[Proposal] Taking bad contracts for draft picks before the draft ?

[the grinder]

3 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

It has worked well for THEM. 

Their objective to acquire multiple draft picks is to have a lot of players in their ELC range so they can stay close to cap floor with a full roster- which they are fulfilling.

Vegas did the same thing and their objective was to acquire extra picks to build a solid team and pipeline of assets to stay competetive. They are also fulfilling that. 

And nobody said take 3rd round picks for a 15 million Zetterberg contract. But you are not aquaman, so don't speak for him. The value of the dead contract obviously has to be worth the pick associated with it and Vegas scored a couple of 2nd round a couple of first round picks by taking such bad contracts. We have a window of opportunity to do it for this year and next, which is worth exploring. 

lol and your not jim benning either so don't make proposal then ,  Arizona still sucks  so now your telling me the canucks should be like Arizona. ,  what future does Arizona have ? vegas was starting a team with nothing    no contracts  no players  totally different ball game   the nhl forced all 30 teams  to make hard decisions to protect players that's how vegas got so many draft picks 

[canuckistani]

1 minute ago, the grinder said:

lol and your not jim benning either so don't make proposal then ,  Arizona still sucks  so now your telling me the canucks should be like Arizona. ,  what future does Arizona have ? vegas was starting a team with nothing    no contracts  no players  totally different ball game   the nhl forced all 30 teams  to make hard decisions to protect players that's how vegas got so many draft picks 

You seriously need better comprehension skills if you think thats what i said. I noted how acquiring dead contracts for picks have been done by MULTIPLE TEAMS for MULTIPLE REASONS. 
I don't care if Vegas is starting from nothing. Nobody said you only get to acquire dead contracts for picks if you are a start-up. If you have the financial ability, cap space and roster space to accomodate such a move, tell me why the heck not.

To throw out an example, if Detroit offered us their 1R in 2020 for taking Franzen now....explain to us why that'd be a bad move. 

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

You seriously need better comprehension skills if you think thats what i said. I noted how acquiring dead contracts for picks have been done by MULTIPLE TEAMS for MULTIPLE REASONS. 
I don't care if Vegas is starting from nothing. Nobody said you only get to acquire dead contracts for picks if you are a start-up. If you have the financial ability, cap space and roster space to accomodate such a move, tell me why the heck not.

To throw out an example, if Detroit offered us their 1R in 2020 for taking Franzen now....explain to us why that'd be a bad move. 

I agree to weaponize cap space (I read that here and liked it) is a great way to add picks/prospects during a rebuilding phase.  However, I think I heard JB say the Canucks would not do that.  

[the grinder]

6 minutes ago, coastal.view said:

i think you are confusing some things in your analysis

just because the canucks might take on a player contract of an inactive player

does not mean that the team actually pays that entire salary

often the salary is insured and is mostly paid from insurance
 

the real issue is cap room ...... those teams need the cap room . we have extra room

it would be similar to the discussions we have about loui and his bad contract

some team can take his 6 million cap hit and pay him 3 million or less

and that is attractive to them as they can hit the salary cap floor without paying that actual amount out in salary

loui is an active player with a bad contract. he will continue to play

an inactive player with essentially a dead contract is not expected to play and this is solely a financially driven move

 

so aquaman could actually waste a lot less money then you are thinking

to get that 3rd round draft pick

 

im not confused  at all   I know how it works   , just saying we have loui as a bad contract already  and aqua man isn't gonna throw extra money around to get a 3rd round pick 

[coastal.view]

1 minute ago, the grinder said:

im not confused  at all   I know how it works   , just saying we have loui as a bad contract already  and aqua man isn't gonna throw extra money around to get a 3rd round pick 

actually he would

if the cost is 10 bucks he certainly would

isn't the real issue the price?

aquaman spends when it makes sense

you are assuming it never makes sense

[the grinder]

6 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

You seriously need better comprehension skills if you think thats what i said. I noted how acquiring dead contracts for picks have been done by MULTIPLE TEAMS for MULTIPLE REASONS. 
I don't care if Vegas is starting from nothing. Nobody said you only get to acquire dead contracts for picks if you are a start-up. If you have the financial ability, cap space and roster space to accomodate such a move, tell me why the heck not.

To throw out an example, if Detroit offered us their 1R in 2020 for taking Franzen now....explain to us why that'd be a bad move. 

I read exactly what you wrote   . lol    of course you don't care if vegas started with nothing  because  u just said it your self  u need financial ability cap space and roster space   all that vegas had   a lot easier to do it when you start from nothing   lol at Detroit throwing away their first round pick    that is not gonna happen  , that is such unrealistic example  

[the grinder]

14 minutes ago, coastal.view said:

actually he would

if the cost is 10 bucks he certainly would

isn't the real issue the price?

aquaman spends when it makes sense

you are assuming it never makes sense

lol and a case of tape  he might 

[canuckistani]

15 minutes ago, the grinder said:

I read exactly what you wrote   . lol    of course you don't care if vegas started with nothing  because  u just said it your self  u need financial ability cap space and roster space   all that vegas had   a lot easier to do it when you start from nothing   lol at Detroit throwing away their first round pick    that is not gonna happen  , that is such unrealistic example  

1. we also have financial ability, cap space and roster space, HENCE my proposal. 

2. Chicago traded Hossa packaged with a promising forward (0.5 PPG in the NHL) to Arizona. Panthers traded Bolland + 11th Overall pick that year, for a 2nd R pick to Arizona.
So it has been done.

3. Answer my question - whether its outrageous or not is not the question, the question is, is 2020 R1 + Zetterberg worth it or not ? 

[the grinder]

28 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

1. we also have financial ability, cap space and roster space, HENCE my proposal. 

2. Chicago traded Hossa packaged with a promising forward (0.5 PPG in the NHL) to Arizona. Panthers traded Bolland + 11th Overall pick that year, for a 2nd R pick to Arizona.
So it has been done.

3. Answer my question - whether its outrageous or not is not the question, the question is, is 2020 R1 + Zetterberg worth it or not ? 

1 for once  the canucks  aren't in a cap crunch , financial   ability    ( hey your not aquaman so don't speak for him ) that's your quote btw  , cap space   for once  , roster spots  we need those

2  it is Arizona ,you know why Arizona did that so the owner could save money  , not build a actual team  

3  answer your  question ?   why on earth would I answer  such a outrageous question ,  that's not a reality  . not even close ,Detroit isn't gonna trade  a 1 st rounder   a lottery pick  , ,, that's not a question that's a wild fantasy 

[canuckistani]

2 minutes ago, the grinder said:

1 for once  the canucks  aren't in a cap crunch , financial   ability    ( hey your not aquaman so don't speak for him ) that's your quote btw  , cap space   for once  , roster spots  we need those

Again, learn to read. Roster spot is in our favor and already explained on how to get around it. 

2 minutes ago, the grinder said:

2  it is Arizona ,you know why Arizona did that so the owner could save money  , not build a actual team  

Irrelevant. Arizona acquired picks by taking bad contracts. What they do with those picks, is their business, not ours. I am interested in acquiring picks for bad contracts, not following them blindly. 

2 minutes ago, the grinder said:

3  answer your  question ?   why on earth would I answer  such a outrageous question ,  that's not a reality  . not even close ,Detroit isn't gonna trade  a 1 st rounder   a lottery pick  , ,, that's not a question that's a wild fantasy 

Again, answer my question. I don't care if you consider it reality or not. Again, learn how to read. I didn't say lottery pick of 2019. I said 2020. You could've literally avoided 50% of the posts in this thread if you could learn how to read. 

Answer the question asked or else accept the fact that you have no idea what is being discussed here. 

[the grinder]

27 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

Again, learn to read. Roster spot is in our favor and already explained on how to get around it. 

Irrelevant. Arizona acquired picks by taking bad contracts. What they do with those picks, is their business, not ours. I am interested in acquiring picks for bad contracts, not following them blindly. 

Again, answer my question. I don't care if you consider it reality or not. Again, learn how to read. I didn't say lottery pick of 2019. I said 2020. You could've literally avoided 50% of the posts in this thread if you could learn how to read. 

Answer the question asked or else accept the fact that you have no idea what is being discussed here. 

lol learn to read it is obvious I can read   everything is relevant  , you just dismiss the facts to create your fantasy world , and your un realistic scenario, its like saying would you trade grandlund for McDavid  what fool wouldn't do that  and what fool  did that 

[canuckistani]

2 minutes ago, the grinder said:

lol learn to read it is obvious I can read

You can but you don't. otherwise you'd not be talking about 'needing roster space' when it has been LITERALLY explained how we get around that in the OP itself. 

2 minutes ago, the grinder said:

  everything is relevant  , you just dismiss the facts to create your fantasy world , and your un realistic scenario, its like saying would you trade grandlund for McDavid  what fool wouldn't do that  and what fool  did that 

Sorry, i have to use hyperbole to make an example and get through to people who are not very clever and can't be bothered to read. Therefore, you admit that if the price is right, we take such an offer. 

Which is EXACTLY the point of this thread - to discuss WHAT price is right for WHICH dead contract to take, given that we have the cap space and the roster space window for the next two seasons to accomplish this.

Comprende ?

[the grinder]

12 hours ago, canuckistani said:

You can but you don't. otherwise you'd not be talking about 'needing roster space' when it has been LITERALLY explained how we get around that in the OP itself. 

Sorry, i have to use hyperbole to make an example and get through to people who are not very clever and can't be bothered to read. Therefore, you admit that if the price is right, we take such an offer. 

Which is EXACTLY the point of this thread - to discuss WHAT price is right for WHICH dead contract to take, given that we have the cap space and the roster space window for the next two seasons to accomplish this.

Comprende ?

I like the way that you totally ignore any facts  or is it that you don't read or comprehend  anything yourself , ,   so since you don't seem to get it   lets review what you proposed,  you have said   the canucks have 20 mil in cap space   fact  sure they have 20 mil   but you need to realize we need to sign brock boesser   and resign edler or someone of equal value   plus other players    so there goes  your theory    of 20 mil in cap space  ,   

now then the kicker     you think ken Holland  is gonna offer up a lottery pick  for us to take on 6 million cap hit  for 2 years   ,   fact  doesn't Detroit   need the that pick just as bad as the canucks need or want   ,  low cap hit for 3 years   that's more cap value for Detroit  so out that one goes ,

as    for vegas being able to weaponize their cap  you again fail to realize or just ignore  the  facts   , again      vegas started with nothing   clean slate  so they could do bold moves  which again you dismissed   saying that doesn't matter  but it does matter   , you just want to desperately  prove your proposal  can work when clearly it is so flawed , just like you say Arizona took on bad contracts   ,as well   , again you dismiss the fact the owner did it to save money  not to improve the hockey  team   

 so now you say I admitted to that if is the price is right    where did I admit  to that?  cant you read  or like you say just cant be bother to read it     you really need to take your own advice         comprende  your self  

[canuckistani]

24 minutes ago, the grinder said:

I like the way that you totally ignore any facts  or is it that you don't read or comprehend  anything yourself , ,   so since you don't seem to get it   lets review what you proposed,  you have said   the canucks have 20 mil in cap space   fact  sure they have 20 mil   but you need to realize we need to sign brock boesser   and resign edler or someone of equal value   plus other players    so there goes  your theory    of 20 mil in cap space  ,   

Math clearly is not your strong suit. Neither is research or knowing what you are talking of. 
Canucks have 9.5M in cap-space NOW. For next year, Canucks cap sits at 51.4 million, against a min-cap of 79.5M (expected to rise by 3-5M). Edler at 5M and Boeser requiring a raise are the only significant contracts to add to the books for now, leaving us PLENTY of cap room. 
We are also allowed to carry a 10% cap overage till season starts. 

Quote

now then the kicker     you think ken Holland  is gonna offer up a lottery pick  for us to take on 6 million cap hit  for 2 years   ,   fact  doesn't Detroit   need the that pick just as bad as the canucks need or want   ,  low cap hit for 3 years   that's more cap value for Detroit  so out that one goes ,

You know no such thing, since Columbus packaged Johansson AND a R1 pick to Vegas just to make sure Vegas doesn't go after their defence. 
Again, the discussion is about what price is right for taking on a bad contract, which has precedence in the league. 

Quote

as    for vegas being able to weaponize their cap  you again fail to realize or just ignore  the  facts   , again      vegas started with nothing   clean slate  so they could do bold moves  which again you dismissed   saying that doesn't matter  but it does matter   , you just want to desperately  prove your proposal  can work when clearly it is so flawed , just like you say Arizona took on bad contracts   ,as well   , again you dismiss the fact the owner did it to save money  not to improve the hockey  team   

Vegas being a new team is irrelevant. What is relevant is having cap space, roster space and bankroll. check, check and check. 

WHY Arizona did it, is irrelevant to the fact that trading picks + dead contract IS a thing in the NHL and we are in a position to ENTERTAIN OFFERS or ENQUIRE about them.

And if the price is right,  pull the trigger.

Its just that simple. 

 

So stop arguing about nonsense and put your two cents in on what contracts are worth taking for what price - THATS THE OBJECTIVE OF THIS THREAD. 

 

Quote

 so now you say I admitted to that if is the price is right    where did I admit  to that?  cant you read  or like you say just cant be bother to read it     you really need to take your own advice         comprende  your self  

When you pussed out from answering my question and said 'no way Detroit makes such an outrageous offer', that is logical admission that its a workable plan if the price is right ( or else, its NOT an outrageous offer). 

[D-Money]

6 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

Math clearly is not your strong suite. Neither is research or knowing what you are talking of. 

And spelling isn't yours.

 

...Which I'm only mentioning because you were being so dick-ish.

 

...And yeah, so was the guy you were replying to, but no sense starting a swordfight.

 

[Gurn]