goblix

Members
  • Content count

    1,932
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

679 Esteemed

About goblix

Recent Profile Visitors

4,077 profile views
  1. Edmonton would want a good puckmoving or offensive d-man.. I could see them putting a package up for Barrie in Colorado... Canucks don't have any player close to that regard. Maybe if Edmonton was desperate they'd do Hutton for their 2nd though... Maybe add a small capdump coming back.
  2. Would be cool to have kolvy around goldy. May be another enticing comrade to reign in tryamkin back to the NHL as well. Term would have to be between 1-3 years tho
  3. Whilst I agree to your point in general... this team is chalked full of top 9 tweeners. I think we already know what Baertschi is and that is easily replaceable... I mean Leipsic has shown well in the 3 games as a replacement. It's fine to be a top 9 tweener but on our team we need to keep swinging for homers instead of sticking with singles so to speak thus I would trade futures for Baertschi and take a chance with some college UFAs because they are younger (likely 22) and are more of an unknown quantity in terms of upside. Brickley is one of top names thrown out there that would be ideal in a Canucks uniform.. Offensive style LHD blueliner which we all know we need. Signing Brickley would likely make Hutton and/or Del Zotto expendable for next season.
  4. Draft Poser-Proposals(Discussion)

    Florida would not offer that... Ekblad is a bonafide #1 in the league and is young and on a decent contract for the next 6 years. canucks would be foolish to pass that down alongside 2 firsts, and a contract dump... That said Dahlin is a very special prospect and I doubt there will be any team willing to put the assets on the table to woo the Canucks in trading that away.
  5. if ottawa is packaging Ryan in a Karlson trade they are not going to take salary back the whole point of it is so they wouldn't be spending that money. from our perspective we have a ton of cap so maybe we could fit that all into our structure but that's alot of potential issues when our Boesers, Pettersons and Gaudettes. I'd rather utilized our cap structure within the next 2 years to take on bad contracts with term to affect only those 2 years and accumulate assets that way
  6. [Trade] Ian Cole to Columbus

    Think I'd rather have Biega than Ian Cole...
  7. (waivers) Burrows

    I wouldn't mind picking Burrows back up even for his 2.5m. If we have a young team next year, we could use him in a limited PK / checking role.
  8. Trading Loui Eriksson (Proposals)

    There is a specific period where teams can buyout the player. But nonetheless it would take account the full salary of the player for the year. Buyout Period The buyout period begins the later of June 15 or 48 hours after the Stanley Cup Final ends. It concludes on June 30 at 5 pm EST. capfriendly is the best tool out there. https://www.capfriendly.com/buyout-faq
  9. Trading Loui Eriksson (Proposals)

    I understand the disdain on the contract because he is making 6m but at this point in time that 6m doesn't hurt this team so I'm don't really understand the need to move from Erickson at this moment. Erickson is not a bad player. He does a lot of things that a young team just can't do or can't be depended on doing. PK is a big one, defensive two-way ability is another. I'm not saying he's worth his contract but I'm saying in dis-regarding his 6m cap hit, he's still a useful player. Couple things i'm liking on his contract though is in how its laid out: Year 1: 8m (NMC) Year 2: 8m (NMC) Year 3: 7m (NTC) Year 4: 5m (NTC) Year 5: 4m (M-NTC) Year 6: 4m (M-NTC) The NMC is over after this year, which is important due to the fact Seattle is coming in with a similar expansion rule-set. We will not be forced to protect Erickson. The contract changes to a M-NTC in Year 5 which makes it a little easier to trade Erickson and his 4m salary with 6m cap hit might just be intriguing to cap floor teams.. Retaining 2-3m for 2 years might be fine in our cap structure then but my hope/guess is we'd be paying our big ticket prospects. So Plan A hope Seattle takes him at expansion or see what they would want to take that contract. Plan B we try to move out in the 2020-2021 season.
  10. your crazy... if your not satisfied with edmonton's prospect pool then you don't make a trade with them unless of course their 1rst rounder comes into play into 2018 then there's a talking point lol. That said there's always good prospects out there. For Edmonton, I'd gladly take either of Yamamoto or Pulujarvi and to a lesser value Benson, I'm sure there are other prospects that our scouts would know about and have ranked pretty high as well. Yet again there are better trade partners than Edmonton, while they could use a steady puck mover guy like Tanev (like any team could use) they'd be better suited to get a more offensive PP type of guy. My guess is they make a pitch for Tyson Barrie in the off season or if they double down on Erik Karlson but I think it'd be hard to juggle McDavid + Draisaitl + Karlson contacts in a cap world
  11. Rumour - Larry Brooks - Max Domi

    We’ve seen games like that before. What we haven’t seen is consistency. i agree though Virtanen is a project you keep on because his speed and size packaged together can’t be taught and is hard to find.
  12. Well if he's deployed as a shutdown pairing and the penalty kill then he should be getting a ton of minutes but he has the lowest average on our team besides Biega. If you look at Tanev he's easily a top 4 dman and obviously our best defensive defenseman, I have no expectations from him other than to break up plays and to transition the puck the other way. I expect the same for Gudbranson and I believe where we differ in our opinions. You think he does a decent enough job and I think he does a mediocre job at defensive play. Like I said if he signs for 2 years then sure I'm fine with his signing there is little risk to that on our team. 4-6 years is where risk is involved. Let's bring up Erickson as an example. I like Louie in general, i think he gets a lot of flak for not putting up points and while it is warranted, he does bring a lot of worthwhile defensive attributes to the team. That said the 6 years is what is killer. Paying a player 6m in a forward role you need him to put up points if this is a short term deal you can live with the mistake but with 4 more years it could really handcuff the team when ELC contracts come up and players need to be paid or our ability to pick up a UFA target when the time is right. With that mindset going in if you are paying Guddy 4-5m you are expecting him to play Top 4 minutes, at this current time he is playing around 17-18 minutes a game which is not Top 4 minutes. So you can make the case that you think he will become a top 4 dman and for 1 or 2 years you can make a gamble like that but 4+ years it could really handcuff the team when contracts need to be paid. I just have not seen enough to pay him for that much and that long but maybe you have /shrug. we need upgrades in all of our defensive departments I mean if a player is only good when they have an elite pairing partner then maybe that player is just not that good. That said it's shocking how bad panthers got when they got rid of Guddy and their coach. Maybe he was comfortable there and just never settled in here, I'm not saying he's a bad player but in my opinion he's not a good long term option for this team and definitely not worth the price tag he's going to command.
  13. Ignoring term and dollars I can understand that. I'd probably want the 2nd anyways personally But yeah as you said, he is not a permanent top 4 yet... And whilst he may become one but you can't pay him like it when he hasn't shown it in the 3 years here.