kloubek

Yeah, I'd do it. Rasmussen seems to be coming into his own, and it's a nice cap savings. We can afford to lose one top six winger, and we'd be selling high on Beauvillier. With that said, Rasmussen's body of work has been intermittent and hes a 3rd liner, whereas Beauvillier is an actual top 6 winger. Granted, there's a clear cap hit difference, but it'll be closer in a year when his RFA status runs out. And we may be getting the worse player, while giving up precious spots in a talented draft. So yeah, I'd do it, because I like his size, potential, and it fills a need. But i can also see why some are hesitant.

I'd do it. But as mentioned, Garland for some reason seems to be viewed as negative value. If that's the case, I'd rather keep him than move him with sweeteners. With the OEL buyout, we're not in horrible shape. If we can move Myers, we should be good for cap.

I really do like Byram, but the concussions along with him being an offensive defenseman who isn't really what we ideally need would make me say "no". I do think, however, the actual valuation is reasonable.

It's really hard to know where his head is at. First, he had great things to say about Vancouver. He's also stated he is interested in re-signing with Toronto. But who REALLY knows where his preference lies or what is important to him. I would also argue that Toronto is not a place for a "guaranteed winning" season. Yes, they have had decent seasons lately and finally made it past the 1st round, but they are also having cap issues, and I believe their team is already as good as it will ever be, with a key player or two likely leaving soon. Canucks, on the other hand, could be viewed as an up and comer. Maybe our chances of "success" are lower, but by how much remains to be seen. It's no huge deal. As much of a good fit Schenn is, he's getting older and he didn't offensively produce in Toronto nearly like he did in Vancouver, so maybe that scoring touch has dried up. It's also easy to find 3rd pairing guys - albeit more challenging to find a mobile guy with size.

Myers isn't really a "bad" defenseman. It's just that he's not particularly good, and isn't worth anywhere near 6m. He'd be fine as a 5th defenseman making 1.5-1.75m, where he isn't relied on to be a defensive stalwart. I really think the ship has sailed in regards to expecting Myers to be the player he used to be. What pisses me off is that despite regressing dramatically on both offensive and defensive production, he hasn't seemed to change his game at all to compensate. He should be recognizing his gaffs and playing more defensively responsible. There may not be much he can do to limit his offensive regression, but if he cannot produce, he needs to compensate with something else - which to me (besides being better defensively) is his physicality. He's still a big body, and he should be hitting (cleanly) everything out there he can at least somewhat justify a high salary. But he just keeps on keeping on, and that just isn't good enough. I honestly think Schenn brought more. At least Schenn is a physical presence at all times, and he understands the balance between trying to contribute offensively against giving up too much defensively. And of course, he was paid but a fraction. If we do manage to move Myers, I say we try to convince Schenn to come back. I don't think he's the guy we need to play with Hughes (which means we'd still need to bring in such a guy), but he does bring elements we need, and it doesn't hurt to have another leader on the team. Graves Hughes Soucy Hronek Bear/Hirose Schenn

Maybe Hanifin is that guy, but I'd sooner pick up Graves as UFA, pair him with Hronek, then acquire (trade?) a "right fit" guy for Hughes. Pesce does indeed fit the bill here... I'd absolutely be happy to see Schenn back. Then move Myers to a cap floor team. Lots of room to bring in a top 4d. Hughes Pesce Graves Hronek Hirose/Bear Schenn That's one hell of a D, imo.

Decent target, but overpayment.

I also thought moving Myers would provide enough flexibility, and that not giving OEL another chance might be a shortsighted, desperate move. I also feel we have 1 too many top six capable wingers which will probably be used as trade bait to fill a vacant spot on the blueline. (Which will be an exasperated need when Myers is moved and especially if that's before Bear comes back). We will see. I'll assume OEL will continue playing, so it'll be interesting to see if a bounceback year is in the cards for him. If so, this will look truly brutal.

I imagine Bear was going to be slotted into the 2RD, but now with his surgery that's up in the air. I'm not sure what's going on with Poolman and if he will be available for next season, but if not, I think the Canucks would be wise to engage with the Burroughs camp. He's no better than a 6th/7th D, but I think he would make a good stop gap until Bear comes back and is decent depth insurance ongoing. I guess that assumes that they don't think McWard will be able to slot in for the 6 months he's out. McWard showed pretty well I thought, but the sample size is incredibly small. I actually would have loved to see Schenn as 3RD, but I hear Toronto is making a push to re-sign him. In any event, I'm only talking depth guys here. We certainly need true top 4 guys. I was advocating for Severson, but that ship has now sailed and he got paid a bit more than I would have wanted the Canucks to pay anyway. I wouldn't mind seeing Graves on the left side of Hronek if he came cheap enough. I also wouldn't mind Dumba on the right side of Hughes - again, if he was willing to take a reasonably salary and the term wouldn't be too long. I guess what I'm saying is that there ARE UFA options available should we want to use them.

Me too. I can't help but to think something could have been done to move Myers without added expense. 6m extra cap would have made all the difference.

Why are you only picking out the goals? Isn't overall points a better stat to use for comparison - especially as Raymond as an offense-first player, and LE was better rounded? Raymond's third year with the Canucks was a good one at .65ppg. That's also the only year where he had more ppg than LE in either Boston OR Dallas, save for LE's first two years in the league. I'm sorry, LE and Raymond were two entirely different players and TYPE of players, and traditionally LE was a much better player than Raymond. I will agree that it was a game of chance in regards to his age as well as his chemistry with the Sedins. His age dictated that the contract would likely age poorly, but that's moot since he was horrible the moment he arrived. And yes, his chemistry with the Sedins was indeed hoped to revitalize them. While the Sedins were clearly on a decline and it might have been like beating a dead horse trying to get them to prior production, the logic behind LE being the guy is sound. He DID have prior chemistry with them, and considering he had a career year, there was every reason to expect he would at least prolong their production. Again, everything comes down to LE just deciding he didn't want to strain himself any longer. He came to work, punched in for his 8 hours, and then left 6m richer at the end of every season.

True, but that was after the fact. He was certainly brought in to play with the Sedins, thanks to prior chemistry with them shown in international play. When that didn't work, he ended up sliding down the lineup, finally landing at getting defensive deployments instead because he was at least ok at that part of the game and because it would have been embarrassing to sit a 6m player daily. Man, I'm glad the LE saga is over. Yes, this team still has its problems, but that was hard to watch for 5 years.

Ruling out 12-13 due to the lockout, his point totals increased every year he was with Boston, with 37, 47, and 63 points. In an attempt to be fair, I noticed that his ppg seemed out of whack, and it translates to 60.6 points per 100 games, 58 points p 100 games, and 86.6pp 100. So yes, there was a ppg reduction on his 2nd year, but hardly a pattern that set a precedent of regression, and certainly nothing significant. Now, if you're going back further, he did clearly played his best with Dallas. But I would say that after 3 years in Boston, Benning probably HOPED he would return to Dallas form, but had to realize that was unlikely. If he just carried on the average of his play with Boston, all would have been pretty good with perhaps a bit of overpayment, but that tends to be common with signing UFAs - especially when you aren't a prime destination. I still maintain that as he realized this was his last big contract,the moment he signed it, he decided it wasn't necessary to exert himself any longer. Aside from a career-altering injury (which didn't occur) it's really the only logical explanation. Nobody regresses that hard in one offseason unless they are literally making it happen.

I maintain the LE signing made sense at the time. The guy was coming off a great year (so no signs of regression), ownership wanted to keep the window open with the Sedins and LE has prior chemistry with them. It all made sense at the time. I don't think anybody anticipated LE would forget how to play hockey the moment pen hit paper. As for the OEL trade - yeah, that one was just plain bad. 1 more year of pain would have made all those bad contracts disappear, but instead he doubled down and hamstrung this org with cap hell for another several years.

I wouldn't call his shot a "bomb". He can let it go, at times but that little body can only do so much. As for the comment by Cookies for him to pinch and play deeper, I agree. That'd be made possible by a defender pairing he can trust. Which is why I think it's imperative to move Myers asap, and get that exact-fit guy to play right side of Hughes. I don't believe that's why Hronek was brought in, either.

The guy started his career at a point-every-other-game pace. 6 years later, it was up to almost 2 points every 3 games. I think it's safe to say he's a top 4. His ceiling, however, remains in question.

Linden remains one of my fav Canucks of all time. Many have been more skilled, but few both combined a complete package, and were as a dedicated, heart and soul guy.

Interesting article, which lays out contract options for Hoglander. My 10 yr old said to me the other night: "You thought Hogs was going to be a top six. You were really excited." I was. And i am. Signing him for 4 years at 2.6 seems a reasonable risk/reward scenario to me. https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/canucks-hockey/should-the-canucks-bet-on-nils-hoglander-with-a-long-term-deal-7074142 Bear for 2.7m seems ok too?

All things considered, I agree. And this team has enough depth to hopefully ensure it doesn't hurt too much - but at the same time, I really don't want to see sweeteners given out just because we are in a cap crunch. All of Boeser, Garland, and Beauvillier are quality wingers - and while I understand there might be some slight overpayment depending on one's perspective, it isn't anything dramatic (like Myers), and isn't worth us giving up the future just to give away such a player. In my opinion, a top-6 winger should be worth about the same as a third line center - if not very slightly more. If we have no flexibility, I could totally see that going down before the start of the season to at least shore up that hole, and then the D can be improved later if we are indeed playoff contenders. Beauvillier to Tampa for Ross Colton, NJ for Michael McLeod, or Vegas for Roy?

Damn. That throws a wrench into things. That means the cap space isn't available for UFAs at all, and would have to be instead moved to add at the following TDL - assuming we are in playoff contention. That is not ideal.

Yeah, I agree with you. I think it is ideal to have the roster generally set so players settle into their roles, and then use TDL to add a player or two if you have holes. In this case, with management "going for it", it seems to me that with cap issues, the team is best off figuring it all out earlier than later or we won't have the cap space to ice a team as ideal as we could through the season. That didn't work out great for us this past season (or prior). It also is the only opportunity we have to sign an appropriate UFA, but we probably cannot move him until the bonus is paid. For that, I've heard both July 1st as well as September as the dates this is scheduled to occur. That seems critical, since a July 1st bonus means he could be moved immediately and give this team the flexibility it needs to set the roster.

It could increase his value - especially if he somehow manages a resurgent season. But I believe if this team continues paying his 6m cap that it handcuffs management's ability to allocate where needed to start the season - like the 3c and a proper RD for Hughes. Yes, a top 6 winger could be moved, but I feel these same wingers at least contribute positively to the team, and that forward scoring depth was one of few positives last season. Selling high on Beauvillier seems the logical choice there, if we mist.

I would argue that Myers is as good as gone, and that given he only has 1m REAL money on his contract, he will be happily taken by a non-contending team at no cost. That 6m savings alone makes a huge difference. I believe that our forward depth is one of the stronger points of this team as it sits. I would really rather not give up too much in the way of wingers - especially if it costs sweeteners to do so. I still believe in Brock, and with his father's death behind him and a newfound desire to stay in Vancouver, my bet is on him having a solid season - even if he might be slightly overpaid. I also think Garland has the potential to live up to his contract as well. The only forward of value I think we would be better off giving up is Beauvillier, as he had a solid time with us and out of the 3 is only only sell-high candidate. That would combine for just over 10m cap removed. Then add in the cap increase for next season, and the OP is right; we're really not THAT bad off.

I think it is FAR too early to say he's a bust. In fact, there appears to be reasonable progression in his numbers over the last two years, and he may well be poised for a breakout season. I would absolutely be ok with management taking the chance, and if it lowers our cap hit at the same time, that's a net positive.

Brock: He has been through a lot, and obviously hasn't built his career as he had hoped. The key to his play will be determined largely by how well he manages to move on and leave the negative past behind him. If he is successful, I do believe he is capable of being a real impact player again. As it stands, he really didn't have as bad of a season as many are saying... although he clearly needs to shore up his defensive game. Garland: I just don't get why fans and media alike insist he needs to be moved. He's a bit inconsistent, sure. He's also small. But he plays with energy and passion, is more skilled than some give him credit for, and isn't really THAT expensive. His lack of size is typically mitigated when he sidesteps or spins off checks, so while still not ideal, I don't view him being smaller as a significant detriment. I'd like to keep him if we could, and absolutely so if it means we would have otherwise required to give up a sweetener to move him. Beauvillier: Happy with what we saw. But that is a small sample size with no guarantee he will improve further. To me, he makes the most sense to move because both his production and stock are likely higher now than it probably will ever be, and he almost makes as much as Garland does, He may also hold the highest trade value of the 3. Not necessarily because he's the best of the 3, but his contract is the most palatable.