Gaudette Celly Posted May 22, 2017 Share Posted May 22, 2017 24 minutes ago, cyoung said: You can get a top 4 in this draft. There aren't many but they are there. Which means, trading away an established top-4 player is quite risky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VIC_CITY Posted May 22, 2017 Share Posted May 22, 2017 46 minutes ago, Freaky Freak said: ???????? The TO trade was talked about on 1040 with a Toronto based expert and many experts say its a pretty fair and reasonable trade for both sides FROM WHAT I HAVE HEARD AND READ and not on blogs or CDCs (but guys like CB PM BM and others) And BM said the 3rd overall wont even get you a top 4 in this years weak draft (so if anything VAN says no to this one) as Edler is a top 4 D We're not getting more than a 1st and Kapanen for Tanev and you totally twisted Bob McKenzie's words around. To say a top 4 dman has more value than the 3rd overall pick is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VIC_CITY Posted May 22, 2017 Share Posted May 22, 2017 40 minutes ago, TheHitman said: To DAL: Edler Garteig To VAN: Lehtonen 3rd overall This isn't really any better than the previous suggestion. Odds are pretty high that Garteig never plays an NHL game. If Dallas were to entertain a trade involving Edler for their 1st round pick (they wouldn't), it would be something like this: To Vancouver 3rd OA, Niemi/Lehtonen To Dallas Edler, 33 OA, Subban Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted May 22, 2017 Share Posted May 22, 2017 On 2017-05-20 at 1:36 PM, Toews said: You have to give the player the option to not sign with the team that drafted him. If you take away a player's right to sign with a different team you are basically giving the team that drafted him unlimited leverage during contract negotiations. I don't really care about the semantics of what constitutes a 'loophole'. There is no real "leverage" where ELCs are concerned - why should there be different conditions for CHL vs college players? There is always a counterpoint - signing these players should be less attractive - as it stands, drafting them is less attractive - and in the end doesn't necessarily give a team exclusive rights to sign that player. - which is problematic. I think you overestimate how concerned the player's union would be with eliminating these terms for colllege players. You can say it's 'here to stay' all you want - you don't really know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted May 22, 2017 Share Posted May 22, 2017 On 2017-05-20 at 1:40 PM, VIC_CITY said: Ritchie is big, young, cheap and just scored 16 goals in his 1st full season. There's a lot to like there...too much for Dallas to just throw away for one year of contract relief. We'll see what it costs them in the end to be rid of that contract. I look at what Chicago paid to move one year of Bickell. And Dallas has literally zero leverage and have painted themselves into a corner with 16.5 million worth of goaltending contracts. Unless they fluke out and find a Chayka that bends over for them, it's going to hurt them to be rid of Niemi or Lehtonen (the gt market is weak at the best of times). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freaky Freak Posted May 22, 2017 Share Posted May 22, 2017 57 minutes ago, VIC_CITY said: We're not getting more than a 1st and Kapanen for Tanev and you totally twisted Bob McKenzie's words around. To say a top 4 dman has more value than the 3rd overall pick is ridiculous. When he said it and what i was quoting is that you will not get a top 4 D man in return / trade for the 3rd overall (I myself think they will and why i used EDLER) Not that there will not be a top 4 DRAFTED When they asked PM what he thought about Bob's comment he laughed and said "it ain't a very good draft" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyoung Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 1 hour ago, Hutton Wink said: Which means, trading away an established top-4 player is quite risky. I totally agree. That's why I think a Tanev move may not happen... The return would have to be solid for us to make a Move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blömqvist Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 To Dallas Tanev Markstrom To Vancouver 3rd overall pick Lehtonen Niemi Then trade down from the 3rd overall pick to gain more assets... To Arizona 3rd overall pick VAN 3rd (64th overall pick) To Vancouver 7th overall pick MIN 1st (23rd overall pick) Still allows the Canucks to draft one of the top rated playmaking centres and offensive defensemen with the 5th and 7th overall picks while adding an additional pick in the last half of the 1st round for a forward like Vesalainen, Norris, Bowers, Thomas, or a defenseman like Foote or Timmins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toews Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 3 hours ago, oldnews said: I don't really care about the semantics of what constitutes a 'loophole'. There is no real "leverage" where ELCs are concerned - why should there be different conditions for CHL vs college players? There is always a counterpoint - signing these players should be less attractive - as it stands, drafting them is less attractive - and in the end doesn't necessarily give a team exclusive rights to sign that player. - which is problematic. I think you overestimate how concerned the player's union would be with eliminating these terms for colllege players. You can say it's 'here to stay' all you want - you don't really know that. Sure, I was just pointing out that it would be inaccurate to call it a loophole. Of course there is leverage. CHL players currently have an advantage in that their rights can only be held by the team drafting them for 2 years. If unsigned you lose that player who goes back into the draft. Let's say a player (CHL) in his draft +2 season is negotiating his ELC. Negotiations come to a head over the type of bonuses and the way they are structured. The player has leverage because if unsigned he ends up back in the draft and the team gets no compensation unless they are a 1st round pick. A player in the same situation in college has less leverage because their rights are still held by the NHL team for an additional two years. "Exclusive" rights to a player is not happening because there are antitrust laws to be considered. You cannot force a player or create a situation where a player is forced to sign a contract with the team that drafted him. The NHL team then has unlimited leverage and can dictate things like bonuses. The situation is the exact same with players drafted out of Europe. You have 4 years to sign your draft pick out of Europe or you lose the rights to that player. Why is it that you have less issue with this? The reason why I say it is "here to stay" is because there has to be a finite period of time you can hold a drafted players rights. This is again due to antitrust laws. In the NHL you get a period of 2 years to sign your prospect out of the CHL and 4 years everywhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teepain Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 We are gonna stand pat i think , unless edler gives in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flickyoursedin Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 8 minutes ago, teepain said: We are gonna stand pat i think , unless edler gives in Hopefully Edlers got the taste for winning and waives that NTC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VIC_CITY Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 4 hours ago, Blömqvist said: To Dallas Tanev Markstrom To Vancouver 3rd overall pick Lehtonen Niemi Then trade down from the 3rd overall pick to gain more assets... To Arizona 3rd overall pick VAN 3rd (64th overall pick) To Vancouver 7th overall pick MIN 1st (23rd overall pick) Still allows the Canucks to draft one of the top rated playmaking centres and offensive defensemen with the 5th and 7th overall picks while adding an additional pick in the last half of the 1st round for a forward like Vesalainen, Norris, Bowers, Thomas, or a defenseman like Foote or Timmins. So Tanev, Markstrom and a 3rd for 7th OA, 23 OA and 2 overpaid average at best goalies? I hope you didn't spend too much time masterminding that atrocity... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DownUndaCanuck Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 I'm sure it wouldn't happen for cap reasons and also no team has ever really pulled something like this off, but what about trading both Edler and Tanev. Just for fun really. TO DAL: Edler + Tanev (eat 1-2M of Edler's cap) TO VAN: Lehtonen (for cap reasons) + 3rd overall pick + Honka TO ANA: Ryan Miller + 2nd round pick (either) - eat some of Miller's cap too TO VAN: Shea Theodore Draft the best of Vilardi/Mittelstatd/Glass with the 3rd overall. Draft the best of Heiskanen/Makar with the 5th overall. For me, it's Vilardi and Heiskanen. 3 years time: Dahlen - Vilardi - Boeser Baertschi - Horvat - trade for star involving Hutton Granlund - Sutter - Goldobin UFA/trade - Gaunce - Virtanen Theodore - Stecher Juolevi - Honka Heiskanen - Gudbranson Sbisa/Subban Demko Lehtonen/whoever/Markstrom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brobidus Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 4 hours ago, VIC_CITY said: So Tanev, Markstrom and a 3rd for 7th OA, 23 OA and 2 overpaid average at best goalies? I hope you didn't spend too much time masterminding that atrocity... You can call it an atrocity. I think it's creative. A lot of proposals only think about one team and completely $&!# on the other. Dallas doesn't need to move a goalie, they're fine. Taking back both overpaid goalies and offering Markstrom as a backup to Bishop might make them interested. Add Tanev to the mix for their second pairing and that fixes a lot of their woes on the back end and opens up cap space to add something important either to the D or the forward group. With Honka coming up for them, they could easily contend again. Clearly the value coming back isn't perfect. They'd need to add a pick or two on top of the 3rd overall. But it's creative and solves an huge issue for Dallas. The Arizona trade is neat too. The difference between 3OA and 7OA isn't as high as usual, if we could add another first round pick and snag someone like Foote or Brannstrom whilst trading down from say Vilardi/Heiskanen to Pettersson/Suzuki/Tippett/Liljegren/Makar,etc... I say do it. We don't have to win every trade by miles. And there's the added satisfaction of maybe taking a defender right in front of Buffalo's noses. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicklas Bo Hunter Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 2 hours ago, DownUndaCanuck said: I'm sure it wouldn't happen for cap reasons and also no team has ever really pulled something like this off, but what about trading both Edler and Tanev. Just for fun really. TO DAL: Edler + Tanev (eat 1-2M of Edler's cap) TO VAN: Lehtonen (for cap reasons) + 3rd overall pick + Honka TO ANA: Ryan Miller + 2nd round pick (either) - eat some of Miller's cap too TO VAN: Shea Theodore Draft the best of Vilardi/Mittelstatd/Glass with the 3rd overall. Draft the best of Heiskanen/Makar with the 5th overall. For me, it's Vilardi and Heiskanen. 3 years time: Dahlen - Vilardi - Boeser Baertschi - Horvat - trade for star involving Hutton Granlund - Sutter - Goldobin UFA/trade - Gaunce - Virtanen Theodore - Stecher Juolevi - Honka Heiskanen - Gudbranson Sbisa/Subban Demko Lehtonen/whoever/Markstrom We can only retain 2 contracts at a time. One being luongo so this could not work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Monahan Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 1 hour ago, Nicklas Bo Hunter said: We can only retain 2 contracts at a time. One being luongo so this could not work. You can retain salary on 3 contracts at a time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicklas Bo Hunter Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 9 minutes ago, Sean Monahan said: You can retain salary on 3 contracts at a time. Oh thought it was 2. My bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 21 minutes ago, Nicklas Bo Hunter said: Oh thought it was 2. My bad. But we did retain on Hansen too though I thought. I don't know how we trade Miller who is a UFA and retain salary on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Monahan Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 20 minutes ago, Nicklas Bo Hunter said: Oh thought it was 2. My bad. 1 minute ago, Provost said: But we did retain on Hansen too though I thought. Good point, I think that's correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VIC_CITY Posted May 23, 2017 Share Posted May 23, 2017 5 hours ago, Brobidus said: You can call it an atrocity. I think it's creative. A lot of proposals only think about one team and completely $&!# on the other. Dallas doesn't need to move a goalie, they're fine. Taking back both overpaid goalies and offering Markstrom as a backup to Bishop might make them interested. Add Tanev to the mix for their second pairing and that fixes a lot of their woes on the back end and opens up cap space to add something important either to the D or the forward group. With Honka coming up for them, they could easily contend again. Clearly the value coming back isn't perfect. They'd need to add a pick or two on top of the 3rd overall. But it's creative and solves an huge issue for Dallas. The Arizona trade is neat too. The difference between 3OA and 7OA isn't as high as usual, if we could add another first round pick and snag someone like Foote or Brannstrom whilst trading down from say Vilardi/Heiskanen to Pettersson/Suzuki/Tippett/Liljegren/Makar,etc... I say do it. We don't have to win every trade by miles. And there's the added satisfaction of maybe taking a defender right in front of Buffalo's noses. :D The return isn't enough and leaves us with 2 unwanted goalies who will both be UFAs in a year. Unless we have Cory Schneider in our back pocket a year from now (very unlikely), this trade doesn't make sense for us. It also leaves a gaping hole in our defense. We're better off holding onto 1 of Edler and Tanev until at least the trade deadline. Remember, we're already down Tryamkin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.