Roster needs · candidate fits
As of Sun, Sep 20The Trade Board
The model measures each club's roster gaps against the league, then ranks outside players on how well they'd plug the biggest one — on-ice value, style fit, and how gettable the seller looks. On-ice fit only; nothing here is cap-validated.
How to read this
First the diagnosis: we compare this club's impact in every roster bucket — top-six scoring, defensive D, and so on — against the league average, and rank the shortfalls. The biggest gap becomes the shopping brief.
Then the shortlist: outside players are scored on how well they'd plug that hole — their on-ice value (), their with how this club creates offense, and an that assumes struggling clubs sell and contenders don't. Know what this board is not: it has no salary data, no cap math, no term, and no idea whether a GM would return the call. It's a scouting shortlist built purely from on-ice fit — the phone call is your job.
- NEED
- roster bucket where the club trails league average, ranked by the gap
- WAR*
- on-ice value — a model proxy, not official WAR
- STYLE
- 0–100: does the candidate score the way this club scores?
- ACQ†
- 0–100: how gettable the seller looks, from points pace alone
- FIT
- value × need × style × acquirability — the shortlist order
Fine print · verbatim from the model
- on-ice fit only; not cap-validated
- acquirability is a PROXY (team points pace), not real availability; no contract/cap/AAV/term data exists.
- No real contract data (PuckPedia/CapWages are paid). Contract phase is an age/experience estimate; market visibility proxies what contracts pay for.
ANAAnaheim Ducks
Biggest need
Depth defense
-48team 39.2 vs league 87.3 · high
All needs · ranked
4 flagged01
Depth defensehigh
-4802
Bottom-6 forward depthhigh
-3903
Top-pair defensemanhigh
-1804
Top-6 forwardhigh
-13Best value fits
8 ranked · league board →| # | From | Player | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | CHIstats: UTA | Ian ColeD · +1.18Coming off a solid contributor season, brings a different stylistic profile (32/100) — and comes badly underpriced by the market. | 54 | +29.4 | UFA (est.) | 69/100 · model-est. |
| 2 | COL | Josh MansonD · +1.80Coming off a solid contributor season, brings a different stylistic profile (32/100) — and comes badly underpriced by the market. | 53 | +28.7 | UFA (est.) | 68/100 · model-est. |
| 3 | TBL | Charle-Edouard D'AstousD · +1.58Coming off a solid contributor season, brings a different stylistic profile (42/100) — and comes underpriced by the market. | 56 | +23.4 | UFA (est.) | 68/100 · model-est. |
| 4 | OTT | Artem ZubD · +1.37Coming off a solid contributor season, brings a different stylistic profile (59/100) — and comes underpriced by the market. | 57 | +20.2 | UFA (est.) | 68/100 · model-est. |
| 5 | OTT | Jordan SpenceD · +2.37Coming off a clear top-of-the-lineup season, brings a different stylistic profile (1/100) — and comes badly underpriced by the market. | 51 | +28.9 | RFA (est.) | 68/100 · model-est. |
| 6 | VGK | Jeremy LauzonD · +0.42Coming off a depth season, brings a different stylistic profile (59/100) — and comes underpriced by the market. | 54 | +23.3 | UFA (est.) | 67/100 · model-est. |
| 7 | PITstats: VGK | Kaedan KorczakD · +0.87Coming off a depth season, brings a different stylistic profile (25/100) — and comes badly underpriced by the market. | 48 | +32.9 | RFA (est.) | 67/100 · model-est. |
| 8 | COL | Brent BurnsD · +2.07Coming off a clear top-of-the-lineup season, brings a different stylistic profile (42/100) — and comes underpriced by the market. | 54 | +22.7 | UFA (est.) | 67/100 · model-est. |
◆ Value basis · No real contract data (PuckPedia/CapWages are paid). Contract phase is an age/experience estimate; market visibility proxies what contracts pay for.
Candidate fits · Depth defense
15 ranked| # | From | Player | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | OTT | Thomas ChabotD · 60.0Coming off a solid contributor season, brings a different stylistic profile (68/100). | +1.25 | 68 | 47 | AVERAGE FIT59/100 · model-est. |
| 2 | VGK | Rasmus AnderssonD · 58.1Coming off a solid contributor season, brings a different stylistic profile (68/100). | +1.79 | 68 | 48 | AVERAGE FIT58/100 · model-est. |
| 3 | UTA | +1.69 | 81 | 47 | AVERAGE FIT58/100 · model-est. | |
| 4 | OTT | Artem ZubD · 64.2Coming off a solid contributor season, brings a different stylistic profile (59/100) — and comes underpriced by the market. | +1.37 | 59 | 47 | AVERAGE FIT57/100 · model-est. |
| 5 | PHI | +0.49 | 77 | 50 | AVERAGE FIT57/100 · model-est. | |
| 6 | SJSstats: ANA | Jacob TroubaD · 51.3Coming off a solid contributor season, brings a different stylistic profile (68/100). | +1.09 | 68 | 54 | AVERAGE FIT57/100 · model-est. |
| 7 | DET | +1.02 | 81 | 52 | AVERAGE FIT57/100 · model-est. | |
| 8 | TBL | +0.31 | 81 | 44 | AVERAGE FIT57/100 · model-est. | |
| 9 | CGYstats: NJD | +0.51 | 81 | 55 | AVERAGE FIT57/100 · model-est. | |
| 10 | COL | Cale MakarD · 67.4Coming off a clear top-of-the-lineup season, brings a different stylistic profile (59/100) — and comes underpriced by the market. | +3.39 | 59 | 40 | AVERAGE FIT57/100 · model-est. |
| 11 | CHIstats: BUF | Bowen ByramD · 55.5Coming off a solid contributor season, brings a different stylistic profile (59/100). | +1.41 | 59 | 56 | AVERAGE FIT57/100 · model-est. |
| 12 | LAK | +0.38 | 77 | 52 | AVERAGE FIT56/100 · model-est. | |
| 13 | NSHstats: DAL | Ilya LyubushkinD · 32.5Coming off a below-replacement season, plays this club's style almost exactly (92/100). | -0.17 | 92 | 52 | AVERAGE FIT56/100 · model-est. |
| 14 | CAR | K'Andre MillerD · 75.1Coming off a clear top-of-the-lineup season, brings a different stylistic profile (42/100) — and comes underpriced by the market. | +2.10 | 42 | 45 | AVERAGE FIT56/100 · model-est. |
| 15 | EDM | +0.19 | 96 | 48 | AVERAGE FIT56/100 · model-est. |