SealTheDeal

I don't disagree, but Panarin, Duchene, Pavelski, Nyquist, Dzingel. . . there are a few more guys out there. I would agree that it would be a questionable strategy to depend on signing 2-3 quality UFAs. In addition to what you say, one has to consider who exactly is out there on these "cap-strapped" teams that is worth pursuing, or even from any team? If we want complimentary forwards in the age 24-27 range with term, who is that? Using the Pacific as examples: On Vegas, that's Tuch or Karlsson. . . there isn't a chance Vegas moves either of them. They would move Stastny or Pacioretty first. For D maybe you can get Colin Miller, but if so then that is probably still on the table - there is no getting Theodore. That's not a real option. On San Jose, the only player that makes sense would be Hertl; again, no chance San Jose parts with him. Edmonton has nothing we want. LA has nothing we want and is going to go full rebuild soon. Anaheim just bought out Perry and is going full rebuild, and has who, maybe Rakell? Silfverberg? Neither of those options are better than Miller. On the Coyotes. . . who? Dvorak? Schmaltz? They just re-signed these guys, and we're talking about Arizona. . . they are going to hang on to whoever they can, and certainly aren't cap-strapped. Galchenyuk maybe, but he is a rental. That leaves Calgary who have no significant cap problems and are in the midst of their window, with all of their prime assets on reasonable contracts. They aren't giving anything away. I could go on and on for the other divisions, but hopefully people get the point. There are not hundreds of incredible options to be had out there.

The deal is not what I was hoping or predicting, but its fine. I was expecting Benning to start trading picks at this point. He has established his nucleus of 3-4 core players. At some point an organization accumulates prospects it can't fit into the lineup or develop properly, because there are no excellent opportunities, and the organization has started to pay full price on its core players. Boeser has to be paid. Horvat is on a deal of a contract. EP and Hughes are on entry deals. Would it be nice if Joulevi had turned into a stud #1 D man by now? Of course, but you can't reload forever. As the team improves, the quality of our draft opportunities diminishes. This is also a good time to accumulate assets. It is unlikely that there will be another time in the next 5 year where teams are under this much cap pressure. Seattle will boost revenue and the new TV deal will boost revenue. This is a good time to buy premium assets inexpensively. Miller isn't the guy I would have targeted. I thought we would trade for a D and try for forward in free agency (maybe Duchene). That having been said, I don't think it makes sense to "trust in Benning" when it comes to drafting, and not when it comes to evaluating the quality of actual NHL players. Either the organization can evaluate hockey talent (especially potential) or it can't. So I'm willing to trust when it comes to Miller. The Canucks are still in an enviable position heading into free agency. 13 serviceable forwards are under contract. 7 servicable D are under contract. That does not include Boeser, or lesser but useful players like Granlund, Goldobin, and Leivo at forward, or Hutton on defense. Our goaltenders are under contract. Even after signing all of those players (should the team even wish to), we would still have the cap space to sign pretty much any of the free agents out there except Panarin. The team is going to start the season having lost none of the players from last season it wished to keep. None. It will have added at least one significant piece in Miller, and likely another one or two by the end of free agency. Myers could be signed as a FA, or maybe a forward like Duchene or Dzingel instead and pick a D off a cap strapped team for cheap. If Toronto is willing to give away a first to lose Marleau, something like Granlund for Zaitsev is not unreasonable, or maybe Colin Miller from Vegas for Goldobin. The Canucks have options. No need to panic.

Even a 70 game per year top pairing defenceman is worth 6M per year easily. The last time I checked the Canucks are not short on cash. If they can land any of the UFA defencemen I'm all for it, and if they can trade for Collins or Zaitsev even, I'm good with that too. If you luck out and get EK and we start t get tighter on cap, there are ways we can clear space and its a good problem to have. But don't kid yourself; Edler will be better than Hutton or Biega or whoever else you think you might slide into his spot. The Canucks need better D. losing Edler is moving backwards.

No No No. Edler signs for 3 years 6M, no NMC. This is the smart move. It is fair value to Edler, and has only one year of term on his contract with him a UFA again following. It greatly reduces the chance that Seattle would bother to pick him up as there would only be one year of term on his contract.

Lol, my bad! Here I thought I had breaking news. . .

Evolving Hockey just listed Brock Nelson as having re-signed with the Islanders for 6 years at 6M per. Also Esa Lindell at 6 years, 5.8M per. I'm not sure if this is confirmed or just rumour.

“Hutton is arbitration eligible this season and his agent is going to argue he has proven himself as a legitimate top four defenceman. In fact, the 22:33 minutes per game he averages puts him in the NHL’s top 40,” said colleague Jason Botchford. “It means the Canucks have deployed him like a top pairing defenceman and his agent will argue that a contract in the $4 million range is a bargain for a top pair defenceman. Arbitration cases are interesting because the sides are limited in the number of stats which can be presented. The two most important are average ice time and points-per-game. “Hutton’s 0.31 points per game puts him in the top 100 in the NHL and if I’m him I’m using the Mike Matheson extension as a comparable. “The Canucks signed Erik Gudbranson last year to $4 million-per-year extension and Hutton’s camp will argue his role has been bigger. They won’t be wrong.” There is some selective statistic picking here. Hutton's PPG last season was 0.29, good for 466th in the league. Among defencemen he's roughly 112th. Given that there are only 186 "top-six" defence in the league at any given time (and perhaps another 20 or so included with an inflated PPG due to few games played), that's not great. His avg TOI was 22:21, good for 49th. Presuming Edler is back and the canucks acquire another D through free agency or a trade, do you think that is going up or down? That would be the extreme high of his deployment, out of necessity on a talent-deprived injury ridden team. But add Hughes and a Zaitsev or Collins to the roster and his minutes go down, not up. After that should we look at some other stats? His whopping 8 PPP ? His -23? His advanced stats? Gudbranson didn't live up to his contract and got moved as a result. If that's the best Hutton's agent can come up with, that's not much. His contract projection from Evolving Hockey projects him at a two year 2.5M contract. That makes sense. If he gets $4 from an arbiter I'd let him walk if I had other options. If not, I eat it for a year as a place-holder until Joulevi and Hughes are established then let him walk or sign him to a reasonable contract.

Based on projected contracts, this one looks really good. . . Evolving Hockey estimated 6M and 7 years if he went to free agency. . . they had Skinner pegged at $8.5M for 8. . . https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15E1qqh3OfHvvhbv_pICfKT7VR1jJEVhWQOyKviWLN54/edit#gid=707766415

Frankly, high end assets are always scarce, and will be even more scarce after an expansion draft. On the other hand, between the TV rights being renegotiated and the addition of a franchise, I can see the cap going way up. On that basis, I think you acquire as many high end assets as you can on long-term contracts. I'd swing for both Karlsson and Panarin, and I don't even like Panarin. I doubt we land either, but if I had a choice, I would take Karlsson in a heartbeat. Norris calibre defensemen are incredibly hard to come by. I'd also swing on any and all of Nelson, Lee, Dzingel, Hayes, Duchene. . . anyone who you have good reason to believe can be effective for the next six years and is an upgrade on what you've got. Contracts in the 6M+ range will be almost average contracts in 2-3 years. If you have an above-average player, you have a marketable asset at that point. I definitely sign Boeser to the longest deal I reasonably can and I'm good with anywhere in the 7-7.5M range. I trade second and third rounders for serviceable upgrades to our third and fourth lines if they have term, like a Colin Miller. I think this is a rare time where you maximise value by being a big spender in free agency. I'm not even concerned about signing too many and being unable to protect them all in the expansion - protect the best and if you lose one or two, so be it. I wouldn't approach expansion by only investing in the number of players I know I can protect.

I wonder if Canadian markets tend to inflate the value of their players through constantly overvaluing them in the media. If you look at Toronto and Matthews and Nylander, how much of the price they paid is related to hysteria in the fan base? To what extent are agents able to exploit public consensus on a teams "need" for a particular player? Consider this article from yahoo. https://ca.yahoo.com/sports/news/nhl-rumors-2019-aho-werenski-225024470.html I know it is hardly a reputable source, and we still haven't seen where these players actually end up in terms of contract and term, but if you consider how critical Aho and Werenski are to their respective teams and what they have accomplished and what is being suggested as likely contract values for them it's really hard to justify a long term $8M price tag on Boeser. A budding franchise center and a 40-point plus top-pairing puck-mover are both more valuable than a sub-60 point winger who has yet to make it 82 games in a season. Am I missing something here? If we were offered Aho or Werenski straight-up for Boeser, I think most GMs make that trade without thinking twice. On that basis I would say Boeser isn't worth more than $6.5M on a long term contract, and less if he wants a bridge deal. I think anything beyond that is Toronto-style market inflation. Which is not to say Boeser won't get an inflated contract - teams like the Rangers, the Sabers, etc will overspend to get what they want. . . which is apparently to wallow in mediocrity.

30 points in 69 NHL games in nothing to sniff at. I'm pretty surprised Calgary gave him up for a late 2nd. Aside from a few late round steals and a few guys drafted in the top 10, there aren't many players matching either that amount or rate of production from the 2011 draft. Although I haven't been a fan of most of Benning's trades so far, Beartschi I like. And Clendening too, for the record. The Garrison trade. . . not so much.