Hindustan Smyl

Well technically, I did say *above* 9.5 million. :p (although *technically* Ovie’s cap hit is slightly more than that as well). My main point remains though: Over the last 10 years or so, the cup winning teams all had cost controlled cap hits to their top superstars. These Cost controlled cap hits to the star players weren’t ELC or “bridge” contracts either. Period. Yes, there were some contracts to some key players that had that status, but the top superstars of said team? Nope. Go take a look at Chicago (2010, 2013, 2015), LA (2012, 2014), and Boston (2011). All of their top stars were on long term cap friendly contracts. Notice how during that time, the two best players in the world (Crosby and Ovechkin) did NOT win cups? What happened to Chicago and LA when Kane, Toews, and Kopitar received their 10 million dollar deals? What happened to Pittsburgh and Washington between 2016 and 2018 when Crosby and Ovechkin’s once extremely high AAV contracts were now relatively cap friendly? (Due to the overall increasing salary cap which lowered the percentage that those cap hits occupied on the team). What were the cap structures of the teams that made the 2nd round this year? That’s my whole point. I would LOVE to have guys like Panarin and Karlsson here but NOT at 10.5-11 million. Why? Because - recent history has shown that any ONE player occupying too much cap space....no matter how good......will ultimately prevent his team from winning the big one. Said team will lose to a team with cost controlled superstars + depth. We are seeing it right now in Toronto. The Leafs paid an arm and a leg for Tavares, and so Matthews and Nylander wanted to be paid at a premium as well.......and so will Marner, etc. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I think the Leafs best chance of winning a cup was this year. Now they simply won’t have the necessary depth needed to beat whoever becomes the next “alpha” of the east. They will forever be a “bridesmaid.” Lets not hope for the same thing in Vancouver. Don’t pay any one player more than what Ovie’s cap hit was (Or Ovie’s cap hit in 2018 divided by whatever the cap was in 2018 = x. x multiplied by whatever the cap hit will be for 2019/2020).

And he has an awesome cap hit to boot. If there’s one team that I want the Canucks to emulate out there, it’s Carolina. Guys like Pesce and Teuravanien (sic) are on awesome cap friendly deals. I also suspect that a guy like Sebastian Aho will take a good discount as well so that it gives Carolina a chance to win multiple cups one day via having enough cap space to build a deep team. I’m not sure exactly where the game is going in terms of a team’s cap structure (ie will the “Toronto model” be the future of hockey, or will we still continue to see some teams’ top players “buying in” and taking discounts so that their team can invest in more depth), but it will be interesting to see how things play out.

My bad if that’s true. Im over here in China and so capgeek and spottrack aren’t readily available (nor is google, and baidu here sucks). I thought Ovie’s cap hit was 9.5 million exact but looks like I was wrong. In the case, I would argue that anything with Ovie’s cap hit and below is acceptable. Until a team wins and proves otherwise, this is the stance that I will take. Edit - I just saw it. 9,538,462 (or something around this much). I haven’t done the math as to what percentage 9,538,462 was of Washington’s cap last year, but whatever percentage that turns out to be, that’s the highest that I would offer Panarin......and not a penny more.

Highly doubtful that Lee goes anywhere. I would love to have Panarin, but I think he’ll be too expensive. Teams don’t win cups when they have players with a cap hit above 9.5 million.

My vote would be for Jacob Trouba.....assuming that Trouba wouldn’t mind staying in Canada. It would also depend on the asking price and if it was reasonable. Under these circumstances, I would choose Jacob Trouba. More realistically though, I absolutely would be willing to take on Lucic. 1) He would add massive toughness which is a huge weakness for us. Teams won’t take liberties with Pettersson and Hughes with Lucic here. 2) A familiar hometown environment might be the perfect antidote. Let’s face it - Lucic hasn’t been the same player since his father passed a few years back. That’s perfectly understandable. Surround him with family and friends, and you might wake up a bear. 3) An Eriksson for Lucic swap would likely force Edmonton to hand us extra assets. Since Eriksson is slightly superior player right now, combined with the fact that his contract is slightly better (ie one less year), the likely scenario is that the Canucks might be able to upgrade an asset (ie Eriksson+10th for Lucic+8th). IF Söderström (RD) gets selected earlier than planned, I would then push for a Eriksson+10th for a Lucic+Bouchard deal. I think the Canucks really need to walk out of this draft with a young RD. Guys like Benn, Malkin, and whoever don’t fit into our window of opportunity, and would likely cost us too many assets.

.......how is this related to Vancouver Canucks hockey?

Completely forgot about him. Yeah you’re right!

[proposal]Eriksson + 10th for Lucic + Bouchard Yay, nay, or gay?

I really do think that we got the grand prize in the 2017 draft. 2015: McDavid 2016: Matthews 2017: Pettersson I think when all is said and done, Pettersson and Heiskanen will be known as the true superstars of the 2017 draft.

I see your point, but my only two issues are these: 1) Should we really risk having guys like Horvat, Pettersson, Hughes and Boeser possibly miss two more years of playoffs? How much of an emphasis should there be in making the playoffs? 2). Isn’t there be something to be said with regards to taking advantage of both Pettersson and Hughes’ ELC status?

It’s not the worst idea in the world on paper, but this trade would make too many locals upset, and its the type of deal that could really rub the boy’s in the lockerroom the wrong way. It sets too much of a bad precedent (ie if you work hard, do all of the right things, become a leader in the lockerroom, etc, management will knife you in the back and move you). Some deals, even if they’re somewhat decent on paper, you just don’t do. See Gretzky Wayne 1988. Horvat’s the type of guy that you win with. Period. He’ll score for you, hit for you, stick up for teammates, take up defensive responsibilities if Sutter breaks a finger nail and is out for 10 weeks, etc. If this was two years ago, I’d possibly consider doing something like this, but the Canucks are slightly above the ground floor rebuild stage now. The Canucks have an established young core now, and so their goal should be to find players to complement their young core of Pettersson, Horvat, Boeser, Markstrom, and Hughes.

You make fair enough points, but it’s not just about EK, Panarin, or Duchene (and for the record, I don’t want any one of those players as I’ll explain later). It’s simply about correcting 12 million dollars worth of error and re-investing it wisely......while Pettersson and Hughes are on ELC’s. Period. Even if the Canucks can’t land one of the big fish, perhaps they can land 2-3 upper-mid sized fish instead? (Which would be my personal choice). 1) Get rid of the 12 million in deadwood 2) Build some real depth with that newly invested 12+ million 3) Get some playoff experience for our boys. 4) Perhaps make a little bit of noise while Pettersson and Hughes are in ELC’s. That’s

Agreed. I’m not big on Ceci either.

Trust me, I definitely get where you’re coming from on this and also realize that I’m not doing myself any favors by suggesting this idea (on multiple occasions), but here are my thoughts: 1) Sutter, Eriksson, and Schaller having value. I think most on here would agree with me that the aforementioned players have NEGATIVE value. 2) Critical juncture: You mention “critical juncture,” and my response to that is as follows: It depends when you mean by that. Would the Canucks be an immediate cup contender if they re-invested that newfound 12 million dollars efficiently? (in the form of Karlsson, Panarin, Duchene, or multiple player depth?). My answer to that is “no.” However, I do believe that the Canucks are at a “critical juncture,” where they need to start making the playoffs, and that guys like Horvat, Boeser, and Pettersson need to start getting some playoff experience. That’s my interpretation of “critical juncture” and that’s where I do believe that this newly freed up 12 million dollars invested wisely would take us. An often overlooked aspect of developing young players and prospects (amongst fans) is the need for playoff experience. I believe that management making a serious push for the playoffs next year (via “going big” this offseason) will demonstrate the following: 1) It will demonstrate to the young core players on this team (Horvat, Pettersson, Boeser, etc.) That this organization is serious about winning and building a long term winner. 2) Incompetence will not be tolerated. By shipping off Eriksson, Sutter, and Schaller, Management will demonstrate to the players that deadwood will be removed, and that opportunities for kids will be made available if they prove themselves (ie Gaudette). 3). Buy in. I think this is the most important point I’ll make here. IF this team can “make some noise” over these next two years and maybe even win a round or two while Pettersson and Hughes are on ELC’s, I think the chances of them, and other RFA’s in Vancouver, taking a discount of some kind when their ELC’s expire would increase. No guarantees obviously, but I do think the likelihood would increase. They would get a small taste of winning, they will have experienced progress as a group (non playoff team to playoff team), and they will be motivated to do big things. 4) Re-investing the freed up 12 million wisely AND having enough money to comfortably re-up Pettersson, Hughes, etc. Some people have mentioned to me that it’s not necessary to remove so much cap space because we already have enough cap space available to re-up our upcoming RFA core. That’s not my reasoning though. I want the Canucks to have their cake and eat it too. Build a playoff caliber team now AND have enough money to comfortably re-up our future RFA’s.

Zero retention on Eriksson, Sutter, and Schaller would be a huge advantage. That 12 million can *easily* be re-invested into A) A 10-12 million dollar player like Karlsson, Panarin, or Duchene. B-) A “very good” 7-8 million dollar guy (Dzingel caliber) + more than enough money to exceed that newly freed up 12 million, and go after another good player (Ferland, Myers, Gardiner, Stralman, Connolly, etc.). For the record, I would opt for option B. Two potential advantages would stem from this: 1) The Canucks could field a competitive team with Pettersson and Hughes still being on ELC’s. 2) The Canucks would still have enough money to comfortably re-up Pettersson and Hughes after their ELC’s expire. I agree that building through the draft is a very important part of the rebuilding process, but I would also argue that teams aren’t built exclusively through the draft. At a certain juncture, GM’s need to know when their team is rising and what complementary pieces can be brought in to support said core. This core needs playoff experience, and I believe that my idea would get them that.

1) 10th OA + Eriksson + Sutter + Schaller for a 2nd round pick. Ottawa gets a 1st rounder and easily make the cap floor while the Canucks rid themselves of bad contracts. 2) The Canucks act like a great white shark on July 1st. Their newfound cap space gets invested into good players. The Canucks use this opportunity to take advantage of Pettersson and Hughes’ ELC’s, while also having enough money to re-up them afterwards.

My guess is that if he’s 6’6 200 lbs and has some skill, he’ll go higher than 40.

And even before 2006, these guys weren’t exactly lighting it up. My memory is fading now, but even before 2006, hadn’t they missed the playoffs for the better part of 7-8 years? I seem to recall them getting a few playoff upsets during the late 90’s, but not really doing anything after that (until their cup run in 2006).

I remember the Lemieux/Draper incident quite well because the Wings were my co-favorite team at that time. 15 year old me smashed the TV remote when that hit occurred. I was at my aunt/uncle’s house and got into some very deep doodoo.

I do have a question for the posters on here. Just how “close” are the Canucks exactly? “Close to what?” you may ask? I myself am not quite sure what my version of ‘close’ entails, but I do know this: 1) Winning teams aren’t built *exclusively* through the draft. 2) If these playoffs have proven anything, it’s that any low seeded team can get hot and absolutely bludgeon a top seed. Parity in the NHL is sky high right now. Get into the playoffs, and anything can happen.......which leads me to my next point. 3) I think time has proven that a team needs the following ingredients: A) Two extremely good centers (one of which is a franchise center). B-) A good first line winger C) Atleast one franchise defenseman D) A cap friendly “very good” goalie that has the ability to get hot during the playoffs. E) Depth .......which leads me to point #4 4) Where do the Canucks stack up with the above criteria? A) Pettersson + Horvat B-) Boeser C) Hughes (possibly) D) Markstrom While many people may argue that we need more top end talent, I would argue that perhaps it’s more depth that we need. Invest in depth!!! Depth is king!!! ......which leads me to point #5. 5) Many people will disagree with this, but I honestly think that the Canucks should *highly* consider packaging their 10th overall along with Eriksson, Sutter, and Schaller to a team like Ottawa (who needs to hit the cap floor), while the Canucks receive minimal in return......all in the name of shedding massive cap space.........which then leads me to point #6. 6). With the freed up cap space, go HARD after UFA’s that are willing to sign cap friendly deals to be a part of a winner. Build a team of depth while letting guys like Pettersson and Hughes continuing to get better and be true “alpha’s” in this league. Shedding circa 12 million in salary would not only allow us to bring in more depth to the Canucks (which would help us be competitive now) but would still allow us to comfortably re-up our RFA core over the coming years without having cap complications.

It’s Jim Sandlak’s fault.

Was not a fan of his writing but no one deserves this. RIP Jason. My sincere condolences to his family and loved ones.

Damon Severson + would get my attention, but the “plus” would have to be something fairly significant. I likely wouldn’t do the deal though.

Fair enough good buddy. I was just kidding around. I have an evil and twisted sense of humor. :-p

Point? I’d shoot Hansen out of a cannon into the Pacific Ocean if it landed us Brayden Point.