HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Colorado Avalanche
Notices

Buffalo's Defensemen Available to the Avs?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-06-2014, 03:52 PM
  #51
hockeyfish
Registered User
 
hockeyfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Back in the FoCo
Country: United States
Posts: 6,658
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigervixxen View Post
The reason why we are in this predicament is because we gave away too many draft picks. Using this year's pick to fill a hole just passes the problem down the line.
Wait, time out? 1. What predicament are we in? 2. Those two picks we gave up have yet to do anything eventful in the NHL.

hockeyfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2014, 03:54 PM
  #52
tigervixxxen
Optimism=Delusional
 
tigervixxxen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Denver
Country: United States
Posts: 9,643
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfish View Post
Wait, time out? 1. What predicament are we in? 2. Those two picks we gave up have yet to do anything eventful in the NHL.
The ****** defense everyone talks about every hour of every day. Not having a first founder in 08 and 12 is what set the D back. Obviously one became Varly so I'm not saying it wasn't worth it but that's the trade off that was made.

tigervixxxen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2014, 03:57 PM
  #53
hockeyfish
Registered User
 
hockeyfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Back in the FoCo
Country: United States
Posts: 6,658
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigervixxen View Post
The ****** defense everyone talks about every hour of every day. Not having a first founder in 08 and 12 is what set the D back. Obviously one became Varly so I'm not saying it wasn't worth it but that's the trade off that was made.
the D isn't crap because we traded those 1st. That is an entirely separate issue.

hockeyfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2014, 03:59 PM
  #54
tigervixxxen
Optimism=Delusional
 
tigervixxxen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Denver
Country: United States
Posts: 9,643
vCash: 50
Of course I don't have a crystal ball on who they would have taken but those were two D heavy drafts. How did the D become **** then? Serious question.

tigervixxxen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2014, 04:04 PM
  #55
hockeyfish
Registered User
 
hockeyfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Back in the FoCo
Country: United States
Posts: 6,658
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigervixxen View Post
Of course I don't have a crystal ball on who they would have taken but those were two D heavy drafts. How did the D become **** then? Serious question.
Because over a long period of time, we have only been able to only sign one competent D-man from free agency, trade for only one competent D-man, and draft only one competent D-man. Everything else they have done up to this point has yielded zilch. Now, granted, the drafting part looks like it may be getting better, but this team has had a long history of poorly evaluating D-men.

You can make the argument that the team over-payed both times they traded 1sts. You can also make the argument that both times the team was reckless with the 1sts. But neither has done any actual long term damage.

hockeyfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2014, 04:06 PM
  #56
SoundwaveIsCharisma
Moderator
 
SoundwaveIsCharisma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Screw You Blaster
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,974
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to SoundwaveIsCharisma
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigervixxen View Post
Of course I don't have a crystal ball on who they would have taken but those were two D heavy drafts. How did the D become **** then? Serious question.
Because they haven't really focused on the D. We've had a patchwork defense for years, defense was never really a strength of the Avalanche. Even in their cup contention years, the D was the weakest part of the team (save for 2001 when they were able to get Bourque, Blake and Foote as a top-3).

We, historically haven't really focused on developing defensemen. Defensemen typically take longer to develop, so the ones in the system right now are only starting to become NHL ready. They also haven't really targeted any big name defenders in UFA, and therefore haven't been able to upgrade that way.

Short version, Avs don't really care about defense, therefore aren't really good at it.

SoundwaveIsCharisma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2014, 04:18 PM
  #57
Thepoolmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 225
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by henchman24 View Post
Nope not a single way. The 10m comes from the 'benefit' they received, and that amount is spread out over the final years of the contract. The benefit goes down to $9m in 2018, and goes down $3m a year from there.



It happens to Buffalo no matter what.
Then why would it matter if the avs were to trade for him. I don't see the risk with the recapture penalty then.

Thepoolmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2014, 04:22 PM
  #58
hockeyfish
Registered User
 
hockeyfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Back in the FoCo
Country: United States
Posts: 6,658
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thepoolmaster View Post
Then why would it matter if the avs were to trade for him. I don't see the risk with the recapture penalty then.
The Avs really don't equate into this. There is no penalty to them in any way. They just become responsible for his salary and cap hit as long as he plays. The problem is on Buffalo's end. If they trade him and he retires, they could potentially end up with a massive cap hit for a player they don't even have, depending on the year he retires.

hockeyfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2014, 04:36 PM
  #59
Thepoolmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 225
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfish View Post
The Avs really don't equate into this. There is no penalty to them in any way. They just become responsible for his salary and cap hit as long as he plays. The problem is on Buffalo's end. If they trade him and he retires, they could potentially end up with a massive cap hit for a player they don't even have, depending on the year he retires.
Yes I understand that, but the recapture penalty is there regardless of whether he is on Buffalo or another team. If he retires in 2017 they have to deal with that recapture penalty whether he is on Buffalo or on Colorado. In the end if they think that he is going to retire in 2017 the smart thing to do would be to trade him for picks so that they at least have some "asset" for the 3 million in the system or playing on their team and not just 3 million in wasted cap space. Buffalo will have this problem no matter what they do (unless they buy him out). So it shouldn't matter if the Avs trade for him or not which is the reason most people are citing that Buffalo would not trade Erhoff.

Thepoolmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2014, 04:41 PM
  #60
hockeyfish
Registered User
 
hockeyfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Back in the FoCo
Country: United States
Posts: 6,658
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thepoolmaster View Post
Yes I understand that, but the recapture penalty is there regardless of whether he is on Buffalo or another team. If he retires in 2017 they have to deal with that recapture penalty whether he is on Buffalo or on Colorado. In the end if they think that he is going to retire in 2017 the smart thing to do would be to trade him for picks so that they at least have some "asset" for the 3 million in the system or playing on their team and not just 3 million in wasted cap space. Buffalo will have this problem no matter what they do (unless they buy him out). So it shouldn't matter if the Avs trade for him or not which is the reason most people are citing that Buffalo would not trade Erhoff.
The problem is that the penalty changes if he is traded and retires later. If he is traded, and retires right before the last season of his contract, the Sabres would be stuck with a 10m cap hit for a guy who isn't even playing. Even if the cap goes way up by then, it would still be a major chunk of cap space gone.

There is a reason why there are some useful guys like Ehrhoff and Richards who are possibly going to get compliance buyouts this summer.

hockeyfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2014, 04:43 PM
  #61
henchman24
#ImagineAvs
 
henchman24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 10,406
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfish View Post
The problem is that the penalty changes if he is traded and retires later. If he is traded, and retires right before the last season of his contract, the Sabres would be stuck with a 10m cap hit for a guy who isn't even playing. Even if the cap goes way up by then, it would still be a major chunk of cap space gone.

There is a reason why there are some useful guys like Ehrhoff and Richards who are possibly going to get compliance buyouts this summer.
If that happens, the Avs better scoop him up!

henchman24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2014, 04:43 PM
  #62
Thepoolmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 225
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfish View Post
The problem is that the penalty changes if he is traded and retires later. If he is traded, and retires right before the last season of his contract, the Sabres would be stuck with a 10m cap hit for a guy who isn't even playing. Even if the cap goes way up by then, it would still be a major chunk of cap space gone.

There is a reason why there are some useful guys like Ehrhoff and Richards who are possibly going to get compliance buyouts this summer.
Unless I am not understanding how this works that scenario would also happen if he retired on the last year of his deal while playing for Buffalo, so it doesn't matter if they trade him to the avs? Unless they are planning to buy him out.

I agree he could be bought out. That would make sense for the reason they wouldn't trade him.

Thepoolmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2014, 04:45 PM
  #63
hockeyfish
Registered User
 
hockeyfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Back in the FoCo
Country: United States
Posts: 6,658
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thepoolmaster View Post
Unless I am not understanding how this works that scenario would also happen if he retired on the last year of his deal while playing for Buffalo, so it doesn't matter if they trade him to the avs? Unless they are planning to buy him out.

I agree he could be bought out. That would make sense for the reason they wouldn't trade him.
No, the penalty would be much smaller if he remains on the Sabres. They would also retain the ability to buy out his contract as well.

hockeyfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2014, 04:48 PM
  #64
Thepoolmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 225
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfish View Post
No, the penalty would be much smaller if he remains on the Sabres. They would also retain the ability to buy out his contract as well.
ok thanks for the info. Good to know

Thepoolmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2014, 06:10 PM
  #65
Sheet
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,005
vCash: 50
This is sort of off topic, but does a player/club have the ability to mutually agree to scrapping a contract in lieu of creating a new contract?

This is extremely hypothetical, and unrealistic, I know this. I'm giving this example just as an example.

Lets say Ehrhoff is sick of playing for buffalo and wants a trade. Colorado wants him, but doesnt want his contract/buffalo doesnt want the retirement thing... Can buff/Ehrhoff agree to just axe his contract and create a new one?

I'd wager no, I just don't know for sure. Boiling it down the question is can a player and club mutually agree to just end a contract.

Sheet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2014, 09:37 PM
  #66
Averick*
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Chicago
Country: Norway
Posts: 1,070
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WalterSmith View Post
Edler would be nice for sure, but being that Vancouver is the same conference and still trying to make the final playoff spot, I don't think they'll trade him until after the season, unless we offer Stastny for Edler and something else. That might be good.

Markov from MTL? He's a great dman for sure WHEN he's healthy. He's had way too many injuries and lost games / seasons due to injuries, I just don't think the risk is worth it. But I do like him...would be a fantastic dman if he could stay healthy.

I like the Tallinder offer. I'd do it! I think he can give us a good push for this and next year's playoffs at least.
Vancouver is a great candidate for a trade. The front office might be so intent to save face and trying to make it work with Tortorella that they might do something desperate. I think Vancouvers going to fade though. And the good thing is, even if we trade some offense to them, I'm not sure it will matter. I don't think the team believes in this coach or his coaching style and I see it getting worse.

Averick* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2014, 10:09 PM
  #67
tigervixxxen
Optimism=Delusional
 
tigervixxxen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Denver
Country: United States
Posts: 9,643
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheet View Post
This is sort of off topic, but does a player/club have the ability to mutually agree to scrapping a contract in lieu of creating a new contract?

This is extremely hypothetical, and unrealistic, I know this. I'm giving this example just as an example.

Lets say Ehrhoff is sick of playing for buffalo and wants a trade. Colorado wants him, but doesnt want his contract/buffalo doesnt want the retirement thing... Can buff/Ehrhoff agree to just axe his contract and create a new one?

I'd wager no, I just don't know for sure. Boiling it down the question is can a player and club mutually agree to just end a contract.
I don't think so, that's probably cap circumvention. That would open the door for a whole lot of curious mutually beneficial contract redos. They could get a pick back if he retires early or something. They could do a compliance buy out if they still have one but obviously get nothing in return.

tigervixxxen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-06-2014, 11:21 PM
  #68
hockeyfish
Registered User
 
hockeyfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Back in the FoCo
Country: United States
Posts: 6,658
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheet View Post
This is sort of off topic, but does a player/club have the ability to mutually agree to scrapping a contract in lieu of creating a new contract?

This is extremely hypothetical, and unrealistic, I know this. I'm giving this example just as an example.

Lets say Ehrhoff is sick of playing for buffalo and wants a trade. Colorado wants him, but doesnt want his contract/buffalo doesnt want the retirement thing... Can buff/Ehrhoff agree to just axe his contract and create a new one?

I'd wager no, I just don't know for sure. Boiling it down the question is can a player and club mutually agree to just end a contract.
Nope. The only way to cancel a contract is for the team to buy it out or for the player to retire. Both would prevent the player from signing a new contract with that team that year (and in the case of retiring, could put him out of the NHL for good)

hockeyfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2014, 12:24 AM
  #69
Averick*
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Chicago
Country: Norway
Posts: 1,070
vCash: 500
Nevermind


Last edited by Averick*: 02-08-2014 at 11:21 AM.
Averick* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2014, 09:14 AM
  #70
Miri
Lavinengefahr!
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Slovakia
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 363
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoPadStack View Post
I'd trade our 2014 1st round pick and a roster defenseman not named EJ/Hejda/Barrie for Ehrhoff.
Same here.

Miri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2014, 09:54 AM
  #71
Bender
TheHockeyProspector
 
Bender's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,936
vCash: 7658
Quote:
Originally Posted by henchman24 View Post
Buffalo doesn't need defensive prospects, but one of Aitto/Pickard might have to be given up.

2014 1st + Wilson + Aitto/Pickard might get it done if Buffalo needs another goalie prospect (I don't think they do)... Otherwise Sgarbossa/Hishon/Bourke would have to be the prospect.
I wouldn't give up Bourke.

Quote:
Originally Posted by volaju View Post
Hey I like Ehrhoff too, but that contract scares me. Not the caphit ($4.0M) but the length (through 2021). I can't see the Avs taking that on, unless they've really opened the pocket-books.
I agree. What's more likely is that Tallon is waiting until the deadline to see what he can get for Kulikov and then we'll jump in. Out of all the guys that are possibly available, he's the only one that can play top 4 minutes right now AND wouldn't cost an arm and a leg to get (the price would be high but reasonable at the same time, imo).

Bender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2014, 11:50 AM
  #72
Foppa2118
Registered User
 
Foppa2118's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: 22 Acacia Avenue
Country: United States
Posts: 18,556
vCash: 50
Ehrhoff's contract length shouldn't scare anyone. If Buffalo trades him, they're going to want to get him back before he retires. He's making peanuts in his last couple years, so if he slows down and isn't playing a big role on a team he'll likely want to retire.

So if he's not playing up to his contract, the Avs will have a willing trade partner in Buffalo no matter what. The Sabres won't risk a $5 or 10M cap hit (depending on which year he retires) on the cap re-capture penalty.

Foppa2118 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-08-2014, 02:04 PM
  #73
AslanRH
Part of the Plan
 
AslanRH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Wyoming, USA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,381
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foppa2118 View Post
Ehrhoff's contract length shouldn't scare anyone. If Buffalo trades him, they're going to want to get him back before he retires. He's making peanuts in his last couple years, so if he slows down and isn't playing a big role on a team he'll likely want to retire.

So if he's not playing up to his contract, the Avs will have a willing trade partner in Buffalo no matter what. The Sabres won't risk a $5 or 10M cap hit (depending on which year he retires) on the cap re-capture penalty.
I think Buffalo should/would look at it the same way, and with a conditional pick attached (likely a 1st that changes hands after whichever year he retires with Buffalo getting the option to pick the year.
If Ehrhoff retires with the Avs in:
2018 - Buff can choose the 1st in 2019, 2020, or 2021
2019 - 1st in 2020 or 2021
2020 - 1st in 2021

That conditional pick could just simply be the return for sending Ehrhoff back or the Sabres could send back a lesser pick/prospect to avoid any recapture.

__________________
"There's a point, far out there when the structures fail you, and the rules aren't weapons anymore, they're... shackles letting the bad guy get ahead. One day... you may face such a moment of crisis." - Jim Gordon
AslanRH is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:11 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.