Canucks can only sign two of Toffoli, Tanev or Markstrom

[theo5789]

2 hours ago, The Colt 45s said:

What would be the financial gain if LE et. al. are sent to the minors?  They still get paid the same and we get to take those bad contracts off the Canucks books thus leaving more room to sign all three.

 

That all said, each player will have to ask themselves, like Burrows, Kesler, and the Sedins did pre 2010-2011, do you want to play for a team on the rise with a chance to win or do you want money? If money is your sole ambition, then they are not team players.  All parties need to make things work if this all happens.  And I think we can get it done. 

We would only save just over a million in cap space by sending LE down. We would still be on the hook for almost 5 million in dead cap space. Whatever player you send down will need to be replaced with some depth and even if it's cheap depth, you're only saving a few hundred thousand.

[Provost]

3 hours ago, stawns said:

Boeser, problem solved

Not nearly as simple as that.  Boeser is better than Toffoli.  Period.

Boeser's early career average in PPG is better than Toffoli's best career year.  Boeser has a ton of upside still and Toffoli is in the middle of his prime.  Toffoli had a great 10 games in the start of his Canucks career... players often have that when moving to a new team.  Pearson did as well and has come back down to earth since.

Boeser is also close with his team mates and part of the new "core", even in Petterson's most recent interview from home he talked about Boeser being one of his close friends on the team.  He is in the age range that we are building around, Toffoli is a complementary veteran player.

Boeser isn't untouchable, but it had really better be a home run because you are at best treading water, and at worst losing out on swapping those two guys.

Virtanen is the odd man out in any pure hockey discussion.  He hasn't earned his way into the top 6 regularly, is not as good as either Toffoli or Boeser, and is likely to be overpaid for a 3rd line winger.  We have MacEwan who can fill that spot, and Podkolzin just another season away who would push Jake further down the roster.

[filthycanuck]

Toffoli and Tanev. Goalies can be filled via UFA

[Nuxfanabroad]

Agree with trading BB. Great kid, but it makes sense.

 

The cupboards were sooo empty when JB took over. We can't go squandering young(TDL)assets now.

Brock would be hugely marketable in a US city. A 1st & good young player with size/speed would be an ideal return.

 

& if we get Nik's John Henry, I'd prob let CT walk. He's been a helluva' soldier..let him go nab a hefty 5 yr deal. Guy deserves a windfall.

[86Viking]

Toffoli would be nice to keep, but as someone else posted earlier his compareables might take him into 6m plus category on a long term deal. Not sure if that would be a wise decision.

 

Max I would want to give Toffoli is 5yr x 5.25m per.

 

Be interesting what kind of contract Virtanen is looking for or what kind of term and $ the Canucks are willing to offer. Can't pay a 3rd line RW a ton of $ if he is going to have  a limited role.

 

Tanev, I would keep for the right price and with the season and cap limit next year in limbo, only way I see us keeping him is short term or a bit longer term 4-5yr but at a lower cap hit that he has now...which might be unlikely.

 

Marky- I would be willing to let him walk as there are going to be quite a few G available come July 1. I would entertain keeping him, he sounds like he wants to stay and may want security, so maybe a deal similar to Ben Bishop would make him happy? Will JB give him NMC protection for the Seattle expansion draft? I would prefer us to role with Demko as a future #1 as his age fits the team much better. 

 

Moving Brock, sure sounds nice and simple but unlikely teams will blow JB socks off with an offer. Brock has had injury issues, to move Brock it would have to bring back a solid piece like a similar age RHD coming back. Problem is a younger RHD is far more valuable than a RW, so if we were to land a good RHD we would have to ADD to Brock.

 

Think until next seasons cap is set 31 NHL teams are all in limbo about what they are able to do player personnel wise for next season. Wait and see approach for all of em

[JM_]

11 hours ago, stawns said:

There's nothing Boes can do that Toffoli can't and the return for Boeser goes a long way to the future.

interesting, I see them as very different players. TT is great, I like the aggressiveness he brings to Bo's line which Brock doesn't do, but TT doesn't have a 40-50 goal per season ceiling which I think BB possess. I want them both on the top 6. 

 

I see some people suggesting Jake is ready for top 6 time, but tbh he was such a good player on the 3rd line that I'd leave him right there. If anyone's at risk of being moved for a d upgrade I think its Jake tbh, as MaEwan showed he could also be a good player with Roussel and AG.

[Brocklovich]

Highly doubtful but getting 1 or 2 compliant buyouts would be helpful (for every team) if the cap remains the same due to covid19.

[JM_]

37 minutes ago, Brocklovich said:

Highly doubtful but getting 1 or 2 compliant buyouts would be helpful (for every team) if the cap remains the same due to covid19.

uber agent Kurt Overhardt is pushing for teams to be able to have an "exceptional player" on the roster who's salary doesn't count toward the cap. Interesting idea, for him  I'm sure he'd love stars to be abel to command massive salaries outside of the cap system. 

 

I can't see this idea gaining much traction, a new compliance buyout window seems more likely to me. 

 

 

 

[J-Dizzle]

10 hours ago, Provost said:

Not nearly as simple as that.  Boeser is better than Toffoli.  Period.

Boeser's early career average in PPG is better than Toffoli's best career year.  Boeser has a ton of upside still and Toffoli is in the middle of his prime.  Toffoli had a great 10 games in the start of his Canucks career... players often have that when moving to a new team.  Pearson did as well and has come back down to earth since.

Boeser is also close with his team mates and part of the new "core", even in Petterson's most recent interview from home he talked about Boeser being one of his close friends on the team.  He is in the age range that we are building around, Toffoli is a complementary veteran player.

Boeser isn't untouchable, but it had really better be a home run because you are at best treading water, and at worst losing out on swapping those two guys.

Virtanen is the odd man out in any pure hockey discussion.  He hasn't earned his way into the top 6 regularly, is not as good as either Toffoli or Boeser, and is likely to be overpaid for a 3rd line winger.  We have MacEwan who can fill that spot, and Podkolzin just another season away who would push Jake further down the roster.

I was right with you until you got to Virtanen.  Guys just now really coming into his own and has a very unique set of tools.  I don’t think Mac or Pod fill the same role Jake can. 

[stawns]

11 hours ago, Provost said:

Not nearly as simple as that.  Boeser is better than Toffoli.  Period.

Boeser's early career average in PPG is better than Toffoli's best career year.  Boeser has a ton of upside still and Toffoli is in the middle of his prime.  Toffoli had a great 10 games in the start of his Canucks career... players often have that when moving to a new team.  Pearson did as well and has come back down to earth since.

Boeser is also close with his team mates and part of the new "core", even in Petterson's most recent interview from home he talked about Boeser being one of his close friends on the team.  He is in the age range that we are building around, Toffoli is a complementary veteran player.

Boeser isn't untouchable, but it had really better be a home run because you are at best treading water, and at worst losing out on swapping those two guys.

Virtanen is the odd man out in any pure hockey discussion.  He hasn't earned his way into the top 6 regularly, is not as good as either Toffoli or Boeser, and is likely to be overpaid for a 3rd line winger.  We have MacEwan who can fill that spot, and Podkolzin just another season away who would push Jake further down the roster.

disagree completely.  Period

[luckylager]

Keeping the young core together should be a priority IMO. We have enough peripheral pieces to shuffle the deck a bit without having to sacrifice BB or Virt.

BB is high end offensive talent with huge potential, the kind of goal scorer we were lacking for years. Players like BB aren't just drafted every year or easily replaceable by the likes of Tyler Toffoli type wingers. 

JV is finally starting to play with consistency and the years of development the years are paying off. Also, I don't think we know what to expect from playoff Jake, which I expect (hope) is where we truly see Jake's natural tool kit be more important that some of the worker bee habits he's been developing. Also, I really really really really like Jake on the LW. He's far more dangerous on that side and IMO should be used as an option there more often. 

 

Moving out Rooster, Beagle or Sutter, Schaller (think his contract is done?) buyout Eriksson. That's 4 contracts, 3 spots on the starting roster freed up and a bunch of cap space from the bottom 6.

[ruilin96]

19 hours ago, billabong said:

2) Improve that blue line. Bring in a defensive specialist just to get the puck out, make good reads and box guys out down low. The whole reason the canucks kept blowing 3rd period leads was because the kept making stupid mistakes and couldn't make the simple play

 

 

I know this is what it seems like, but overall, when leading after 2 periods, the Canucks have only lost 3 times (twice in regulation and once in a shootout), the other times, they have been able to close out and won the game. Yes all 3 games they blew, they blew it in style. 5-1 lead vs Washington, 6-3 lead over Pittsburgh and also a 3-1 lead late in the third period against Columbus. In contrast, the Canucks have won 4 times and gotten points 3 other times when trailing heading into the 3rd period. Because of that, it give us a sense that the Canucks always blow 3rd period leads, but in reality, the Canucks have gotten more points when trail heading into the 3rd than the points they lost leading after 2 periods.

[Provost]

37 minutes ago, stawns said:

disagree completely.  Period

Too bad there are crazy things like stats and metrics that actually matter... vs. random opinions based on fantasy.

 

[theo5789]

3 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

uber agent Kurt Overhardt is pushing for teams to be able to have an "exceptional player" on the roster who's salary doesn't count toward the cap. Interesting idea, for him  I'm sure he'd love stars to be abel to command massive salaries outside of the cap system. 

 

I can't see this idea gaining much traction, a new compliance buyout window seems more likely to me. 

 

 

 

This would pretty much eliminate the purpose of the cap. The rich teams (eg Toronto) would benefit most from this while there would be less incentive for low level teams to bother as they would receive a luxury tax. We'd simply be getting closer back to the days where a couple of teams would blow their wad to win a cup as they could offer say McDavid 20 million a season (and why would he turn that down?) and not have it count towards their cap.

[JM_]

7 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

This would pretty much eliminate the purpose of the cap. The rich teams (eg Toronto) would benefit most from this while there would be less incentive for low level teams to bother as they would receive a luxury tax. We'd simply be getting closer back to the days where a couple of teams would blow their wad to win a cup as they could offer say McDavid 20 million a season (and why would he turn that down?) and not have it count towards their cap.

he'd also be making 3X the money on start players. Its pretty self-serviing. 

 

Its a bad idea, I doubt Bettman gives it any consideration. But it might help to get us a compliance buyout because that looks much better in comparison. 

[PlanB]

23 hours ago, Fanuck said:

 

If we can manage some peripheral moves here/there (as well hope for a cbo - or two) and if JB offers Tanev a reasonable hometown deal (like he did Edler), I don't see a career Canuck like Tanev playing hardball and refusing a deal which works for both sides current situation.   

I hope you are right. 

I don't think a lot of people fully appreciate what Tanev adds to this team because he's so underrated and all the 'average' fan looks at is his injuries and how he doesn't factor into the most basic stats shown on TV.  

 

There's no doubt in my mind he had a huge role in Hughes development this year and could just as easily play the same role for OJ or Rafferty to differing extents if he was re-signed.  That alone is worth not signing Toffoli imo because it's known that young PMD are worth more than scoring forward depth. 

[Tower102]

Have not read through this whole thing, but I think we might be able to sign all three to cheaper than expected short term deals. It is a terrible time for UFA's to cash in, market will be REAL low. I think there will be a fair amount of 1 year deals roughly around what they made this past year by guys so they can try to cash in on a much better market next UFA. 

 

The league will HAVE to do something like offer buy outs if the cap is flat or reduces. Too many top teams would be royally screwed it would be bad for business. 

 

 

[Fanuck]

5 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

uber agent Kurt Overhardt is pushing for teams to be able to have an "exceptional player" on the roster who's salary doesn't count toward the cap. Interesting idea, for him  I'm sure he'd love stars to be abel to command massive salaries outside of the cap system. 

 

I can't see this idea gaining much traction, a new compliance buyout window seems more likely to me. 

So a team like EDM would say, McJesus, you're so exceptional you're too good for our cap so you don't count while we would be saying LE, you're so bloody exceptionally average we're not going to count you on our cap.....lol....

 

 

2 hours ago, theo5789 said:

This would pretty much eliminate the purpose of the cap. The rich teams (eg Toronto) would benefit most from this while there would be less incentive for low level teams to bother as they would receive a luxury tax. We'd simply be getting closer back to the days where a couple of teams would blow their wad to win a cup as they could offer say McDavid 20 million a season (and why would he turn that down?) and not have it count towards their cap.

Doesn't the GM's giving themselves CBO's do the same thing (circumvent the cap) - not to mention the random 'mutually voiding' of contracts or the not suspicious in any way 'skin disorder' bs........

[JM_]

2 minutes ago, Fanuck said:

So a team like EDM would say, McJesus, you're so exceptional you're too good for our cap so you don't count while we would be saying LE, you're so bloody exceptionally average we're not going to count you on our cap.....lol....

yeah thats about the size of it 

[theo5789]

15 minutes ago, Fanuck said:

Doesn't the GM's giving themselves CBO's do the same thing (circumvent the cap) - not to mention the random 'mutually voiding' of contracts or the not suspicious in any way 'skin disorder' bs........

I guess it depends on if the exceptional status be a one time use like a compliance buyout would be. I think the concept is simply hiding your star player from the cap or removing dead cap (and therefore more room for the quality players rather than simply hanging onto players that can't play in the league anymore but are hanging around due to their contracts being unmoveable). It makes sense for an agent to want to open up for more spending as Jimmy was alluding to than to try and correct the cap issue by removing mistakes.