saw234 Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 The idea behind this proposal is not to put us unrealistically into contention for a Cup next year, but it gives us a way to shed unwanted aging cap hits and allow some youth to make the jump without compromising the competitiveness of the team in the short term. We first off would have no intention to re-sign Matthias and Richardsom, thus making them UFAs this summer. We would, however, tender qualifying offers to Vey, Kenins, Weber, Stanton, Markstrom, Baertschi, Clendening, Corrado, Andersson and Friesen. Those transactions can take place at any point in the summer as they are all RFAs. At or prior to Draft Day, we would complete 3 trades. To Vancouver: SJ 1st To San Jose: Miller, 1st San Jose with the press conference introducing Peter DeBoer stated that they want to win now. With Niemi being a UFA and not having strong showings for them of late, they can turn to a reliable, proven veteran in Miller. Their 1st isn't completely diminished as they simply drop back in the draft thus letting them pick up a solid prospect along with solving their goaltending woes. Vancouver picks up a top 10 pick and solves the crowded crease dilemna. To Vancouver: Greening, 2nd, 5th To Ottawa: Bieksa Ottawa adds a veteran physical presence to their defence that can certainly use some leadership. Bieksa provides those and I believe the prospect of going to an up and coming team like Ottawa that ran such a cinderella season last year could entice Bieksa to waive his NTC. Vancouver gains draft picks, takes Greening off the books for Ottawa after he has asked for a trade and makes space on the blueline which will be important later in this proposal. To Vancouver: NYI 1st To Buffalo: Hamhuis, Greening Buffalo has said that they are willing to take calls on their later 1st round pick considering that they will have Eichel at 2nd Overall. Vancouver offers them a veteran defenceman in Hamhuis who just came off a gold medal with Team Canada where he held a major role and bolsters their weak blueline. They also take young LW Greening who would fit in nicely with their young group that will be able to develop and grow together.Vancouver collects a second 1st round pick. At the Draft, for the 1st Round we target the following with the following picks. 9th Overall-Provorov, Barzal, Zacha, Crouse 21st Overall-DeBrusk, Chabot, Meloche, Dergachev, Kylington, Juulsen Free Agency: With having cleared quite a bit of cap space at the Draft with the departures of Miller, Bieksa and Hamhuis, Vancouver aims to target defencemen with the goal of having as many as 11 NHL calibre defenders. Sign McQuaid-3 years at 3.5 million per-1 way Sign Colaiacovo-2 years at 1 million per-2 way Sign Pardy-2 years at 900,000 per- 2 way With those transactions that gives us on defence: Edler, Tanev, McQuaid, Colaiacovo, Weber, Sbisa, Pardy, Stanton, Corrado, Clendening as NHL calibre defensemen. Our line up could look like: Sedin Sedin Vrbata Higgins Bonino Burrows Kenins Horvat Kassian Hansen Shinkaruk/Cassels Dorsett Baertschi Shinkaruk/Cassels Vey Edler Tanev McQuaid Colaiacovo Weber Sbisa Pardy Stanton =Clendening, Corrado Lack Markstrom Another interesting possibility would be to target Toffoli with an offer sheet since the Kings will be handcuffed by their cap and need defencemen more than ever with losing Voynov, Regehr and possibly Sekera. He would fill in the Center slot that would be battled for. What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Monahan Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 You're over-valuing bieksa and under-valuing hamhuis IMO. Also, a two-way contract doesn't effect waiver eligibility (which I'm thinking you think is the case?) and Shinkaruk isn't a centre while Toffoli isn't natural there. I do like the idea of giving Toffoli an offer sheet though, if the cap permitted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saw234 Posted May 29, 2015 Author Share Posted May 29, 2015 Thank you for the clarification on the waiver eligibility, that is what I was trying to accomplish. Shinkaruk could compete for a spot in his position just the same without much change, I was looking at a page that had him listed as a C. The reasoning I had with the Bieksa trade was that we would be taking Greening. That way Ottawa already is happy with being able to deal him and then taking on a defenceman that fills a void for them. Win-Win for them at that point. The picks are to balance it out but it could always have the 5th removed. With the Hamhuis trade, what do you think would be fair value returning without changing the currently existing proposal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil_314 Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 You had me until you included Hammer in the Buffalo deal. I'm not sure that he'd want to go to a rebuilding team as a pending UFA. I think he'd likely go as a deadline rental to a contender and bring back a strong return (1st and prospect) if he gets traded, not to a bottomed-out team (yes they'll have Eichel and many solid pieces but not sure he'd want to play for a rebuilding squad). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Monahan Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 I see the Sekera trade at this past deadline as being fairly comparable to a possible hamhuis trade, as I believe others here on cdc do as well. The trade netted Carolina a 1st and a solid prospect in McKeown. As phil said too, if hamhuis will waive it'll likely be to more of a contending team. Colorado needs left handed d men I believe, and could very well be back in the playoff picture next year. That's just spitballing though, I'm sure there's lots of teams that would love to acquire hamhuis. The issue is getting him to waive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saw234 Posted May 29, 2015 Author Share Posted May 29, 2015 That is a good point about the lack of enticement that there may be for Hamhuis to go to Buffalo. I'd feel like that is a piece that Buffalo would certainly want but asking for more in return would be a good idea. Offering Hamhuis up at the deadline is also a great idea. We would then actually carry 11 NHL calibre defencemen in this proposal. I would try possibly a replacing Hamhuis with Higgins in that proposal? That would give Shinkaruk a slot in the line up as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Monahan Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 I believe Higgins also has an NTC and has reportedly stated he doesn't want to play close to home. The NTC's that gillis gave out were kinda necessary at the time to assemble and retain a cup-contending team but they're biting us in the butt now. Higgins is definitely a guy I see as being tradable though, if we could find the right partner and deal. He takes a lot of flak on cdc but is a valuable 3rd liner to a contending team with a relatively cheap cap hit. I think he could net us a second round pick, but I don't think him and greening would land a first rounder. Buffalo has that expendable pick that we covet but I'm not sure they're a team we can really strike deals with. They're young and rebuilding and we're looking to move veterans. One thing I'm not sure about re: trading Higgins is, if it's true he doesn't want to be close to home, then what defines too close? So many eastern teams are geographically close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saw234 Posted May 29, 2015 Author Share Posted May 29, 2015 Ya I have heard that about Higgins.. It may only enable the West conference or South East teams to be potential landing spots for him if he were to be dealt. He's very useful as a veteran on our team and could play a potential mentor role for a period of time. The NTCs that Gillis gave out are definitely handcuffing us now but the more we can shed those the better. Would be a tough one to pull off (Buffalo trade) but maybe we could simply slot Greening in or deal him for a pick at the draft. That'd allow us to keep Hamhuis until the deadline and use him to pick up a return like Sekera did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hatedkid666 Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 You're proposals just kept getting worse and worse. Having said that, I really like the miller trade and I think it makes a lot of sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shanghai owey Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 In your proposal our second line seems quite weak, which was a big problem last year thats not being fixed here. also after edler and tanev the defence is weak as well. and mcquaid is more a 5th defenceman then a top 4 log alot of minutes one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nessnuck27 Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 I think the Miller trade is a little lopsided. I think Miller + Jensen = SJ 1st (9th overall) is fair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 I think the Miller trade is a little lopsided. I think Miller + Jensen = SJ 1st (9th overall) is fair I was going to say something simiilar, but from the other side. I believe there still isn't enough there for the SJS to trade down for the 23rd overall pick. While the SJS are looking for a goalie, the Canucks are looking to remove cap. This will cost the Canucks. Getting Miller isn't worth 15 places in the draft order, and Jensen in place of the 23rd pick isn't "fair". I suspect the deal would have to be Miller, the 23rd overall, and a prospect better than Jensen (and/or a high pick in 2016), or possibly more. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.