Down by the River Posted April 14, 2018 Share Posted April 14, 2018 Andy Greene............ 2 years @ $5,000,000.......$10,000,000 Jason Speza .............1 year @ $7,500,000............$7,500,000 I'd do these. No to Dubinsky because of the three year contract combined with injuries that are making his life miserable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABNuck Posted April 14, 2018 Share Posted April 14, 2018 For me it's the 2 or 3 year contract guys that are interesting (ie/ off the books when it comes time to pay Pettersen and Olli)... I'd definitely take a look at on Dubby...I think him and Sutter on the ice together would be a pretty good shutdown team (a la Kesler and Burrows). Do you think CBJ would cough-up Carlsson for taking on Dubinsky? Sadly I think it would take a position player and a pick to get him... Hutton + our 2019 2nd for Carlsson + the Dubinsky dump...CBJ laughs and hangs up unless the name is Tanev? I'm not sure what would be more important to them...LD (Hutton) to replace Johnson or the pure value of the RD in Tanev... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry Goose Posted April 14, 2018 Share Posted April 14, 2018 ANYTHING over 3 years I would not do. I havnt watched a ton of CBJ this season but if they needed to move Dubinsky's salary + sweeten the deal...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billabong Posted April 14, 2018 Share Posted April 14, 2018 to chi: goldobin, hutton to van: saad saad, 25, had a 18 goal, 35 point miserable year with a cap hit of 6m for 3 more years so chi might be looking to shed that contract cause they already have 67m tide up for next year (including saads deal) saad-horvat-boeser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gally Posted April 14, 2018 Share Posted April 14, 2018 3 hours ago, Canucklehead73 said: I wouldn't take any of these long term contracts... I doubt any team would give up much to get rid of a short term contract. Plus doing these things will send the wrong message to our team... you have no chance to win... there's no point in us even trying... let's give up for a year or two or FIVE???... so we will sacrifice our cap space for a free prospect. tanking is tanking... despicable What do you want to do with all the cap space then? Taking on bad contracts has nothing to do with tanking. We have a lot of cap space next year and an opportunity to pick up free assets by taking on bad contracts. I'm not in for taking on any long term contracts unless we were given something great, but why not take on a Spezza/Ennis/Orpik for a year? We only have 6 draft picks in the upcoming draft and we are in no position to toss free agents long term deals. Taking on bad contracts for a year or 2 is a no risk high reward deal. All of the savvy front offices in professional sports are doing it nowadays, it's better than sitting with 10-15 mil in cap space. Carolina did a great job of this a couple years ago by taking on Bickell's contract they were able to get Teravainen for only a 2nd and 3rd. I would love to try something like this: To DAL: Chris Tanev To VAN: Jason Spezza, Julius Honka, 1st (13th overall) To WSH: Sven Baertschi To VAN: Andre Burakovsky, Brooks Orpik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted April 14, 2018 Share Posted April 14, 2018 Alzner doesn't have negative value, but even if he did, he won't be moved unless Montreal hires a real GM. Spezza and Orpik would both be nice additions. Short contracts and can fill needs for next season. I think either one has a value around a 3rd, but prefer including a guy like Hutton or Baer to increase return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dungass Posted April 14, 2018 Share Posted April 14, 2018 2 hours ago, Gally said: What do you want to do with all the cap space then? Taking on bad contracts has nothing to do with tanking. We have a lot of cap space next year and an opportunity to pick up free assets by taking on bad contracts. I'm not in for taking on any long term contracts unless we were given something great, but why not take on a Spezza/Ennis/Orpik for a year? We only have 6 draft picks in the upcoming draft and we are in no position to toss free agents long term deals. Taking on bad contracts for a year or 2 is a no risk high reward deal. All of the savvy front offices in professional sports are doing it nowadays, it's better than sitting with 10-15 mil in cap space. Carolina did a great job of this a couple years ago by taking on Bickell's contract they were able to get Teravainen for only a 2nd and 3rd. I would love to try something like this: To DAL: Chris Tanev To VAN: Jason Spezza, Julius Honka, 1st (13th overall) To WSH: Sven Baertschi To VAN: Andre Burakovsky, Brooks Orpik I would love the Dallas trade, but me thinks that the Stars wouldn't go for it. If we threw in Tram's rights they might be go for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucklehead73 Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 2 hours ago, Gally said: What do you want to do with all the cap space then? Taking on bad contracts has nothing to do with tanking. Well here's an idea, why don't we use the cap space to sign a GOOD player... How is it not tanking? This concept is about taking on a crappy player with a fat contract, like the crappy player is going to improve your position in the standings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gally Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 10 minutes ago, Canucklehead73 said: Well here's an idea, why don't we use the cap space to sign a GOOD player... How is it not tanking? This concept is about taking on a crappy player with a fat contract, like the crappy player is going to improve your position in the standings? It's called rebuilding, the Canucks are still years away from contending what good is a free agent going to do for us? Not to mention that the majority of "GOOD players" in free agency are signed to horrendous contracts. The point of this isn't about improving our position in the standings next year its about the future. Benning has tried to build a competitive roster the last few years and we've always ended up near the bottom anyways, it's unlikely that this changes next year regardless of what happens this upcoming offseason. I'm all for signing free agents but we should be looking for 1-2 year deals for guys on cheap contracts who we can trade for assets at the deadline. We do have some great prospects but there is still work to be done. We need to get as many picks/prospects/young players as we can in the next couple years and adding 1 or 2 short-term contracts will help bring that in. The development of young players is important but were not going to be a playoff team regardless and using all that cap space to sign big free agents won't push us over the edge, it will only harm our future. The last thing we need is more Loui Eriksson's on this team. Rebuilding can lead to tanking yes, but these moves are about setting up long-term success not trying to force this team into an 8th seed and first round exit in the next couple years through adding expensive vets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.I.A.H.N Posted April 15, 2018 Author Share Posted April 15, 2018 As Gally suggests, this is the time to make moves for the future........... Consider this..........as it stands now, we have 1-1st, 1-2nd, 1-3rd, no 4th, 1-5th, 1-6th, 1-7th...........exactly the same as every other club.............. Well no, because the Rangers have 3-1st, the Senators have 2-1sts, the Hawks have 2 1sts, the NYI have 2-1st, Phili has 2 -1, Detroit has 2-st, Montreal has 1-1st and 4-2nds All these teams are re-building, and all have more early picks than we do. Given all things being equal, all these clubs will gain ground on us this year. "IF" we could move Tanev and Baertschi for a 2018 1st + 2018 2nd, it would help us hold our ground against these clubs, in regards to prospects....... and "IF" we took A. MacDonald in trade(2 yrs) as a short term cash dumb (Value 2018 2nd + 2018 3rd) and Dubinsky for the 3 year term Cash dump (Value 2018 1st), we would not be jeopardizing anything, and if we are lucky, could have Dubinsky re-invent his game here..................that is not a bad thing! Note* A year ago, when I started suggesting, large scale moves, there were a lot of posters that said I was crazy for suggesting them, and that no one does that. FF a year, and here is the evidence that 5 of the bottom 10 teams are doing just that.........we are not ready to advance to far and the addition of these picks multiply our rebuild by 3 fold......3 moves......just like the other teams have done! Consider what we have again in the first 3 rounds right now :Total 1-2018 1st 1-2018 2nd 1-2018 3rd Moving Tanev and taking a couple short term cash dumps, make it look like this :Total 3-2018 1sts 3-2018 2nds 2-2018 3rds This keeps us adding picks at a faster rate than the rest of the league, therefore moving us up the standings in the future faster that all other teams Is there risk? Hell yes, but short term risk that is in line with when our prospects should be developed..............for those saying the values don't add up.......well MacDonald will cost $10,000,000 over 2 yrs, and Dubinsky will cost just about $15,000,000 over 3 years.............if either get injured, insurance pays..........If that doesn't work, either trade at 50% or buy them out.......there are lots of ways to move these players, that are either free or reduce the costs...........and they are short/medium terms We do this, this last year, then take next years early picks and we are well on our way, with young guns and prospects we have already have, hopefully Tryamkin comes back, and we are in great position To me these suggestions are aggressive, not reckless, and underline, what is really needed to build a franchise through the draft.......taking your own picks and hoping you get lucky and everyone turns out every year is reckless, because every team is doing "That" My opinion is backed up by the 6 clubs that are doing it this year......... PS.............Tanev gets his value........Toronto, the Islanders, and Phili could all use him.............and don't get caught up on who I used as cash dumps.....I am sure you could do better! Ok, Flame on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucklehead73 Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 14 hours ago, janisahockeynut said: As Gally suggests, this is the time to make moves for the future........... Consider this..........as it stands now, we have 1-1st, 1-2nd, 1-3rd, no 4th, 1-5th, 1-6th, 1-7th...........exactly the same as every other club.............. Well no, because the Rangers have 3-1st, the Senators have 2-1sts, the Hawks have 2 1sts, the NYI have 2-1st, Phili has 2 -1, Detroit has 2-st, Montreal has 1-1st and 4-2nds All these teams are re-building, and all have more early picks than we do. Given all things being equal, all these clubs will gain ground on us this year. So all these teams took on crappy contracts to get these extra picks? Like who? 21 hours ago, Gally said: . The last thing we need is more Loui Eriksson's on this team. Well your basically saying we should trade for more Loui Erickson's as long as we get a prospect in the deal.... What does that say to our prospects trying to make the team? Your right about all the rebuilding issues we have, I just disagree with buying crappy players in the process. You guys can spin the wording all you want to suit your outlook, but I think there are moves to be made that give you prospects and draft picks without bad contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gally Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 1 hour ago, Canucklehead73 said: So all these teams took on crappy contracts to get these extra picks? Like who? Well your basically saying we should trade for more Loui Erickson's as long as we get a prospect in the deal.... What does that say to our prospects trying to make the team? Your right about all the rebuilding issues we have, I just disagree with buying crappy players in the process. You guys can spin the wording all you want to suit your outlook, but I think there are moves to be made that give you prospects and draft picks without bad contracts. I don't believe I have spun your words at allI just really don't understand any argument against this. It is essentially picking up assets for free. The difference is Loui Eriksson has 4 years left on his contract I'm not saying take on long term deals. It says to the prospects that were focused on surrounding them with more talent to compete for a cup in the future. We could do a lot worse than bringing in a guy like Spezza for a year and he probably isn't even that much worse than someone we'd pick up in free agency. The bottom line is we have a lot of cap space and an opportunity to get more picks/prospects which is something we still desperately need. We need to look at the big picture here and not harm our future by focusing on success in the next year or two. I think you're stuck in a bit of an old-school mentality here the most efficient way to rebuild is pretty simple. Get as many picks and prospects as possible and fill your squad with vets who might have trade value at the deadline. It's all about accumulating as many assets as you can to help your future. Rebuilding on the fly has been tried and it is pretty much impossible. The Canucks have tried it the last few years and thats why were still one of the worst teams in the league instead of on the upswing. Even if we do sign a free agent or two we will probably have the cap space to bring in a big salary for a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.I.A.H.N Posted April 16, 2018 Author Share Posted April 16, 2018 Not only that Gally, but it seems that there are people here that do not grasp the idea of internal competition .....if a cash dump holds a prospect back for a year, then so be it, but if that prospect is better than the cash dump, then the cash dump either sits, gets traded, gets sent down or bought out, but they are only 2 and 3 year contracts.......as long as we are within budget, who cares.....which one????? The fear of taking on a cash dump really scares some people, but if it is controllable, there should be no concern............. I have more of a problem signing questionable UFA's MDZ, Gagner and Nilsson type contracts, when you know there are possible cash dumps coming available, with no discernible difference to the UFA's you sign.............. To me ..any 1, 2, and 3 year contracts that we are able to fit under the cap, with some cap room left for future signings, seems like a reasonable thing to do, for a re-building team....... We have all talked about "not doing" the "Edmonton rebuild", yet when there are alternatives to that, that cost only cap, but get you extra assets........people don't get it...... My post wasn't to say, we should do them all, but to consider, if there were ones that might help us rebuild. People seem to think that our rookies, don't need time to develop.....I say, if we have that luxury, we should take it. We have a Tanev that IMO, needs to be moved at some point, so the question is, OK, in our time line, is there a short term cash dump that can be added, that can in some small part, take Tanev's place for a couple of years? Same goes for Baertschi, also the replacement for the Sedin's. I am not saying go crazy and spend all our extra cap space, so we have no room to move......use discretion and fit pieces in where you can.........that seems reasonable...... the trades I suggest are only for example purposes.........and to convince the ney sayers there are times that the idea can be used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucklehead73 Posted April 16, 2018 Share Posted April 16, 2018 On 4/14/2018 at 5:47 PM, Gally said: I don't believe I have spun your words the majority of "GOOD players" in free agency are signed to horrendous contracts. sign big free agents won't push us over the edge, it will only harm our future. The last thing we need is more Loui Eriksson's on this team. force this team into an 8th seed and first round exit in through adding expensive vets. All I said was maybe spend cap space on good players instead of crappy players with bad contracts... But you read so much more into it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush17 Posted April 16, 2018 Share Posted April 16, 2018 Severson is getting scratched in the post season. Maybe that's a sign he is falling out of favour in NJ. He's played here locally in jr. Right handed d. Tanev for Severson + 1st Make it so Jim Benning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush17 Posted April 16, 2018 Share Posted April 16, 2018 Realistically we might have to add a 3rd or b tier prospect in that deal. Jim probably wants his picks now more then ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kloubek Posted April 16, 2018 Share Posted April 16, 2018 If we took on a bad contract (which I am completely ok with and in fact would encourage us to do) it has to be for 2 years maximum. With Boeser getting paid soon and many of the ELCs expiring in two seasons, we're going to need the cap room after that. Anything more than 2 years is going to make things tricky, and will keep us from potentially improving our team with big signings like OEL, etc. Edit: Just read the rest of the responses. Looks like most share this viewpoint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush17 Posted April 16, 2018 Share Posted April 16, 2018 On 2018-04-14 at 2:08 PM, SILLY GOOSE said: ANYTHING over 3 years I would not do. I havnt watched a ton of CBJ this season but if they needed to move Dubinsky's salary + sweeten the deal...... Tanev for Dubinsky + good prospect (CBJ has lots of them) + pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush17 Posted April 16, 2018 Share Posted April 16, 2018 1 hour ago, kloubek said: If we took on a bad contract (which I am completely ok with and in fact would encourage us to do) it has to be for 2 years maximum. With Boeser getting paid soon and many of the ELCs expiring in two seasons, we're going to need the cap room after that. Anything more than 2 years is going to make things tricky, and will keep us from potentially improving our team with big signings like OEL, etc. Edit: Just read the rest of the responses. Looks like most share this viewpoint. Agreed. A lot of ELC's run dry in 3 seasons time. Pettersson likely won't be cheap. Dahlen and Gaudette due the year before. Besides getting less term means there is opportunity to add another cap dump and retain another asset in the process. Take a big dollar guy for 2 years then a more reasonable dump following. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGuardian_ Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 The Islanders would be a decent target, they need to resign Taveras and see about signing a couple of good FA's, they will need cap space to go for big ticket guys. They have two 1rst round picks and may let one go, theirs or Calgary's Ottawa has no first round pick. Chicago would only do a 2nd most likely and that is not worth the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.