Sign in to follow this  
-Vintage Canuck-

[Speculation] Canucks interested in Wayne Simmonds

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

Keeping Stecher smacks of building a regular season contender versus a CUP contender. It works during the 82 games but not the 16 that count. 

There is zero chance Stecher is back next season.  His Qualifying offer is going to be too high.  He will go to UFA status July 1, and (like Hutton last year) will sign a 1.5 to 2 million dollar deal with another team.  Rafferty will play Stecher’s minutes next year, and cost under a million.  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Alflives said:

There is zero chance Stecher is back next season.  His Qualifying offer is going to be too high.  He will go to UFA status July 1, and (like Hutton last year) will sign a 1.5 to 2 million dollar deal with another team.  Rafferty will play Stecher’s minutes next year, and cost under a million.  

His QO is simply his contract salary that he's at now (2.325 million). Most of his "comparables", from a cursory scan on Capfriendly are in the range of 2 - 3.5 million. Are the Canucks willing to pay that to another 5/6 defenseman who is able to shuffle up and down the lineup? We will see. He's been recently paired with Edler on whatever d-pairing you want to call that.

 

Hughes - .92 million [year after, could be 7+ million]

Edler - 6 million [UFA year after]

Myers - 6 million [long-term signing]

Tanev - ? million [I think it would cost at least 5 - 5.5 to bring him back again; would be long-term]

Stecher - ? million [2 - 3.5 million; would be at least a bridge (2 years)]

#6 - ? Tryamkin?

#7 - Benn - 2 million [UFA year after]

#8 - Rafferty?

 

Edler (6) - Stecher (3?)

Hughes (.92) - Tanev (5.25)

Tryamkin (2) - Myers (6) ---- would love to see the size of this....

Benn (2) - Rafferty (.7)

 

Would require some juggling up-front (Eriksson / Baerstchi, etc.) to carry that much cap on defense. Or shuffling Benn out. I'd rather Stecher back for 3ish million as a #6 than Benn with 2 million at #7.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the topic at hand.

 

Is anyone else worried that with Ferlands status it's possible Benning trades futures for this guy?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Back to the topic at hand.

 

Is anyone else worried that with Ferlands status it's possible Benning trades futures for this guy?

The futures couldn’t be much.  
The guy is pretty much done.  
3rd or less, I’d be fine.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, drummerboy said:

The futures couldn’t be much.  
The guy is pretty much done.  
3rd or less, I’d be fine.   

Im still on a Baertschi 1-1 deal and even then I think Baertschi is worth more

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Back to the topic at hand.

 

Is anyone else worried that with Ferlands status it's possible Benning trades futures for this guy?

Very much worried.  I hope JB just stays with our current guys, and plays Big Mac in that role.  Don’t fix something that ain’t broke.  

Share this post


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

Im still on a Baertschi 1-1 deal and even then I think Baertschi is worth more

You have to explain your logic to me on that. Baertschi successfully passed through waivers twice this season and he has another year left on his contract.  Conventional thinking suggests that he has negative value.  Plus teams know the Canucks are somewhat cap crunched. Which means they’re going to ask even more to take his cap hit off their hands.  In what way is he more valuable than a bottom 6 guy who is actually playing in the league and is on an expiring contract? Let’s not forget that Simmonds actually has 23 points this season. Not burning up the league by any stretch. But he’s contributing 

Edited by qwijibo
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Canadian said:

His QO is simply his contract salary that he's at now (2.325 million). Most of his "comparables", from a cursory scan on Capfriendly are in the range of 2 - 3.5 million. Are the Canucks willing to pay that to another 5/6 defenseman who is able to shuffle up and down the lineup? We will see. He's been recently paired with Edler on whatever d-pairing you want to call that.

 

Hughes - .92 million [year after, could be 7+ million]

Edler - 6 million [UFA year after]

Myers - 6 million [long-term signing]

Tanev - ? million [I think it would cost at least 5 - 5.5 to bring him back again; would be long-term]

Stecher - ? million [2 - 3.5 million; would be at least a bridge (2 years)]

#6 - ? Tryamkin?

#7 - Benn - 2 million [UFA year after]

#8 - Rafferty?

 

Edler (6) - Stecher (3?)

Hughes (.92) - Tanev (5.25)

Tryamkin (2) - Myers (6) ---- would love to see the size of this....

Benn (2) - Rafferty (.7)

 

Would require some juggling up-front (Eriksson / Baerstchi, etc.) to carry that much cap on defense. Or shuffling Benn out. I'd rather Stecher back for 3ish million as a #6 than Benn with 2 million at #7.

 

I doubt that.......like BB, he'll have no leverage.  He'll get a fair deal that works for the team as well

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Warhippy said:

Back to the topic at hand.

 

Is anyone else worried that with Ferlands status it's possible Benning trades futures for this guy?

no........JB will be trying to shed depth fwds, not add to the glut of them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, stawns said:

no........JB will be trying to shed depth fwds, not add to the glut of them.

Boy it sure would be great if JB could unload a couple vets.  Who do you think might get traded away at the TDL? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Topcheeze86 said:

Id rather have josh anderson tbh 

I’d love him too but we’re going to have to give them at least gaudette or virtanen to make it worthwhile for them. They still probably don’t do it. They’re going to be asking for Boeser. Im still not sure it’s really worth it but here’s a gamble I don’t completely hate .. Pick up Hawyrluk on waivers today then trade Gaudette for Anderson.

 

 

  • Confused 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anytime now.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Topcheeze86 said:

Id rather have josh anderson tbh 

yeah, who wouldn't, but that's a pipe dream wadr. 

 

I'd rather have Jenner as well - but it aint gonna happen.  Or Krieder lol.

 

The point of targetting Simmonds is that he's presently devalued, and expiring - ie a low cost risk.

Edited by oldnews
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, oldnews said:

yeah, who wouldn't, but that's a pipe dream wadr. 

 

I'd rather have Jenner as well - but it aint gonna happen.  Or Krieder lol.

 

The point of targetting Simmonds is that he's presently devalued, and expiring - ie a low cost risk.

Simmonds would be for sand paper, grit, and bottom six player. Not sure if he would actually help the team. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit redundant if Z-Mac keeps on improving! To me, he's offering lots more than Schaller.

 

JB should focus on getting a real scoring winger for Horvat like a Toffoli!! We can offer a  decent prospect, picks and Baertschi! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, stawns said:

I doubt that.......like BB, he'll have no leverage.  He'll get a fair deal that works for the team as well

I think the true reason college guys play those few games at the end of the season is for that exact reason. Strategically well done so long as the contract isn't taking advantage, as Brock's isn't. It allows for so much more cap control, and say Boeser is traded it adds value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simmonds would be an interesting addition. I would be good with giving up on some prospect not named Hoglander or Podkolzin and a second or third round pick for him. 

Edited by grandmaster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, thad said:

I’d love him too but we’re going to have to give them at least gaudette or virtanen to make it worthwhile for them. They still probably don’t do it. They’re going to be asking for Boeser. Im still not sure it’s really worth it but here’s a gamble I don’t completely hate .. Pick up Hawyrluk on waivers today then trade Gaudette for Anderson.

 

 

Anderson fan but yucky. He’s had a really bad year. Last year might have been his career high. He would take a decent prospect for sure but Gauds, Virtanen, Boeser? No way

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Devron44 said:

Anderson fan but yucky. He’s had a really bad year. Last year might have been his career high. He would take a decent prospect for sure but Gauds, Virtanen, Boeser? No way

Yeah I only throw it out there to show what it would take for it to be worthwhile on their end, they need someone that can play now or they probably don’t trade him. If Jake finished the year on a heater and then stumbles next year and gets hurt, we wouldn’t throw him in the bargain bin. Better off hanging on to him and looking for a bounce back unless you’re getting a young impact player back.. Just saying If we were to do it, that’s the most comfortable angle I could see to roll the dice on it. If I really believe in Anderson and think we’d be scoring another JT Miller like win and how confident are we in Tyler madden working out.. If both those things happen, we likely do come out ahead. at the same time if one day we have to chose between gaudette and madden, that deal might be better made then. So In the end I still probably don’t pull the trigger but I can see a case for it.

 

 

  • Huggy Bear 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.