BigTramFan
-
Posts
2,390 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by BigTramFan
-
-
16 minutes ago, MattWN. said:
Where is your proof they weren't shopping him? What a stupid argument.
Stupid argument? I think you're just trolling. You have no proof that VAN were trying to trade Garland, and apparently you are saying they were trying to move him for nothing and couldn't manage it.
-
2 hours ago, MattWN. said:
Peeke is a 25 year old, 6'4 RHD, who is locked into a bargain bin contract for the next 3 years. If they're aim is to move him, it won't be for overpaid scrap wingers like Garland, a guy Vancouver couldn't give away at the deadline. The difference in value between those two players is staggering.
Boeser is another player with negative value, you aren't sniffing a 2nd round pick without retaining money. If Pitts wanted Boeser, they would have had him for peanuts a month ago.
The rights to guys like Dermott and Bear also have very little value, if any. Bear was just moved for a 5th rounder, that's what value teams see in him around the league. He won't be moving the dial in any trade to shed cap space.
Peeke at -32 this season, Bear at +9
Where is your proof that VAN was trying to trade Garland at the TDL?
-
1 minute ago, Canuckfanforlife82 said:
Yes but without Demko it wouldn't have even been close.
But we have Demko, so I don't get your point. Refs suck!
-
1
-
-
Just now, Canuckfanforlife82 said:
Ummmm. They were outshot 41-18. I don't think it was the refs. The flames actually didn't have that many shots on the pp.
The BS call on Petey resulted in a PP on which they scored the equalizer. That was 100% the refs
-
2 minutes ago, Smashian Kassian said:
I think most felt it was time to move on from Tanev due to his injury troubles but Toffoli should've been the priority. Turns out he's a really good penalty killer too & we could use it.
If they had kept Toffoli maybe they don't pay the high price to have Garland included in the OEL deal.
I certainly didn't feel that way about Tanev. But anyway, thanks for the chat, I'm going to graciously step out of this discussion now...don't like to live in the past and think about "what could've been"...
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Smashian Kassian said:
Holtby was actually the guy prioritized over both Tanev/Toffoli as insulation for Demko. Schmidt was a desperation add later as they ran out of options to replace Tanev
Should've just resigned Tanev and Toffoli. Could have still signed Holtby too
-
3 minutes ago, Muttley said:
Someone wanted OEL so Toffy and Stech were punted.
Toffoli, Tanev and Stech gone a year earlier than OEL trade, but were not resigned in order to afford Schmidt and Virtanen.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Sell.the.team said:
Fair enough, I personally think Boeser and Garland both have higher upside than Mik and Beau but I think we are stuck with Mik.
While I like Garland, there is no point in paying $5M to a 4th liner.
Rather than upside, I think which 2 wingers they keep out of Boeser, Garland, Beau and Mik is going to be based on their chemistry with EP and Miller.
EP-Kuz is a lock for our first line. Both Beau and Mik have both shown good chemistry with EP-Kuz, so either one is fine.
DiGuiseppe-Miller-Boeser has performed a lot better than Miller-Horvat-Garland. May not be a fair comparison because this was with different coaches and the team performing very differently. But I still think Boeser has the advantage over Garland for that 2nd line.
If we kept Beau on the top line and moved Mik to the 2nd line with Miller, we don't really know whether they have good chem. But Mik has excellent speed which would be very useful on Miller's wing.
This makes me think the following are the 2 most likely options long term:
Option A:
Keep Beauvillier and Mikheyev
Kuz-EP-Beau
Mik-Miller-young winger
Option B:
Keep Mikheyev and Boeser
Kuz-EP-Mik
young winger - Miller - Boeser
-
1
-
-
52 minutes ago, Sell.the.team said:
not sure why so many are quick to bail on Boeser. I for one do not think he's a lost cause - although, I suspect there is a good chance he leaves as a UFA given how this team and city has treated him the last few years.
It's not bailing on Boeser (or Garland). But we do need to reduce our cap hit in time for paying EP40 and Hronek. We also have a need to improve our defense and backup goalie if we wish to make the playoffs and perform well.
We have a lot of depth at wing, so trading Boeser is more about reducing cap from an area of strength.
I'd say Boeser and Garland are behind Kuz, Beau and Mik on our depth chart, so moving out their cap when we have a bunch of young talent ready to replace them seems like a smart move.
-
58 minutes ago, mll said:
I don't really get those trades where there are tag along players when teams are so mindful about cap space. Would expect Boeser, Garland to have more interest as stand alone unless you are adding a top flight prospect / high draft pick vs players that might not even be lineup regulars on a contender - Dermott or Bear weren't on their previous teams. Bear and Dermott were also on the block for a long time.
Boeser + Dermott and his 1.75M QO - ie potentially near 8.4M in cap.
Garland + Bear and his 2.2M QO - ie potentially over 7M in cap.
PIT will still be in contending mode for at least the next 2-3 seasons while Crosby and Malkin are playing. They have the Zucker (5.5m) and Dumoulin (4.1m) contracts expiring this off season, so taking on ~8.4m in cap in replacement players should not be an issue. Paying a 2nd round pick to replace a top 6 forward and a 3rd pairing LD, that can step into top 4 if required, is not too expensive (assuming they put Rutta into the 2LD spot and Dermott plays 3LD).
CBJ will has $18.6m in cap space with 20 players signed. If they get Texier back then they could easily look at running with 3 scoring lines, centered by Texier, Jenner and Rosovic. Their top 9 wingers could be Gaudreau, Laine, Marchenko, Johnson, Robinson and Garland.
Assuming Jiricek is on their NHL roster then, they will have 21 players signed with $17.7m in cap space. If they made the proposed trade then they add a further $4.4m and have 22 players signed with $13.3m in cap space still available. That money would be spent on Texier, plus I expect them to focus on signing a top 4 LD to pair with Boqvist, someone like Graves would be ideal.
Moving out 3 years of Peeke for Bear who would be on a 1-year contract provides the roster space they need as Jiricek and Ceulemans develop into NHL players. Bear is a convenient stop gap at RD. Granted they could find someone cheaper on a 1-year deal.
If CBJ are not interested in either Garland or Bear, then moving them elsewhere and trading a 3rd round pick for Peeke would be an alternative option.
-
5 hours ago, nuck-lifer said:
Thinking 2.2M for 3 years or something like that. He's going to be 26 in June so don't expect much more on a show me year.
His minutes indicate a 3rd pairing D can play top 4 when needed. He's not involved with either of the PP units and is #4 or 5 man on the PK so most minutes are 5-5.
Decent puck retriever, not overly physical, OK offensive numbers. 2M range is the most he's worth and he been treated well in Van after sitting in Carolina.
Yeah I don't hate that approach and I don't dislike Bear as a player in isolation.
But if you are signing Bear at say $2.2m as a 3rd pairing RD then you aren't going to be able to afford to keep OEL on the bottom pairing too. So you're either buying OEL out (which causes cap trouble in 2 years time) or you aren't signing a guy like Gavrikov, who is the kinda player we need to significantly improve our defense.
I really don't want to see a defense line up like this next season:
Hughes Hronek
OEL Bear
Brisebois Myers
(Wolanin Burroughs)
Apart from the top pairing, it's woeful.
-
4 hours ago, VegasCanuck said:
Looking at our forward depth and cap allocation, SOMEONE has to go!
Garland and Hoglander are similar size and play a similar game, but if he can step up again next season, Hoglander is significantly less expensive.
I've actually said for about 3 years that I thought we should trade Boeser. Not because I don't think he's a good player, but because RW is an area of relative strength and I viewed him as someone who could be moved for assets who would strengthen other areas.
I doubt that Pearson will play next season with what I'm hearing about his hand, but Mikheyev will be back and capable of playing either wing.
Add in, Podkolzin, Raty, Karlsson, Klimovich (I think needs another half season in AHL), Bains (been impressive down in AHL), Sasson, McDonough and Kravtsov, all potentially bubble guys to make the team and push for spots.
Unless they are suddenly going to reverse course on Miller and move him before his NMC kicks in, either Boeser, or Garland need to go, I don't think there's another forward that makes sense to move.
Just my opinion at least.
Totally agree about Hogs and his potential. I really feel everyone is sleeping on him. Lots of people saying use him as a sweetener to trade someone else. He has only been put down in Abby because of his waiver situation. He will come to camp next season ready to fight for a top 6 spot.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, hammertime said:
Though I think we could maybe get Holl or Mayfield for half that price and we don't have to mess around with the whole Peeke thing.
Rodrigues is a great target. UFA targets all make sense hopefully we can land a couple of them.
The Brock and Garland deals I don't think are close at all. Does Garland and Gaudreau in your top 6 make sense? Brock makes 6.65m and has 16 goals he might not hit 20 Unless we retain or take bad money back he is staying.
Yes I think you could get Holl for half the AAV of Peeke, but then you may as well just stick with Juulsen or Poolman (if he's healthy). As they are all bottom pairing guys.
Peeke is a potential top 4 player. Also Holl is 31 whereas Peeke is 25, so I am targeting a player that can partner Hughes for the next 8 years.
In my opinion Mayfield will cost more than $2.75m to sign as a UFA. Also he's 30, so you wouldn't want to sign him for more than 3 years.
-
6 minutes ago, Alflives said:
Boeser’s QO was a million per more than he signed for. I see us signing Bear for five years at 2 per. That’s the right allocation for a guy who can play with Hughes or on our third pairing. Buying out OEL is a must though.
Agent Jason Davidson on Ethan Bear contract talks : "We have not spoken since all-star game, sometimes when you do not agree you tend to shut it down."
"Ethan is willing to do a 1 year show me deal where as im guessing this team doesn't want to walk this right handed d-man to free agency either. So that's our concern, those free agency years aren't free and they have to be compensated for."
Sounds to me like the 2 parties are a long way off agreement. Are reported to not even be talking anymore. Plus Bear is not looking to earn low salary during his free agent years for the sake of a longterm contract.
-
9 minutes ago, Alflives said:
Bear gets a longer termed deal to keep his yearly cap allocation lower? 2 per x 5 years?
Except Bear has a QO of $2.2m, plus arbitration rights which might push his contract significantly higher than that.
Bear is not a top pairing RD. We have Hronek as 2RD already. So Bear is 3RD at best on our roster. And we need to be paying less than $2m for that role imo. I'd pay Schenn $1.5m to do that role because I know he can step into 1RD with Hughes for a whole season if needs be, and he will be worth his weight in gold come playoff time.
-
8 minutes ago, VegasCanuck said:
Boeser has been good and getting better every game since the deadline passed and under new coaching.
Although, I think there's a really good chance that we move him this summer, it won't be as a dump and the return will be far better than you're thinking. His +/- has improved from around -24 to -16 in the last 2 or 3 weeks and he's starting to score again. They won't move him for the sake of moving him, they will get solid value or he's not going anywhere.
I think they plan on keeping Bear, will likely look to sign him around 2.25 per season range.
Myers, I'm calling it now, we get a 3rd round pick for him.
I would welcome better returns than the ones I have proposed for Boeser and Myers.
Regarding Boeser, I would love to keep him but reality is that in order to afford pay rises for EP40, Hronek and Kuzmenko, we will probably need to move on from two players out of Boeser, Garland and Beauvillier. They don't need to be moved this off season but that is the long term reality.
-
20 minutes ago, Alflives said:
Like this except we must buyout OEL. We can’t have him being a healthy scratch and that bottom pairing spot costing us 8 on the cap.
Based on this lineup we can afford to pay OEL on the bottom pairing next season. I guess what we do with OEL at the end of next season could be based on his performance over the next year.
Worst case is that OEL remains terrible and we need to buy him out in 2024. If that happens, then at least we have shortened the buyout by 1 year.
But if he has a resurgence, then he might become more trade-able with only 3 years left and at that stage it might make sense to try and trade him (perhaps with retained salary) and avoid a buyout.
Even keeping OEL in 2024-25 is a possibility as (having got rid of Myers, Garland, Boeser) we should actually have enough cap space to afford pay rises for EP40, Hronek, Beauvillier, Aman, Joshua and Podz (due to being $2m below the cap limit this season, factoring in a $3m cap limit increase, plus moving on from Raanta with Silovs).
-
To PIT: Boeser + Dermott (rights)
To VAN: 2024 2nd round pick
PIT are in need of top 6 scoring and some depth on their LD next season.
To CBJ: Garland + Bear (rights)
To VAN: Peeke
VAN buys low on Peeke, who has had a poor season and is about to start his $2.75m x 3 contract. I believe Peeke has the toolbox to be a long-term partner for Hughes and would suit a change of scene. Garland steps straight into their top 6 and Bear provides CBJ a decent option at RD for 1 year instead of Peeke's 3 years - clearing space for the up-and-coming Jiricek and Ceulemans on their right side.
To OTT: Myers ($3m cap hit, $500k salary)
To ARI: 2024 4th round pick (retains $3m on Myers contract, $500k salary)
To VAN: Future considerations (has paid Myers $5m signing bonus)
Assuming OTT is not on Myers' 10 team no-trade list. OTT gets a top 4 RD for only $3m cap hit. ARI receives a 4th for retaining $3m of cap (but only paying out $500k of salary) - helps them reach the cap floor for minimal actual salary cost. VAN clears Myers contract without retention.
Sign UFAs:
Gavrikov - $4.75m x 6 (2nd pairing big shutdown Russian)
Rodrigues - $3m x 3 (2-way right shot 3C)
Raanta - $2.5m x 1 (backup for 1 season til Silovs is ready)
Schenn - $1.5m x 2 (provides depth, playoff toughness, and chemistry with Hughes if Peeke doesn't work with QH)
Acciari - $1.5m x 2 (plays 4RW but provides center depth, hits a lot, can score goals, and good PK ability)
Sign RFAs:
Hoglander - $950k x 2 (highly underrated by CDC, will be our future 2nd line winger imo)
Kravtsov - $950k x 2 (looking good, keep developing on 3rd line)
Juulsen - $775k x 2 (another good cheap depth RD option, has chemistry with QH)
Assuming Poolman is healthy - waive to AHL
Assuming Pearson is on LTIR
2023-24 Roster:
-
1
-
1
-
-
20 minutes ago, HKSR said:
I was talking cap space...
We can put Dermott and OEL on LTIR and increase cap space to more than $9m...not an issue.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, wai_lai416 said:
who are these "plenty" of teams out there? only chicago and anaheim aren't anywhere close to the cap floor for next season.. every other team will be at or over the cap floor once they have a roster of minimum players. chicago and anaheim is more likely than not on myer's 10 team no trade.. good luck finding a team that'll take myers for free without us retaining or giving a sweetener because it sure ain't hell going to be a bottom feeding team or a team needing to reach cap floor because there's literally only 2 teams.. the next 2 teams are new jersey and detroit.. they'll easily reach the cap floor and well over it assuming detroit isn't planning on tanking another year.
all OEL have to do is remain on IR and he can't be bought out lol.
OEL on the old Shea Weber multiple year LTIR'etirement would be ideal...
-
1
-
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
33 minutes ago, *Buzzsaw* said:Its great he is back... but what is the point of leaning on him like it is critical to have him between the posts?
Why is Hoglander not getting a chance?
This current run of wins is an exercise in futility.
So I ask again: Why is Rick Tocchet risking Demko and next season... not to mention undermining what little chance the team has of drafting well?
The coach and players are paid to play and win. Can't blame them. Maybe we should shut it down for Petey, Hughes, Miller, Hronek too?
If Hoglander plays 2 more NHL games he will become waiver eligible and not be able to return to the AHL for the playoffs without risk of being claimed. He is doing great in the AHL (29 pts in 39 games) and deserves to play in the AHL playoffs. He will be primed and ready to make NHL roster next season!
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
25 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:
Technically it won’t cost the owner $20 million Wai. The reason why is the dead cap space that comes with an OEL buyout forces the Canucks to not be able to spend to the cap. So it’s a forced savings for Aquilini. Aquilini didn’t complain too much about Luongo’s dead cap because it didn’t cost him any real dollars. With an OEL buyout, he does have to pony up $20 million up front, but there is also $20 million in dead cap spread out over 8 years where he saves on not having to spend to the cap.
Also, I don’t think we will be irrelevant next year. With 2-3 new players we will be a playoff team. A top 4 LHD like Gavrikov and a 3C that can win faceoffs and play defence will push us into a playoff spot. Even right now we’d be a dangerous playoff team in the 1st round. Adding 2-3 new pieces would push us into a dangerous playoff team next year.
Just to make it clear if OEL is bought out this off season then Aquilini only pays $2.13m per year in salary for the next 8 years. It isn't "upfront" it is paid each year. The total cost is $17m but it is spread over 8 years.
Compared to the salary paid to OEL by not buying him out...which is $25.5m over 4 years ($9.24m, $7.04m, $4.62m, $4.62m by year).
Essentially if Aquilini is making the same total cash investment of $25.5m, he could buyout OEL and still afford to spend $8.5m over the next 4 years. Essentially this means if they can find a better player than OEL and sign them for $2.1m x 4 years then the total salary cost to Aquilini is the same.
PLEASE NOTE: Cap hits are a completely different story, the above comments are regarding salary paid to the player.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Out of interest (if you're interested) these are the actual salary payments that VAN would have to make by year for a buy out OEL (note: these are different to the cap hits to VAN):
[Proposal] Bye Bye to Myers, Garland and Boeser
in Proposals and Armchair GM'ing
Posted
The proposed trade was a forward + one defenseman for one defenseman.
CBJ fans are keen to move Peeke and they are valuing him at about a 3rd round pick.