Sign in to follow this  
Hindustan Smyl

[discussion] Loui Eriksson + Adam Gaudette for Andrew Ladd + Bode Wilde

Recommended Posts

[discussion] Loui Eriksson + Adam Gaudette for Andrew Ladd + Bode Wilde

 

(Vancouver would likely have to add a little here.   As to what that would entail, I’m not sure).
 

For the record, I likely wouldn’t make *any* moves this year if I was Benning (I am of the opinion that things are almost perfect the way the are, although that’s a different story for a different day), but I’m bored and so I want to explore the following idea:

 

Eriksson and Gaudette go to NYI, and we get Ladd and Wilde.

 

NYI possibly does this because........

 

1).  They already have Noah Dobson as a young RD stud and so losing Wilde wouldn’t exactly deplete them long term on that side.

2) If I understand correctly, the Isles are a bit short on prospect centers and so perhaps Gaudette can help them here (I might be wrong with here regarding Isles prospect center depth.   I can’t be half assed to look it up).

3) NYI take on a higher cap hit in LE, but it would be for a shorter term than Ladd.

 

Vancouver possibly does this, because.....

 

1) They continue to improve their defensive prospect pool.......which has come a long way, but is still a little thin.

2) They take a calculated risk that Brandon Sutter can continue to be an effective 3rd line Center for two years, while Tyler Madden can successfully take over that role in two years.   
3) Removal of a disgruntled player.

4) The cap.  I haven’t studied the cap too much lately and so I have no idea if the Canucks would be able to afford Andrew Ladd’s extra year, but they would reduce their cap by 500,000 for the short term.  
 

Again - no clue if I’d actually do this, but I’m bored and so I thought speak my mind.

Edited by Hindustan Smyl
  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Hindustan Smyl said:

4) The cap.  I haven’t studied the cap too much lately and so I have no idea if the Canucks would be able to afford Andrew Ladd’s extra year, but they would reduce their cap by 500,000 for the short term. 

Eriksson's deal is going to be problematic for signing a whole bunch of young guys, but I guess this helps. Ultimately I be looking to move him for a higher cap hit and shorter term contract. But if there's a chance Ladd is on Robidas Island before the end of his deal, then this is a good move - depending on our confidence in Madden to work out like Gaudette.

 

Alternatively, replace Gaudette with Madden and a 2nd round pick in 2021 - does that get it done?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, EagleShield said:

Eriksson's deal is going to be problematic for signing a whole bunch of young guys, but I guess this helps. Ultimately I be looking to move him for a higher cap hit and shorter term contract. But if there's a chance Ladd is on Robidas Island before the end of his deal, then this is a good move - depending on our confidence in Madden to work out like Gaudette.

 

Alternatively, replace Gaudette with Madden and a 2nd round pick in 2021 - does that get it done?

It’s tough to project what Madden will be like in two years (atleast for me as I don’t follow him that much), BUT.........if the Canucks management brass feels that.

 

1) Sutter will be a good 3rd line Center for us for the next two years.

2) Madden has a very good chance of successfully replacing Sutter as our 3rd line C when the time comes, and being a very good 3rd line C,

 

then the idea of taking a calculated risk in moving Gaudette for a young RHD doesn’t become the worst idea in the world all of a sudden.   Having Hughes, Wilde, Woo, Tryamkin, and Juolevi as part of our future defensive core does seem pretty tempting.

 

My gut tells me that the Canucks wouldn’t be able to afford Ladd’s contract for that extra year (and that Eriksson’s contract is by far the lesser of two evils), but perhaps I’m wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This does not make sense for either side.

 

First off, Ladd’s extra year is a big issue. Eriksson’s contract is easy to buy out in the final year. Even if he’s still on the team at that point, he’ll be gone, as will most of his cap hit.

 

Secondly, Ladd is almost always on I/R, meaning he isn’t costing NYI much cash, and they also get regular cap relief. His presence isn’t really an issue for them.

 

And third, Wilde is likely worth quite a bit more than Gaudette at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are like more than half way to developing Gaudette so we can see how he pans out, yet let's trade him before we can see what he can do in the NHL...? 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you guys consider the ceiling for some of the prospects your talking about? You dont just toss names

around like that. Gaudette and Madden? Two players whos ceiling is yet to be even properly assessed how

can you give away players like that? These two particular players could be part of the pillars that drive our

offense for years. Saying nothing of the character of these guys and what they add to the locker room. 

Only thing missing is Hoglander try to find a way to trade him too you might as well.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Shirotashi said:

Do you guys consider the ceiling for some of the prospects your talking about? You dont just toss names

around like that. Gaudette and Madden? Two players whos ceiling is yet to be even properly assessed how

can you give away players like that? These two particular players could be part of the pillars that drive our

offense for years. Saying nothing of the character of these guys and what they add to the locker room. 

Only thing missing is Hoglander try to find a way to trade him too you might as well.

Well any trade is a risk, using your logic no team could ever trade a player ever because they could get better at some point.

Trades are always risks and rewards.  Sometimes you give up upside for lower downside, sometimes you account for the opportunity cost of not having cap space.

The organization has a decent sense of how likely these guys are going to end up more than replacement level top 6 forwards... hint, most later picks don't.  I remember almost yelling that they should trade Cole Cassels when his value was sky high right after shutting down McDavid for an entire tournament.  That ended up being his high water mark,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Shirotashi said:

Do you guys consider the ceiling for some of the prospects your talking about? You dont just toss names

around like that. Gaudette and Madden? Two players whos ceiling is yet to be even properly assessed how

can you give away players like that? These two particular players could be part of the pillars that drive our

offense for years. Saying nothing of the character of these guys and what they add to the locker room. 

Only thing missing is Hoglander try to find a way to trade him too you might as well.

An FYI - I never mentioned moving Madden.

 

Even though I flirted with the idea of moving Gaudette, it was with the expectation that we’d be getting an equally young asset back in a more pressing position of need (Wilde).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Provost said:

Well any trade is a risk, using your logic no team could ever trade a player ever because they could get better at some point.

Trades are always risks and rewards.  Sometimes you give up upside for lower downside, sometimes you account for the opportunity cost of not having cap space.

The organization has a decent sense of how likely these guys are going to end up more than replacement level top 6 forwards... hint, most later picks don't.  I remember almost yelling that they should trade Cole Cassels when his value was sky high right after shutting down McDavid for an entire tournament.  That ended up being his high water mark,

I cede to you the point that any trade has a risk. San Jose is learning that lesson right now. I was one of the ones yelling

we should never trade Cole Cassels. I just had a problem trading THOSE players for THOSE players. I agree that sometimes

we need to give up something good to get something good but we have done that and we got Miller. Now we need to let

some of our picks mature to see the full value we have.

 

To be honest Cole Cassels would have gotten us a 2nd and thats considering the hype but he was trending upwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the problem with so many of the Loui trade ideas, they have a main "crap for crap" component. 

 

In this case, there's no point for either team. In fact we're better off with Loui than Ladd, why take on an extra year of an anchor contract just to save 500k? We can save more than that just sending Loui to Utica.

 

Wilde for Gaudette doesn't make sense for either team.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we make this trade and one of our centers goes down with injury we would be in trouble. While we do have  Miller as a center that would still mean splitting up our top line which has been electric for us. While I don't love that Gaudette isn't getting any action right now, I feel good knowing he is a perfect option in the case of injury.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I am Benning, I would not make any moving in the current situation.

Guad is our future 3rd line centre, might happen in next year, or the year of next.

 

Agreed Loui's contract is easily buy out in the last year of his contract, even we currently have lots of players could be the 13th forwarder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Rabbit said:

If I am Benning, I would not make any moving in the current situation.

Guad is our future 3rd line centre, might happen in next year, or the year of next.

 

Agreed Loui's contract is easily buy out in the last year of his contract, even we currently have lots of players could be the 13th forwarder.

I think this is our best option. Having his contract on the books sucks a little, but we can maneuver this year and next. Its the 3rd year when we have to re-sign Pettersson and Hughes that we are going to need more space, but the new broadcasting agreement is supposed to kick in and the cap should start moving up more significantly again.

 

Completely agree that we should just park him in the press box and dust him off to cover for injuries until summer of 2021, buying him out then drops our cap hit to 4 million for 21/22 and 1 million for 22/23. We will have enough other contracts drop off that year, plus enough young players graduated from AHL, but still on entry level deals, that we should be able to make it work.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I almost spat my coffee out when I saw the thread title. we should keep gaudette he is blossoming into a stud 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this one?

 

Kesler for Eriksson.

 

Ryan retires as a Canuck and we get a nice LTIR hit. Ducks get a usable player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

trade Eriksson to Chicago for Seabrook with retention. Chicago GM has proven in the past to give up high draft picks or Good young players to dump a contract.

 

Seabrook has a longer dea, which isn't ideal. If we got him around 4m or so I would say we trade Tanev at the TDL and hope Seabrook can play with Quinn in some 5-5 hockey then use him on the PK. Also, would allow Stecher to play more minutes for us too.

 

Its not ideal to take a longer term contract back as we have players to sign upcoming, so I doubt the Canucks do such a trade now. Maybe in the summer if they chose to lock up EP and QH to new deals they have a better idea of their cap going forward then you try to get Chi to retain 50% and still add...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We want the shortest term on a bad deal.  I think we have that in Erikkson.  Regardless of the cap hit, we want out from under this as quickly as we can.  3 years isn't too bad, let's not make it 4 or 5 years.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, BCNate said:

We want the shortest term on a bad deal.  I think we have that in Erikkson.  Regardless of the cap hit, we want out from under this as quickly as we can.  3 years isn't too bad, let's not make it 4 or 5 years.

At least Loui is still somewhat useful. Outside of that interview in the summer, the guy is apparently not being any kind of locker room issue and after sitting for 8 or 9 games came in and played well. Why take on a worse contract for someone even less useful? These Loui for <some teams junk> ideas just have to stop. Benning isn't going to do that. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Drakrami said:

We are like more than half way to developing Gaudette so we can see how he pans out, yet let's trade him before we can see what he can do in the NHL...? 

Gaudette is still developing? Dude is 23. How old do people think he is? I'd take Wilde for Gaudette 10 times outta 10.

 

And we have seen him in the NHL. It's suspect defense, with inconsistent offence (70% ozone starts in his limited looks this season, 60% last season), and a lack of physicality. On top of being a  40% faceoff man. Not ideal for a supposed center. Gaudette is so overrated it actually hurts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.