[Proposal] Lowry from Winnipeg

[Provost]

There is a pretty reasonable chance that Winnipeg is forced to protect 4 defencemen.

 

That means Lowry would be exposed and very likely taken for nothing.

 

He seems like the ideal age, and the right attributes to slot in as our 3rd line centre.  More than 50% face offs... big... physical.,, has decent skill level.  He would complement a couple of smaller skilled wingers on that line.

 

If Winnipeg puts him on the market, what would the cost be?  Would it be a 2nd round pick?  Plus an average prospect?  Prices should be depressed as many teams won't want to pick up a player that means they lose another one in expansion.

 

For us it makes Sutter expendable and exposed at expansion.  I have no real heartache with that considering where we are as a team.  If Sutter is taken (which he probably would be), that also means we keep Sbisa and can flip another D after expansion to get a legit top 6 forward.

 

It leaves us with a lineup something like:

 

Sedin-Horvat-Boeser

(trade return for Tanev)-Sedin-Eriksson

Baertschi-Lowry-Goldobin

Boucher-Gaunce-Virtanen/Dorsett

Megna-Molino

 

Edler-Stecher

Hutton-Gudbranson

Sbisa-Biega

Pedan

[CRAZY_4_NAZZY]

I would wait until after the expansion IMO.  There are too many Jet's forwards up for grabs if Winnipeg were to do the 4,4,1 protection expansion plan.

 

I love the physicality of Lowry though, but losing a right hand centre would be pretty devasting to this group considering Sutter is the only Right hand centre, and he was our best faceoff guy.  Plus i dont think the canucks management would want to risk leaving Sutter and Gaunce unprotected at the expense of Lowry.

[Angry Goose]

Expose Sutter and keep Sbsia?  

[Provost]

11 minutes ago, SILLY GOOSE said:

Expose Sutter and keep Sbsia?  

Expose Sutter and keep Lowry.

 

As it stands now, it is virtually 100% that Sbisa is taken.  Gaunce has effectively zero value as he is eminently replaceable.

 

I don't think folks are really grasping how valuable D will be after expansion.  Right now, more than half the team in the league are short a top 4 guy, basically everyone is short for a real NHL calibre three pairings.

 

After expansion, that becomes MOST teams in the league will be short a top 4 D because the ones that have four good players will have one snatched.  McPhee has states that he is building from the defence (makes sense), he will pick at least six top four guys... and more than likely a few extra to use on the trade market in exchange for some scoring help as will have a thin top 6.

 

Sbisa is a solid #4/5 guy.  For us his value is that it means one of our actual trade chips (Tanev, Hutton, Edler) is more easily moved after expansion at an inflated price when teams are scrambling to fill the sudden holes they have.

 

So, under the Lowry trade proposal we probably end up losing Sutter instead of Sbisa.  We are slightly worse at that 3C position (though Lowry has more upside and may even complement his linemates better), but we gain a much better forward in the top 6 by being able to trade a D.

 

It nets out better for us because the trade value of a D is greater than the value of a 3C.

[Angry Goose]

5 minutes ago, Provost said:

Expose Sutter and keep Lowry.

 

As it stands now, it is virtually 100% that Sbisa is taken.  Gaunce has effectively zero value as he is eminently replaceable.

 

I don't think folks are really grasping how valuable D will be after expansion.  Right now, more than half the team in the league are short a top 4 guy, basically everyone is short for a real NHL calibre three pairings.

 

After expansion, that becomes MOST teams in the league will be short a top 4 D because the ones that have four good players will have one snatched.  McPhee has states that he is building from the defence (makes sense), he will pick at least six top four guys... and more than likely a few extra to use on the trade market in exchange for some scoring help as will have a thin top 6.

 

Sbisa is a solid #4/5 guy.  For us his value is that it means one of our actual trade chips (Tanev, Hutton, Edler) is more easily moved after expansion at an inflated price when teams are scrambling to fill the sudden holes they have.

 

So, under the Lowry trade proposal we probably end up losing Sutter instead of Sbisa.  We are slightly worse at that 3C position (though Lowry has more upside and may even complement his linemates better), but we gain a much better forward in the top 6 by being able to trade a D.

 

It nets out better for us because the trade value of a D is greater than the value of a 3C.

I get what you're saying, I just dont believe exposing/losing Sutter is a smart move as well.  While Lowry might be a nice addition, I can live with Sbsia being picked up.  I guess you're playing the 'stock market' a bit more than I am though, given your proposal. 

[Where'd Luongo?]

Honestly, I like this idea. If Benning pulled this off they'd be all:

[Vinny in Vancouver]

20 minutes ago, Provost said:

As it stands now, it is virtually 100% that Sbisa is taken.  Gaunce has effectively zero value as he is eminently replaceable.

It's probably not 100%. Two months ago, all ESPN hockey writers projected that Las Vegas will not be picking any of the Canucks players: http://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/19015985/nhl-vegas-golden-knights-mock-draft-based-players-left-unprotected-their-teams

[Rick Blight]

 

5 minutes ago, vinny_in_vancouver said:

It's probably not 100%. Two months ago, all ESPN hockey writers projected that Las Vegas will not be picking any of the Canucks players: http://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/19015985/nhl-vegas-golden-knights-mock-draft-based-players-left-unprotected-their-teams

They have no choice as they must draft 1 player from each team. The link is showing what their 23 man roster might look like after the draft but obviously they don't think the selection from Vancouver will make the team.

[Provost]

16 minutes ago, Rick Blight said:

 

They have no choice as they must draft 1 player from each team. The link is showing what their 23 man roster might look like after the draft but obviously they don't think the selection from Vancouver will make the team.

Yep... 

 

I actually see Vegas picking best player available from each team and not trying to craft a roster directly from their picks.

 

if they have to choose between Gaunce and Sbisa... there is no competition in asset value.

 

A very reasonable strategy could be to pick 10-11 D in expsnsion, and then flip a bunch of them for top six forwards or high draft picks to stock their farm system.

 

[Vinny in Vancouver]

25 minutes ago, Rick Blight said:

 

They have no choice as they must draft 1 player from each team. The link is showing what their 23 man roster might look like after the draft but obviously they don't think the selection from Vancouver will make the team.

But if they don't like any of our players, then I think they may end up picking someone whose salary is lower than (or not as long as) Sbisa's so that they don't get stuck with his salary.

[timberz21]

1 hour ago, Provost said:

Expose Sutter and keep Lowry.

 

As it stands now, it is virtually 100% that Sbisa is taken.  Gaunce has effectively zero value as he is eminently replaceable.

 

I don't think folks are really grasping how valuable D will be after expansion.  Right now, more than half the team in the league are short a top 4 guy, basically everyone is short for a real NHL calibre three pairings.

 

After expansion, that becomes MOST teams in the league will be short a top 4 D because the ones that have four good players will have one snatched.  McPhee has states that he is building from the defence (makes sense), he will pick at least six top four guys... and more than likely a few extra to use on the trade market in exchange for some scoring help as will have a thin top 6.

 

Sbisa is a solid #4/5 guy.  For us his value is that it means one of our actual trade chips (Tanev, Hutton, Edler) is more easily moved after expansion at an inflated price when teams are scrambling to fill the sudden holes they have.

 

So, under the Lowry trade proposal we probably end up losing Sutter instead of Sbisa.  We are slightly worse at that 3C position (though Lowry has more upside and may even complement his linemates better), but we gain a much better forward in the top 6 by being able to trade a D.

 

It nets out better for us because the trade value of a D is greater than the value of a 3C.

I get what your saying, but that theory contains a lot of IFs and BUTs.

 

Not every teams has Edmonton's luxury to trade a top 3 (or 6) forward for a defenseman.  Even if teams loses top 4 D, they won't necessarily try to fill the voids by weakening their top 6.  Most teams have a top 4 D prospect in their system and will probably try to fill the void from within first.

 

I agree that odds of getting greater return increases after Exp. Draft, but I'm sure were going to hit it out of the park either.

[Rick Blight]

4 minutes ago, Provost said:

Yep... 

 

I actually see Vegas picking best player available from each team and not trying to craft a roster directly from their picks.

 

if they have to choose between Gaunce and Sbisa... there is no competition in asset value.

 

A very reasonable strategy could be to pick 10-11 D in expsnsion, and then flip a bunch of them for top six forwards or high draft picks to stock their farm system.

 

Provost, do you really think Vegas will end up with a lot of d-men that are worth a top 6 forward? Within the West, I can really only see a couple of teams that may lose a d-man worth a top 6 in a trade. Anaheim, Winnipeg, Minnesota and Nashville are the only teams that I believe would have any problem.

Anaheim will not want to lose a d-man for nothing so they will likely try to make a trade before the draft but, even if they lost one to Vegas they would still have Montour and Theodore to step in. I think they will buy out Bieksa and then their worst case scenario is they would lose Vatanen or Manson but I am sure a team like Colorado would be happy to take one of those two off of Anaheim's hands.

Winnipeg risks losing either Trouba or Myers as both Buff and Enstrom have NMC's. Again, teams like Colorado would make a trade to acquire either of those players. Even a team like Carolina could take on Trouba/Myers as they have multiple top 4 d-men that don't need to be protected. They could afford to send a good d-man, not requiring protection, back to Winnipeg in a trade

Minnesota, in my mind, has the biggest problem and they will definitely have to make a deal or risk losing a good d-man.

Nashville, I believe, will protect 4 forwards and 4 d-men so I don't think Vegas will get much from them.

I guess I am not as sure as you appear to be that Vegas will get a lot of d-men they can move for a top 6 forward. We only have to wait another month to find out the answer and I am sure the whole thing will be quite interesting.

[Rick Blight]

32 minutes ago, vinny_in_vancouver said:

But if they don't like any of our players, then I think they may end up picking someone whose salary is lower than (or not as long as) Sbisa's so that they don't get stuck with his salary.

That certainly is possible and I guess that will depend on their other choices as Vegas must get to 60-100% of the existing salary cap with their picks. Sbisa will be on an expiring contract next season and they may take him with a potential trade at next years' trade deadline in mind.

[JM_]

1 hour ago, vinny_in_vancouver said:

But if they don't like any of our players, then I think they may end up picking someone whose salary is lower than (or not as long as) Sbisa's so that they don't get stuck with his salary.

they have a 2 day window to negotiate with our free agents, and I think they may go that way. E.g., they could make a deal with Boucher and we simply don't qualify him and that would count as the pick.

 

 

[Fanuck]

24 minutes ago, S'all Good Man said:

they have a 2 day window to negotiate with our free agents, and I think they may go that way. E.g., they could make a deal with Boucher and we simply don't qualify him and that would count as the pick.

 

 

That's a scary thought since both Quads and BoHo are also RFA just like Boucher.  So if Vegas makes a deal with them, we have to match it or take the compensation? 

[Kurt Nirvanagut]

I would love Lowry. So, if this could happen that would be great. 

[JM_]

49 minutes ago, Fanuck said:

That's a scary thought since both Quads and BoHo are also RFA just like Boucher.  So if Vegas makes a deal with them, we have to match it or take the compensation? 

I think we can still make a deal with both right now, but I would defer to a CBA guru on that one. The thinking was wait on Boucher to see if Vegas tries to sign him. Its that of Sbisa, its hard to know what they are thinking.

[mll]

49 minutes ago, Fanuck said:

That's a scary thought since both Quads and BoHo are also RFA just like Boucher.  So if Vegas makes a deal with them, we have to match it or take the compensation? 

The Canucks will protect Horvat from expansion.  Gudbranson too.

Boucher less likely.