The_Rocket Posted June 24, 2020 Share Posted June 24, 2020 Brandon Sutter for Kris Russell 1 for 1. No salary retention, no picks, no conditions. Edmonton need a 3rd line C, preferably some one with experience and some leadership skills who can play hard minutes (they had Markus Grandlund in this role for much of last season, for reference). Sutter obviously fits this bill quite nicely, but his cap hit is definitely a deal breaker... or is it? Kris Russell (1 year left at $4 mill per) bring a lot of similar “intangibles” to table that Sutter does. High character, gritty, Team guy, blah blah blah. Most importantly, he plays LD and RD. if Canucks have to let Tanev walk, they can replace him in the line up with Russell. Tanev and Sutter = $8.825 million out. Russell = $4 million in. Total cap savings is $4.825 million and the Canucks can still easily ice a full line up with plenty of spares. “But wait!” You say, “Tanev is way better than Russell, doesn’t this make us worse?” thus is a good point. Russell does a lot of things that Tanev does (block shots, shutdown D, tough minutes, low scoring, etc.) but his skating and breakout passing are definitely a step below Tanev at this point in their careers. However, this is the sacrifice required to shed cap without giving up any futures like picks, prospects, or good young players. Hopefully rafferty/Myers/joulevi etc. Can pick up the lid left behind by Tanev 1 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted June 24, 2020 Share Posted June 24, 2020 Not bad, in theory. With Bear doing so well, and Bouchard knocking on the door, Edmonton will probably want to move Russell. And 3C is their most glaring hole. For us, if Tanev doesn't accept a short-term deal, Russell could be a decent band-aid solution for one year. Sutter has a 15-team no-trade list though. Perhaps Edmonton won't be on it though, since his family has roots in the area. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil_314 Posted June 24, 2020 Share Posted June 24, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, The_Rocket said: Brandon Sutter for Kris Russell 1 for 1. No salary retention, no picks, no conditions. Edmonton need a 3rd line C, preferably some one with experience and some leadership skills who can play hard minutes (they had Markus Grandlund in this role for much of last season, for reference). Sutter obviously fits this bill quite nicely, but his cap hit is definitely a deal breaker... or is it? Kris Russell (1 year left at $4 mill per) bring a lot of similar “intangibles” to table that Sutter does. High character, gritty, Team guy, blah blah blah. Most importantly, he plays LD and RD. if Canucks have to let Tanev walk, they can replace him in the line up with Russell. Tanev and Sutter = $8.825 million out. Russell = $4 million in. Total cap savings is $4.825 million and the Canucks can still easily ice a full line up with plenty of spares. “But wait!” You say, “Tanev is way better than Russell, doesn’t this make us worse?” thus is a good point. Russell does a lot of things that Tanev does (block shots, shutdown D, tough minutes, low scoring, etc.) but his skating and breakout passing are definitely a step below Tanev at this point in their careers. However, this is the sacrifice required to shed cap without giving up any futures like picks, prospects, or good young players. Hopefully rafferty/Myers/joulevi etc. Can pick up the lid left behind by Tanev So we're subtracting by subtracting (selling a potential buy-low, shutdown C to a divisional rival so they have McD, then Leon or Nuge, then Sutter up the middle, AND we're letting Tanev walk, to bring in an old-NHL style D-man who plays defensively primarily through shot suppression, and who's viewed as a bottom pair anchor)? If Tanev's asking for say $4.5 I'd rather bite the bullet for an extra $500k to keep a guy who makes his tandem with Hughes so dynamic, and flip Russell for something else. Sutter actually fills a need for them, and while Russell could be a stopgap, the marginal increase in price between him and Tanev could yield some major differences in result. We also have Jordie Benn who can play a similar role at this stage in their career (capable of playing on both sides) for half the cost. In fact, based on last season's stats, Russell: 55 GP, 9 points (0.16 points/ game), even, 16 minutes played, $4 million cap Benn: 44 GP, 7 points (0.16 points/ game), -7 rating, 16 minutes played, $2 million cap All that said, I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but hope we don't have to entertain this for the reasons listed above. Edited June 24, 2020 by Phil_314 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AK_19 Posted June 24, 2020 Share Posted June 24, 2020 Ignoring the portion about Tanev, this is probably one of the better proposals I've seen. I'd rather move some of our offensive depth for defensive help. A top 6 of: Hughes Tanev Edler Myers Russell Stecher Benn Looks really solid to me. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crabcakes Posted June 25, 2020 Share Posted June 25, 2020 (edited) It's a good idea but if they let Tanev move on, they definitely had better have a top 4 RHD in place to replace Tanev and that ain't Russell. Why not re-sign Fantenberg at $1M to slot in as a 3rd pair D rather than $4M with Russell. Honestly, $4.35 is a lot for Sutter but he is a useful player. Edmonton jumps at this opportunity imo and it burns to help a rival especially Edmonton. And Russell for Tanev makes our D weaker (Stech and Myers would be playing higher than they should). I still think they sign Markstrom, Tanev and Toffoli in that order ahead of anybody else down the line up and fit the others in if they can. Benn and Stecher may very well be moving along this offseason. I like Stech; he's bottom pair who can play up the line up. This puts him ahead of Hutton imo even though cap wise, he is in a very similar position as Hutton was last year. How about a D-corps that looks like this? As opposed to: (I assume this is what the OP's D corps looks like) Hughes (0.9) Tanev (5.0) Hughes (0.9) Myers (6.0) Edler (6.0) Myers (6.0) Edler (6.0) Stecher (3.0) Fantenberg (1.0) Tryamkin (2.0) Benn (2.0) Russell (4.0) total 20.9 total 21.9 Edited June 25, 2020 by Crabcakes 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rocket Posted June 25, 2020 Author Share Posted June 25, 2020 9 hours ago, Phil_314 said: So we're subtracting by subtracting (selling a potential buy-low, shutdown C to a divisional rival so they have McD, then Leon or Nuge, then Sutter up the middle, AND we're letting Tanev walk, to bring in an old-NHL style D-man who plays defensively primarily through shot suppression, and who's viewed as a bottom pair anchor)? If Tanev's asking for say $4.5 I'd rather bite the bullet for an extra $500k to keep a guy who makes his tandem with Hughes so dynamic, and flip Russell for something else. Sutter actually fills a need for them, and while Russell could be a stopgap, the marginal increase in price between him and Tanev could yield some major differences in result. We also have Jordie Benn who can play a similar role at this stage in their career (capable of playing on both sides) for half the cost. In fact, based on last season's stats, Russell: 55 GP, 9 points (0.16 points/ game), even, 16 minutes played, $4 million cap Benn: 44 GP, 7 points (0.16 points/ game), -7 rating, 16 minutes played, $2 million cap All that said, I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but hope we don't have to entertain this for the reasons listed above. 7 hours ago, AK_19 said: Ignoring the portion about Tanev, this is probably one of the better proposals I've seen. I'd rather move some of our offensive depth for defensive help. A top 6 of: Hughes Tanev Edler Myers Russell Stecher Benn Looks really solid to me. 3 hours ago, Crabcakes said: It's a good idea but if they let Tanev move on, they definitely had better have a top 4 RHD in place to replace Tanev and that ain't Russell. Why not re-sign Fantenberg at $1M to slot in as a 3rd pair D rather than $4M with Russell. Honestly, $4.35 is a lot for Sutter but he is a useful player. Edmonton jumps at this opportunity imo and it burns to help a rival especially Edmonton. And Russell for Tanev makes our D weaker (Stech and Myers would be playing higher than they should). I still think they sign Markstrom, Tanev and Toffoli in that order ahead of anybody else down the line up and fit the others in if they can. Benn and Stecher may very well be moving along this offseason. I like Stech; he's bottom pair who can play up the line up. This puts him ahead of Hutton imo even though cap wise, he is in a very similar position as Hutton was last year. How about a D-corps that looks like this? As opposed to: (I assume this is what the OP's D corps looks like) Hughes (0.9) Tanev (5.0) Hughes (0.9) Myers (6.0) Edler (6.0) Myers (6.0) Edler (6.0) Stecher (3.0) Fantenberg (1.0) Tryamkin (2.0) Benn (2.0) Russell (4.0) total 20.9 total 21.9 I will attempt to explain the Tanev aspect a little bit more for this trade. if the Canucks sign Markstrom, Toffoli, virtanen, and Gaudette, they will be way over the cap and can’t afford to sign Tanev nor Stetcher. Essentially they would have to trade some of their excess forwards to make up cap space to sign a defender. The only way to trade players like Sutter or Roussel or Baertschi or Eriksson is either to take salary back or include a sweetener. by trading Sutter for Russell, the Canucks can ice a full line up with baertschi and Eriksson buried in the minors, the Canucks would be less than a million over the cap. This means they only have to make one other cap dump to stay under the cap. tl;dr the Canucks simply can’t afford to keep Tanev. This trade finds a way to replace him and stay cap compliant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted June 25, 2020 Share Posted June 25, 2020 (edited) 9 hours ago, Phil_314 said: So we're subtracting by subtracting (selling a potential buy-low, shutdown C to a divisional rival so they have McD, then Leon or Nuge, then Sutter up the middle, AND we're letting Tanev walk, to bring in an old-NHL style D-man who plays defensively primarily through shot suppression, and who's viewed as a bottom pair anchor)? If Tanev's asking for say $4.5 I'd rather bite the bullet for an extra $500k to keep a guy who makes his tandem with Hughes so dynamic, and flip Russell for something else. Sutter actually fills a need for them, and while Russell could be a stopgap, the marginal increase in price between him and Tanev could yield some major differences in result. We also have Jordie Benn who can play a similar role at this stage in their career (capable of playing on both sides) for half the cost. In fact, based on last season's stats, Russell: 55 GP, 9 points (0.16 points/ game), even, 16 minutes played, $4 million cap Benn: 44 GP, 7 points (0.16 points/ game), -7 rating, 16 minutes played, $2 million cap All that said, I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but hope we don't have to entertain this for the reasons listed above. Both Sutter and Russell are negative value at their salaries. But at least Russell stays generally healthy. Problem with Tanev is he'll likely want more than one year on an extension. That becomes a problem, with EP and QH extensions needed. Russell's one year deal fits better, and plugs the hole. It's not perfect/ideal, but it's realistic, and addresses the needs of both teams. Edited June 25, 2020 by D-Money 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil_314 Posted June 25, 2020 Share Posted June 25, 2020 12 hours ago, D-Money said: Both Sutter and Russell are negative value at their salaries. But at least Russell stays generally healthy. Problem with Tanev is he'll likely want more than one year on an extension. That becomes a problem, with EP and QH extensions needed. Russell's one year deal fits better, and plugs the hole. It's not perfect/ideal, but it's realistic, and addresses the needs of both teams. I agree with what you say about how Russell potentially fills the need for a replacement for Tanev, but part of me is still wary of helping a divisional rival so directly by plugging a defensive hole (3rd C) when Russell isn't the only alternative. He is an alternative, but still likely a downgrade on RD. I wouldn't fret too much if we did end up going with the Russell route but I'd rather not swap a potential missing link for a spare part from their team who could be beaten out for the role by cheaper alternatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rocket Posted June 25, 2020 Author Share Posted June 25, 2020 4 hours ago, Phil_314 said: I agree with what you say about how Russell potentially fills the need for a replacement for Tanev, but part of me is still wary of helping a divisional rival so directly by plugging a defensive hole (3rd C) when Russell isn't the only alternative. He is an alternative, but still likely a downgrade on RD. I wouldn't fret too much if we did end up going with the Russell route but I'd rather not swap a potential missing link for a spare part from their team who could be beaten out for the role by cheaper alternatives. The problem is, when you’re trying to trade away guys like Sutter, you have to find a trade partner that has some kind of a need for the player and you have to be willing to do that team a favour. Otherwise, the Canucks will end up attaching decent picks or prospects to Sutter to cap dump him to some team. Not worth losing a 2nd or Lind or something if you could instead just swap him for a D-man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GB5 Posted July 5, 2020 Share Posted July 5, 2020 Looks like a decent hockey trade to me.. I'd go for it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostsOf1994 Posted July 5, 2020 Share Posted July 5, 2020 So, currently something like... Hughes Myers Edler Tanev Fantenberg Stecher Benn With Brisebois, Sautner, Rafferty, Juolevi, Woo in the AHL/ wherever. Oj and Rafferty are the most likely to be 7/8 next year . Fantenberg and Stecher won't be brought back because of how much of a raise they deserve and should get elsewhere. Hopefully Benn can be moved without any retention. Tanev would be nice to bring back unless GMJB swings for Pietrangelo in free agency. Oh amd if Tryamkin comes back for next year... Hughes Pietrangelo/Tanev Edler Myers Tryamkin Rafferty Juolevi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTramFan Posted July 6, 2020 Share Posted July 6, 2020 I would rather keep Sutter than trade him for Russell! But if JB feels he needs to clear some cap space he may look to do a deal such as this: To LAK: Sutter (30% retention) + Stecher (rights) To VAN: Future considerations LA does this to be able to add Stecher to their extremely decimated D corps and he immediately becomes their 2RD. They have more than $20m in cap space and can afford the cost of $3m for one year of Sutter, and will find him useful as center depth, good on PK and faceoffs, and as a potential mentor on a line with Vilardi. VAN does this to clear $3m in cap space for next season. Gaudette is our third line center now. And Graovac, Miller, MacEwen and Motte can provide center depth in case of injury. LA is a decent location so probably not on Sutter's 15-team no-trade list. ...while he's at it JB should try for: To NJD: Benn To VAN: 2021 7th round pick (or maybe just settle for future considerations) NJD have very little in way of left side defensive depth with experience. Benn offers good experience and size. At only $2m cap space and $1.6m salary he would be a great addition for NJD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theo5789 Posted July 6, 2020 Share Posted July 6, 2020 On 6/24/2020 at 2:07 PM, AK_19 said: Ignoring the portion about Tanev, this is probably one of the better proposals I've seen. I'd rather move some of our offensive depth for defensive help. A top 6 of: Hughes Tanev Edler Myers Russell Stecher Benn Looks really solid to me. If it weren't for Myers' neck, that might be the shortest d group in the NHL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBatch Posted July 9, 2020 Share Posted July 9, 2020 On 6/25/2020 at 1:11 AM, D-Money said: Both Sutter and Russell are negative value at their salaries. But at least Russell stays generally healthy. Problem with Tanev is he'll likely want more than one year on an extension. That becomes a problem, with EP and QH extensions needed. Russell's one year deal fits better, and plugs the hole. It's not perfect/ideal, but it's realistic, and addresses the needs of both teams. Fortunately for us Tanev and management have along history and he knows if he signs a one year deal that another deal will almost certainly be there for him when more money opens up after it’s done. He helps the team by adding an protection spot in a way too (not that one would be used on him anyways but this way Tanev knows he gets to stay which is what he wants...otherwise Seattle might take him on a longer term unprotected deal)...This what supposedly is happening right now (both sides working on a one year deal). Moving Sutter might cost us something but thems the breaks - probably a swap in picks or maybe even one of our better prospects like Lind. That could be the cost if we don’t play ball and move a guy like say Pearson to clear cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBatch Posted July 9, 2020 Share Posted July 9, 2020 On 6/25/2020 at 12:43 AM, The_Rocket said: I will attempt to explain the Tanev aspect a little bit more for this trade. if the Canucks sign Markstrom, Toffoli, virtanen, and Gaudette, they will be way over the cap and can’t afford to sign Tanev nor Stetcher. Essentially they would have to trade some of their excess forwards to make up cap space to sign a defender. The only way to trade players like Sutter or Roussel or Baertschi or Eriksson is either to take salary back or include a sweetener. by trading Sutter for Russell, the Canucks can ice a full line up with baertschi and Eriksson buried in the minors, the Canucks would be less than a million over the cap. This means they only have to make one other cap dump to stay under the cap. tl;dr the Canucks simply can’t afford to keep Tanev. This trade finds a way to replace him and stay cap compliant There’s no reason we can’t sign Tanev without a little work. Roussel or Pearson or both could be traded without adding much of a sweetener and in Pearson’s case we’d get something nice back. We are chocked full of middle six players , some of which are playing in Utica already. Send LE the way of Ladd and his replacement could save a little ... or just be added to JVs salary. TT might not even want to play here, the only reason we did this in the first place was because BB and Ferland were out and we could afford the overage. There is another option too and go the way TO has had to from time to time recently which is ice a shorter bench (that’s the penalty if your over the cap). Go with a shorter roster by a player or two. Just pile up Utica a bit more and trade guys that are not part of the core in descending order of who will provide something back and until a cap dump is required and try and stop there (if possible). JB doesn’t foresee any cap issues - maybe it’s just PR but really looking around the league at contenders and other cap teams our relative position is actually pretty good. So yes we can afford a one year contract with Tanev (two reports now out of NHL.com that’s exactly what’s in the works). As far as this proposal goes it’s one of the best ones I’ve seen, but it’s not needed. Tanev probably still has 3-4 decent years left in him, is well liked in the locker room, loved by Hughes as a partner - and he’s well positioned to continue his career as a Canuck as a second or third pairing guy for as long as his body can take it. Adding Myers was a godsend - yes he’s taken a lot of Edlers old flak - but he’s also given both Edler and Tanev a much needed break (same with Hughes). 5 x 5 a Hughe/Tanev combo just makes a lot of sense - until a prospect or better opportunity comes along what a great way for our budding superstar to grow and learn the NHL game. So far aces. Don’t mess with aces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now