[Speculation] Lucic says he would like to play here

[theo5789]

6 hours ago, Provost said:

Reading between the lines, maybe there is something to this rumour.

 

He didn’t say the rumours are false.

All it suggests that it's been discussed and any GM doing their due diligence will look into. For example, Benning could be seeing what Edmonton is willing to give up before determining if it's worth asking LE to waive. If Edmonton doesn't want to play ball then they can pound sand.

 

Lucic has openly suggested he's okay playing here and really the only move that makes sense is to move LE back in this case. It's an easy rumour to latch onto really.

[canucksnihilist]

I assume “play” is a loose word.  He is definitely an NHL player but not close to what he used to be...  but who is after 10 years + of hard play...  he was brought in when Edmonton was making the playoffs - for the few years that would hopefully put them over the top.   Now all that is left is the back end of a contract everyone knew would be brutal.

 

If Edmonton eats some salary sure...

[babalu]

If we are trying to add toughness and size why not just go after Ryan Reaves. Vegas is in cap trouble and may want to get rid of him. His contract is only 1 year at 2.775. Maybe try and get colin miller in a package deal as well.

[DontFockWithBrock]

 

Not sure if this has been posted here but thought it might be worth the watch. 

 

My thoughts:

-worked his a$$ off to get where he is

-loved playing in front of Vancouver fans 

-watching 2011 stuff was painful 

-big meat head 

 

At this point with Eriksson, I'm so bored watching him play hockey. At least Lucic will be a factor once in a while. I don't think he's going to help us get to the playoffs, but he'll help us when we get there? He seems to play his best hockey in the post season in Vancouver (in more than one league). It seems like we're going to make a few other roster changes that should hopefully be more helpful for the regular season. 

 

Edit: I still want a sweetener in the trade though. 

Edited June 10, 2019 by DontFockWithBrock

[DontFockWithBrock]

4 minutes ago, babalu said:

If we are trying to add toughness and size why not just go after Ryan Reaves. Vegas is in cap trouble and may want to get rid of him. His contract is only 1 year at 2.775. Maybe try and get colin miller in a package deal as well.

I wouldn't mind this.

 

The only thing is that you can't trade Eriksson to Vegas.

[babalu]

14 minutes ago, DontFockWithBrock said:

I wouldn't mind this.

 

The only thing is that you can't trade Eriksson to Vegas.

Maybe we can get rid of him in a separate deal. Maybe a team like Ottawa would be interested once his signing bonus is paid if we give them a sweetener.

Edited June 10, 2019 by babalu

[Provost]

1 hour ago, theo5789 said:

All it suggests that it's been discussed and any GM doing their due diligence will look into. For example, Benning could be seeing what Edmonton is willing to give up before determining if it's worth asking LE to waive. If Edmonton doesn't want to play ball then they can pound sand.

 

Lucic has openly suggested he's okay playing here and really the only move that makes sense is to move LE back in this case. It's an easy rumour to latch onto really.

Yes, and that is a couple of notches up from some random drunk person teeeting at 2:30 in the morning.

 

It could also just mean that Daliwal’s

sources are only the players and not in the club.... and he can’t soels to whether it is being discussed between the teams, only that it hasn’t made it down to the players.

[shiznak]

3 hours ago, aGENT said:

I get what you're saying but it does reduce your flexibility. What if we land some key UFA's/trades that need protecting after get him? What if we could trade for a solid forward from a team that won't be able to protect them, for cheap but wouldn't be able to because Lucic is going that slot?

 

If he's coming here, the clause needs to be waived IMO.

 

Then, we would only have 2 protection slot available, instead of 3. :p

 

Like I said, the only way this would backfire on us is if two of Virtanen, Leivo, Pearson, Bärtschi, or Gaudette become bonafide top 6 players for us. That would cause us to have little wiggle room for future free agents, will that need to be protected.

 

Just making up a scenario here; Say we sign a player like Panarin this off-season, then make the Lucic/Eriksson deal. That will leave us with one spot available to protect one of those players mentioned above. I think we call all live with losing one of Pearson, Leivo, or Bärtschi. So, what it really comes down to is to who to protect, Virtanen or Gaudette. The one who shows the most improvement will probably be the one protected.

 

I don’t know but for me, it isn’t really an issue.

Edited June 10, 2019 by shiznak

[mll]

2 hours ago, shiznak said:

Then, we would only have 2 protection slot available, instead of 3. :p

 

Like I said, the only way this would backfire on us is if two of Virtanen, Leivo, Pearson, Bärtschi, or Gaudette become bonafide top 6 players for us. That would cause us to have little wiggle room for future free agents, will that need to be protected.

 

Just making up a scenario here; Say we sign a player like Panarin this off-season, then make the Lucic/Eriksson deal. That will leave us with one spot available to protect one of those players mentioned above. I think we call all live with losing one of Pearson, Leivo, or Bärtschi. So, what it really comes down to is to who to protect, Virtanen or Gaudette. The one who shows the most improvement will probably be the one protected.

 

I don’t know but for me, it isn’t really an issue.

 

Canucks might not want to risk leaving players like Lind, Gadjovich exposed.  Everyone that played in the AHL this season are expansion eligible.

 

Juolevi needs protection on D.  So does Stecher.  Maybe Edler gets a NMC.  They want to add a top-4 D through free agency - ideally they find 2.  So that's potentially 4 Ds that need to be protected.  It would only leave 4 spots at F.

Btw Baertschi and Pearson are UFAs. 

 

Edited June 10, 2019 by mll

[shiznak]

2 hours ago, mll said:

 

Canucks might not want to risk leaving players like Lind, Gadjovich exposed.  Everyone that played in the AHL this season are expansion eligible.

 

Juolevi needs protection on D.  So does Stecher.  Maybe Edler gets a NMC.  They want to add a top-4 D through free agency - ideally they find 2.  So that's potentially 4 Ds that need to be protected.  It would only leave 4 spots at F.

Btw Baertschi and Pearson are UFAs. 

 

Players like Lind, Gadjovich, Sautner, Brisebois, etc are a dime a dozen players and I highly doubt any one of them will be protected. Unless they become NHL all-stars. I mean, Calgary left Shinkaruk unprotected and he was considered to be a decent prospect at that time. It’s more than likely Seattle choose between Gaudette or Virtanen, the one we don’t protect or one of our veteran guys like Roussel/Beagle/Tanev (If re-sign).

 

As for Stecher, he’s a great character guy, who can fill-in when need be, but I wouldn’t lose any sleep if he were exposed to the draft and got picked up by Seattle.

 

On the defensive side, the two main protected players are Juolevi and Hughes. Edler could be the third option if he were to re-sign with a NMC. I don’t expect whichever defensemen we get during FA to sign a NMC. Unless, of course, it’s Karlsson. Then Edler shouldn’t be getting a NMC.

 

 

[aGENT]

5 hours ago, shiznak said:

Then, we would only have 2 protection slot available, instead of 3. :p

 

Like I said, the only way this would backfire on us is if two of Virtanen, Leivo, Pearson, Bärtschi, or Gaudette become bonafide top 6 players for us. That would cause us to have little wiggle room for future free agents, will that need to be protected.

 

Just making up a scenario here; Say we sign a player like Panarin this off-season, then make the Lucic/Eriksson deal. That will leave us with one spot available to protect one of those players mentioned above. I think we call all live with losing one of Pearson, Leivo, or Bärtschi. So, what it really comes down to is to who to protect, Virtanen or Gaudette. The one who shows the most improvement will probably be the one protected.

 

I don’t know but for me, it isn’t really an issue.

You don't know what those players will be in a few years. Gaudette, Virtanen and Lind could all be very much deserving of protection by then. Even if they're 'only' top 9 players.

 

You simply don't reduce your flexibility if you don't need to.

Edited June 10, 2019 by aGENT

[rekker]

9 minutes ago, aGENT said:

You don't know what those players will be in a few years. Gaudette, Virtanen and Lind could all be very much deserving of protection by then. Even if they're 'only' top 9 players.

 

You simply don't reduce your flexibility if you don't need to.

Lucic comes with no need to protect him in the expansion draft or no deal. Period. You simply cannot waste a spot on an old, diminishing player if avoidable. And sorry, love you Eddy, same with you. 

Edited June 10, 2019 by rekker

[hlinkas wrister]

If this deal comes at the cost of losing a good young player in the expansion draft because we have to protect Milan, then the price is too high. If we want to get out from under Loui, then buy him out. If we feel the need to sign a tough guy then go sign one for cheap, they are a dime a dozen these days. 

[Provost]

50 minutes ago, hlinkas wrister said:

If this deal comes at the cost of losing a good young player in the expansion draft because we have to protect Milan, then the price is too high. If we want to get out from under Loui, then buy him out. If we feel the need to sign a tough guy then go sign one for cheap, they are a dime a dozen these days. 

The risk of us losing a good young player in expansion at forward is actually pretty low.  We don’t have many of them and are unlikely to somehow acquire a bunch in the next two years.

 

On forward currently:

Petterson, Boeser, Horvat, Virtanen, Gaudette, Pearson, Leivo

 

We will probably have a better D that will be taken.  Hughes, Stecher, Woo, Tryamkin, Juolevi

 

Obviously changes to the roster will happen... but we are as likely to move out a forward like Virtanen as we are to add one we would want to protect.

[aGENT]

30 minutes ago, Provost said:

The risk of us losing a good young player in expansion at forward is actually pretty low.  We don’t have many of them and are unlikely to somehow acquire a bunch in the next two years.

 

On forward currently:

Petterson, Boeser, Horvat, Virtanen, Gaudette, Pearson, Leivo

 

We will probably have a better D that will be taken.  Hughes, Stecher, Woo, Tryamkin, Juolevi

 

Obviously changes to the roster will happen... but we are as likely to move out a forward like Virtanen as we are to add one we would want to protect.

Neither Hughes or Woo will be eligible FWIW. Stecher, Juolevi and Tryamkin (if he returns), as well as Hutton (though I personally don't see him still here at that point) and any potential UFA/trade we make in the interim.

 

As of now (unless we trade one), we're almost certainly losing a goalie. I'd rather we shape that to exposing as 3rd/4th line F personally.

[Provost]

13 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Neither Hughes or Woo will be eligible FWIW. Stecher, Juolevi and Tryamkin (if he returns), as well as Hutton (though I personally don't see him still here at that point) and any potential UFA/trade we make in the interim.

 

As of now (unless we trade one), we're almost certainly losing a goalie. I'd rather we shape that to exposing as 3rd/4th line F personally.

Yep, brain fart on the Woo and Hughes front.

 

You are absolutely right about the goalies.  I had been mentioning that for a while suggesting it isn’t the worst thing if Demko ends up a trade chip to significantly upgrade somewhere else.  Goalies will have less value the closer we come to expansion, as many teams will have more than they can protect.  

[aGENT]

17 minutes ago, Provost said:

Yep, brain fart on the Woo and Hughes front.

 

You are absolutely right about the goalies.  I had been mentioning that for a while suggesting it isn’t the worst thing if Demko ends up a trade chip to significantly upgrade somewhere else.  Goalies will have less value the closer we come to expansion, as many teams will have more than they can protect.  

Not opposed to trading Demko (assuming the return is good enough) but I'd prefer we take the same route TBL did and keep the younger guy with the higher ceiling. 

 

People don't like to hear it but with Marky's contract expiring this year, a decision is likely going to need to be made sooner than later. And agreed on getting more value the further we are out from the ED.

[hlinkas wrister]

42 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Neither Hughes or Woo will be eligible FWIW. Stecher, Juolevi and Tryamkin (if he returns), as well as Hutton (though I personally don't see him still here at that point) and any potential UFA/trade we make in the interim.

 

As of now (unless we trade one), we're almost certainly losing a goalie. I'd rather we shape that to exposing as 3rd/4th line F personally.

Woo probably won't be but wouldn't Hughes have to be protected? He will have played 2 full seasons when the draft is held.

[aGENT]

8 minutes ago, hlinkas wrister said:

Woo probably won't be but wouldn't Hughes have to be protected? He will have played 2 full seasons when the draft is held.

Nope. He had to play 10+ games this season to be eligible. He did not.

[WestCoastDave]

What worries me about a Eriksson/Lucic trade is what happens if the former bounce back to his previous Boston form playing with McDavid.  Maybe, we should have a conditional draft pick included just in case such a scenario happen like if he perform better we get a higher or additional pick(s).