underrated

Members
  • Content Count

    577
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

102 Good

About underrated

  • Rank
    Comets Star

Recent Profile Visitors

6,215 profile views
  1. I hear what you're saying about acquiring a top player but a few key things to consider. There are probably less than a handful of acquisitions this offseason that are exciting enough to get fans to buy tickets based on them adding to the roster. Karlsson re-signed, so that's not an option. Panarin would fit that category. Maybe Duchene but he doesn't really fit our biggest need. I don't think guys like Tyler Myers would really make a difference to ticket sales. So it's Panarin or bust. And Panarin isn't going to be $7 million/season, even if he would sign here, which is unlikely. He'd be over $10 million/year likely. Second, acquiring a guy like Clarkson who has insurance on his contract wouldn't actually cost more money. Some other players would cost money, and more than they're worth, but at the same time could still be contributors to the team in the meantime. Taking on Lucic is mostly a dud, but a guy like Marleau, Perreault or Neal could still add value short term. Third, you would hope the owner has a bit of delayed gratification and foresight during a rebuild. If the Canucks rebuild proves successful, there could be many years of deep playoff runs. That pays off big-time for an owner. I can't guarantee that making a trade using cap space would bring that added piece or two we need, but it sure does help a lot. I hear your point that if I was an owner, I wouldn't necessarily jump at the chance to pay a player $5-10 million over a couple years just because it could add an asset or two that may or may not help the rebuild long-term. I don't know how much the Canucks make or lose right now, which would be a factor. But an NHL owner is clearly invested in the success of a franchise more than anyone else, and some short term pain could go a long way, especially if the team is still making money during these down years.
  2. It has been mention on these boards how we'd love to see the Aquilini's willing to spend the cap in order to get us more future assets. I think Benning should be aggressive with this, and sell Francesco on the idea, promising how it will pay off in the long-run. I just want to throw out a few ideas of how we can do this. WHO NEEDS TO CREATE CAP SPACE? There are several teams who need to create cap space, and have some dead weight on their rosters. Benning should be reaching out to each team to see what asset he can acquire for taking a bad contract. Potentially Benning also offers some more affordable player as part of the deal in return, like Tanev or Sutter with 50% retained, or Hutton, Leivo or Goldobin. The important thing, in my opinion, is to try to only take on players who have 1-2 years left on their contract. We don't need the cap space for the next couple years, but after that we will be re-signing young players, potentially trying to sign a free agent, as well as likely dealing with a Luongo recapture penalty (on that note, we're better off if Luongo retires sooner rather than later unless he will play three more years which is unlikely). If we take on a player with 3+ years, I think we need to receive far more value back in return. Here is a list of the players who would likely be traded along with an asset by a team needing cap space. Some teams, like Ottawa or LA are rebuilding and likely wouldn't give up assets for contracts but I included the players anyways. 1-2 Years Remaining On Contract: David Clarkson (LTIR), Patrick Marleau, Ryan Callahan, Matthieu Perreault, Andrej Sekera, Ilya Kovalchuk, Marion Gaborik 3+ Years Remaining On Contract: Milan Lucic, James Neal, Andrew Ladd, David Backes, Ryan Kesler, Jeff Carter, Dustin Brown, Seabrook, Bryan Little, Bobby Ryan I'd like to see a deal like Andrej Sekera and a 2nd round pick (38th overall) for Goldobin JAMES NEAL? ONLY FOR THE PRIZE OF RASMUS ANDERSSON Offer to take James Neal from Calgary ONLY if they include Rasmus Andersson. If not, then don't take Neal. I wouldn't even take on Neal for the 26th overall pick in this draft. The trouble with Neal is that he has four years left on the deal, which is far longer than we want but he may actually be an effective veteran for us for the next couple years, plus get a good young right hand shot defenseman then likely try to trade Neal (or buy him out) in 2-3 years. USING SALARY CAP SPACE TO FACILITATE A SUBBAN TRADE WITH A THIRD TEAM There has been a lot of talk about a PK Subban trade this offseason. I definitely do NOT think the Canucks should go for him, however I think that many teams looking to trade for him may not have $9 million of cap space. This is where the Canucks could use their cap space and take on a contract and draft pick from the team that Subban is going to. The key would be for us to only take deals that have two or less years on them, as we will need that cap space in the future. For example, if Subban was traded to Toronto, we could take Marleau and/or Zaitsev, along with a sweetener in a deal so that the Leafs open up cap space. Or if he went to the Oilers we could take back Sekera or Gagner (lol), but not Lucic, along with a pick. Or if he was traded to Boston, we could take on Backes + extra value. TRADE WITH VEGAS Similar trades have been suggested before on these boards, but this one is worth repeating, IMO: To Vegas: Tanev (50% retained) To Vancouver: Colin Miller, David Clarkson (insured contract, on LTIR), 2nd round pick Vegas gets a veteran, playoff proven right hand defenseman at a great cap hit in Tanev at $2.2 million, while sending out $3.875 million (Miller) and $5.25 million (Clarkson) for cap purposes. Clarkson's contract is insured, so it doesn't cost the Aquilini's more actual money. The Canucks get a younger, healthier right hand d-man, a good second pairing guy, and a 2nd round pick in exchange for using our cap space that we don't need.
  3. Agreed. CDC freaks out if you ever suggest trading valuable assets, but also says that we shouldn't take on bad contracts. That's why the typical Raymond, Ballard and a 3rd proposals are suggested. If I was Benning, I'd definitely approach ownership to see if we could spend up to the cap for the next two years in order to get extra prospects. The key piece if I was Benning is that I'd avoid any bad contracts that are longer than two more years. So no Lucic. It's long-term that will hurt us, when we need to start re-signing young players, and want to sign free agents, and likely have a Luongo recapture penalty. It also gives us flexibility with the Seattle expansion draft rather than being stuck keeping guys like Lucic. A trade like Clarkson makes sense if we get value along with them.
  4. That would be a great trade. Get a younger RH defenseman and upgrade draft picks by taking on a contract. Is Clarkson insured? If so, it wouldn't even cost us money, just cap space. Seems like a win all the way around, as long as Vegas likes Tanev, and if Tanev can stay healthy.
  5. He had a down year, for sure. But he's 23 years old, has three straight 20 goal seasons, and had over 60 points in two seasons. I think the reason they're wanting to dump him is more to do with Myers, Connor and Laine needing to re-sign. I'd definitely try to get him if he's available.
  6. To Winnipeg: 2020 1st round pick (top 5 protected, then 2021 top 2 protected), Jake Virtanen To Vancouver: Nikolaj Ehlers, Matthew Perreault, conditional draft pick (2020 3rd rounder if the Canucks are in the lottery next year). Why for Vancouver: The Canucks add an elite potential young (23) left winger on a long-term (6 years) cost controlled contract of $6 million per year. He's the perfect player to complete the top line along with Petterson and Boeser. Giving up Virtanen and the 2020 1st is a high price, but the Canucks won't want to part with their 1st rounder this year, since it's 10th overall and the draft is in Vancouver. This would signify that the Canucks are taking a big step to start competing now and try to make the playoffs. A 1st rounder is always a bit of a gamble, so in return they get a much more proven young player. Perreault is a good veteran player with two more years on his deal at $4.125 million. His deal isn't a long-term problem for the Canucks, and Perreault will be a valuable veteran in the short term, and potential trade bait at the deadline or in another year. The conditional 2020 3rd round pick is some protection in case the Canucks end up giving Winnipeg a good 1st rounder next year. Getting Ehlers for six years is definitely worth the cost of a (non top 5) 2020 first rounder that may or may not pan out, and would likely take years to develop. Why for Winnipeg: As shown by the Trouba trade, the Jets are needing to create cap room. They need to re-sign Myers, Laine and Connor. This deal sends out over $10 million, while getting a developing young player with upside in Virtanen as well as a very valuable asset of a 1st round pick. This deal is in a similar vein to the Trouba deal of trading a young player for a 1st round pick and cap space. The Jets also get rid of Perreault's contract in this deal, which they want to shed. He's a decent player, but at $4 million per year he doesn't have much trade value and they want to find a taker. I'm sure many people will point to the fact that Ehlers had a terrible playoff run. I'd say that's the only reason we'd be able to get him in a deal, and this is our chance to pounce. Pairing him with elite talent like Petterson could be incredible and worth that risk. A good coach can help mature the young player to be more of a playoff performer in the future.
  7. If Calgary is willing to give up Rasmussen and a 2nd for taking on Neal, we absolutely jump on that deal in a heart beat.
  8. Thanks, I'm glad for the most part you think it's fair value. Your points about Columbus and Florida are totally true if those free agents leave Columbus. My ideas were based on if Columbus could re-sign at least a couple of them, and needed the cap room, as well as Bobrovsky going to Florida. Without a doubt, if Bob goes to Florida then these deals don't work. Tkachuk, Neal and Lindholm are all left wingers, are they not? Lindholm could be a center. I think right wing is the weak spot. I'd be willing to take a shot on Ehlers. I hear what you're saying about the playoffs, but his talent is good enough that he's worth putting on our top line with Petey and Brock. A 10th overall is unknown how good he will be
  9. TRADE #1 Trade right after Loui Eriksson's $4 million bonus is paid. To Columbus: Loui Eriksson (50% salary retained) To Vancouver: Brandon Dubinsky, Alexandre Texier Reasoning: Columbus will want to create as much cap room as possible, as well as save actual money to throw at Panarin, Bobrovsky, and Duchene. By doing this deal, they end up with Eriksson's $3 million cap hit for three more seasons, as well as much lower actual dollar cost. They lose Dubinsky's $5.85 cap hit for two more seasons, again freeing up cap space for those two years as well as actual money spent. The other win of the deal here for Columbus is that Eriksson is a better player than Dubinsky right now, so they end up with less cap hit and a player for their third line. For the Canucks, they exchange short term cap space in order to free up the extra year of Eriksson's contract, as well as adding a mid-level prospect. Texier is a 2017 second round pick who can play left wing or center. He's a good addition to the prospect pool. Dubinsky's contract is a year shorter than Eriksson's (even though we will still have a $3mil cap hit that final year) which is a big win for the Canucks as that is about the time the Canucks will want the cap space to start adding good players and re-signing young ones. It also makes the Seattle expansive draft more manageable. Instead of having a cap hit of $6 million for Eriksson for three years, we pay $8.85 for Dubinsky and half of Eriksson for two years in order to open up $3 million in cap space in that third season, as well as gain a prospect in Texier. Dubinsky can fill in as a veteran leader-type, who is good on draws and play our third or fourth line center role til his contract expires. TRADE #2 To Florida: Jacob Markstrom, Markus Granlund, Chris Tanev (50% retained), 2019 3rd rounder To Vancouver: Roberto Luongo, 13th overall pick *potentially predicated on Markstrom signing and extension with them before the deal goes through. Reasoning: I totally understand it's very strange for two players to be traded for each other twice. However this works for both teams. Florida wants to start winning now, and they need to turn the corner. Markstrom had a great last year, and is the right age for their core. Luongo and Reimer have both not been starting goalie caliber. The Canucks also get more of a sense of control over the potential recapture penalty for Luongo. Lou comes back as a fan favourite (important during rebuilding years to give the fans positive storylines). Lou can split time with Demko, and be a mentor. The Canucks also get value for Tanev, but he's needed as a right hand shot second pairing veteran defenseman for the Panthes. Leivo is included as they could use another right winger, and they hope he takes another step in development. Clearly this is mostly about the Canucks getting the 13th overall pick, and either packaging the two picks to move up, or drafting to potentially good players. Is this a deal where the Canucks package together for a good asset, yes. I think it's still realistic because it helps Florida in goal, it helps them on defense, helps them up front, and gives them a draft pick in return. TRADE #3 I know in division trades are fairly rare and trading young players is risky To Calgary: Jake Virtanen To Vancouver: Rasmus Andersson Both players are around the same age, and have proven similar amounts in the NHL. The reason for this trade is that Calgary has a lot of depth on defense, currently and prospects. Virtanen could be a good fit up front for Calgary, plus he was a Calgary Hitmen which doesn't mean a lot but can't hurt. Andersson is a right hand shot defensemen who fits more of a need for the Canucks. Both have similar current capabilities, similar ceiling's and similar ages. It's mostly a positional hockey trade. Maybe draft picks could be added to equal it out a bit. TRADE #4 Not sure if they would accept this trade, as they are in win-now mode, but I'd see if Winnipeg is looking for cap space and if they're willing to sell Ehlers. To Vancouver: Nikolaj Ehlers To Winnipeg: 10th overall pick, Josh Leivo This deal gives Winnipeg cap space, as well as a quality high draft pick, in exchange for Ehlers who is young and talented but also hasn't emerged as a truly elite player. The Canucks hope that pairing his talent with Petterson is a much safer acquisition than a draft pick which may take a few years to develop and also isn't guaranteed to pan out. Leivo also fits the roster as an affordable young-ish player who can step up. Ehlers is signed long-term at $6 million so we know what to expect for roster construction going forward. Re-sign Edler for 2 years at $6-6.5 million a year Draft (#13 from Florida): Victor Soderstrom Ehlers - Petterson - Boeser Baerstchi/Pearson - Horvat - Gaudette/Goldobin Baerstchi/Pearson - Dubinsky - Sutter Roussell - Beagle - Spooner Edler - Stecher Hughes - Andersson Hutton - Luongo - Demko Overall we added Ehlers and Andersson while only moving down three places in the draft. In response, I'd like to hear you list the four trades, and say if you think the deal is fair, or who won the trade.
  10. I agree about the differences of sports, but your conclusion still leads me to believe that trading down makes sense in both sports. In the NFL it may be to get more players for certain positions you want. In the NHL it's because it's a crapshoot, so you might as well have quantity. It would be really interesting if a team went all out with the trade down one approach for a year or two. Canucks won't, especially cause the draft is here, but if the draft truly is a crapshoot, then even if you don't trade them for more developed players, you might as well move down and get a larger pool of people for higher odds at success.
  11. When I was looking through mynhldraft.net to compared #2 picks with #8 and #10 picks, it really hit me just how much of a crapshoot the draft is. I understand that building through the draft is important because they come on Entry Level Contract's, but I'm wondering if a way better strategy to rebuilding is trading those high draft picks for players around 22-25 years old, when you know who pans out and who doesn't. What made me really think most about this, is look at the 2012 draft. It was particularly bad, but this is about the length of time that we really know if people pan out or not. Of the 30 picks, I'd say there are only 2 top players (Morgan Reilly, 5th overall, Vasilevski, 19th overall). There are a handful of good, but not elite players, like Galchenyuk (#3), Lindholm (#6), Dumba (#7), Trouba (#9), Filip Forsberg (#11 - best of this category), Hertl (#17), Teravainen (#18). There were a few other average NHLer's. The top two picks of Yakupov and Murray were busts (Murray is okay, but not #2 material). Even looking at the Canucks, we clearly won the lottery with Pettersson at #5, but also picked Juolevi at #5. Think of what type of NHLer we could have got for that 5th overall pick in a trade?
  12. I don't see him waiving his NTC to go to Ottawa, but I could see him doing it for Vancouver based on recent comments
  13. I'm probably in the minority here, but I think I'd slightly rather 8th and 10th overall than Jack Hughes. On a team level, we already have our #1 and #2 centermen in Petey and Bo. How does Jack fit in? Maybe we slot Pettersson on the wing long term? Do we move Bo down to third line center for our attempt at Crosby, Malkin, Staal (which they eventually traded because it was too expensive). Having too many centerman is a great problem, but if we're making a massive move, and it's not even an area of need, then it might not make sense. Also, Hughes would have to be truly elite (like near McDavid) to warrant two top ten picks plus a young player in return. 8th overall and 10th overall combined has a ton of value. Using the Sports Analytics chart shown earlier in this thread, 8th and 10th overall is 1200 points, compared to 2nd worth 871. It's an interesting look at previous recent draft picks of #2 vs #8 and #10. My opinions: 2018 - #2 Andrei Svechnikov > #8 Adam Boqvist & #10 Evan Bouchard (might be too early to fairly compare as defenseman often take longer to make the NHL) 2017 - #2 Nolan Patrick < #8 Casey Middlestadt & #10 Owen Tippett (I'd likely take Middlestadt alone over Patrick) 2016 - #2 Patrick Laine > #8 Alex Nylander & #10 Tyson Jost (Although Laine is trending the wrong direction recently) 2015 - #2 Jack Eichel < #8 Zach Werenski & #10 Mikko Rantanen (All three are great players, and Eichel is fantastic however personally I'd prefer Rantanen and Werenski over Eichel on my roster since it's two very good players instead of one. Rantanen has become elite in his own right) 2014 - #2 Sam Reinhardt < #8 William Nylander & #10 Nick Ritchie (Nylander along is the best player of the three) Some years I'd rather the #2 pick, some years, I'd rather the #8 & #10 overall. But overall I think #8 and #10 is more successful. Even the years I gave to the #2, there are question marks. Laine seems to having issues in Winnipeg, and can be streaky. And for 2018 Boqvist and Bouchard could both still be great but it's just too early to tell. I just think having two potential elite guys has such a higher floor (less risk) than having one player. If that top guy doesn't pan out, then it's trouble. Maybe this year Hughes and Kakko are so far above the rest that it's a year that it's worth making that move. Time will tell. In your scenario, it would mean taking on Lucic's salary, giving up the #8 and #10, and Virtanen. That's a huge price to pay for Hughes unless he ends up a top 5 NHLer. I wouldn't be upset at all if Benning did it, but personally I'd do the Oilers trade but not the Rangers one.
  14. I'd do that deal. The big risk is the 2020 pick, especially if the Canucks struggle next year. But in my opinion, the top two guys are head and shoulders above the rest in this draft, so if you can move up then go for it. If not, might be worth trading down, cause the talent different between #10 and #20 isn't all that much.
  15. I don't think that's overpaying. Markstrom only has one year left on his deal. Hutton is realisticall a second or third pairing d-man. So they'd have to see huge value in Virtanen for Buffalo to go for this. Nylander has first line potential and they just gave up a first round pick for Montour. Buffalo still says no, in my opinion.