flickyoursedin Posted June 9, 2019 Share Posted June 9, 2019 1 hour ago, babalu said: No way I do this trade without Louis Eriksson going the other way. I would consider: Lucic, Puljujarvi, 8th For LE and the 10th Only would do this if we can find a way we don't have to protect him in the expansion draft. That ship sailed for me when he signed with the oil. Honestly not sure I want to see him on the Canucks regardless of cost. He's obviously not the player he used to be hence why edonton is trying to offload him. I don’t think he does need to be protected during the expansion draft. I could be wrong on that though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Great Canucks Posted June 9, 2019 Share Posted June 9, 2019 1 hour ago, Roger Neilsons Towel said: I think some people are confusing the NMC issue. Lucic can waive it for the Canucks, and even if they agree to dissolve the NMC after that point, the NMC still applies to the Expansion Draft as per the rules of said draft. Regardless of whether the NMC is waived or not. Except in the Vegas expansion, teams could expose players with NMCs if they agreed to waive them. Why would it be different now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2021Contender Posted June 9, 2019 Share Posted June 9, 2019 Was thinking about Erickson and our #40 for Lucic and Edmonton’s #8. We could then keep #8 and #10, try to package them for #3, or keep #8 and trade down the #10 to recoup a second round pick. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metal Face Doom Posted June 9, 2019 Share Posted June 9, 2019 41 minutes ago, 2021Contender said: Was thinking about Erickson and our #40 for Lucic and Edmonton’s #8. We could then keep #8 and #10, try to package them for #3, or keep #8 and trade down the #10 to recoup a second round pick. That would never happen. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shiznak Posted June 9, 2019 Share Posted June 9, 2019 Like I mentioned before, does it matter if Lucic has to be protected in the ED? Numerous GMs made several deals with McPhee agreeing with him not selecting an unprotected player from their team. Benning could just do the same with Seattle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babalu Posted June 9, 2019 Share Posted June 9, 2019 12 minutes ago, shiznak said: Like I mentioned before, does it matter if Lucic has to be protected in the ED? Numerous GMs made several deals with McPhee agreeing with him not selecting an unprotected player from their team. Benning could just do the same with Seattle. You would have to give up assets to have them not select someone we want to keep. Is getting Lucic and his terrible contract really worth it. I personally hope we don't acquie him. Hopefully we can unlod Eriksson through a different trade. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shiznak Posted June 9, 2019 Share Posted June 9, 2019 6 minutes ago, babalu said: You would have to give up assets to have them not select someone we want to keep. Is getting Lucic and his terrible contract really worth it. I personally hope we don't acquie him. Hopefully we can unlod Eriksson through a different trade. It’s going to be someone like a Bärtschi, Pearson, Levio, Beagle, or Roussel with an addition low pick past the 3rd round. I think I can live with losing one of those guys. Unless they can show me they can be bonafide second line players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Me_ Posted June 9, 2019 Share Posted June 9, 2019 (edited) Report: Canucks remain on the trail of Milan Lucic I think this is fair. VAN Lucic Puljujarvi VAN Eriksson Goldobin or Hutton My money is Holland takes Hutton and it hurts to see him go a bit but then Hughes scores. Edited June 9, 2019 by Me_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babalu Posted June 9, 2019 Share Posted June 9, 2019 39 minutes ago, shiznak said: It’s going to be someone like a Bärtschi, Pearson, Levio, Beagle, or Roussel with an addition low pick past the 3rd round. I think I can live with losing one of those guys. Unless they can show me they can be bonafide second line players. No way I trade for Lucic without Eriksson going the other way. Even then I would want a good asset added. Lucic doesn't have value. This isn't 2011. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shiznak Posted June 9, 2019 Share Posted June 9, 2019 56 minutes ago, babalu said: No way I trade for Lucic without Eriksson going the other way. Even then I would want a good asset added. Lucic doesn't have value. This isn't 2011. What? Were we not talking about the expansion draft, here? Protecting him should be an non-issue, seeing how we could make a deal with Seattle. Besides, the only big loss for us at this moment would be losing one of Horvat, Pettersson, Boeser or Hughes to the expansion draft. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Neilsons Towel Posted June 9, 2019 Share Posted June 9, 2019 6 hours ago, The Great Canucks said: Except in the Vegas expansion, teams could expose players with NMCs if they agreed to waive them. Why would it be different now? Read a few articles on it. A couple specific to our supposed interest in Lucic. Both said his NMC would apply to the Expansion Draft. I’ll see if I can find a link for you. For now here is a tweet from Ryan Biech Quote If Lucic *was* moved to Vancouver - Lucic's NMC would remain for the length of the term and thus #Canucks would have to protect him in the expansion draft despite having to waive it for the trade. — Ryan Biech (@ryanbiech) June 8, 2019 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babalu Posted June 9, 2019 Share Posted June 9, 2019 2 hours ago, shiznak said: What? Were we not talking about the expansion draft, here? Protecting him should be an non-issue, seeing how we could make a deal with Seattle. Besides, the only big loss for us at this moment would be losing one of Horvat, Pettersson, Boeser or Hughes to the expansion draft. You have clearly lost the plot. Lucic is an underperforming player on a bad contract. Only way we trade for that is if they take our bad contract in Eriksson plus give us an asset. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redhdlois Posted June 9, 2019 Share Posted June 9, 2019 Isn’t there a way to get rid of Eriksson without taking on a different bad contract? seems counter-productive to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shiznak Posted June 9, 2019 Share Posted June 9, 2019 24 minutes ago, babalu said: You have clearly lost the plot. Lucic is an underperforming player on a bad contract. Only way we trade for that is if they take our bad contract in Eriksson plus give us an asset. I think YOU have lost the plot. The argument wasn’t about trading Lucic for Eriksson, which people are fine with, as long as they add a secondary piece. The argument was, people don’t want to trade for Lucic (despite getting a sweetener as part as the deal) because he takes up a protection spot, which is concerning. Then I pointed out, it doesn’t really matter because, we could always make a deal with Seattle so that they wouldn’t take a player that we couldn’t protect. Just like how other GMs have done so in the past. IE: Minnesota traded away Tuch to Vegas, in order for McPhee to not take either Staal, Dumba, or Scandella, which Minny couldn’t protect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-P Posted June 9, 2019 Share Posted June 9, 2019 9 minutes ago, shiznak said: I think YOU have lost the plot. The argument wasn’t about trading Lucic for Eriksson, which people are fine with, as long as they add a secondary piece. The argument was, people don’t want to trade for Lucic (despite getting a sweetener as part as the deal) because he takes up a protection spot, which is concerning. Then I pointed out, it doesn’t really matter because, we could always make a deal with Seattle so that they wouldn’t take a player that we couldn’t protect. Just like how other GMs have done so in the past. IE: Minnesota traded away Tuch to Vegas, in order for McPhee to not take either Staal, Dumba, or Scandella, which Minny couldn’t protect. I remember how the expansion draft went for Columbus and Florida last time. Protecting players like Lucic is what gets you in that kind of trouble, and especially with young players it’s not easy to predict their development and asset value. LE has no NMC for the expansion draft so adding Lucic that has (as I understand it) should be a non-starter. Benning did well last time with Vegas - obviously managing a pretty weak roster without many assets - so let’s hope he has an eye on the ED and not just this upcoming season. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Screw Posted June 9, 2019 Share Posted June 9, 2019 1 hour ago, The 5th Line said: Looocchh come on home buddy. Guys a beast *puke* Need to protect this waaaaay past his prime pylon means we expose good young players to Seattle. We will need to resign Boeser, EP40 and QH. Taking on this contract would be very bad idea unless the Canucks were RICHLY compensated. JP is nowhere near enough. #8 pick would be a starter. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted June 9, 2019 Share Posted June 9, 2019 1 hour ago, Roger Neilsons Towel said: Read a few articles on it. A couple specific to our supposed interest in Lucic. Both said his NMC would apply to the Expansion Draft. I’ll see if I can find a link for you. For now here is a tweet from Ryan Biech A player can agree to waive his NMC to be exposed in the expansion draft - Toby Enstrom did. As for whether the NMC travels with Lucic - CapFriendly believes it is possible to nullify the clause. https://www.capfriendly.com/faq#nmc The clause can travel with the player even if he consents to being traded or is claimed on waivers This requires that the acquiring team sign an addendum to the contract ensuring that the clause does in fact travel with the player (written by the player's agent) If the acquiring team refuses to sign the addendum, and the player waives his clause anyway, at that point the clause may be nullified 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2021Contender Posted June 9, 2019 Share Posted June 9, 2019 12 minutes ago, Screw said: *puke* Need to protect this waaaaay past his prime pylon means we expose good young players to Seattle. We will need to resign Boeser, EP40 and QH. Taking on this contract would be very bad idea unless the Canucks were RICHLY compensated. JP is nowhere near enough. #8 pick would be a starter. Agree about #8 as a starter 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shiznak Posted June 9, 2019 Share Posted June 9, 2019 12 minutes ago, J-P said: I remember how the expansion draft went for Columbus and Florida last time. Protecting players like Lucic is what gets you in that kind of trouble, and especially with young players it’s not easy to predict their development and asset value. LE has no NMC for the expansion draft so adding Lucic that has (as I understand it) should be a non-starter. Benning did well last time with Vegas - obviously managing a pretty weak roster without many assets - so let’s hope he has an eye on the ED and not just this upcoming season. If we’re going by the 7F, 3D, 1G concept. Protection locked: Boeser Pettersson Horvat Lucic = 3 forward spots remaining On the bubble: Bärtschi Virtanen Pearson Levio Gaudette Roussel Beagle Sutter I don’t see how there’s a problem from Lucic taking up a protection spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted June 9, 2019 Share Posted June 9, 2019 5 minutes ago, shiznak said: If we’re going by the 7F, 3D, 1G concept. Protection locked: Boeser Pettersson Horvat Lucic = 3 forward spots remaining On the bubble: Bärtschi Virtanen Pearson Levio Gaudette Roussel Beagle Sutter I don’t see how there’s a problem from Lucic taking up a protection spot. A lot can change in 2 years. Who knows who they add through trade or free agency. There is always the situation where they might want to protect 4 Ds - so only 4 Fs spots left. Baertschi, Pearson and Sutter are UFAs and don't need to be protected. Lind, Gadjovich, Jasek, MacEwen could though. Vegas got top assets to not select certain players. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now