Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

AriGold

[Proposal] Offseason Canucks moves

17 posts in this topic

Offseason trades, signings, re-signings etc.. Can't wait to get this hate lol..

Ryane Clowe - 3 x 4.5M

David Clarkson - 3 x 4.5M

Joe Corvo - 2 x 2M

Boyd Gordon - 3 x 1.25M

Colton Orr - 1 x 1M

Jason Labarbera - 1 x 1M

John Scott - 1 x 750K

* this isn't done for positions so don't get bent out of shape if somebody is on the wrong wing.

Sedin - Sedin - Burrows

Clarkson - Kesler - Clowe

Higgins - Couturier - Hansen

Orr - Gordon - Kassian

Garrison - Hamhuis

Bieksa - Corrado

Tanev - Corvo

Scott

Schneider

Labarbera

Re-Sign Chris Tanev 3 x 2.5M

Buyout David Booth, Trade Ballard for anything ( there will be some teams who will want him ).

Trade Luongo for a lesser value because we will have to. I still think Florida is the right destination.

Let Roy, Raymond, Lapierre and Malholtra walk.

Trade Alex Edler to Philly for Sean Couturier + Philly 2nd 2013

CAPGEEK.COM USER GENERATED ROSTER

My Custom Lineup

FORWARDS

Daniel Sedin ($6.100m) / Henrik Sedin ($6.100m) / Alexandre Burrows ($4.500m)

Ryane Clowe ($4.500m) / Ryan Kesler ($5.000m) / David Clarkson ($4.500m)

Chris Higgins ($2.500m) / Sean Couturier ($1.375m) / Jannik Hansen ($1.350m)

Colton Orr ($1.000m) / Boyd Gordon ($1.250m) / Zack Kassian ($0.870m)

DEFENSEMEN

Jason Garrison ($4.600m) / Dan Hamhuis ($4.500m)

Kevin Bieksa ($4.600m) / Chris Tanev ($0.851m)

Joe Corvo ($2.000m) / Frank Corrado ($0.599m)

John Scott ($0.750m) /

GOALTENDERS

Cory Schneider ($4.000m)

Jason Labarbera ($1.000m)

CAPGEEK.COM TOTALS (follow @capgeek on Twitter)

(these totals are compiled with the bonus cushion)

SALARY CAP: $64,300,000; CAP PAYROLL: $61,844,944; BONUSES: $450,000

CAP SPACE (21-man roster): $2,905,056

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the moves but I think Clowe might want a bit more and same goes for Clarkson. Im a big fan of the Edler trade if theyd do it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Clarkson would get more, and we should trade Bieksa far before we trade Edler.

Also, realistically, I think we are going to have a hard time attracting all those free agents.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Clarkson would get more, and we should trade Bieksa far before we trade Edler.

Also, realistically, I think we are going to have a hard time attracting all those free agents.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With that cap space I'd bump Clarkson up to 5 million and give Clowe 500K more. Pretty nasty lookin line up

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Clarkson would get more, and we should trade Bieksa far before we trade Edler.

Also, realistically, I think we are going to have a hard time attracting all those free agents.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think wed only be able to land one of Clowe/Clarkson

Edit: 4.5 each might do it, depends how badly others want him

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really love how mean that 2nd line is.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like a pretty great lineup, only thing is the total cap space; I tried putting it in myself and came a lot closer; I got 63,549,444 as my cap hit. Did you retain any of Edler's / Couturier's contract in the trade?

Edit: I found it. You still have Tanev on his entry level contract.

Might be hard to pick up both Clowe and Clarkson, but if we did that 2nd line could be insane.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree Edler is better than Bieksa.

But why go down to Tanev as your best RHD? Look where we are at already when Bieksa or Tanev goes down. In the grand scheme of things trading Edler makes way more sense. Plus it won't get the same return...

As for the OP post; Do we need Clowe and Clarkson? I'd settle, gloating, if we even got Clarkson! By NEXT year we might finally get what we want out of Kassian? You might be right and we need more depth size, but I'd be happy with Torres for less than Clowe. We have bigger priorities. Do we not need to do a better job moving the puck out of our end and from the offensive blue line?

That is where our offence dies!

I have the same conclusion I had last year. Rather than loading great depth on D; we need the one difference maker who can move the puck and control the play. Edler. a 2knd and Lou for Campbell and Bjugstad. Drop the 2knd, I'd take Campbell and Shore!

I think Clarkson would get more, and we should trade Bieksa far before we trade Edler.

Also, realistically, I think we are going to have a hard time attracting all those free agents.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree Edler is better than Bieksa.

But why go down to Tanev as your best RHD? Look where we are at already when Bieksa or Tanev goes down. In the grand scheme of things trading Edler makes way more sense. Plus it won't get the same return...

As for the OP post; Do we need Clowe and Clarkson? I'd settle, gloating, if we even got Clarkson! By NEXT year we might finally get what we want out of Kassian? You might be right and we need more depth size, but I'd be happy with Torres for less than Clowe. We have bigger priorities. Do we not need to do a better job moving the puck out of our end and from the offensive blue line?

That is where our offence dies!

I have the same conclusion I had last year. Rather than loading great depth on D; we need the one difference maker who can move the puck and control the play. Edler. a 2knd and Lou for Campbell and Bjugstad. Drop the 2knd, I'd take Campbell and Shore!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not happy with a natural left D as our top right side guy, followed by a 180 lb defensive specialist and a rookie!

In today's context Garrison is fine as a defensive stopper and has a nice shot. He knocks Bieksa back a pairing if he plays right side; but Edler and Bieksa are a bit too loose to be good together. So then you elevate Corrado or Tanev, now you have Edler or Bieksa plus Ballard wasted on 3rd and 4th pairings. Plus we are missing a mobile puck rushing D to have all key skills in our tool box. Add it up; the talents don't compliment each other to create a complete unit.

I made that point at the start of the year, nothing has changed! Moving Bieksa further robs from where we lack depth.

It equals a first round exit team again, 2knd if we're lucky.

Complimenting, not changing, our top forwards is viable. We still have 3 potential all stars.

Our D, despite talent, is what needs a shake up for us to progress. I move from where we have depth; Edler!

Garrison

Tanev

Corrado

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not happy with a natural left D as our top right side guy, followed by a 180 lb defensive specialist and a rookie!

In today's context Garrison is fine as a defensive stopper and has a nice shot. He knocks Bieksa back a pairing if he plays right side; but Edler and Bieksa are a bit too loose to be good together. So then you elevate Corrado or Tanev, now you have Edler or Bieksa plus Ballard wasted on 3rd and 4th pairings. Plus we are missing a mobile puck rushing D to have all key skills in our tool box. Add it up; the talents don't compliment each other to create a complete unit.

I made that point at the start of the year, nothing has changed! Moving Bieksa further robs from where we lack depth.

It equals a first round exit team again, 2knd if we're lucky.

Complimenting, not changing, our top forwards is viable. We still have 3 potential all stars.

Our D, despite talent, is what needs a shake up for us to progress. I move from where we have depth; Edler!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we disagree...

We've gone years with only Bieksa as a viable RHD who can score. Also our only D who drops the mitts. Tanev is awesome, but does not score or pose any offensive threat. Corrado has some of that, but is (as mentioned) a rookie. And while he will fight, those I saw him in in junior, he lost. Don't see that being something he can offer till down the track. Bieksa, luvable turnover that he is, offers a lot which is not offered by our other D.

I'm pretty sure you were amongst those satisfied, if not enthused, by our D coming into the season? How did you feel about our D in these play off's so far?

I am more confident in Tanev as a 2nd pair guy than I am Bieksa quite honestly. And Corrado is clearly ready to play on this team, he brings the grit we lose in Bieksa, I look at him developing as a guy who is a cross of both Bieksa and Tanev (Bieksa's grip and two way game with Tanev's reliability, poise and smarts)

Tanev is ready to play with Edler, Garrison on the right side in better than Bieksa on any side and Corrado is more than ready to be on the third pair.

Bieksa is awful, we might aswell trade him and unload that cap space while we can get a good, useful return on him. That would help us transition.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we disagree...

We've gone years with only Bieksa as a viable RHD who can score. Also our only D who drops the mitts. Tanev is awesome, but does not score or pose any offensive threat. Corrado has some of that, but is (as mentioned) a rookie. And while he will fight, those I saw him in in junior, he lost. Don't see that being something he can offer till down the track. Bieksa, luvable turnover that he is, offers a lot which is not offered by our other D.

I'm pretty sure you were amongst those satisfied, if not enthused, by our D coming into the season? How did you feel about our D in these play off's so far?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.