Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

therodigy

Members
  • Posts

    572
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by therodigy

  1. 1st period Observations:

     

    - Damn I missed Petey's one-timer.

    - Good to see Boeser playing with confidence again.

    - Liking that 3rd line of Roussel, Gaudette, Ferland. Fast and agitating. 

    - Not sold with Sutter yet... might come in handy during PK but he's looking a little slow. 4th line needs some speed. Too bad Virtanen's been press boxed. 

    - Connor hellebuyck is keeping the Jets in this one. 

     

    GCG!

  2. 1 hour ago, Provost said:

    Any plan that counts on us easily shedding $11 million in cap to other teams and getting a return on doing that isn't very realistic in my opinion.

    We had deals go south at the deadline because no one was willing to take on Baertschi's fairly small contract.  No teams have much cap space for next season with an expected fairly flat cap.  It might be possible to shed cap, but don't expect teams to be lining up to take on players that we think of as expendable.

    Even in that plan, we need to account for $1.7 million in pushed ELC's from this year, so that has to be added and another player taken away.  We also need buffer for short term injury call ups and another buffer for an expected $3-4 million in ELC bonuses for next year that we can't afford to push into 2021-22.  Your plan also needs to get rid of Eriksson on top of Sutter, Roussel, Baertschi, and Benn.

    It isn't unsolvable... but it is going to hurt.

     

    1 hour ago, Alflives said:

    100% agree.  It’s a paradoxical issue, that has no good solution.  It’s going to cost us our future to dump the contracts that are holding back our future.  So I’ve decided to cheer for the now.  

    All fair points.

     

    The Canucks are allowed to go over the cap on bonuses, provided we're prepared to have to have it affect our cap come 2021-2022. Definitely didn't take a long-term approach to this, just experimented with one of the many hypotheticals.

     

    Part of the reason why trading Baertschi was a pain this season was the extra year of term. There's alot less risk next season. Same applies for Sutter. The returns would be minimal, but I doubt we're giving up a first to clear Sutter's 1 year. I'm sure Colorado or Winnipeg, with their ample cap space, would've handed over a 2021 5th or 6th to shore up their centre depth (With Little and Kadri out of the lineup) had he only one year on his deal. There will be takers available.

     

    At the end of the day, Canucks will need to free up about $10 Million in order to resign/replace players on the current roster. Whatever combination that may be is what will remain to be seen, whether it's player trades (Sutter, Roussel, Baertschi, etc), Contract burying (Baertschi, Eriksson), Retirement (Eriksson), LTIR (Ferland), wicked discounts (Stecher, Virtanen), or walk-outs (Stecher, Toffoli, Tanev, Markstrom, etc).

  3. Honestly, I don't think next season is the big issue when it comes to the cap crunch. In my opinion, here are the 4 objectives that Management needs to sort out:

     

    - Maintain an Internal Cap structure until 2021-2022 season 

    - Determine Ferland's state of health

    - Deal with excess dead cap

    - Supplementing the roster with ELC/Sub Million Dollar Contracts.

     

    In this particular scenario, my objective as an arm-chair GM is to maintain as much of the roster as it sits now within the current salary cap (Don't depend on a salary cap increase). Here goes:

     

    - No one on our team has a contract signed over $6,000,000. For the Canucks to maintain flexibility, no contract can be signed over that amount for next season. That means no massive overpayments for Markstrom, Tanev, or Toffoli (He is resigned in my scenario), no massive UFA deal (No Hall), and bridges for low cost RFAs (Motte, MacEwan, and Gaudette).

     

    Let's assume the top 6 ends up being Miller - Pettersson - Boeser & Pearson - Horvat - Toffoli. Also, let's assume that Beagle centres Motte & MacEwan (Both qualified, $1,000,000 and $875,000, respectively). It's a safe bet that Gaudette will be 3C, with Virtanen on his flank. That leaves five names that are still under contract: Roussel, Ferland, Sutter, Baerstchi, and Eriksson.

     

    I'm going on the notion that no one will touch Eriksson or Ferland. They will remain with the franchise in some capacity in my scenario.

     

    Contrary to popular belief, both Sutter and Roussel have some value to their contracts, albeit limited. I foresee Sutter & Roussel traded for a combination of low draft picks and C prospects. With one year left on his deal, Sutter can easily be traded on draft day, or during the July 1st frenzy. Roussel's two years makes it a bit tougher, but he brings intangibles that other teams may covet, particularly for a long playoff run (assuming his presence on the Canucks roster is such during our own playoff run). Baerstchi will likely be buried again though he could potentially outplay both Ferland and Eriksson for a spot in the line-up. The ball is in his court, but in my scenario, I will be trading him for a low pick or B/C Prospect at 50% rentention. With one year left on his deal, Baertschi is a lot more valuable, especially at a cap hit of approximately $1.7M.

     

    Ferland's health is really the big question. He can potentially recover and fit nicely as 3LW. Alternatively, he may be placed on LTIR for the remainder of his contract, providing additional flexibility. To make things interesting, let's assume he's healthy and good to go as 3LW!

     

    This leaves Eriksson. If waived, a cap hit of $4.925 Million remains on the books. There's discussion that he may retire once he receives his July 15th bonus, but again, can't rely on that to happen. He'll stay on as 13th forward for purposes of simplicity. 

     

    On the backend is where we're going to see most of our ELCs fill in the holes. Benn will no doubt be traded as we don't need a $2 Million 7th D, and he could probably fetch a late 2nd on draft day, though likely a 3rd. In my scenario, I've called up Juolevi and Rafferty.

     

    With all that said, here's what I ended up with:

     

    Miller ($5.25M)  -- Pettersson ($925K) -- Boeser ($5.875M)

    Pearson ($3.75M) -- Horvat ($5.5M) -- Toffoli ($5.5M)

    Ferland ($3.5M) -- Gaudette ($1.5M) -- Virtanen ($3.5M)

    Motte ($1M) -- Beagle ($3M) -- MacEwan ($875K)

    Eriksson ($6M)

     

    Edler ($6M) -- Stecher ($3M)

    Hughes ($917K) -- Tanev ($5M)

    Juolevi ($863K) -- Myers ($6M)

    Rafferty ($700K)

     

    Markstrom ($6M)

    Demko ($1.05M)

     

    Baerstchi Retained Salary ($1.683M)

    Spooner Buyout ($1.033M)

    Luongo Recapture ($3.033M)

     

    Total: $81.454

     

    This is an ideal scenario, but there are so many different ways it can go. Baertschi, could be buried, he could fail to report, he can be suspended, and have his contract terminated. Eriksson can retire on July 16, 2020. Ferland can go on permanent LTIR. Virtanen could be traded in a package. One or more of Markstrom, Tanev, Stecher, or Toffoli could walk. The purpose of this exercise was to see if the current roster (for the most part) be maintained in a somewhat realistic fashion. Would love to hear your thoughts on the matter!

     

  4. "Lois, a boat's a boat, but a mystery box can be anything. It can even be a boat. You know how much we've wanted one of those things?..." -- Peter Griffin, Family Guy

     

    The only way a Boeser trade makes sense is if there is a suitable replacement (either in the pipeline or in the return) who can score at an average minimum of 0.8 Points per game and can average at least 62 games played in a season.

     

    From the perspective of what's in the pipeline and existing roster, Podkolzin won't be joining the ranks until the 2021-2022 season. Hoglander won't bring that kind of production next season, provided he even signs his ELC within the upcoming international window. At the rate Virtanen is playing, it's possible he can grow into it, but he'll be lucky to end this season at 0.5 Points per game. Do we really expect Kole Lind to shoulder that responsibility next season? Jasek?

     

    Replacing that production in Free Agency would cost more than retaining Brock Boeser at his current cap hit. Does Toffoli at $5.5 - $6 Million supplant Boeser? Does Taylor Hall at $9 Million make it worth losing Boeser at a lower cap hit? If the return in a trade includes a mid to low 1st round pick, it is more than likely that within 3 years that selected prospect may develop into a 60-70 point player... Like Brock Boeser. Hoffman would make the most sense, but he's only reached 70 points once in his career and may only reach 65 points this season if all goes well. He will command between $6-$7 Million per year in free agency. Resigning Toffoli could potentially work, but premature based on the single game he's played for us so far. I'd like to see how he progresses for the rest of the season before putting pen to paper. Even so, I imagine he'd cost at least $5 Million per.  

     

    Let's say, hypothetically, Brock gets traded for one of the lottery picks in this year's draft. With the exception of Lafreniere, when do those picks reach Brock's production? Does byfield reach 40points in his rookie year and reach 60 points by 2022? How about Raymond? Holtz? Perfetti?

     

    I'm imagining what a trade to Minnesota would look like. It's possible they might bite on a one for one for Dumba, but feel as if we'd need to add, which probably causes a domino effect of issues.  Maybe a trade around Fiala (Add Boldy and a pick, maybe?) but Fiala would be due for a raise in the same year as both Pettersson and Hughes. 

     

    Brain hurts. Will provide more analysis at a later time.

     

    • Upvote 1
  5. 9 hours ago, JamesB said:

     

     

    Comments on tonight.

     

    1. The Canucks were outplayed through two periods. Like some people said in the GDT, it looked like "one of the those games", but the team came back strong in the 3rd and full credit for the win.

     

    2. The shot totals and the Corsi totals favour San Jose by a big margin, but the game was closer than that. San Jose was taking a lot of low probability shots (and shot attempts), especially once they fell behind. In terms of high danger chances, Natural Stat Trick has the Sharks 10 to 9 for the Canucks -- very close. The Canucks had their chances, including three partial breakaways by Pettersson and a couple of posts. Once again, this game could have gone either way, but Marky had a solid game and kept the team close through two periods and he was the probably the key difference. 

     

    3. Hughes was named the first star. He looks great out there, and Green had him taking his full share of minutes against the other team's top players. (The three left D's -- Hughes, Edler and Fantenberg -- each had just over 5 minutes of even strength time against Kane.) After the last game I said that Hughes was maybe taking too many shots from the point. Glad he did not listen to me, as his opening goal on a shot from the point was an excellent play that helped keep the Canucks in the game. Hughes almost never gets beaten on a play that involves skating. He is fast and he always take the right angle. However, he can get trapped in his own end and it is tough for him to win puck battles given his (lack of) size and strength. But another excellent game by Hughes.

     

    4. Once again, Fantenberg had a good game. He actually led the D in even strength Corsi and he shared the LD PK time with Edler. I thought he played very well. 

     

    5. Horvat is probably not getting enough credit in the winning streak. He was 15 and 4 in the faceoff circle and, as always, had the toughest minutes although, like the last game, the tough minutes were divided up more evenly that earlier in the streak.

     

    6. I have not often commented on Beagle, partly because he is usually not particularly bad or particularly good. He has "met expectations" but that is because expectations for a 4th line center are not usually very high. But I have to give him credit tonight. He is fearless in blocking shots and does a good job on the PK. After getting hurt tonight on a shot block he came back and make a great play on the Sutter goal. So credit to Beagle and it is good to Beagle and Sutter finally get on the scoresheet. 

     

    7. Great GWG by Virtanen. He continues his streak and he continues to look like he belongs in the top 6. Green moved him around tonight, putting him with the Horvat line and the EP line.

     

    8. Green changed up the lines a bit, partly because of the Motte injury and partly to get things going after a sub-par showing in the first two periods. After Motte was hurt, Eriksson played with Sutter and Beagle in a lot of tough defensive situations. I was sorry to see Motte hurt and that takes away some energy and physical play. But the defensive capability of the Beagle line is actually better with Eriksson on it and those guys had a strong 3rd period (including getting a goal). 

     

    9. It was also good for Boeser to get some time with Pettersson and Miller in place of Virtanen, as Virtanen took Eriksson's place on the Horvat line. And it was good to see Boeser on the scoresheet again. However, his game still needs to improve. The team needs more from Roussel and Gaudette. Gaudette did get an assist on Virtanen's PP goal, but I think that playing with Roussel and Gaudette has made it hard for Boeser. None of those guys really drives play. 

     

    10. Cannot believe a penalty was not called on Karlsson on the play where Motte was injured. Even though I am sure there was no intent to injure, that is a dangerous play -- guiding the opponent's head into the boards.  But it would not have made sense for Horvat or anyone else to go full goon (or even partial goon) on Karlsson.  Better to come back and win the game. And save the emotion. The Canucks have a long road trip ahead. 

     

    12. Overall, another big win and, with losses to Edmonton, Arizona, and Dallas, the Canucks are solidifying their spot in the standings. 

     

     

    I very much agree. I would've felt a bit better about the hit of a 2 minute boarding minor was called. Personally wouldn't cry for a suspension, but there always seems to be a lack of consistency from a refereeing standpoint. Good to see the Canucks responding with a win!

    • Upvote 1
  6. 3 hat tricks in a 4 game span is an awesome feat, even in the AHL. Imo, he's certainly earned a call-up. Awkward to fit him in due to the team's current strong play, but I think it's a matter of when we'll see him dressed for a game or two, not if.

  7. 47 minutes ago, lmm said:

    I think you are stretching it a bit with those examples.

    Shink for Gramma was a swap of failed draft picks, = move on and hope the other guy shines... neither shone

    Pedan for Poop, was prety much the same, except Pedan wasn't our pick and was moody, however there is always a team that will take a flyer on a 1st rounder or 6'5" player. Pedan is 6'5"

    Leivo needed to be traded and TO found him a place to play, much like the Biega deal this season. For all the abuse Toronto gets around here, it should be admitted that Dubas did Leivo a solid with that deal. I do not recall Dubas ever stating that Carcone was the "Next great hope" in Toronto. Dubas gave Leivo an opportunity and took a semi-warm body in return. Its the type of deal, if made by JB that makes the Canuck faithful crow about what a class org we have but when made by Dubas the Canuck fans jeer "we fleeced him!"

    As Leivo and Gramma are the only 2 still in the NHL it is more a testament to the Marlies and Heat's ability to groom prospects.

    In retrospect, the Shinkaruk/Granlund swap can be seen as that. At the time, though, it was a trade of our highest scoring minor league player at the time for a player on the brink of breaking through. I find if difficult to imagine that no development (or in Shinkaruk's case, hindrance) took place in his tenure in the organization. 

     

    True, Pedan was not a Canucks pick, but he spent two or so years in Utica. It could be argued that it was a size for potential pick.

     

    Though Carcone was by no means a top-tier prospect, he did spend a couple years in the organization and was a pretty major contributor in the minors beforehand. If it was a "favour" trade, like Biega/Pope, there could've been other candidates that could've gone in his stead. 

     

    I understand your arguments and feel them valid. I guess it just raises a question of whether or not successful development can be determined with creating a table asset, or if it is only within the confines of growing home grown talent for the big club.

  8. I think what needs to be taken into account, RE Utica's success in developing prospects, is the type of prospects being added to the blender. Hard to imagine Cole Cassels developing at a significantly higher level in another organization, or Frankie Corrado becoming a top 4 two way D-Man if he were drafted by Toronto. 

     

    Also, lest we forget that certain prospects were developed BY Utica and utilized as assets for trade: Shinkaruk for Granlund, Pedan and change for Pouliot, Carcone for Leivo, just to name a few. Would this not be a testiment of successful development, or is success simply measured in point production?

    • Cheers 1
×
×
  • Create New...