Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Rumor Vegas to get 2nd overall from Philly


Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, Where'd Luongo? said:

Vegas wants Tanev but the Canucks won't give him up for what they have to offer. Vegas then gets the 2nd overall pick which the Canucks highly sought. Vegas then offers the Canucks the 2nd overall pick for Tanev straight up.

I would streak Robson St for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, taipan said:

Can't see philly doing this, unless they're getting a stud goalie in return...Fleury stays in Pennsylvania :P

 

Interesting. So you are suggesting, Fleury + 6th OA for 2nd overall? 

 

I was originally thinking that the Philly has no reason to trade away their pick. Center depth of Giroux-Patrick/Hischier-Schenn is just way too good to pass up on I think.

Patrick or Hischier can play behind Giroux right away and eventually take over from Giroux in few years.

 

If I were Vegas, I probably wouldn't pick Fleury, mainly because there are other younger goalies available like Raanta but also, the goal is not to compete this year or the next but in about 3 years time, by then, Fleury would be 34.

 

The only reason for me to pick Fleury is if if the Pens really want to get rid of Fleury and his cap by offering a high draft pick, say 31st OA + a prospect and if the Flyers really want to upgrade their goaltending by getting Fleury so they offer 2nd overall for Fleury + 6OA. In that case, I would pick Fleury and get 2nd overall, 31st overall, and a prospect at the cost of 6OA. Draft Patrick or Hischier with 2nd overall and the goal of building a competitive team in 3 years is within sight.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, S'all Good Man said:

I just can't see PHI handing a potential 1C to Vegas, the cost would be nuts. But maybe McPhee has such a boatload of picks he can do it but wow, this is a crazy lopsided expansion. I doubt any team in any league has ever been front loaded like this. I doubt Buttman does this for Quebec City... I wonder how he'd weasel out of that.....

 

 

F@#*ker probably will some lame excuse, and also make LV exempt from the selection process. Vegas must have paid a boatload in hidden fees for the amount of leeway they are provided during this process, including the extra grace period Daley recently gave them ( despite having a team of guys working on this all year).   Vegas is a new team and should suffer the same as all the other teams outside of the original six that grew their franchise and fan base from a bag of money and everyones has beens and fourth liners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, S'all Good Man said:

god. Well... its Buttman's league. Our future lies in getting into the playof

 

 

 

 

fs as a wild card team with this and McDivey in our division. 

Initially was thinking great, we add a team we play often and should be an easy two points the way SJ and ANA were when they joined...instead they could actually challenge the Cali teams for a top three spot right off the hop while we languish away for three or four more years.  Would have been a confidence booster for the young guys...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, mll said:

It actually has.  It hurst other owners too if Vegas is not quickly competitive. 

Arguable. In the same way it's arguable that retroactively applying a cap recapture penalty hurts teams? Or perhaps in how legitimately bad teams move back 3 picks (4 in Phoenix's case) in the draft after finishing at the bottom?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, elvis15 said:

Arguable. In the same way it's arguable that retroactively applying a cap recapture penalty hurts teams? Or perhaps in how legitimately bad teams move back 3 picks (4 in Phoenix's case) in the draft after finishing at the bottom?

and yet not argued by anyone who matters, since both the owners and the nhlpa were fully onboard. 

 

edit: and as far as cap recapture goes, the gms and agents that signed those deals knew full well they were violating the spirit of the rule, even if they weren't violating the letter. they played with fire and they got burned. serves them right for trying to weasel around like greasy lawyers, finding any loophole, grey area, lapse in wording or genuine oversight that they could exploit shamelessly in order to get a leg up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, tas said:

and yet not argued by anyone who matters, since both the owners and the nhlpa were fully onboard. 

I get how they want an expansion team to be competitive, so the price to buy in was high (meaning a significant commitment from a serious owner), and they'd want some return on that in picking their team, but the deals we're hearing about are well beyond what we'd expect where they'd have a few deals for ok-to-minor picks to avoid picking certain players, and a few trades they could make after with surplus players. In fact, we're even seeing more of teams dumping players and paying for the privilege (which I realize has some negatives for Vegas even if they get assets to do so) and leaving them with more options than we thought would happen.

 

It largely appears to be a situation where teams not only can't lose that much (max one player per team) but can gain by dumping players or even circumventing the direct trade routes to grab players they wouldn't be able to get otherwise through Vegas. Both those things do happen occasionally in the NHL anyway, but this looks to be turning into a free for all and it allows Vegas to reap more rewards than they need to field a 23-man roster plus some depth in the minors.

 

But I guess the argument is it's all been basically legal anyway the way the NHL has been going, and it's just the same assets getting spread around. The owners and all that might have agreed whatever we hear about them disagreeing after, but it doesn't seem above board from a fan's perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, elvis15 said:

I get how they want an expansion team to be competitive, so the price to buy in was high (meaning a significant commitment from a serious owner), and they'd want some return on that in picking their team, but the deals we're hearing about are well beyond what we'd expect where they'd have a few deals for ok-to-minor picks to avoid picking certain players, and a few trades they could make after with surplus players. In fact, we're even seeing more of teams dumping players and paying for the privilege (which I realize has some negatives for Vegas even if they get assets to do so) and leaving them with more options than we thought would happen.

 

It largely appears to be a situation where teams not only can't lose that much (max one player per team) but can gain by dumping players or even circumventing the direct trade routes to grab players they wouldn't be able to get otherwise through Vegas. Both those things do happen occasionally in the NHL anyway, but this looks to be turning into a free for all and it allows Vegas to reap more rewards than they need to field a 23-man roster plus some depth in the minors.

 

But I guess the argument is it's all been basically legal anyway the way the NHL has been going, and it's just the same assets getting spread around. The owners and all that might have agreed whatever we hear about them disagreeing after, but it doesn't seem above board from a fan's perspective.

I don't see where any of that could be perceived as negative by anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm mystified as to the number of people here who can't figure out why Vegas is getting a rosier deal than what expansion teams have usually received.

 

1) $500 million shelled out has a tendency to garner the purchaser some good will coming back the other way. 

 

2) A quickly-competitive Vegas benefits Bettman in that his long-standing woody for parity is more easily strengthened and maintained. The last thing he wants to see is his shiny new toy 15 points from a playoff spot by Xmas.

 

3) A quick Vegas success will make it more desirous for another potential franchise (Seattle? Another Sun Belt metropolis?) to step up with $500 million. (Or will it be $750 million by then?) Ka-ching!

 

4) You can bet the other 30 owners are delighted with how this is playing out. Half a billion split amongst them, and if things go pear-shaped for Vegas? Big deal, they can just transfer to another locale. I doubt the latter, though. Bettman should have put a stake through the heart of Phoenix a decade ago, but the iron lung -- in the form of TV rights and Southern exposure -- is still animating ARI for its 25 non-Lower Mainland fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, elvis15 said:

Arguable. In the same way it's arguable that retroactively applying a cap recapture penalty hurts teams? Or perhaps in how legitimately bad teams move back 3 picks (4 in Phoenix's case) in the draft after finishing at the bottom?

yeah, i wonder if bettman is savvy to this fact.  bad teams are picking farther back than they should be as a result of maintaining the integrity of the draft.  there goes the nose

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...