with the upcoming expansion draft... we're already going to lose a player we didn't want to lose like Bastian or borderline okay with losing like Butcher or wtv.

But if we would have landed a better player than those guys.. when we would have lost someone we didnt wanna lose even more. So yeah it was a sh!tty year to go through but when its all said and done i think it was ideal.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure who you had in mind, but there are plenty of better players that if we had them, I wouldn’t give a sh!t about losing Bastian. Consider it a straight up trade, would be no issue 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

Not sure who you had in mind, but there are plenty of better players that if we had them, I wouldn’t give a sh!t about losing Bastian. Consider it a straight up trade, would be no issue 

i think you missed the point. Right now, with the players we have... the "worst case" is losing bastian and the best case is losing Johnsson. But if we'd have just one better forwards. It means we'd have to either expose him or one of Bratt, Zacha, Sharangovich, McLeod, Kuookannen, wood or hischier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

i think you missed the point. Right now, with the players we have... the "worst case" is losing bastian and the best case is losing Johnsson. But if we'd have just one better forwards. It means we'd have to either expose him or one of Bratt, Zacha, Sharangovich, McLeod, Kuookannen, wood or hischier.

I think you missed the point. If we brought in a stud offensive player I wouldn’t give a fvck about exposing Bastian. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

I think you missed the point. If we brought in a stud offensive player I wouldn’t give a fvck about exposing Bastian. 

You're officially missing the point. If we'd have ANOTHER offensive player. The problem would NOT be about exposing Bastian anymore. It would be about exposing one of Bratt, Zacha, Sharangovich, McLeod, Kuookannen, wood or hischier. OR WHOEVER THAT NEW OFFENSIVE PLAYER WOULD BE. YOU CAN ONLY PROTECT 7.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.