View Single Post
Old 02-04-2025, 12:18 PM   #44
blankall
Ate 100 Treadmills
 
blankall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperMatt18 View Post
Yeah...I'm not sure how much more value he has than Frost TBH. And I think we can say Frost value around the league was probably around a 2nd.

Last Two Seasons:

Frost:
TOI: 1904
5v5 G: 18
5v5 P: 44
Total G: 25
Total P: 67
xGF% : 54.35%
GF%: 50.4%(62 GF - 61 GA)

Cozens:
TOI: 2268
5v5 G: 17
5v5 P: 47
Total G: 28
Total P: 73
xGF% 48.4%
GF%: 48.1% (74 GF - 80 GA)

Actual performance might actual lean towards Frost over the last two seasons. Better underlying stats, similar points and goals totals even though he played 350 fewer minutes.

Cozens is 2 years younger, bigger, and a RH shot which likely gives him slightly more value to GMs. But his $7.1M contract isn't great (although rising cap makes that less of a barrier if they hold him to move in the offseason).

The real problem here is Buffalo seems to want to move him to either upgrade C (Flames don't have a piece for that) or to shore up their RH d (Andersson's contract status is going to make that tough).

If I was Buffalo I'd be trading Cozens for the best total package instead of trying to finesse a "Hockey Trade" and then use all the assets you pick up to try to package together for the C or RH dman that you want.

(Although Pettersson being available is a barrier to that because Cozens would likely be the type of C Vancouver would need going back in any deal)
Cozen already has a 30 goal and 68 point season under his belt. Cozens is also bigger, younger, and was drafted higher. Cozens also has a lot more suitors around the league. The bidding for Cozens is already likely well beyond the Frost return.

It's the difference between a potential #1 centre vs a potential #2. Everyone on Buffalo has had awful numbers for the last 2 years, and many teams will be relying heavily on that to explain away Cozens less than spectacular numbers over the last two seasons.
blankall is offline   Reply With Quote