Kassassin213 Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 This is my first post so bear with me. 1) Lack, Hansen and the rights to Weber to San Jose for Brent Burns. Reasoning - San Jose needs a goalie and wants to get younger. We have an extra goalie and get to upgrade our defense. 2) Tanev, Higgins and Jensen and our 2015 second round pick to Chicago for Seabrook and Bickell. Reasoning - Chicago is in cap hell so we offer cheaper parts that see almost as good and the pick to offset the difference. 3) Bieksa, Bickell, Vey and our first round pick to Toronto for JVR. Reasoning - I hate to get rid of Bieksa but Toronto needs leadership and the need center help. Bickell helps to offset the loss of JVR and the first helps the rebuild. Lineup Sedin Sedin Kassian JVR Horvat Vrbata Dorsett Bonino Burrows Kenins Gaunce Archibald Baertschi Edler Seabrook Hamhuis Burns Sbisa Corrado Stanton Clendenning Miller Markstrom Should fit cap wise (miss Cap Geek). What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gstank29 Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 All over payment by us thrid one is under payment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BI3KSA- Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 All over payment by us How is the second one overpayment by us? No way Chicago says yes to that. Edit: Come to think of it, none of these are overpayments by us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 While all slightly overpaid, we also do not have the ability as an org to go plunging head first in to that kind of trading spree. Haven't since 92-93 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gstank29 Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 How is the second one overpayment by us? No way Chicago says yes to that. Edit: Come to think of it, none of these are overpayments by us. Seabrooke is a UFA next year Edit: also chicago doesn't have their 2015 1st Oops I meant to write underpayment on the third one, o well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kassassin213 Posted May 20, 2015 Author Share Posted May 20, 2015 I edited the picks in the Chicago and Toronto trades. I think that is good value for the Blackhawks as they overpaid Bickell and can't afford to keep Seabrook. Higgins produces about the same as Bickell, is better on the PK and is 1.5 million cheaper. Tanev is not as good as Seabrook but is signed long term to a reasonable cap hit and is younger. Jensen gives them another cheap, young winger who may or may not be able to step into their lineup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laxgoalie Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 All over payment underpayments by us thrid one is under payment There fixed it for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manroth19 Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Why would sj trade burns for scrubs and torono wants to rebuild so now way they take older players then jvr and chicago trades their cap dumps for picks/prospects so all three are stupid and dont make any sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Monahan Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 The SJ trade seems to be underpayment on our part. I don't know about the Chicago trade but considering they have huge cap problems and seabrook is a UFA in a year you might get them to talk. And we don't have a 2015 2nd... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kassassin213 Posted May 20, 2015 Author Share Posted May 20, 2015 What if we add Sbisa to the SJ trade? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Monahan Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 What if we add Sbisa to the SJ trade? Maybe. They needed help on the left side last year which is why they went and acquired Brendan Dillon. Sbisa may be a little bit redundant in their eyes with Dillon having been acquired. I could be wrong but I think they're looking for a puck mover to replace the departed dan Boyle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyhee Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 This is my first post so bear with me. 1) Lack, Hansen and the rights to Weber to San Jose for Brent Burns. Reasoning - San Jose needs a goalie and wants to get younger. We have an extra goalie and get to upgrade our defense. 2) Tanev, Higgins and Jensen and our 2015 second round pick to Chicago for Seabrook and Bickell. Reasoning - Chicago is in cap hell so we offer cheaper parts that see almost as good and the pick to offset the difference. 3) Bieksa, Bickell, Vey and our first round pick to Toronto for JVR. Reasoning - I hate to get rid of Bieksa but Toronto needs leadership and the need center help. Bickell helps to offset the loss of JVR and the first helps the rebuild. Lineup Sedin Sedin Kassian JVR Horvat Vrbata Dorsett Bonino Burrows Kenins Gaunce Archibald Baertschi Edler Seabrook Hamhuis Burns Sbisa Corrado Stanton Clendenning Miller Markstrom Should fit cap wise (miss Cap Geek). What do you think? 1. These transactions would put the Canucks in cap trouble. The deals have more pieces going than come back. Vancouver is short of cap space to fill out the roster even within the system. Replacing current players with fewer players with higher cap hits may fit under the cap now but leave the Canucks no room whatsoever to fill out the roster. Lack/Hansen/Weber are all roster players and replacing them with one player whose cap hit is more than the three of them combined would put the Canucks in cap hell. According to generalfanager.com Canucks currently have 5 NHL defencemen signed for next season at a total hit of $22.15 million, 2 goalies for a total hilt of $7.15 million and 10 forwards at $35,694,166. They also have $800,000 retained on the Luongo deal . I think they also have some bonus money on Horvat but that isn't shown so I'll leave it out. Assuming a cap of $71.5 million for next season (Bettman's most recent prediction as far as I've seen) that leaves the Canucks about $6 million to fill in 6 spots in the roster to get the roster to 23 players. The total of your moves is as follows: Delete: Lack $1.15 mill Hansen $2.5 mill Weber currently RFA Tanev $4.45 mill Higgins $2.5 mill Jensen (not with Canucks) 2nd round pick we don't have Bieksa $4.6 mill Vey (currently RFA) Total deleted from signed players: 5 players, $15.2 million Total added: Burns $5.76 million Seabrook $5.8 million JVR $4.25 million Total added 3 players, $15.81 million That would leave 17-5+3 = 15 players signed for a total of about $65.5 mill -$15.2 mill + $15.81 mill ~$66.1 million. Again assuming a 2015-16 cap of $71.5 million, that leaves the Canucks $5.4 million to fill in EIGHT roster spots. 2. Canucks don't have a 2015-2nd to trade. Canucks' 2nd rounder this season went to Calgary in the Baertschi trade. 3. It is hard for me to see SJ trading Burns for what you've indicated. They have other options to get a goalie and the other pieces aren't necessary for them. 4. Imo Canucks primary need at forward is for a center, not another LW, though I note you're also trading away a LW. I have some other misgivings about values and fit going each way but they aren't too serious. 5. There are of course some NTC/limited NTC issues that would have to be dealt with. The most serious is Bieksa. Notwithstanding his Ontario roots it would be very surprising to me to see him waive to move to the Leafs, an organization in turmoil. I suspect the other clauses limiting trades could be dealt with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 @OP, It was a pretty good first stab, but Tyhee laid out the shortcomings. In general, you probably need more youth(less mileage) coming back. At 2nd glance, like that you've moved some vets who need moving. Too many RH-D tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kassassin213 Posted May 20, 2015 Author Share Posted May 20, 2015 Thank you Tyhee. I thought we had more cap space. I appreciate the time and effort you put into that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slappipappi Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 I I think that is good value for the Blackhawks as they overpaid Bickell and can't afford to keep Seabrook. Chicago can, and will, afford Seabrook. And if they decided to trade him, 29 other teams would line up and offer huge stuff for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kassassin213 Posted May 21, 2015 Author Share Posted May 21, 2015 If the cap stays the same Chicago has 6 million to spend but only has 3 defence men and 7 forwards under contract. That means that they need at least 10 more players. Now some might be cheap young talent from their farm team but they got a lot of holes. Getting Tanev for Seabrook helps and dumping Bickell does too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BI3KSA- Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 If the cap stays the same Chicago has 6 million to spend but only has 3 defence men and 7 forwards under contract. That means that they need at least 10 more players. Now some might be cheap young talent from their farm team but they got a lot of holes. Getting Tanev for Seabrook helps and dumping Bickell does too 1) Cap wont stay the same 2) If they need to move cap (they will) its not going to be Seabrook. The guy is a beast, and one of the most underrated defensemen in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.