[Speculation] Canucks interested in Wayne Simmonds

[oldnews]

One irony I see in the present - is that there isn't enough 'bust' Jake Virtanen to go around.

The team needs him in two places at once - on EP's wing and with Gaudette.  He's helping 'drive' whatever line he's playing on - and the team could use another presence like him.

Simmonds may not be as fleet as Virtanen, but otherwise, another RW like him would be a welcome addition imo.

 

I'm ok with sidelining LE.  I think there are ways around needing to utilize Horvat as a matchup/shutdown line - and the current setups with Gaudette and Boeser together = I'm not sure that works - it's a line that needs sheltering, that lacks the physicality, forecheck and defensive support it needs - I think I'd break that combination up - particularly as things heat up and tighten up down the stretch = I'm not sure that's a line you can take into the playoffs when your team isn't otherwise healthy.

 

Spitballing a lineup with Simmonds....

 

(EP) Miller Virtanen

Pearson Horvat Boeser

Gaudette Sutter Simmonds (Gaudette no longer 'exposed', no longer a need to shelter this line).

Roussel Beagle MacEwen

 

Hughes Tanev

Edler Stecher

Greene Myers

 

I like that lineup with Simmonds and MacEwen more than LE and Schaller - and imo LE isn't as necessary when Gaudette is not centering a line that is necessary to shelter.

 

 

 

Edited February 7, 2020 by oldnews

[oldnews]

5 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

interesting idea... even if we get NJ to retain 1/2 on both players we need to move out 5 mil in cap space. Baer would have to be part of a deal that say sent Benn and a pick back.

cap is pro-rated - 10 million of cap hit - at the deadline, becomes closer to 2-2.5....and they have LTIR ie Ferland may be a 3.5 million cap hit, but he's played 27 games this year - his real cap hit translates into more like 1.1-1.2 million (Leivo also on LTIR - and Motte).  I'm fine with packaging a Baertschi contract in there, but if they send a Benn and/or Schaller type contract back they may be able to make it work without having to spend more to dump cap.   The one caveat is that any excess cap they don't utilize can go to bonuses vs next season, but I think the priority at this stage is probably to try to secure a playoff spot.

[CRAZY_4_NAZZY]

I'm seeing social media and Canucks twitter go crazy over this.

 

The tweet does say "internally discussed".  For all we know it could've been like

 

Someone: "Hey Jim how bout Simmonds?"

 

Jim: "Hell no"

 

[Davathor]

No thanks. Maybe 5 years ago

[Monty]

34 minutes ago, CRAZY_4_NAZZY said:

I'm seeing social media and Canucks twitter go crazy over this.

 

The tweet does say "internally discussed".  For all we know it could've been like

 

Someone: "Hey Jim how bout Simmonds?"

 

Jim: "Hell no"

 

Sure as sh*t hope that’s the way it went.

 

Lots of players I like, but not once they’re past their best before date. Simmonds is a favourite of mine. But not now.

[oldnews]

Simmonds has 104 goals in the 4 seasons prior to this year.

[HKSR]

16 hours ago, ButterBean said:

I would take him for a reasonable price. Simmonds isn’t the player he once was but I do like the way he sticks up for his teammates. Something our team doesn’t understand yet. 

Coach Green will make sure to change that.  Simmonds will skate back to the bench before he tries to stick up for any teammates. 

[oldnews]

37 minutes ago, CRAZY_4_NAZZY said:

I'm seeing social media and Canucks twitter go crazy over this.

 

The tweet does say "internally discussed".  For all we know it could've been like

 

Someone: "Hey Jim how bout Simmonds?"

Jim: "Hell no"

 

What kind of 'crazy'?

As in = 'ermagerd,  DimJim is gonna spend all our futurez on an old bum?"

 

Take it with a grain of salt - it's a Dhaliwal story, picked up by TorontoSN....

 

 

But there are worse ideas than a devalued asset, expiring contract that should not cost anywhere near what typical rentals do (particularly for a team in a playoff race that has lost a lot of it's grit to injuries).

 

Of course, everyone would prefer to bring Chris Kreider here - but let's be realistic - that aint happening, and it would cost a king's ransome.

Simmonds on the other hand would be a relatively low cost risk - and if they can move a contract in the process, whatever - give it a look.

[Tracksuit]

 

i hope not. I like Simmonds 5+ years ago. 

 

Unless one or more  of the worthless crew were going back the other way LE Sutter Schaller. Simmonds is an improvement over any of those he might actually finish one body check a game imagine that. 

[PhillipBlunt]

14 minutes ago, oldnews said:

What kind of 'crazy'?

As in = 'ermagerd,  DimJim is gonna spend all our futurez on an old bum?"

 

Take it with a grain of salt - it's a Dhaliwal story, picked up by TorontoSN....

 

 

But there are worse ideas than a devalued asset, expiring contract that should not cost anywhere near what typical rentals do (particularly for a team in a playoff race that has lost a lot of it's grit to injuries).

 

Of course, everyone would prefer to bring Chris Kreider here - but let's be realistic - that aint happening, and it would cost a king's ransome.

Simmonds on the other hand would be a relatively low cost risk - and if they can move a contract in the process, whatever - give it a look.

And Krieder would become hated quickly for his penchant for running into goalies and injuring them. The guy is kind of overrated. Seems that all has gone quiet on Dillon too.

[Tortorella's Rant]

Rather we bolster that back end with someone who can chip in every now and then. If Hughes goes down, we're &^@#ed. 

[GhostsOf1994]

22 hours ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

Thought Bahl was a 1st rounder?(apparently 55th OA). Not much return on Taylor Hall for Devs.

 

Also Simmonds was a bum in Nashville, wasn't he? Sure no guarantees w/this. Maybe Gentleman Jim is setting up a decoy-diversion?!

If Arizona’s 2020 first-round selection is in the top three, New Jersey will receive Arizona’s first-round pick in 2021.

The conditions on the 2021 pick are as follows: the third-round pick in 2021 becomes a second-round selection if Arizona wins a Stanley Cup Playoff round OR Taylor Hall re-signs in Arizona. The third-round pick in 2021 becomes a first-round selection if Arizona wins a Stanley Cup Playoff round AND Taylor Hall re-signs in Arizona. If neither condition happens, New Jersey still receives the 2021 third-round pick.

 

So, 1st rounder in 2020 or 2021 draft 

A 3rd that may become a second rounder.or even possibly another 1st round pick.

 

1st

3rd

 

Merkley former 1st rounder 

 

Bahl a 2nd rounder a legit nhl talent, big huge d man from new westminster.

 

Nate schnarr former 3rd rounder, big 6"3 righty forward.

 

So, as it is now without any stipulations

1st 

1st(merkley)

2nd (bahl)

3rd

3rd(schnarr)

 

For a few months of taylor hall

 

In what dimension is that a bad return for the devils!?

 

[HKSR]

25 minutes ago, GhostsOf1994 said:

If Arizona’s 2020 first-round selection is in the top three, New Jersey will receive Arizona’s first-round pick in 2021.

The conditions on the 2021 pick are as follows: the third-round pick in 2021 becomes a second-round selection if Arizona wins a Stanley Cup Playoff round OR Taylor Hall re-signs in Arizona. The third-round pick in 2021 becomes a first-round selection if Arizona wins a Stanley Cup Playoff round AND Taylor Hall re-signs in Arizona. If neither condition happens, New Jersey still receives the 2021 third-round pick.

 

So, 1st rounder in 2020 or 2021 draft 

A 3rd that may become a second rounder.or even possibly another 1st round pick.

 

1st

3rd

 

Merkley former 1st rounder 

 

Bahl a 2nd rounder a legit nhl talent, big huge d man from new westminster.

 

Nate schnarr former 3rd rounder, big 6"3 righty forward.

 

So, as it is now without any stipulations

1st 

1st(merkley)

2nd (bahl)

3rd

3rd(schnarr)

 

For a few months of taylor hall  Adam Larsson

 

In what dimension is that a bad return for the devils!?

 

Fixed lol

[oldnews]

If we try to think like management here....

 

This is the first playoff race the team has been in in  a while.  Most of their talented young players are still quite young, quite inexperienced - and are not going to / highly unlikely to carry this team at this stage.

 

In other words, management is highly unlikely to be spending anything of significance in an attempt to bolster the team with a rental.

 

However, at the same time, the team has a solid 'foundation' when it's healthy - one that complements the young talent very well - so you can't write this team off prematurely - if they're relatively healthy and competing like they're capable of, they are not an easy team for anyone to beat.

 

So - the disposition of the team is most likely to look at their injuries realistically, and if they feel there is a need, to then decide what they're willing to spend under the circumstances.

 

In my opinion, they are fairly 'rich' in assets at the NHL, AHL, and prospect levels - so I think they'd be willing to move a 'C' asset - ie a secondary prospect or mid round pick range - to bring in a possible complement. 

 

So what kind of complement might they need?

 

When you add those factors - ie a B/C prospect or a 4th round pick / mid range future - and you look at what might be available in that range - you wind up with possibilities like Simmonds imo - who could be both a good low cost gamble and fit / potentially in the range they're willing to spend (conservative).   Some grit, possible secondary scoring, pushback, etc... 

 

What I find somewhat ironic is the praise lavished on Toronto for acquiring Clifford - who by his standards is having a 'good' season....

 

Clifford

6 goals

14 pts

45pm

90 hits

53.6% ozone starts, 54% corsi

 

While Simmonds on the other hand, having the worst year of his career, is written off out of hand by some people....

5 goals

19pts

56pm

116 hits

49.9% ozone starts, 46.9% corsi.

 

Not a lot of separation there, with the exception of the cap hits - which serves to reduce the price of Simmonds imo - while at the same time, you are getting what you 'expect' from Kyle Clifford, who has 129 career NHL points in 10 year.  Simmonds - 493 pts.   Toronto doesn't really have the luxury/flexibility to consider anything other than fractions of cap hits, but I'm not sure that applies to Vancouver - and moreover, I think Vancouver probably has more assets, more depth, more prospect and future depth,  to spend if/when needed.

 

I take that relative chance on Simmonds, who worst case scenario probably gives you a comparable on ice performance to Clifford.

Might actually produce a powerplay goal or two - has 65 pp goals in his career / Clifford has never scored one.  So you gain a bit of weight/heaviness with Clifford, but with Simmonds you get the potential upside (Clifford is at 6.7% shooting / career 6.8, while Simmonds is at an outlier 5.1% relative to a mean of 12.7%).   Put Simmonds on a good team, with some good linemates, some decent puck movers and a few guys that can get him the puck....he might be worth the low asset rental cost.

 

 

[RRypien37]

1 hour ago, GhostsOf1994 said:

 

 

Bahl a 2nd rounder a legit nhl talent, big huge d man from new westminster.

 

 

 

Where did you get that? Dude was born in Ontario. 

[Alflives]

4 minutes ago, oldnews said:

If we try to think like management here....

 

This is the first playoff race the team has been in in  a while.  Most of their talented young players are still quite young, quite inexperienced - and are not going to / highly unlikely to carry this team at this stage.

 

In other words, management is highly unlikely to be spending anything of significance in an attempt to bolster the team with a rental.

 

However, at the same time, the team has a solid 'foundation' when it's healthy - one that complements the young talent very well - so you can't write this team off prematurely - if they're relatively healthy and competing like they're capable of, they are not an easy team for anyone to beat.

 

So - the disposition of the team is most likely to look at their injuries realistically, and if they feel there is a need, to then decide what they're willing to spend under the circumstances.

 

In my opinion, they are fairly 'rich' in assets at the NHL, AHL, and prospect levels - so I think they'd be willing to move a 'C' asset - ie a secondary prospect or mid round pick range - to bring in a possible complement. 

 

So what kind of complement might they need?

 

When you add those factors - ie a B/C prospect or a 4th round pick / mid range future - and you look at what might be available in that range - you wind up with possibilities like Simmonds imo - who could be both a good low cost gamble and fit / potentially in the range they're willing to spend (conservative).   Some grit, possible secondary scoring, pushback, etc... 

 

What I find somewhat ironic is the praise lavished on Toronto for acquiring Clifford - who by his standards is having a 'good' season....

 

Clifford

6 goals

14 pts

45pm

90 hits

53.6% ozone starts, 54% corsi

 

While Simmonds on the other hand, having the worst year of his career, is written off out of hand by some people....

5 goals

19pts

56pm

116 hits

49.9% ozone starts, 46.9% corsi.

 

Not a lot of separation there, with the exception of the cap hits - which serves to reduce the price of Simmonds imo - while at the same time, you are getting what you 'expect' from Kyle Clifford, who has 129 career NHL points in 10 year.  Simmonds - 493 pts.   Toronto doesn't really have the luxury/flexibility to consider anything other than fractions of cap hits, but I'm not sure that applies to Vancouver - and moreover, I think Vancouver probably has more assets, more depth, more prospect and future depth,  to spend if/when needed.

 

I take that relative chance on Simmonds, who worst case scenario probably gives you a comparable on ice performance to Clifford.

Might actually produce a powerplay goal or two - has 65 pp goals in his career / Clifford has never scored one.  So you gain a bit of weight/heaviness with Clifford, but with Simmonds you get the potential upside (Clifford is at 6.7% shooting / career 6.8, while Simmonds is at an outlier 5.1% relative to a mean of 12.7%).   Put Simmonds on a good team, with some good linemates, some decent puck movers and a few guys that can get him the puck....he might be worth the low asset rental cost.

 

 

You make a very good argument for Simmons.  However, what is a “low” cost though?  And at what point does the cost for 

Simmons out weigh his potential affect on the team?  Is a third round pick fair?  Is a prospect like Lockwood fair?  Is it both that’s fair?

 

[the grinder]

2 hours ago, Tracksuit said:

 

i hope not. I like Simmonds 5+ years ago. 

 

Unless one or more  of the worthless crew were going back the other way LE Sutter Schaller. Simmonds is an improvement over any of those he might actually finish one body check a game imagine that. 

as long as Simmonds is better than those three  ,  5th , schaller for Simmonds lol

[oldnews]

18 minutes ago, Alflives said:

You make a very good argument for Simmons.  However, what is a “low” cost though?  And at what point does the cost for 

Simmons out weigh his potential affect on the team?  Is a third round pick fair?  Is a prospect like Lockwood fair?  Is it both that’s fair?

 

I can't speak for Jersey or the Canucks - but I think his value is calculated relative to his performance, production, cap hit, etc - and I think the market value appears to be set in the range of a 3rd round pick for Clifford - who also expires, but comes with a negligible cap hit.   The thing about that deal, including Campbell, is that it involved a couple picks (one conditional 2nd/3rd) and a young roster player.... 

I think Simmonds is likely to be / should be in the range of a B prospect/mid pick - depending on what salary we want to send back (if any) or what they might retain.

 

For me though - this type of move actually makes more sense in some ways for 'us' than it does for Toronto.

Simmonds would be a principal, if not only need of this team.

Toronto on the other hand, just spent a couple (more) picks on a rental/backup - and is Clifford their principal need?

 

They may be more desperate - with far higher expectations - and at the same time sitting in 10th on the outside looking in - but with injuries to defensemen, I would think that they still have to deal with principal problems - a backup may have also been necessary, some more grit necessary, but arguably they still have considerable, if not primary questions on a blueline that is being seriously challenged for depth.

 

Simmonds - if he is even deemed necessary - probably represents the extent of what the Canucks might need/feel inclined to spend something moderate on.

But I also like the addiional upside that he could potentially bring - which perhaps offsets the short term deadline cap.   I think the impression that he has declined likely serves this team in this circumstance, because the impression is that he is a lesser asset.   The Canucks have far more grit than the Leafs - adding Simmonds may not be as essential, but can you have too much depth/grit when it comes down the stretch?  I like our problems more - and I like the position as buyer the team is in more - they aren't necessarily negotiating from weakness/desperation/need as the Leafs are at this point, so I think it's conceivable they manage as good or better deal than that reference point. 

 

It's hard to predict where the market goes though - teams may face injuries, there may be buyers, or there may not be that strong of a market, and teams may not have enough flexibility or assets to spend?  I think it makes sense for the Canucks to be in on an asset in Simmond's range though - particularly the kind of skill set he brings.  He was rented last deadline and it was not a success - so that deflated market value could translate into a good opportunity / low cost risk, low expectations, but some potential to pay off.

Edited February 8, 2020 by oldnews

[GhostsOf1994]

27 minutes ago, RRypien37 said:

Where did you get that? Dude was born in Ontario. 

 

[Trebreh]

Lebrun said the Canucks had heavy interest in Simmonds last summer but he chose NJ instead (probs the money) and wondered if Simmonds wished he had Vancouver instead. sounded like he was our target last Summer and Ferland was the backup plan.