[Discussion] Is there a pending RFA would gladly surrender four 1st round picks in an offer sheet?

[billabong]

It’s a star studded RFA crop this year and lots of premier talent available for offer sheets

 

never mind the cap hit cause it would be between 9-13m over 6-7 years 

 

Offer sheet AAV in terms of compensation is divided by the lower of the term or 5 years 

 

keep in mind, if you sign a marner or point you’ll be automatically a better team and picking 20-31 for the  next few years anyways BUT those picks are not lottery protected and if injuries hit then all hell could break loose

 

xxxxx-pettersson-boeser

xxxxx-horvat-marner

 

pettersson-point-boeser

 

[BoKnows]

I'd give up 2 for Marner.

[Slegr]

I'm feeling pretty confident that Marner will get an offer sheet. My sense is that despite all his talk about wanting to stick around, he's been waiting for the possibility of an offer sheet, knowing it's the best way of getting paid. I wouldn't even mind if it was us, but then again, we need to take care of Brock or we'll get the same situation.

[PunjabiCanucks]

Other then McDavid there would be no one and he is not an RFA. One player doesnt make you a winner and I believe 4 1st round picks are better then 1.

 

Only team that can afford 4 1st round picks is a great team that has a deep prospect pool and also has the cap space.

 

I'd rather 4 players at the Boeser/ Hughes/ level rather then 1 generational player.

 

 

[SabreFan1]

21 minutes ago, BoKnows said:

I'd give up 2 for Marner.

That's not how offer sheets work.  You don't choose the compensation.  It's pre-determined.  The level that involves two 1st rounders also includes a 2nd and 3rd.

 

Here's last year's table:

 

Offer Sheet (AAV)	Compensation
$1,339,575 or below	None
Over $1,339,575 to $2,029,59	3rd
Over $2,029,59 to $4,059,322	2nd
Over $4,059,322 to $6,088,980	1st, 3rd
Over $6,088,980 to $8,118,641	1st, 2nd, 3rd
Over $8,118,641 to $10,148,302	(2) 1st, 2nd, 3rd
Over $10,148,302	(4) 1st

[the grinder]

nope with canuck luck  all those picks  will be  1st overall and the benning will surely be lynched 

[Fanuck]

You're talking about giving up potential equivalent to EP40,  Hughes,  OJ & Boeser all in one ill advised move.   So no, I don't think there's anyone worth gutting our team to that extent. 

Edited April 18, 2019 by Fanuck

[Hindustan Smyl]

The only player that I would give up four 1sts for would be McDavid.

 

On that above list, I’d be willing to two 1sts, a 2nd, and a 3rd for most of those players, but not a single one of those players are worth 4 1st round picks.

Edited April 18, 2019 by Hindustan Smyl

[Justdean10]

when did they last change the compensation for offer sheets? So many people are going to start getting the 10 mill range contracts I feel like this need to change it. 

[-AJ-]

Honestly, they should look at this system because it gets no use as of now. Adjusting the values would make it more worth it.

[qwijibo]

16 minutes ago, Justdean10 said:

when did they last change the compensation for offer sheets? So many people are going to start getting the 10 mill range contracts I feel like this need to change it. 

I believe it gets updated every season 

[Hindustan Smyl]

RFA offer sheets do more harm than good for GM’s in my opinion:

 

1) RFA offer sheets are almost always matched.

 

2) GM’s making RFA offer sheets take a big hit rep wise (in a negative way).

 

My advice for Benning would be to see if a deal can be worked out with this teams for those cap crunched teams.

 

2019 1st + 2020 1st + Hutton should get the attention of some of those teams that are at high risk of losing their players to predatory RFA offer sheets.

 

1) Let cap strapped teams *begrudgingly* match predatory offer sheets from other teams (the operative word being ‘other teams.’).

 

2) Let us come in afterwards as the knights in shining armours, and offer our above package.

[qwijibo]

5 minutes ago, Hindustan Smyl said:

RFA offer sheets do more harm than good for GM’s in my opinion:

 

1) RFA offer sheets are almost always matched.

 

2) GM’s making RFA offer sheets take a big hit rep wise (in a negative way).

 

My advice for Benning would be to see if a deal can be worked out with this teams for those cap crunched teams.

 

2019 1st + 2020 1st + Hutton should get the attention of some of those teams that are at high risk of losing their players to predatory RFA offer sheets.

 

1) Let cap strapped teams *begrudgingly* match predatory offer sheets from other teams (the operative word being ‘other teams.’).

 

2) Let us come in afterwards as the knights in shining armours, and offer our above package.

• If an offer sheet is matched, a club can't trade that player for one calendar year after the sheet is matched.

[Hindustan Smyl]

3 minutes ago, qwijibo said:

• If an offer sheet is matched, a club can't trade that player for one calendar year after the sheet is matched.

Perhaps it’s possible for the Canucks and *insert team here* to make a trade *before* July 1st (or both teams mutually agree to have something in place on July 1st midnight).

 

On July 1st 12:00 am:  *team* signs *RFA player to a long term deal that *team* knows that it can’t afford, but with the expectation that they will trade said player. #SignAndTrade

 

July 1st 12:00 am:  Canucks announce a deal with said team for said player.  

 

Why the other team does this:  

 

1) They receive a higher compensation for said RFA (Two 1sts + Hutton) as opposed to a 1st, and 2nd, and a 3rd.  

2) They aren’t straddled with a contract for one year that they can’t afford.

 

Why the Canucks do it:

 

1) They get a young core piece signed long term.  They have the cap space to afford it.

[Makaramel MacKhiato]

27 minutes ago, Hindustan Smyl said:

RFA offer sheets do more harm than good for GM’s in my opinion:

 

1) RFA offer sheets are almost always matched.

 

2) GM’s making RFA offer sheets take a big hit rep wise (in a negative way).

Not to mention it looks bad for the player accepting the offer sheet

[6string]

                                                                                      

[Lancaster]

Only makes sense if the player being targeted will be contending each and every year for:  Art Ross, Norris, Hart, and/or Rocket Richard.  

Plus the team making the offer will be contending going forward.  

4 late 1st rounders (24-31st) won't be as painful as say 4 top-5 picks.  

[khay]

No. But Marner comes close.

 

There is essentially no way to guarantee that you won't suck for some reason, say due to injuries/bad coaching/bad luck and etc. And if that happens and we win the lottery? I don't think the team, its fanbase, and media will be able to cope with that neither will the player that we sign due to the pressure from the Vancouver media. Knowing the Vancouver media, it will be that player's fault that we sucked and that we gave up 4 1st rounders including a top 3 pick.

[xereau]

Marner is easily worth the 2nd highest 'penalty'.  And if we suddenly are finishing high, say top 3 in the league, and picking late.. yes, maybe is even worth four 1sts. 

 

Now before you freak, think about it this way:

 

• There are no guarantees that any of those four picks would play for your team. They are just hypothetical futures.  Lottery tickets.

 

• Even if they do make it, what are the chance even one is a Mitch Marner?  Damn low. 

 

• If you play your cards right, each draft you can scoot back up into the same late 1st, early 2nd territory with some shrewd asset flipping, to bolster his cost.

 

• Four early 2nd rounders recovered through trade, is not that much different than four late 1sts.

 

• Benning has been showing the league how recovery players, and NCAA  are effective roster bolstering routes.

 

Marner is is the most complete winger I have seen in a long, long time.  And is only going to get better.  And I honestly do not think there is a better fit in the NHL for Petey's wing.  A play making motor that can chip in a cool 30 himself.  Oh, and PK.  People would FREAK if he cost four 1sts though LOL.  But its not as bad as it initially seems.

 

 

[Angry Goose]

the canucks sure cant.