Sign in to follow this  
DarkIndianRises

[proposal] Virtanen for a 1st at the draft + Tryamkin being used as a sweetener?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

[proposal] Virtanen for a 1st at the draft + Tryamkin being used as a sweetener?
 

Out of Markstrom, Tanev, Toffoli, and Virtanen, my guess is that Benning will do whatever he can to keep Markstrom, Toffoli and Tanev.    That leaves Virtanen being the odd man out, and this is even assuming that either Eriksson retires outright, or if the Canucks package Demko and Eriksson (Demko = sweetener / keeping Demko = possibly stolen during the expansion draft).
 

1) The Canucks have had Virtanen as part of past packages (I.e rumored to have been involved in the Barrie deal that was in the works)

 

2) Benning has made it clear that he would like to try and recoup the first that was lost in the Miller deal.

 

Hence, Virtanen being moved at the draft for a 1st and to clear cap space doesn’t seem that farfetched.  

As far as Tryamkin goes, he didn’t exactly leave Vancouver on the best of terms, and so management and ownership might be reluctant to trust him a 2nd time around.    One thing Tryamkin may have going for him however is marketability.    Teams will always be interested in a big smooth skating physical 25 year old defenseman, which might make Tryamkin a great option for a sweetener.   (I.e.  You get Tryamkin, if you take a guy like Sutter off our hands).    The Canucks then commit to guys like Juolevi, Chatfield, Rafferty etc., in terms of filling up future vacancies left by Benn, Fantenberg, Stecher, etc.
 

 

 

Edited by DarkIndianRises
  • Vintage 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, DarkIndianRises said:

[proposal] Virtanen for a 1st at the draft + Tryamkin being used as a sweetener?
 

Out of Markstrom, Tanev, Toffoli, and Virtanen, my guess is that Benning will do whatever he can to keep Markstrom, Toffoli and Tanev.    That leaves Virtanen being the odd man out, and this is even assuming that either Eriksson retires outright, or if the Canucks package Demko and Eriksson (Demko = sweetener / keeping Demko = possibly stolen during the expansion draft).
 

1) The Canucks have had Virtanen as part of past packages (I.e rumored to have been involved in the Barrie deal that was in the works)

 

2) Benning has made it clear that he would like to try and recoup the first that was lost in the Miller deal.

 

Hence, Virtanen being moved at the draft for a 1st and to clear cap space doesn’t seem that farfetched.  

As far as Tryamkin goes, he didn’t exactly leave Vancouver on the best of terms, and so management and ownership might be reluctant to trust him a 2nd time around.    One thing Tryamkin may have going for him however is marketability.    Teams will always be interested in a big smooth skating physical 25 year old defenseman, which might make Tryamkin a great option for a sweetener.   (I.e.  You get Tryamkin, if you take a guy like Sutter off our hands).  
 

 

 

So instead of packaging Tram and a vet, you package Tram and Virtanen. So Benning is trading a former 1st rounder and 3rd rounder for a 1st? 

Virtanen is a restricted free agent. His cap is not an issue. Players like Eriksson, and Sutter are an issue. 

  • Hydration 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

So instead of packaging Tram and a vet, you package Tram and Virtanen. So Benning is trading a former 1st rounder and 3rd rounder for a 1st? 

Virtanen is a restricted free agent. His cap is not an issue. Players like Eriksson, and Sutter are an issue. 

Wait........what?

 

I don’t want to package Tram and Virtanen.  
 

I want to package Tree + vet (Eriksson, Sutter, Baertschi, etc), and then trade Virtanen for a 1st in a separate deal at the draft.

Edited by DarkIndianRises

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DarkIndianRises said:

Wait........what?

 

I don’t want to package Tram and Virtanen.  
 

I want to package Tree + vet, and then trade Virtanen for a 1st in a separate deal at the draft.

Sorry, clearly I need more coffee. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
44 minutes ago, DarkIndianRises said:

[proposal] Virtanen for a 1st at the draft + Tryamkin being used as a sweetener?
 

Out of Markstrom, Tanev, Toffoli, and Virtanen, my guess is that Benning will do whatever he can to keep Markstrom, Toffoli and Tanev.    That leaves Virtanen being the odd man out, and this is even assuming that either Eriksson retires outright, or if the Canucks package Demko and Eriksson (Demko = sweetener / keeping Demko = possibly stolen during the expansion draft).
 

1) The Canucks have had Virtanen as part of past packages (I.e rumored to have been involved in the Barrie deal that was in the works)

 

2) Benning has made it clear that he would like to try and recoup the first that was lost in the Miller deal.

 

Hence, Virtanen being moved at the draft for a 1st and to clear cap space doesn’t seem that farfetched.  

As far as Tryamkin goes, he didn’t exactly leave Vancouver on the best of terms, and so management and ownership might be reluctant to trust him a 2nd time around.    One thing Tryamkin may have going for him however is marketability.    Teams will always be interested in a big smooth skating physical 25 year old defenseman, which might make Tryamkin a great option for a sweetener.   (I.e.  You get Tryamkin, if you take a guy like Sutter off our hands).    The Canucks then commit to guys like Juolevi, Chatfield, Rafferty etc., in terms of filling up future vacancies left by Benn, Fantenberg, Stecher, etc.
 

 

 

I doubt Virtanen has the value to pull a 1st atm.  Vancouver is way better off keeping him and hoping he continues to break out. 
 

In a flat cap world It’s doubtful that Tryamkin’s rights are enough for a team to take on a cap dump

Edited by qwijibo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be a step backwards which isn't the direction we want to go.

  • Hydration 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

Trading Virtanen for any pick would be a stepping back move, I don’t care if it’s a 1st. 

 

2 hours ago, Junkyard Dog said:

It would be a step backwards which isn't the direction we want to go.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have faith in Virt, Dude is a good player..let him grow jeez..We want a rebuild but expect young players to be superstars overnight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven’t given up on Jake Virtanen, but........
 

People are making it sound like I’ve given up on JV and want to move him as a result.   This is not the case.

 


i am just of the belief that signing ALL of Markstrom, Tanev, Toffoli, and Virtanen will be an impossible task and that IF we had to let go of one, it would probably be Virtanen.

  • Vintage 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i agree, if you can get a first back for virtanen then do it. if you can get a defensive prospect for jake that'll be good. i don't want to give up on jake too but what's more valuable, a top 4 dmen or a top 9 forward? you always need to replenish the cupboards, look at chicago when they were winning cups, they had to let campbell go and trade forwards but get decent prospects back and be competitive for some time. we still have petey, bo, boeser, podz, and hughes so yes jake is still young but he'll demand more money if he is a top 6 but if we trade him and draft a dmen who can develop in a few years, our core will be in their prime still with a young stud d coming along. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we need to do something to dump some higher cap hit players that have been passed on the roster or are just flat out useless. Only way to do that is buyout but that sometimes doesn't save much, or trade said player and add a pick/prospect/player to get a team to take on a contract.

  • Vintage 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Virtanen is just hitting his stride. He has the potential to be a very unique player, and the envy of a lot of teams.
I don't see us getting a top 10 pick for Virtanen, and that's the only way I'd consider it.

  • Like 1
  • Hydration 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, DarkIndianRises said:

I haven’t given up on Jake Virtanen, but........
 

People are making it sound like I’ve given up on JV and want to move him as a result.   This is not the case.

 


i am just of the belief that signing ALL of Markstrom, Tanev, Toffoli, and Virtanen will be an impossible task and that IF we had to let go of one, it would probably be Virtanen.

I don’t always agree with some of your posts but this one actually makes some sense, and it’s something I have also wondered about.   First rounders  are coveted now and even though I’d also hate to see Jake go IF it was a mid first rounder it would be awfully tempting - assuming TT was going to be signed of course.   Podz is coming soon enough, Hogs too, and don’t forget Lind is already doing more at the AHL level then JV managed, about double the production at the same age.    
 

Still I’d prefer we sign TT and keep JV...both could play anywhere in the top nine and produce.   It gives JV a few more years to develop too.    I’d almost prefer not to sign TT and sign JV instead but given the purpose is to make the team better have to go with who’s better right now.   I could stomach such a move - (a first for JV) for two reasons - one id be surprised we could get a first for him so maybe take and run if it’s offered - and two as previously mentioned we have a glut of middle six wingers on its way,  Lind, Hogs and Podz all with upside too. 

Edited by IBatch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Canuckster86 said:

we need to do something to dump some higher cap hit players that have been passed on the roster or are just flat out useless. Only way to do that is buyout but that sometimes doesn't save much, or trade said player and add a pick/prospect/player to get a team to take on a contract.

I hate buyouts ... they just prolong the pain twice as long.   If we have to part with a winger prospect and a third I could stomach that.   It’s possible we could have a decent run and a vet or two could bump their value and we could trade one or two without much of any penalty (future considerations for one year of Roussel for example)....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, qwijibo said:

In a flat cap world It’s doubtful that Tryamkin’s rights are enough for a team to take on a cap dump

Certainly not a 6 million cap dump.  It’ll take a heck of lot more than Tryamkin.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

So instead of packaging Tram and a vet, you package Tram and Virtanen. So Benning is trading a former 1st rounder and 3rd rounder for a 1st? 

Virtanen is a restricted free agent. His cap is not an issue. Players like Eriksson, and Sutter are an issue. 

Ghost problem is if you want to play you have to pay - nobody is giving us anything back for LE or Sutter - we’d be the ones giving Lind, of Hogz or and maybe a pick or two depending on the player.   LE isn’t going anywhere next year if he still wants to play.   The cost after that will be a first rounder (with one year left) at least depending on the cap situation which won’t be getting better fast.   
 

Personally I want JB just to hold fast and let things unfold naturally.  Keep the players playing if they can make the lineup - otherwise bury them in the AHL - the Redden, recently Ladd treatment.  We have enough wingers right now if Ferland is healthy two more could be sent down - that’s 2 million in savings right there - let Leivo go, Fatenburg there’s another 2 million...  then trade Roussel, or Motte or whomever we can without it becoming a cap dump.   That’s enough to give Markstrom his raise, give Tanev a one year contract (which is been worked on as we speak), and maybe bump JV up a million or so on another one year show me deal.   By doing this both JV and Tanev will require a protection spot, and JV has one more year to prove his value .... and still is an RFA.    With all this talk about TT, it’s very possible he’s going somewhere else.    Wouldn’t worry too much about that yet - if we make a run for him JB will absolutely have to trade Sutter.   Or BB.  The depth will be whittled away for sure...no matter what happens.   
 

At this point  in two more years Luongo and LE, and Sutter, and well let’s just say everyone on the team with the exception of Ferland, Horvat, BB, Miller, and Myers will require another contract..five guys.  Six assuming we sign Markstrom.  The team could be completely overhauled at that point.   Money for young guys ... old vets out and guys like Lind, Podz, Hogs, OJ, Rafferty...maybe Brisbois and a couple others coming up too. Demko.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IBatch said:

Ghost problem is if you want to play you have to pay - nobody is giving us anything back for LE or Sutter - we’d be the ones giving Lind, of Hogz or and maybe a pick or two depending on the player.   LE isn’t going anywhere next year if he still wants to play.   The cost after that will be a first rounder (with one year left) at least depending on the cap situation which won’t be getting better fast.   
 

Personally I want JB just to hold fast and let things unfold naturally.  Keep the players playing if they can make the lineup - otherwise bury them in the AHL - the Redden, recently Ladd treatment.  We have enough wingers right now if Ferland is healthy two more could be sent down - that’s 2 million in savings right there - let Leivo go, Fatenburg there’s another 2 million...  then trade Roussel, or Motte or whomever we can without it becoming a cap dump.   That’s enough to give Markstrom his raise, give Tanev a one year contract (which is been worked on as we speak), and maybe bump JV up a million or so on another one year show me deal.   By doing this both JV and Tanev will  not require a protection spot, and JV has one more year to prove his value .... and still is an RFA.    With all this talk about TT, it’s very possible he’s going somewhere else.    Wouldn’t worry too much about that yet - if we make a run for him JB will absolutely have to trade Sutter.   Or BB.  The depth will be whittled away for sure...no matter what happens.   
 

At this point  in two more years Luongo and LE, and Sutter, and well let’s just say everyone on the team with the exception of Ferland, Horvat, BB, Miller, and Myers will require another contract..five guys.  Six assuming we sign Markstrom.  The team could be completely overhauled at that point.   Money for young guys ... old vets out and guys like Lind, Podz, Hogs, OJ, Rafferty...maybe Brisbois and a couple others coming up too. Demko.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, dszeto80 said:

i agree, if you can get a first back for virtanen then do it. if you can get a defensive prospect for jake that'll be good. i don't want to give up on jake too but what's more valuable, a top 4 dmen or a top 9 forward? you always need to replenish the cupboards, look at chicago when they were winning cups, they had to let campbell go and trade forwards but get decent prospects back and be competitive for some time. we still have petey, bo, boeser, podz, and hughes so yes jake is still young but he'll demand more money if he is a top 6 but if we trade him and draft a dmen who can develop in a few years, our core will be in their prime still with a young stud d coming along. 


 

Good post - like the CHI comparisons...each cup team was very different from the one before and they had to part with a lot of key support guys each time.  It’s a very long list actually.  The first one had Byfuglien...imagine if they kept him - a huge blow and a lot worse then us parting with JV.   Campbell..Bolland..Shaw ... eventually Sharp...and a lot of other players too.   Adding Miller to our core was a big step..we only have room for one or two core players as it is.   EP, QH, BB, BH, JM plus plus...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, IBatch said:

Ghost problem is if you want to play you have to pay - nobody is giving us anything back for LE or Sutter - we’d be the ones giving Lind, of Hogz or and maybe a pick or two depending on the player.   LE isn’t going anywhere next year if he still wants to play.   The cost after that will be a first rounder (with one year left) at least depending on the cap situation which won’t be getting better fast.   
 

Personally I want JB just to hold fast and let things unfold naturally.  Keep the players playing if they can make the lineup - otherwise bury them in the AHL - the Redden, recently Ladd treatment.  We have enough wingers right now if Ferland is healthy two more could be sent down - that’s 2 million in savings right there - let Leivo go, Fatenburg there’s another 2 million...  then trade Roussel, or Motte or whomever we can without it becoming a cap dump.   That’s enough to give Markstrom his raise, give Tanev a one year contract (which is been worked on as we speak), and maybe bump JV up a million or so on another one year show me deal.   By doing this both JV and Tanev will require a protection spot, and JV has one more year to prove his value .... and still is an RFA.    With all this talk about TT, it’s very possible he’s going somewhere else.    Wouldn’t worry too much about that yet - if we make a run for him JB will absolutely have to trade Sutter.   Or BB.  The depth will be whittled away for sure...no matter what happens.   
 

At this point  in two more years Luongo and LE, and Sutter, and well let’s just say everyone on the team with the exception of Ferland, Horvat, BB, Miller, and Myers will require another contract..five guys.  Six assuming we sign Markstrom.  The team could be completely overhauled at that point.   Money for young guys ... old vets out and guys like Lind, Podz, Hogs, OJ, Rafferty...maybe Brisbois and a couple others coming up too. Demko.  

The flaw in your logic with “saving a million/per player sent down” is that somebody  has to fill those vacant slots.  Even if it’s a young guy from Utica that still eats up all/most of the cap savings from burying the vet in the minors. There’s really next to no savings to be had. 

Edited by qwijibo
  • Like 1

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.