WestCoastDave

Giving up the 9th overall pick would be hard to be swallow. Horvat and Zegras were picked with the 9th pick in past drafts. I'm not sure we are deep enough to giving first round picks away.

Instead of us losing our 9th overall pick straight up as part of the deal for Reinhart, why couldn't we get Buffalo's 2nd round pick back in return (yes, you might have to make a bigger deal)? The pick is early enough for our scouting staff to have a shot at drafting a useable player.

That is the management job.

To fix your positional needs, just borrow a page from the Leafs which is sign cheap ufas to short term contracts. Jason Spezza at $700,000 for 1 year and Alex Galchenyuk for $1,050,000 for 1 year (worked out for them) are good examples of this method. Florida also did something similar when they signed Alex Wennberg to a $2.25 million for 1 year and Carter Verhaeghe to a $1 million 2 year deal.

Yes, he did. I wouldn't mind bringing him back, but only with a short term deal. With his injury history, the question is how long his body will last.

I tried looking for the original Markstrom/Tanev/Toffoli thread with no luck. But anyways, congrats to those that placed Toffoli as their top ranking (me included). I also mentioned Stecher as someone to resign and he had a very good season.

Looking at Jake's last 2 contracts. Both times, he played his best in the final year of his contract and conversely, he played his worst the year before the final year. True to form (first year of a 2 year contract), Virtanen is having an off year this season. If history repeat itself, next year should be a better one for him. So if the Nucks can't trade him this year, they could trade him next year when his value could possibly be higher.

I would prefer getting a defenceman like a Dunn, but getting Debrusk is a good consulation. Anyways, a sell low -> buy low (change of scenery) deal could still work out for the Nucks. The team did a sell low (Gudbranson to Pittsburgh) for a buy low (Pearson to Vancouver) type trade before and it turn out as a win for us.

The problem with this proposal is the Nucks would be giving up too many playing years. Hutton is like around 4 years older than Holtby and similarly Miller is around 4 years older than Virtanen. I'll pass... unless the Sabres are willing to throw in a draft pick like a 1st rounder. lol

From a buyout perspective, a Eriksson for DeAngelo trade (both having the same number of years left on their contracts) would help the Nucks. According to capfriendly, buying out Loui would cost a total of $2 million with savings of $1 million and a total cap hit of 5 million. Because he is under 26, buying out Tony would cost a total of $1.77 million with savings of 3.53 million and a total cap hit of 1.27 million. So if you could stomach trading for him and if he doesn't redeem himself, you could just trade him for some other asset(s) and if that is not possible buy him out and save on the cap space. If he is a problem he could just sit on the taxi squad or go to the AHL before the buyout.

This signing seems to be a bit of a gamble since Holtby's play has been trending downwards the last couple of seasons. However, if Ian Clark is able to do his magic act and revitalizes the former's career closer to those of his Vezina days, it would be a big win for the Nucks. Boom or bust? Only time will tell.

If the Nucks doesn't free up enough cap space, there is a limit as to what they could do. However, going forward the good news is that more of the team's bad contracts will be expiring which means there will be more funds to improve the team.

Not sure, but at the forward position Benning seems high on Hoglander and on defence he said Juolevi and Chatfield are ready.

I could see the Nucks letting all three of Markstrom, Tanev, and Toffoli go if there is no mutual agreement and no cap relief. Under a difficult scenario, we might be looking at getting a cheaper UFA goalie replacement and promoting our youngsters on offence and defence.

Virtanen still have value so qualifying him was the right thing to do. If you want to trade him, other teams at this time knows that and will try and lowball us so the best time would be when his value is high.

Question. Could Eriksson be assigned to Utica next season and what kind of cap savings could we get? Thanks.

Benning also said “We have a lot of money to work with.We’re going to just have to decide what players that we want to sign here going forward. And other players maybe can move on and recover draft picks. That’s the circle of life in our business.” Also, “We’re going to have to make some tough decisions maybe even on some young players to make sure we give ourselves the best chance next year to be competitive and to keep growing as a franchise.” So it sounds like Benning wants to use a chunk of our 17 million available cap space to resigning Markstrom, Toffoli, and Tanev while trading away some of our young roster players like Virtanen, Stecher, Gaudette, etc. for draft picks. while replacing them with cheaper prospects as part of the solution. Trading RFAs for draft picks mean less contracts that need a raise. It might work if the those 3 agree to a reasonable/discount deal.

Yes, there were risks, but I would have taken the chance and drafted Jagr because the easing of tensions in Europe were getting a lot better and trending in the right direction.

I would favor getting Colin Miller out of those 4. The Canucks would be getting $2.125 million in cap relief while Buffalo would get $2.75 million in real dollars savings over 2 seasons. He also plays RD at 27 yrs of age and you would be buying low on him right now. But, I'm not sure the Sabres would go along with that deal.

Whatever the choices the team decide to get out of the cap mess expect some pain. So get ready for that. Some ideas (options) that could help are: 1) Buy out Sutter. He will have only 1 year left on his contract so the cap savings is 2.3 million in the first year which will help in the first year cash crunch. 2) Trade Pearson for draft pick(s) or/and prospect(s). If you want to sell high on him, this could be the time. It will save you 3.75 million per season. 3) I read somewhere that Markstrom's agent won't pick up the phone unless the offer is 6 million and up. I say let him walk because this year's free agent class is flooded with goaltenders. Goalies like Holtby, Lehner, Crawford, Lundqvist, and many many more will be available. Even Ryan Miller is available if we want him back. Simple supply/demand and there will be a lot of supply on Nov. 1 so instead of paying 6 million you could get one for around 4 million for another 1 to 2 million in savings. 4) Let Ferland stay on the long term injury reserve if he is unhealthy to play. He have had concussion problems in the past and his 3.5 million cap hit could be mitigated that way. He is also a buyout candidate, but he has three years left so maybe next year would be a better time to do it because doing it now is more costly. 5) Acquire LTIR contract(s) to mitigate the effect of overspending. Getting Marian Gaborik (Ott) at 4.875 x 1 yr. or/and Marian Hossa (Ariz) at 5.275 x 1 yr. could help in the short term. Hopefully, some of these ideas will help with our cap problems. Every little bit helps.

Apparently, we were on different wavelengths. Have a good evening qwijibo.

False...I never assume that he is satisfied with how much he has made and he is willing to forgo the payday he earned. That is what you are assuming. I expect him to look after his self interest. You brought up the subject of security and I was just commenting on it. As for the homer slight, this is the Vancouver Canucks Official website and most of the visitors are its fans. Go Canucks Go!!!

Err...even if you take 20, 30, or 50 per cent off, he still did well for himself and this is all in US dollars. Aside, from that this is a hard time to be a free agent. NHL teams rely on fan attendance for their revenue (like what happens if there is a restriction on the number of people allowed to watch the games in the arenas). With the uncertainty surrounding Covid19 and the economy, teams may not be so willing to hand out expensive long term deals. I read even some of the players are willing to contemplate going short term giving the world we are in right now.

During his career, Markstrom has made 19 million dollars so how much security does he need? Is it money, team, or both? With a one year deal followed by a longer one, you may have short term pain for longer term gain. Also, the rumored television deal would help support the league salary cap in the future.

A one year deal is the same as any player in the league playing the last year of his contract. Every player that sign a contract (and many multiple times) will experience having one year left of their contract so it is just a normal part of business. So if Markstrom sign a one year deal he will just be taking on the normal amount of risk. Waiting a year might actually help him. The Covid19 could have improve which could help raise the league cap which means he and his agent could ask more from the Nucks. Second, with the Seattle expansion next year we could protect Demko, and as a UFA, he could resign with us and the team would be stronger in goal with both Thatcher and Jacob than with just one of them. And third, if Markstrom hold out for the longer term deal, it could be him that ends up being unprotected in the expansion draft because in the history of the NHL more often than not, the younger goalie is kept in favor of the older goalie. Just look at Murray over Fleury in Pittsburgn, Vasilevskiy over Bishop in Tampa, Gibson over Andersen in Anaheim, and so on....