mll Posted July 7, 2019 Share Posted July 7, 2019 23 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said: I agree somewhat on yours and Jim's comment. They make good sense, and realistically, it is the most plausible outcome. Where I was going with this and why I made this post, was for the dialogue and discussion regarding that, and comparison of what would be better for the club An example of this is...…..the question, Which move is best for the club Sutter + DiPietro for a 2020 2nd + the ability to sign another UFA (say Dzingel or Ferland) DiPietro has limited value. Devan Dubnyk was outpacing Mike Smith and got a 3rd round pick - he got nominated for the Vezina that year. DiPietro is an under-sized goalie. When he played that game vs SJS every team got to see how his size could seriously limit him in the NHL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Borvat Posted July 7, 2019 Share Posted July 7, 2019 11 hours ago, janisahockeynut said: I agree somewhat on yours and Jim's comment. They make good sense, and realistically, it is the most plausible outcome. Where I was going with this and why I made this post, was for the dialogue and discussion regarding that, and comparison of what would be better for the club An example of this is...…..the question, Which move is best for the club Sutter + DiPietro for a 2020 2nd + the ability to sign another UFA (say Dzingel or Ferland) Eriksson is the one to move. It will allow for addition to the roster for the right player/deal. I would rather only use an asset or retention to make him go away. The rest can play out. Sutter and Tanev have value at this time for the Canucks. If they perform they will have value to other teams at the TDL if the Canucks wish to move them. If Eriksson is gone everything else will work itself out. He has $1MM in salary left this year. If he doesn't step up and "earn" a roster spot send him to Utica. I get a strong feeling he may just go away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.I.A.H.N Posted July 7, 2019 Author Share Posted July 7, 2019 10 hours ago, mll said: DiPietro has limited value. Devan Dubnyk was outpacing Mike Smith and got a 3rd round pick - he got nominated for the Vezina that year. DiPietro is an under-sized goalie. When he played that game vs SJS every team got to see how his size could seriously limit him in the NHL. 2 points #1...……...I am saying that Sutter has value but limited, and I am using DiPietro because IMO he is redundant, as we have a solid goalie base #2...……..I do not think he is necessarily too small , he is on the smallish side, but his record for his age is solid, in any case, he is an asset that we can include but it could be someone else. The point is, that he and Sutter combined will give you a better pick and make him tradeable (I hope), and that by moving him out, you have extra cap to upgrade...think of it this way, Sutter's value is Sutter's value, as is DiPietro's, but the idea is to move him out. The additional value comes from who ever you sign (add) Note* I think Sutter's value is a 3rd, and I think that when DiPietro was drafted he was the 64th pick (5th pick of the 3rd round), so now that the smoke has cleared, he has moved past some of the earlier picks (if goalies were not thought of as low in general, he would have been higher) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.I.A.H.N Posted July 7, 2019 Author Share Posted July 7, 2019 13 minutes ago, Borvat said: Eriksson is the one to move. It will allow for addition to the roster for the right player/deal. I would rather only use an asset or retention to make him go away. The rest can play out. Sutter and Tanev have value at this time for the Canucks. If they perform they will have value to other teams at the TDL if the Canucks wish to move them. If Eriksson is gone everything else will work itself out. He has $1MM in salary left this year. If he doesn't step up and "earn" a roster spot send him to Utica. I get a strong feeling he may just go away. You are probably right, I just don't think he has done us any favors over the summer, with his comments. No one want a cancer in the room. To me it is the fact that anyone getting him has to put up with that for another 3 years...……...I think they will be afraid it will backfire on them, if he is obtained..... Joe's idea of retaining 1M per is a great idea, as it really shrinks his money owed, just not his cap, which will be a problem for some teams wanting him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Borvat Posted July 7, 2019 Share Posted July 7, 2019 1 minute ago, janisahockeynut said: You are probably right, I just don't think he has done us any favors over the summer, with his comments. No one want a cancer in the room. To me it is the fact that anyone getting him has to put up with that for another 3 years...……...I think they will be afraid it will backfire on them, if he is obtained..... Joe's idea of retaining 1M per is a great idea, as it really shrinks his money owed, just not his cap, which will be a problem for some teams wanting him Well either he isn't very bright, he knew what he was doing or he couldn't control his mouth. I really don't think they will be able to move him until the season begins and this blows over which is really too bad for the Canucks. It hamstrings them and compounds the problem. He has $1MM owed to him this year. I hope he doesn't use that rationale to leave the Canucks hanging. I imagine if he reports to Utica and goes through the motions there isn't much the Canucks can do . Time will tell, hopefully, Eriksson has some pride and will move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted July 7, 2019 Share Posted July 7, 2019 1 minute ago, janisahockeynut said: 2 points #1...……...I am saying that Sutter has value but limited, and I am using DiPietro because IMO he is redundant, as we have a solid goalie base #2...……..I do not think he is necessarily too small , he is on the smallish side, but his record for his age is solid, in any case, he is an asset that we can include but it could be someone else. The point is, that he and Sutter combined will give you a better pick and make him tradeable (I hope), and that by moving him out, you have extra cap to upgrade...think of it this way, Sutter's value is Sutter's value, as is DiPietro's, but the idea is to move him out. The additional value comes from who ever you sign (add) Note* I think Sutter's value is a 3rd, and I think that when DiPietro was drafted he was the 64th pick (5th pick of the 3rd round), so now that the smoke has cleared, he has moved past some of the earlier picks (if goalies were not thought of as low in general, he would have been higher) Conor Ingram was drafted in the 3rd round in 2016. He was an AHL all-star this season and held the record for shutouts in the AHL this season. He went for a 7th round pick in 2021. Goalies have very limited trade value. Goalie development is just too unpredictable. It can take years before guys figure things out and it can be quite a roller coaster. Nashville drafted 20 goalies since their inception, including 2 in the 1st round and one as high as 6th overall. Out of those 20 drafted goalies they only found 2 NHL goalies and Saros might not even be a legit starter. Saros looked good as a backup but when they increased his role he struggled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.I.A.H.N Posted July 7, 2019 Author Share Posted July 7, 2019 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Borvat said: Well either he isn't very bright, he knew what he was doing or he couldn't control his mouth. I really don't think they will be able to move him until the season begins and this blows over which is really too bad for the Canucks. It hamstrings them and compounds the problem. He has $1MM owed to him this year. I hope he doesn't use that rationale to leave the Canucks hanging. I imagine if he reports to Utica and goes through the motions there isn't much the Canucks can do . Time will tell, hopefully, Eriksson has some pride and will move on. Yes, pretty much onside with those comments.....here is some more thoughts - He and the Canucks could terminate by mutual agreement and go back to Sweden, and pretty much earn the same amount over the next 3 years. No Cap charge - Too bad the Canucks did not void his contract for breach of Contract for his comments - As many have said, just send him down to Utica - Could he be loaned to a European club (Just another option that someone on here mentioned) - I am sure Aqualini has some friends who could just make him disappear Edited July 7, 2019 by janisahockeynut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.I.A.H.N Posted July 7, 2019 Author Share Posted July 7, 2019 3 minutes ago, mll said: Conor Ingram was drafted in the 3rd round in 2016. He was an AHL all-star this season and held the record for shutouts in the AHL this season. He went for a 7th round pick in 2021. Goalies have very limited trade value. Goalie development is just too unpredictable. It can take years before guys figure things out and it can be quite a roller coaster. Nashville drafted 20 goalies since their inception, including 2 in the 1st round and one as high as 6th overall. Out of those 20 drafted goalies they only found 2 NHL goalies and Saros might not even be a legit starter. Saros looked good as a backup but when they increased his role he struggled. yes, I think your point is valid But I will say that DiPietro has not got out of junior and has shown steady progression every year as one would expect I do believe his current value is probably at his highest it will ever be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyman109 Posted July 7, 2019 Share Posted July 7, 2019 (edited) 15 minutes ago, mll said: Conor Ingram was drafted in the 3rd round in 2016. He was an AHL all-star this season and held the record for shutouts in the AHL this season. He went for a 7th round pick in 2021. Goalies have very limited trade value. Goalie development is just too unpredictable. It can take years before guys figure things out and it can be quite a roller coaster. Nashville drafted 20 goalies since their inception, including 2 in the 1st round and one as high as 6th overall. Out of those 20 drafted goalies they only found 2 NHL goalies and Saros might not even be a legit starter. Saros looked good as a backup but when they increased his role he struggled. we need look no further than our own back yard for a goalie that took until last year to figure it out in Markstrom. Edited July 7, 2019 by mikeyman109 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildcam Posted July 7, 2019 Share Posted July 7, 2019 (edited) On July 6, 2019 at 6:09 PM, Dungass said: I think Tanev and possibly Sutter are moveable, but it wouldn't be cheap on our end. Tanev still has SOME value, but I think a team would probably want some sort of sweetener to eat his whole contract for the year. Getting a team to take all of Sutter for the next two years just isn't on. We would have to retain a good portion of his salary to have any thoughts of moving him. yes even retain half his salary would give us 2.2 Million saving? I want to move Sutter.. Trade Tanev if he can stay healthy after 15-20 games -- trade for younger D prospect take back 2.5 million we save another 2 million.. Schaller will not make the team so off to Utica..Save 1 million.. When we are down to 23 man roster there will also be a savings.. I really believe Juolevi will be on Canuck team before Xmas and making a difference...Poor Juolevi has had injury issues last 2 yrs.. Knee last year after 18 Utica games.. Gp 18-- Pts 13-- over 20 mins a game.. We forget he just turned 21, 6'3 lots of talent, bright future.. Woo is another year away, This young man just 19 will make world U 20 team this yr and we will also have one of the best Russian players in U20 team as well.. Go Canucks Go... Excited with new additions and young prospects to develop. Edited July 8, 2019 by wildcam 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Kneel Posted July 7, 2019 Share Posted July 7, 2019 Delorme should tanya harding LE back stage and we'd get our litr finally. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTramFan Posted July 7, 2019 Share Posted July 7, 2019 3 hours ago, janisahockeynut said: Joe's idea of retaining 1M per is a great idea, as it really shrinks his money owed, just not his cap, which will be a problem for some teams wanting him Agree that some salary retention will help to move Eriksson. However, my understanding is that VAN has to retain a % of his salary, not a fixed $ amount. I think it it is most likely that VAN retains 25% or 50%. This would mean his new team would take a cap hit of $6m but would pay him as follows... At 25% retention: 2019-20 - $750k 2020-21 - $3m 2021-22 - $3m At 50% retention: 2019-20 - $500k 2020-21 - $2m 2021-22 - $2m Looking at it this way, it is easy to see that a new team gets their best value from LE in this season. I think the 50% retention puts LE’s contract in an acceptable range ($2m) for his level of play. My hope would be to move LE (at 50% retained) along with a lower level sweetener such as a Goldy/Brisebois (not Dipietro) in exchange for future considerations or a low pick. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kloubek Posted July 7, 2019 Share Posted July 7, 2019 18 hours ago, janisahockeynut said: I agree somewhat on yours and Jim's comment. They make good sense, and realistically, it is the most plausible outcome. Where I was going with this and why I made this post, was for the dialogue and discussion regarding that, and comparison of what would be better for the club An example of this is...…..the question, Which move is best for the club Sutter + DiPietro for a 2020 2nd + the ability to sign another UFA (say Dzingel or Ferland) I get what you are trying to say - and perhaps your suggestion may indeed help us short term. Ferland or Dzingle probably would be an upgrade. Neither, however, are what we really need. Miller should do well with Petey but he is really a 2nd line player imo. We need elite talent - which means high end prospects or more picks is what we really should be going after. Not yet another 2nd line guy. - I believe Sutter currently has negative value so a 2nd might be ambitious. I would say we would get back a late pick instead of a 2nd. I realize the pick coming back isn't the primary reasoning for your suggestion, but I believe it has importance to help offset the loss of the sweetener we throw in. - I would rather sell high rather than sell low. If Baer and Sutter play decent this coming season, they either do well for our club or they increase their value to trade. But at this point, both are damaged goods which require us to add to move. And as we are still rebuilding, I am not keen on giving up extra assets. And if they DO produce, I feel Sutter is appropriate for the 3rd line and keeps us from having to throw in Gaudette before he is ready. Baer might be a 50 point guy for us if he stays healthy. Ferland will likely score less - though his size is clearly an advantage. Either way, I question if the slight overall upgrade would be worth it considering it would cost us even more cap plus assets. Maybe? I really think it comes down to personal opinion more than anything. But I do see what you are trying to say. I think if we were contending this might make more sense to me but for now I would rather keep the sweetener assets and hope these guys in question come back healthy and play like they can. Eriksson, on the other hand, is a lost cause to me by this point. If we lost him and had to give up a sweetener for it, I would be on board - but that is primarily due to his huge salary and term, plus I question if he would be a locker room cancer now. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.I.A.H.N Posted July 8, 2019 Author Share Posted July 8, 2019 1 hour ago, kloubek said: I get what you are trying to say - and perhaps your suggestion may indeed help us short term. Ferland or Dzingle probably would be an upgrade. Neither, however, are what we really need. Miller should do well with Petey but he is really a 2nd line player imo. We need elite talent - which means high end prospects or more picks is what we really should be going after. Not yet another 2nd line guy. - I believe Sutter currently has negative value so a 2nd might be ambitious. I would say we would get back a late pick instead of a 2nd. I realize the pick coming back isn't the primary reasoning for your suggestion, but I believe it has importance to help offset the loss of the sweetener we throw in. - I would rather sell high rather than sell low. If Baer and Sutter play decent this coming season, they either do well for our club or they increase their value to trade. But at this point, both are damaged goods which require us to add to move. And as we are still rebuilding, I am not keen on giving up extra assets. And if they DO produce, I feel Sutter is appropriate for the 3rd line and keeps us from having to throw in Gaudette before he is ready. Baer might be a 50 point guy for us if he stays healthy. Ferland will likely score less - though his size is clearly an advantage. Either way, I question if the slight overall upgrade would be worth it considering it would cost us even more cap plus assets. Maybe? I really think it comes down to personal opinion more than anything. But I do see what you are trying to say. I think if we were contending this might make more sense to me but for now I would rather keep the sweetener assets and hope these guys in question come back healthy and play like they can. Eriksson, on the other hand, is a lost cause to me by this point. If we lost him and had to give up a sweetener for it, I would be on board - but that is primarily due to his huge salary and term, plus I question if he would be a locker room cancer now. Great Post...….very well articulated. I agree, with you and like I said earlier, it is more like the way things will be My thought does go beyond what I stated as, What I am thinking is this: Sutter = 3rd/4th? DiPietro = 3rd or 2nd in 2020 = 2nd in 2020 Ferland/Dzingel = 2nd in 2022? So, in the end, I want to see Benning rotate assets out as they age, and I would like to see us adjust our prospect pool as they age/peek so best case in both cases is 2 X 3's < 2 X 2's And in the mean time, you get to use the upgraded asset during the seasons It was more just a exercise to see if the theory would fly here on CDC I love this stuff and the feedback I get...………..most times! LOL 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