Tower102

You know you said top 2.... The majority of people would have Petey top 2.

So is Petey and maybe Hughes in a re-draft...

That doesn't bring them to the cap. Cirelli is also very good so he might be able to be used as a trade chip to Seattle to take Johnson. That would solve the cap problems.

This is my top 9 assuming we get a middle 6 winger rather than a 3c as it would be easier to attain. Hog - Petey - Boeser Motte - Miller - Pod Pearson - Horvat - ?Lind? First line is obviously offence. 2nd and 3rd lines offer balance in terms of offence/defence/energy and can be fairly mixed matched. If we are down and need an offensive push we can stack Miller back up with the top line. I really want to see Motte given more of a chance to succeed on the offensive side to go with the rest of his game that has made us all fans of his. Him Miller and Pod all play with a feisty, fast game and I think would be an absolute menace to play against. Pearson and Horvat have chemistry and have had a revolving door of right wingers they adjust too so makes sense to have that spot as the question mark heading into the season. If we can't pick someone new up for the spot I can see Lind or MacEwen. We have plenty of depth options that can play the 4th line.

Gaudette is the better player. Highmore is better suited for the Canuck's needs. Trades don't have to be win/lose.

I get your arguments, but for me it doesn't matter that we are squeezed at the cap when we aren't in a realistic contending window yet. The cap squeeze cost us Markstrom, Toffoli and Tanev, at least two of those if not all three would not have been good contracts to have on our books when it mattered more, while properly trying to contend. Over paying the guys you listed did very little to actually hamper us in the goal to winning the cup, having Beagle and Sutter on over paid contracts has probably helped the team get to that goal more than it has hampered that. We were never going to properly contend for a cup for the length of any of those contracts (especially doing it slow, the way most of us wanted it done). If this cap squeeze properly costs us a player that would be a strong asset in winning a cup in our window, then I will get on board with the poor cap management argument, until then it really hasn't hurt the contending window.

Is there ever any middle ground among Canuck fans. Apparently Pearson is overpaid by an amount that led to an apocalypse (although I figure its more so people on the #firebenning train looking for more fuel). And apparently Lowry is a STEAL. Honestly, these players are both within a couple hundred K of where they should be (can argue up or down). Nothing that should be making huge waves. Pearson is a top 6 winger with much better point production and is used in a defensive match up role as well. While his best days are likely behind him, he is not old and is only signed for 3 years. Lowry is a 3c that is good at faceoffs, good defensively and has a bit of a mean streak. Hard to compare them too much, but I'd say likely pretty similar value, maybe leaning slightly towards Lowry as he is having a better year. The 2 extra years for him compensate a lot of extra value, as you all admit when we don't get the term we want. Did I hope that Pearson would be signed a bit lower considering Covid, sure, but I didn't expect much lower. Something I was disappointed with, but not an atrocious deal by any means. In my opinion the only reason people hated the Pearson deal was because we are tight for cap room (if Petey and Hughes demand the high amounts you all speculate - I personally think it will be lower than that), so its more of a continuation of the cap complaining we have been seeing for the last couple years opposed to actual Pearson hate. But then again, its hard to tell with this fan base. We get mad when our GM trades late picks or young guys for prime age players that help the team because we HAVE to rebuild slow, and then get mad when we haven't won the cup while all those prospects we did collect are still just starting their careers. I personally love the team and try to actually support them, seems like a lot just want to b*tch and moan about the team every day.

Sure, but zero reason for us to trade for a ufa Dman, especially under this proposal.

I would rather Schmidt than anything listed there, I would rather Motte than Larsson or Turris, I would rather Pearson over Larrson or Turris. Turris would not replace Sutter, our options within are better.

Yep. And all the chatter about letting Markstrom go is totally gone with Demko outplaying him this season. Now all the focus is on Toffoli who is having a career year it seems, and Beagle/Roussel. Can't celebrate a win without transfering focus over to a marginal loss as if every GM but ours hits 100% of the time. I'd much rather be in our position than Montreal and Calgary's. Not good enough to win now, and completely hamstrung on the future due to big win now contracts.

I don't disagree with you now with how the season has gone. But there was logical optimism that he would improve on the last year or two and be proper expansion bate. In the end it make next year tougher, but not a giant deal in the long term, was worth adding the second year for that hope. It was also protection in case Demko couldn't be the starter yet. Hindsight is 20/20 but this is at least a move you can see the logic behind it, it just didn't play out as well as we hoped.

Ya the purpose of the second year was expansion bait.

How about you judge Green fairly for the year. Not much a coach can do to help a struggling young team find their team defence when you don't have any practices because you have the most dense schedule in the NHL in a season where everyone's schedule is ridiculously dense. I judge the coaching staff on before and after that point. Guess what? The team performed WAY better once Green was actually able to run a practice or two and get to work. Not only could they not practice early, but players weren't allowed to congregate in hotel rooms, making it hard to even go over theory for how he wants the team to play. The team after that point was looking like one of the top teams in the division like we were all hoping, obviously its been derailed again...but its probably Green's fault that Petey, Sutter, Beagle, Pearson are all hurt at the same time. Has the team performed worse than expected? Sure. Was the team always going to regress from last year even if we brought back last years entire roster? Absolutely. If you judge a coach by how many timeouts he calls opposed to how the team changes their performance after time off to work on it...than you are hopeless. I am truly interested in hearing why you think Green sucks, beyond: timeouts, resting Demko on back to backs, and the team is doing worse than last year because those are nonsensical.

This trade only makes sense to me for the fact all 3 had requested a trade. It doesn't make sense to me for multiple other reasons: 1.Columbus was winger heavy already, now are loaded on the wing and VERY weak at center. 2.Winnipeg was balanced, now is heavy at center and missing a winger for their top 6. 3. Laine is probably the better player, at least a slight majority would probably say so. Dubois plays the more valuable position, but that to me might make it a straight swap deal. Don't see why Winnipeg added and if the rumour is true on retaining salary, also lose there. 4. Laine and Torts feels like a recipe for disaster. From a Columbus perspective, they likely don't receive anywhere near the same value elsewhere, but are in a weird spot for their lineup and may have moved laterilly in terms of a player in the doghouse and not wanting to be there....Maybe they flip Laine.

Only difference would really be trade deadline room.

Have about 3 mil after Ferland goes on LTIR if my capfriendly test was accurate. Hopefully its around 1m though.

How do you figure this. First of all, Hamonic and Schmidt will both be on the right. Second of all you are assuming that Hughes and Edler (two LD) will be paired. Our left side will be Hughes, Edler, OJ (his spot to lose I would say) and the right side of: Schmidt, Myers, Hamonic. I would put Hamonic with Hughes for the majority of 5 vs 5 as he is similar to Tanev and that combo worked really well. Schmidt with Edler as a steady second pairing, and Myers with OJ as the bottom pairing. Each pairing has a solid puck mover on it. If you don't like OJ and Myers together you can switch OJ and Edler.

I am a fan of this as it means Berg finally gets his well deserved C. Been one of the best players and leaders to not have that honour.

He is also acting like Vancouver was the only team able to do this trade. If no other team could step in to get the deal done, then sure you can play super hardball and get him for free with the position they were in. All the rumours were that Florida was trading for him, so I bet they tried to do that and Vancouver swept in and got the deal done. If this was a reverse, the same guy would be complaining that Florida took advantage of Vegas and we should have made the trade. Yes you want to squeeze a team like Vegas, but you also have to be aware of the other teams that also want Schmidt and find the best balance of ensuring you are the team to get the deal done while also getting him for as cheap as possible...not an easy thing to do; yet Benning has pulled it off 2 years in a row.

I will reiterate what I said in the past because you clearly did not actually read what my words were but guessed at them. 1. I even clarified that I didn't believe he was overpaid. I just said that a higher contract like that is one they might avoid so they could weaponize the cap or go with a cheaper option. The fact you would be willing to let him go for the sake of a cheaper option shows that it is a logical deduction for what Seattle may be thinking themselves. 2. We all play some fortune telling when dealing with these conversations do we not? I never said he would for sure regress to bottom pairing, but he is someone that Seattle would be concerned about possibly regressing to that by the time he is 33. There may be safer targets for them. 3. Also never said he wouldn't be our best asset exposed. He likely would be. But for the same reason the Canucks may choose to expose him over a Rafferty, Chatfield, or Brisebois, the Kraken may prefer to pick a guy like that off our roster instead of Myers. Everyteam that goes with the 7-3 model will be exposing their 4th best defenseman asset, their will likely be many with Myers talent that are cheaper than 6 million. A guy like Holtby would be a great pick up for them depending on what other goalies are exposed. A guy like Motte would be a decent pick up for them for what he brings to a team. If I was Seattle, I would probably take a Motte type guy and then trade for overpaid guys with 1 or 2 years left and pick up some 1st and 2nd rounders and have loaded drafts for the first 2 years. Cap space has never been so valuable, and Seattle has all of it right now at their disposal. I think that more than makes up the asset value difference in taking a Motte over a Myers. With that said, as I have said a few times, I don't want to play too much of a fortune teller and guess what every team will be exposing so we can't really debate whether Seattle will take an exposed Myers without knowing what other options they have at every position.

I don't even know what we are debating about now. Its all conjecture that relies on too many unknowns of what every teams roster will look like and who is exposed, so more or less pointless. Seemed like we more or less agreed from the beginning other than you thinking it a bit more likely they would take Myers than I believe, but neither of us thinking they absolutely would or absolutely wouldn't. I think Edler is a 2nd pairing dman, but was better in his prime than Myers was so I expect Myers to regress a bit more.

You did not read what I quoted. Conversation was nothing about Schmidt. We were talking about Myers and his contract and the likelihood that Seattle takes him if we expose him now that we have Schmidt to protect. Try reading the full context of a post before responding.

Not saying its an anchor contract or anything. More: bottom 4 dman (he is 2nd pair now but will drop to 3rd pair in this contract) for 6m when they will likely have many options for 4th dmen who are cheaper based on how the draft is structured. I think they could select cheaper options and then weaponize the cap to take some Staal type contracts (1 year) and load up on picks.

With how valuable cap space is, I think they would avoid contracts like Myers. It is all conjecture though, they would need some vets on some sort of contracts, just not too many, so it fully depends on who else is exposed and if they like them more or less than Myers.

Do you not think there will be better Dmen available for them with better contracts? Regardless though, I would be ok with them taking him as I think we could replace him at a cheaper option now that it appears we are high on players lists to play.