Noble 6 Posted September 26, 2017 Share Posted September 26, 2017 Managing the salary cap is an integral part of an organization's success. For a rebuilding/re-tooling/transitioning/whatever team like us, we should have more cap space than we currently do. Currently, we have 2,675,001 in cap space. That number might change by about 900,000 depending on how we finalize our roster, but I would expect it to remain about the same considering we currently have 14 forwards, 7 defenseman and 2 goalies on our roster. We will also have about 30,000,000 in cap space once this season is over, but we have to re-sign Stetcher, Gudbranson, Granlund, Baertschi as well as possibly the Sedins and any other holes we need to fill. The season after that, we need new contracts for Boeser and Hutton with Dorsett and Edler's contracts coming off the books. We are not in a terribly bad position cap wise, but we can still do better. If we give ourselves more cap space, it would allow us to take on bad/albatross contracts from other teams to increase our return. That could be the difference between landing a more talented prospect or settling for an average one. @Warhippy made a list of recent trades that had one team dumping a bad contract in his own thread. If we could combine that with a decent asset at the deadline, we could land an important piece for our future. There are a lot of moving parts to this as there are for almost any trade. One of, if not the biggest factor in this trade is Eriksson's NMC. This is his final year with a NMC; after, it turns into a NTC for 2 years before finishing with a 15-team NTC. For this year, we could get him to waive if two important external factors line up: The Sedins Plan on Retiring: The Sedins could quietly hang up the skates at the end of the year. This would eliminate the main reason for Eriksson signing here. If the Sedins move one, it would likely be much easier for Eriksson to as well. The Youth Movement: Management could make it clear that the team will be moving on to a younger core. This means that veterans, like Eriksson, will slowly start seeing less quality ice time as well as overall ice time. It probably won't happen right away, but over time it likely will. So, with all that said, here's what I propose: To VGK: Eriksson Goldobin Subban 3rd Round Pick 2018 To VAN: 4th Round Pick 2018 Reasoning for Las Vegas: Vegas adds some depth to their organization. Their AHL team adds some elite talent at forward and defense, which would increase the competitiveness and developmental capabilities for them. They don't seem to be that interested in improving their NHL lineup though. Taking on Eriksson's contract would never be ideal, but they could stomach it. They are building slowly through the draft as evidenced by their focus on acquiring picks. It will take a while for those picks to make the NHL in a meaningful way, so Eriksson can be used as a decent stopgap during that time. They could easily afford the contract once they put Grabovski and Clarkson on LTIR. Buying him out after about 3 years would also be an option. They also upgrade a pick by about a round's difference. Reasoning for Vancouver: The Canucks gain a lot of cap flexibility. Moving Eriksson bumps us up to about 8,500,000 in cap space, which is a significant amount better than where we are right now. This allows us to take on bad contracts from other teams to enhance our return as previously stated. We lose some of our organizational depth in Subban and Goldobin, but nobody that would make or break our new core. We also open up a forward spot for anyone from Utica who earns a call-up or Gaunce when he returns. We downgrade in mid-round picks, but that should easily be acquired given our new capacity to make trades. The two reasons I wouldn't expect this deal to happen are; Eriksson's family just moved to Vancouver a year ago and Las Vegas would want more from us for taking on his contract. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeydownUnder Posted September 27, 2017 Share Posted September 27, 2017 We don't need that cap space in the foreseeable future with the Sedins coming off the books at the end of the season. We'd be better off hoping that Eriksson rebounds than sell him off after a bad year. Also Vegas likely wants more for a potential anchor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerrDrFunk Posted September 27, 2017 Share Posted September 27, 2017 Yeah....we don't need the cap room that badly right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PunjabiCanucks Posted September 27, 2017 Share Posted September 27, 2017 No Thank You Come 2019 season Edlers contract is over and personally I'd like to trade him soon if he waives his NTC (if he does resign, not worth over 4) Ericksson come 2020 when he submits his no trade teams, he is gone and we retain his cap for a pick (unless we buy him out (not sure if we can)) Sutter by 2019 is traded at a retain salary back to for whatever assets we can get. Sedins retire or come back at 3-3.5 million / each Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted September 27, 2017 Share Posted September 27, 2017 1 hour ago, HerrDrFunk said: Yeah....we don't need the cap room that badly right now. This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sygvard Posted September 27, 2017 Share Posted September 27, 2017 I see where you are coming from, and am generally a big fan of leveraging spare cap into assets. But this is just counter productive, or circular at best. You have us paying futures and prospects for another team to take our bad contracts. Then leveraging that new available space by... taking on bad contracts in exchange for futures and prospects? What is the best return that we could expect when we leverage that new Ericksson space by taking on a bad contract? Presumably a 3rd, and a prospect like Goldobin? Since we have JUST set that market value in the opposite direction. At best we went in a circle. At worst we bleed value by forcing deals. Sorry man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BowtieCanuck Posted September 27, 2017 Share Posted September 27, 2017 I get what you're going to for but there is no chance in hell that trade would work out for Vancouver. I still don't get why everyone and their mother thinks we should just give up on Ericksson. One bad season doesn't mean much when you have several seasons of production. Sure it was probably one of his worst seasons but it was a horrible season for scoring for EVERYONE (apart for maybe Bo and Baer). I forsee a much better season for Loui and a lot of people eating their words this year. As for Goldobin, trading him away would be a waste of our rebuild and would show that we traded Hansen for nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck_In_Paradise Posted September 27, 2017 Share Posted September 27, 2017 If we were looking to compete for the cup in the next few years then maybe. However, we are nowhere close to that so might as well keep Loui and hope he turns it around. Besides, if we trade Goldy for nothing, its basically like we gave Hansen away for free, and to a rival no less! Not something I'd like the thought of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted September 27, 2017 Share Posted September 27, 2017 Eriksson actually looked pretty good with Horvat at points last season. He's also fantastic defensively and isn't so old that an offensive resurgence is out of the question given quality linemates. I'd at least like to see what he can do now that we have a real coach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-Dizzle Posted September 27, 2017 Share Posted September 27, 2017 I had to go back and look at this proposal numerous times to believe what I was seeing, it makes no sense at all. What makes even less sense is people responding as if this isn't completely ridiculous!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted September 27, 2017 Share Posted September 27, 2017 Good lord that's terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PunjabiCanucks Posted September 27, 2017 Share Posted September 27, 2017 TBH, id like to see what Ericksson could do with Horvat and Boeser for a few games. Baertschi could slide down to the 3rd line for a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kloubek Posted September 27, 2017 Share Posted September 27, 2017 1 hour ago, J-Dizzle said: I had to go back and look at this proposal numerous times to believe what I was seeing, it makes no sense at all. What makes even less sense is people responding as if this isn't completely ridiculous!!!!! I figured he HAD to mean 4th overall, and assumed Vegas would get it for some reason. But nope... Its right there. 4th round. Yes we dump Erikssons cap. But we give up: - A dark horse (no pun intended) defenceman who MAY actually be really dynamic one day in the "new NHL". - A likely 2nd liner imo if not 3rd liner with obvious skill - The better pick - A guy who just one year ago scored like a first liner and though he did have an awful season has a decent chance at turning it around as a solid if not overpriced 2nd line anchor. This is almost certainly in the top 5 worst proposals Ive ever seen. While cap space is important, Our scenario isnt remotely an issue enough for a dramatic giveaway like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Goblin Posted September 27, 2017 Share Posted September 27, 2017 Eriksson for Sbisa Then claim Shinkaruk Equals Stanley Cup. The Triple S for Success: Sbisa Shinkaruk Stanley Cup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cripplereh Posted September 27, 2017 Share Posted September 27, 2017 to me seems a bit harsh to just try that and we give up a 3rd for a 4th??? just makes no sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BowtieCanuck Posted September 27, 2017 Share Posted September 27, 2017 3 hours ago, Green Goblin said: Eriksson for Sbisa Then claim Shinkaruk Equals Stanley Cup. The Triple S for Success: Sbisa Shinkaruk Stanley Cup Even though I know you're completely joking, the idea of Sbisa being a Canuck again is going to give me nightmares for the next week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kloubek Posted September 27, 2017 Share Posted September 27, 2017 9 hours ago, BowtieCanuck said: Even though I know you're completely joking, the idea of Sbisa being a Canuck again is going to give me nightmares for the next week. He noticeably improved. I was all over him earlier in his contract, but by the end I felt he was *almost* performing up to his paycheque. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Kneel Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 Ericksson just looks like a bad bad contract we have to eat. Pass Benning the ketchup on this one. Can't win them all I guess. I predict 15-20 goals from Erik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KKnight Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 On 26/09/2017 at 4:55 PM, Horvat is a Boss said: Managing the salary cap is an integral part of an organization's success. For a rebuilding/re-tooling/transitioning/whatever team like us, we should have more cap space than we currently do. Currently, we have 2,675,001 in cap space. That number might change by about 900,000 depending on how we finalize our roster, but I would expect it to remain about the same considering we currently have 14 forwards, 7 defenseman and 2 goalies on our roster. We will also have about 30,000,000 in cap space once this season is over, but we have to re-sign Stetcher, Gudbranson, Granlund, Baertschi as well as possibly the Sedins and any other holes we need to fill. The season after that, we need new contracts for Boeser and Hutton with Dorsett and Edler's contracts coming off the books. We are not in a terribly bad position cap wise, but we can still do better. If we give ourselves more cap space, it would allow us to take on bad/albatross contracts from other teams to increase our return. That could be the difference between landing a more talented prospect or settling for an average one. @Warhippy made a list of recent trades that had one team dumping a bad contract in his own thread. If we could combine that with a decent asset at the deadline, we could land an important piece for our future. There are a lot of moving parts to this as there are for almost any trade. One of, if not the biggest factor in this trade is Eriksson's NMC. This is his final year with a NMC; after, it turns into a NTC for 2 years before finishing with a 15-team NTC. For this year, we could get him to waive if two important external factors line up: The Sedins Plan on Retiring: The Sedins could quietly hang up the skates at the end of the year. This would eliminate the main reason for Eriksson signing here. If the Sedins move one, it would likely be much easier for Eriksson to as well. The Youth Movement: Management could make it clear that the team will be moving on to a younger core. This means that veterans, like Eriksson, will slowly start seeing less quality ice time as well as overall ice time. It probably won't happen right away, but over time it likely will. So, with all that said, here's what I propose: To VGK: Eriksson Goldobin Subban 3rd Round Pick 2018 To VAN: 4th Round Pick 2018 Reasoning for Las Vegas: Vegas adds some depth to their organization. Their AHL team adds some elite talent at forward and defense, which would increase the competitiveness and developmental capabilities for them. They don't seem to be that interested in improving their NHL lineup though. Taking on Eriksson's contract would never be ideal, but they could stomach it. They are building slowly through the draft as evidenced by their focus on acquiring picks. It will take a while for those picks to make the NHL in a meaningful way, so Eriksson can be used as a decent stopgap during that time. They could easily afford the contract once they put Grabovski and Clarkson on LTIR. Buying him out after about 3 years would also be an option. They also upgrade a pick by about a round's difference. Reasoning for Vancouver: The Canucks gain a lot of cap flexibility. Moving Eriksson bumps us up to about 8,500,000 in cap space, which is a significant amount better than where we are right now. This allows us to take on bad contracts from other teams to enhance our return as previously stated. We lose some of our organizational depth in Subban and Goldobin, but nobody that would make or break our new core. We also open up a forward spot for anyone from Utica who earns a call-up or Gaunce when he returns. We downgrade in mid-round picks, but that should easily be acquired given our new capacity to make trades. The two reasons I wouldn't expect this deal to happen are; Eriksson's family just moved to Vancouver a year ago and Las Vegas would want more from us for taking on his contract. Thoughts? How about we let Eriksson play out this year, before righting off a career 30 goal scorer...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeremyCuddles Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 Cap isn't a huge issue. Sedins might see 1 year 4-5 mil deals (maybe even cheaper) in the future. Dorsett's deal ends pretty quickly. We have our 1 and 2 goalies signed fairly cheap on fairly short term deals. Our best young guy and likely future captain makes less than 6 mil for the next 6 years. We'll be fine on cap even if we are stuck with Eriksson's for it's entirety in my opinion. My only fear is Lu's contract. His contract was front loaded no? What reason will he have to play through the entirety of his contract for nickels and dimes? I'm not fond of hoping for him to get injured either so he can ride LTIR til it ends. It seems in bad taste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.