Sign in to follow this  
BigTramFan

(Proposal) Trade with BUF and DET

Recommended Posts

Trading Virtanen  to dump a a contract would be a terrible waste

  • Package Virtanen and Demko for Filip Zadina now your talking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to get rid of Eriksson  trade to Ottawa after his bonus they will be happy to get him the cap floor needs to be made throw in a b prospect. like Goldobin rumour has it they liked him.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, BigTramFan said:

Trade 1...in the off season as long as JB can sign Toffoli to a reasonable contract...

 

To BUF: Virtanen + Eriksson (after signing bonus paid)

To VAN: Future considerations

 

BUF need forwards and currently only have 4 forwards signed for next season. Virtanen could be a fantastic young piece in their rebuild around Eichel and Dahlin. Eriksson is the price that BUF pays to be able to sign Virtanen long term. Eriksson has shown that he can still produce at NHL level and his cap hit is easily affordable for BUF (plus LE's salary cost is only $5m for the remainder of his contract).

 

VAN needs to shed cap space for next season (i.e. Eriksson) and if they resign Toffoli they likely cannot afford to keep both TT and Virtanen in 2021/22 with the projected raises for EP and QH.

 

 

Trade 2...also in the off season...

 

To DET: Stecher + Benn + Baer

To VAN: Future considerations

 

DET need help on D for next season. They only have Nemeth, Cholowski on LD and Hronek on RD. Stecher could fill a major gap in the 1st or 2nd pairing as Seider continues developing. One year of Baer is the cost of acquiring two NHL Dmen. DET have a stack of young RFAs that require resigning, but they also have $35m in cap space. Baer could remain on the roster as 14th forward (replacing Gagner) or they could play him in the AHL. Either way DET can afford the small price of cap hit in order to recruit two NHL Dmen for their roster.

 

Again VAN needs to shed cap. Tanev needs to be resigned which means we cannot afford to keep Stecher (likely replaced by Rafferty). Benn has been displaced by Fantenberg this season. Possibly we resign Fanta or Tryamkin returns to VAN. There is also Juolevi pushing for a place in the lineup.

 

Canucks Lineup for Next Season:

 

Miller Pettersson Boeser

Pearson Horvat Toffoli

Roussel Gaudette MacEwen

Motte Beagle Sutter

(plus Hoglander or Lind, if Ferland is on LTIR)

 

Edler Myers

Hughes Tanev

Tryamkin Rafferty

Juolevi

 

Markstrom

Demko

 

Big trouble on 3rd D pairing, very weak what you posted Tryamkin and Rafferty......Stetcher traded for 3rd rounder before draft day...

Trade Boser for Dumba....Dumba will be #2 D man...

Dumba -Edler

Myers - Hughes

Fantenber- Rafferty

Benn, Juolevi 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, coastal.view said:

benn is an asset - depth dman for many teams, we really liked him before fatenberg stepped up his game

virt is an asset - he can net a solid return, has potential upside still

the other 2 have no value, they can just waste and have their contracts expire

 

I would argue that Eriksson and Baer have negative value. Don't you agree with that?

 

If they are allowed to remain on the books until they expire then this will negatively impact the team more than losing Virtanen and Benn. It will likely mean that we will not resign one or two of Marky, Tanev, Toffoli next season, and potentially impacts the resigning of Pettersson and Hughes. These guys are more important to the success of the Canucks IMO.

 

The two assets (Virt and Benn) are the cost of clearing out the negative value (Eriksson and Baer). You may argue that the value is off, or that other assets could be used instead of Virt/Benn, or that JB has a magic trick up his sleeve.

 

From my perspective I would rather lose Virt & Benn as assets, than giving up top prospects and picks because those assets will be more useful in the long term when Petey and Hughes have matured and are ready to lead us to glory.

 

I think many people underestimate the cost of clearing cap from bad contracts. Most teams are not operating at cap floor anymore, the cost of clearing bad contracts is increasing. No one should be surprised if JB pulls out some deals similar to the two I proposed, because he will likely be forced to do so for the overall betterment of the team.

 

If JB truly has a magic trick up his sleeve (such as an Eriksson retirement plan) then no one will be happier than this Nucks fan.

Share this post


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

Big trouble on 3rd D pairing, very weak what you posted Tryamkin and Rafferty......Stetcher traded for 3rd rounder before draft day...

Trade Boser for Dumba....Dumba will be #2 D man...

Dumba -Edler

Myers - Hughes

Fantenber- Rafferty

Benn, Juolevi 

Thanks for your comments. But really if the main issue you have with the lineup is the 3rd D pairing then I think JB is doing well!!!

 

In my original post I said that we will likely either resign Fanta for 3LD, or perhaps Tryamkin comes in instead.

 

This means our third pairing could be Try-Raff or Fanta-Raff. I don't see a lot of difference between those two options. Fanta probably cheaper. Tryamkin probably has a more physical impact on play.

 

I think the Dumba - Boeser trade has been done to death on this forum and the general consensus was that Minny says "no". Boeser is not a player I would trade anyway.

Share this post


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

I would argue that Eriksson and Baer have negative value. Don't you agree with that?

 

If they are allowed to remain on the books until they expire then this will negatively impact the team more than losing Virtanen and Benn. It will likely mean that we will not resign one or two of Marky, Tanev, Toffoli next season, and potentially impacts the resigning of Pettersson and Hughes. These guys are more important to the success of the Canucks IMO.

 

The two assets (Virt and Benn) are the cost of clearing out the negative value (Eriksson and Baer). You may argue that the value is off, or that other assets could be used instead of Virt/Benn, or that JB has a magic trick up his sleeve.

 

From my perspective I would rather lose Virt & Benn as assets, than giving up top prospects and picks because those assets will be more useful in the long term when Petey and Hughes have matured and are ready to lead us to glory.

 

I think many people underestimate the cost of clearing cap from bad contracts. Most teams are not operating at cap floor anymore, the cost of clearing bad contracts is increasing. No one should be surprised if JB pulls out some deals similar to the two I proposed, because he will likely be forced to do so for the overall betterment of the team.

 

If JB truly has a magic trick up his sleeve (such as an Eriksson retirement plan) then no one will be happier than this Nucks fan.

i don't think you have actually sat down and tried to schedule out how the team cap will flow for the next 2 seasons

if you spend all the cap space next season on non expiring contracts

there will only be enough money left to sign ep40 and hughes

and no extra to fill out a roster (hello toronto - shanaplan does not work)

unless you are banking on the salary cap going up a lot

(then the demands of hughes and ep40 will also go up proportionately)

 

loui's contract is a forced savings plan to ensure we have sufficient available cap room

no point spending assets to unload it, if it means we prespend this money, so that our cap issues get moved to the following year when we are trying to resign our 2 most important assets

 

i think we should leave these cap planning issues

and the dealing with the dead contract room of loui and baer to the pros

those hired by management to deal with these issues

 

too many people post on here

off the cuff

without running the details of how cap issues will actually play out

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, coastal.view said:

i don't think you have actually sat down and tried to schedule out how the team cap will flow for the next 2 seasons

if you spend all the cap space next season on non expiring contracts

there will only be enough money left to sign ep40 and hughes

and no extra to fill out a roster (hello toronto - shanaplan does not work)

unless you are banking on the salary cap going up a lot

(then the demands of hughes and ep40 will also go up proportionately)

 

loui's contract is a forced savings plan to ensure we have sufficient available cap room

no point spending assets to unload it, if it means we prespend this money, so that our cap issues get moved to the following year when we are trying to resign our 2 most important assets

 

i think we should leave these cap planning issues

and the dealing with the dead contract room of loui and baer to the pros

those hired by management to deal with these issues

 

too many people post on here

off the cuff

without running the details of how cap issues will actually play out

I’ve got a good handle on the cap situation for the next two seasons. The biggest unknown is how much the cap will rise.

 

Eriksson’s $6m is not “forced saving” in any way.
 

Firstly, if we do nothing, his contract will still be here in 2021/22 right when we are trying to resign EP and QH. Even buying it out at the start of that season will only save $2m in cap hit.

 

Secondly clearing Eriksson earlier (this off season) gives us the opportunity to pay more of the 2020/21 performance bonuses in that same year (expected to be about $4m) which will otherwise push into 2021/22 and will effectively reduce our cap space by another $4m. Together that is about $10m of space we won’t have in 2021/22 to resign EP and QH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, coastal.view said:

i think we should leave these cap planning issues

and the dealing with the dead contract room of loui and baer to the pros

those hired by management to deal with these issues

 

too many people post on here

off the cuff

without running the details of how cap issues will actually play out

As far as I am aware this is a discussion forum for Armchair GMs. A major part of being a GM is dealing with cap issues. So are you trying to say we shouldn’t talk about this stuff? Haha
 

If you have a problem with people posting on the forum then I suggest you stop reading the posts. Pretty simple.

 

Last thing I would say is that your responses are not well thought out and parts of them are just plain wrong. If anyone is posting “off the cuff” without sufficient understanding it’s you.

 

We are all Canucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/3/2020 at 11:01 AM, BigTramFan said:

Trade 1...in the off season as long as JB can sign Toffoli to a reasonable contract...

 

To BUF: Virtanen + Eriksson (after signing bonus paid)

To VAN: Future considerations

 

BUF need forwards and currently only have 4 forwards signed for next season. Virtanen could be a fantastic young piece in their rebuild around Eichel and Dahlin. Eriksson is the price that BUF pays to be able to sign Virtanen long term. Eriksson has shown that he can still produce at NHL level and his cap hit is easily affordable for BUF (plus LE's salary cost is only $5m for the remainder of his contract).

 

VAN needs to shed cap space for next season (i.e. Eriksson) and if they resign Toffoli they likely cannot afford to keep both TT and Virtanen in 2021/22 with the projected raises for EP and QH.

 

 

Trade 2...also in the off season...

 

To DET: Stecher + Benn + Baer

To VAN: Future considerations

 

DET need help on D for next season. They only have Nemeth, Cholowski on LD and Hronek on RD. Stecher could fill a major gap in the 1st or 2nd pairing as Seider continues developing. One year of Baer is the cost of acquiring two NHL Dmen. DET have a stack of young RFAs that require resigning, but they also have $35m in cap space. Baer could remain on the roster as 14th forward (replacing Gagner) or they could play him in the AHL. Either way DET can afford the small price of cap hit in order to recruit two NHL Dmen for their roster.

 

Again VAN needs to shed cap. Tanev needs to be resigned which means we cannot afford to keep Stecher (likely replaced by Rafferty). Benn has been displaced by Fantenberg this season. Possibly we resign Fanta or Tryamkin returns to VAN. There is also Juolevi pushing for a place in the lineup.

 

Canucks Lineup for Next Season:

 

Miller Pettersson Boeser

Pearson Horvat Toffoli

Roussel Gaudette MacEwen

Motte Beagle Sutter

(plus Hoglander or Lind, if Ferland is on LTIR)

 

Edler Myers

Hughes Tanev

Tryamkin Rafferty

Juolevi

 

Markstrom

Demko

 

I am sure a lot of thought went into this proposal, definitely sure a lot of hope did.

Buffalo has cap issues too, not as bad as the Canucks.

 

To trade Stecher he would need to be resigned first and Benn is a decent backup plan, forget Juolevi as a steady defenseman, lots more that are better than him even in the AHL.

 

Tanev he should get or want the same money as Edler with the same clause and more term.

 

Benning has this team competing with every other team to re-sign it's vets that they may want.

 

Markstrom will go to FA, because he knows the team is under pressure, Tanev may want to finish his career near home.

I would like to see Rafferty play in the NHL a few games first.

Toffoli is going home to help LA's speedy rebuild where he will get over 5 mil a season with term.

I see the team brought up their biggest and best defense men.

 

A Buffalo trade? How about Boeser and Stecher for their unprotected first and Ristolainen?

Detroit - Horvat and Eriksson for their 1rst, Zetterberg or Nielsen and Zadina

Heck maybe make a deal for Roussel to Montreal (with retention) for a 2 nd rnd pick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BigTramFan said:
14 hours ago, coastal.view said:

i think we should leave these cap planning issues

and the dealing with the dead contract room of loui and baer to the pros

those hired by management to deal with these issues

 

too many people post on here

off the cuff

without running the details of how cap issues will actually play out

As far as I am aware this is a discussion forum for Armchair GMs. A major part of being a GM is dealing with cap issues. So are you trying to say we shouldn’t talk about this stuff? Haha
 

If you have a problem with people posting on the forum then I suggest you stop reading the posts. Pretty simple.

 

Last thing I would say is that your responses are not well thought out and parts of them are just plain wrong. If anyone is posting “off the cuff” without sufficient understanding it’s you.

 

We are all Canucks.

A lot of GM's are using capfriendly, am I allowed to post that? The name I mean?

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.