theo5789

This is key for those that think Nylander is the new benchmark. Nylander simply wasn't worth this contract and he held out for it and it even affected his season upon returning. Is Boeser going to hold out or will he want to play and earn himself an even bigger payout in his next deal? With that said, Nylander while having a lesser offensive output per game has at least remained healthy and can play center and is actually decent in the faceoff dot. These are added value items and still Nylander is overpaid for it. I disagree that Boeser has earned it more, but Boeser has shown he can be okay in the faceoff dot, but not sure he would be cut out to be a center. Boeser has so much more he needs to prove before a huge payout and a bridge should be what he is after. If he feels he can demonstrate that he's an 8 million dollar guy within 2 years, then sign a 2 year deal. I personally think he needs at least 4 years and he could become that 8 million dollar guy or even more.

The Canucks and Boeser will negotiate before the contract is up. If it's determined that he wants to move on, then we trade him as he will have no clauses in his deal which means a bidding war for his services. I'm not worried about it taking him to UFA. Plus I just don't get the feeling that he's the type of character that is looking to get out of here ASAP. He genuinely seems to like playing here and as long as we are a competitive team, I see no reason for him wanting to simply bolt.

Well I would say wanting to keep his NMC is trying to stay relevant in the league because it forces teams to keep him in the NHL. By waiving it, it opens up the option of being an expensive AHL fodder and having his contract buried to save cap space. He may have taken a "discount" by getting this NMC and feels that he has every right to keep it. Now if there's an agreement that he would waive it for the purpose of expansion as @mll pointed out, then that changes the complexity of the situation. Because if agrees to this even for Edmonton's sake, then that eliminates the value to be given up here and Edmonton isn't in as dire of a situation as it becomes a situation of wanting to dump his cap only which in itself is still bad, but takes some of the sting off. He could still allow himself to not be protected in the ED, but retain his NMC for the purpose of not being sent to the AHL.

Well I was advocating 6x4 or 6.5x5. if Boeser becomes the prolific goal scorer in that time and remains relatively healthy, then I'd gladly pay the price to keep him. I believe if Boeser hit UFA today, in a bidding war, he might be able to nab a 8x8 (I know the max term is 7, but for this discussion sake). Why would we be paying him his UFA market value over his RFA years? It's like saying we are overpaying him now by 1.5 million a season over the first 5 years in hopes to lower his cost in the UFA years. Take that extra 1.5 million over 5 years and put it onto his last 3 years and it's suggested that we are paying his at over 10 million a season as a UFA. He's a long ways away from being a 10 million dollar player and we are banking on him doing so. When you get paid in advance, you're less motivated to push yourself to that next level. More examples, Jake Guentzel did a 6x5 contract which buys 2 years of UFA. He just put up a 40 goal season. He had one off season which likely lowered his negotiations, but his playoff numbers speak for themselves as well. Seguin signed a 6 year deal after his ELC for 5.75 million annually before his big payout. 6x6 was the previous norm for "top end" players and I've taken into account for inflation which is why I would offer 6 million over 4 years allowing him an earlier payout should he prove him self or 6.5 over 5 years. I don't see the indication that 7.5-8 is the new norm for what Boeser has shown so far. Just because Toronto and Edmonton have overpaid their guys (and look at the cap trouble they're in) doesn't mean the league should follow suit. There are plenty of examples of guys that sign to their current value (as an RFA) and play above their pay because they are motivated in doing so. I hope Boeser plays to at least an 8 million dollar level player at some point, but he's not there yet for this next contract IMO.

If he proves to be a consistent 40-50 goal scorer, he will be worth 10 million a season. I think Boeser is excellent, but I'd like to see a few healthy years and even an uptick in points in those years before committing a major deal. IMO he isn't worth 8 million next year, so he will have to play up to his worth. We are banking on him to improve rather than him banking on himself, so where's the motivation? Teams that have the great 2nd contracts like MacKinnon, or say Pastrnak, have much more flexibility in building a team. Guys that get overpaid like Nylander find themselves on teams that struggle with the cap. If we want to look at another example, there's Ehlers who had a couple of seasons at a 60 point clip (which is lower than Boeser's PPG, but Ehlers has been healthy) and he signed for 6 million a year for 7 years, which buys 3 UFA years. Is Boeser's current 69 points per game a season average over the last two years while only playing an average of 65 games worth 2 million more a season over what Ehlers got? Kucherov signed a 3 year deal around 4.5 million a season after putting up a couple of similar seasons to Boeser except being healthy (I know there's the Tampa tax factor, but even with that in consideration, his deal would be about equivalent to a 6ish million dollar deal. I think the Nylander example is more of an anomaly rather than the new norm and it shouldn't be otherwise salaries will go haywire. I'm not concerned about players leaving. If they want to leave then we make a deal to gain back a decent return so they simply don't bolt for nothing. Generally, in a winning environment, most players find a new home with their home team and forget about their past. Otherwise it would've been nice to have guys like Sakic, Yzerman, Neidermeyer, etc wanting to sign here in their hey days. Benning has put character as a priority in his draft picks, so they guys are unlikely to simply walk out unless the team continues with futility for years to come and when you start signing your players at a premium rate, you put your team in a harder position to succeed in the long run. Your Tavares example is exactly the direction we should look at and hope the players buy into. Boeser will not care if he signs less now as if he proves himself, he will get paid well later whether with us or another team. Paying for potential is a dangerous game. Pay them what they're worth now and let them prove themselves (it should really only come down to term and how soon they feel they can take their game to another level to earn their payout).

Maybe they have some activities for all the prospects in town as well. Kind of a "remember how great our city is and look at the dump you're going to if you're drafted by Edmonton (or whoever)" and brainwash them a bit.

Well this is why it is quite critical in what deal he gives Boeser. We can look at other teams or look internally and say why does Boeser deserve 2.5 million more a season than Horvat's deal? It seems more like Benning signs his RFAs to what they are currently versus what they may become. It's up to the players and their agents to decide how long they feel is fair at this rate. I think I rather pay more knowing a guy can actually be a 40-50 goal guy rather than bank on it and risk it not happening. If he remains a consistent 30 goal guy in 4 years, then I'd still pay him the 8 million a season afterwards, but he's got to earn that rather than be given it ahead of time. I'd like to see him play a full season or close to it and sustain his 70 point pace that he currently is putting up first before majorly rewarding him. He can also demonstrate his commitment to winning by taking a more team friendly deal, so we have more freedom to build a winner. We aren't lucky that he hurt his back (and wrist) because he might actually be an even better player than he is today and I wouldn't even question about giving him the 8x8.

Lucic and Maroon are not in the caliber of EK. They are equivalent of LE and the 2nd tier of UFAs this year like Anders Lee, Ryan Dzingel, etc. The awful trade is more of the GM being a moron rather than being the wrong move (they needed to shore up their D which is the right move, just made the wrong trade). We can be patient through the draft, but that also has no guarantee of success either. A bad draft year (wrong pick or injuries) could just as well put the rebuild on hold and also wastes a year or years on the current batch of young players. Soon we will simply get into a cycle of needing to moving out a player as they age and hope to find a replacement as we continue to wait for the magical group of draftees to gel together. It's surely a possible way of making it happen, but that doesn't discredit the idea that adding EK has it's own merits in taking our team to another level. Adding a UFA of EK caliber is hardly being impatient IMO because it still doesn't cost any assets and the rebuild/revamp through the draft continues, but now we have an elusive #1 RD in the mix as well. I can understand the concern if we are trading our #10 pick for a Subban or something (but this also has it's own merits). There's really no doubt that adding EK takes this team to another level, the major concern is if his health can hold up, but I've suggested a plan to manage his minutes in his first season or two to ensure he gets back closer to full health.

This would be draft day dependent. We will have to see if a high target is even available at 8 that we think Edmonton or the team above us would take. If it costs 3rd and 6th (we have many of those) to move up, then I'd just do that rather than swap anchors and free up Edmonton from a massive headache. We simply want a guy willing to stand up for our teammates and Zack Smith would provide that as much as Lucic would. He has challenged guys as big as Tryamkin and gone after pests like Marchand. It solves a physical element and takes LE off our hands. I don't think Smith had a bad year (his team did though) and his production offensively is right amongst some of his better seasons. Plus considering that they waived him at the start of last year, they likely want to dump his salary. We may have to add a bit, but it won't be significant. Reaves is quite overpaid for what he provides on a regular basis, Lucic costs nearly double what Reaves does and Reaves is the best in the business for what he provides. Keep in mind we also could simply bring up a guy like MacEwen for physicality, so we aren't desperate for a guy like Lucic.

I think this is the problem. We can't be some enamoured into getting rid of LE at all costs. The only think Loui is doing "wrong" is only putting up like half of the offensive output expected of him. But he at least is one of our best PK guys and can play part of a shutdown role. Yes Lucic would add something we don't have in his physical play, but take away the defensive game and his offensive production is even worse. Some are optimistic with maybe turning Lucic around, but the reality is he's also not the player he once was. It's simply a case of thinking the grass is greener elsewhere, but the reality it's the same sh*t of having an overpaid player that doesn't provide enough to warrant his contract. That's not resolving the situation. So with that said, Lucic has an extra year of futility to his deal and LE's contract will be much more attractive in a trade after July 1st in which Edmonton would likely just flip him out after that date and free themselves of not only cap, but save an expansion spot and can proceed on with "retooling" their team once again, while we have an unmovable anchor. So in this case, it would take quite the return like adding their 1st and more vs swapping our 1sts and more (depends on what the more is though like if it's their 2nd and Puljujarvi on top of the swap then it would interest me more). But yes it's a couple of bad contracts, but it's far worse for Edmonton than it is for Vancouver should this swap never happen. I've brought up a couple other options we may have while Edmonton is very limited in what they can do.

Max term yes, but I doubt he's getting max dollars or looking for that. He's going to get around Doughty dollars so I'm thinking 11 million a season. He would have to take less to sign with San Jose or Tampa. He was with San Jose and didn't win. He needs to consider where he wants to settle down as well as look as a competing team which the Canucks could be in the near future. Our core is a year or two away with status quo and minor upgrades, but would likely be in a much better position with the acquisition of EK. We can't bank on next year's group and the majority likely won't make it to that point. Colorado's saving grace is MacKinnon being signed to probably the best deal league-wide. If they can get their RFAs in line with MacKinnon then they are fine. They will have some decisions to make, but it's because they're a good team getting better. We want to be in that position. Rantanen of that group is really the big dollar guy, the rest should/could be had for reasonable contracts unless they explode in production.

There's value from going to 8 to 10, but not enough value for me to make this deal. What is the add? It would still take quite a bit more because you have to consider what Edmonton is gaining here by dumping Lucic. Getting a get out of jail free card should not come cheap. Perhaps Boldy gets taken by 7, then what are we left with at 8? If it's based on a certain player falling to that position and thinking that player won't fall more then it'll have to be a draft day deal made just before the 8th pick is made. Plus Edmonton likely wants a dman anyway, so it's also favourable for them to trade down anyway and still nab their target while dumping an anchor. If we are simply looking for physical intimidation, there are far better options than taking a 6 million dollar guy. For example, I bet we could nab a Zack Smith for LE. I believe the actually salary after July 1st for LE would be about the same if not less than the cost of Smith while putting them closer to the cap floor. Smith had as many majors as Lucic did last year and had 28 points to Lucic's 20 and Smith clearly was on a much worse team. They're both the same age and Smith doesn't have a long of a contract to affect our cap space in the future. Another option could be someone like Kyle Clifford who I'm sure could be had for cheap and had double Lucic's majors. Or we could even look at someone like Pat Maroon if he hits UFA that could be signed for free and he also had double the majors. Losing your cool easily is something you have to be careful with. What if it turns onto your own teammates? I mentioned 3 guys where Clifford has also won a Cup and the other two so far have gone on decent runs, so they have the experience as well and can provide the same role and will be much cheaper to acquire. The only reason I would take on Lucic over those other options is because Edmonton would be making it incredibly enticing to free themselves of a major burden.

Injuries have indeed affected his play and he hasn't been given time to focus on recovery. San Jose was pressured to utilize him to his limits after what they had given up and if he doesn't re-sign, which is looking likely. I get the injury concern and if there wasn't this concern, then he would probably command 13 million a season as a UFA. Now with that said, EK wasn't far off 2 years ago compared to this year. The big difference is that he was the go-to guy with Ottawa so got loaded with minutes. EK was also playing hurt in that playoffs, but just goes to show the warrior that he is. EK had Methot to take care of the defensive side and allowed him to focus on the offense (Edler has been his partner before internationally and would provide a solid compliment to EK's game). Despite his injuries this year, he put up only 2 points less than what he did two years ago. I'm not as concerned about the injury issue as he would be a long term investment and the proper time will be put in to get him healthier (eg managing his minutes/giving him more maintenance days for the first season or two, which also keeps him fresher should we make the playoffs). As for cap space, I get the concern here as well. Top end players will get paid top end dollars. We have a bunch of cap coming off the books in 3 or 4 years from depth guys (signed for developmental purposes) that can be replaced with cheaper depth once the top end guys are established. If we have an abundance of quality players, then it just puts us in a position of strength to trade from to either re-stock the shelves or fill holes. I'm also of the opinion that RFAs should be signing to RFA contracts and Benning has done a great job so far with RFA signings, so we will see how he handles the Boeser signing. I don't see their being a cap crunch unless EK suddenly drops to being a 20 point bottom pairing dman which I also don't see happening. Colorado has like 37 million in cap space and while they do have to re-sign Rantanen, I'm not sure where their cap issues are unless they have an internal cap that eats into that space. Having EK will certainly increase our chances of making the playoffs far more than not having him. Getting a guy like him without any assets cost is a major plus. What exactly would be a cap friendly deal? Term is really not negotiable as he will be getting max term.

He didn't do too much for Arizona. It'll be interesting to see what he can do with Edmonton. I assume they will try a NYI approach and try to shut teams down even at the cost of offense. I wonder how that will affect McDavid and Draisaitl's point production for those in fantasy pools.

How exactly does adding Karlsson put the rebuild on hold? We literally would not be giving up any assets for so we continue to build for the future while helping the now immensely (which in turn helps with development of our current young players). I never said Karlsson pushes us over the hump in contending for a Cup, but he likely puts us into the playoffs and anything can happen there. Plus EK has demonstrated he's a playoff performer so he would indeed help us in any playoff push. Edmonton has never found their missing dmen they needed and overloaded up front. This would have no resemblance to how Edmonton is run. If anything Edmonton's been rebuilding for over a decade now and looks like they still currently are.

I agree that quality dmen come at a high price, but Hall for Larsson is not the norm value-wise. Perhaps more along the lines of Johansen for Jones.

Pretty much every player on NYI took a dip in points this year, yet they made it to the 2nd round of the playoffs. They bought into a new system that was more defensively structured and even made average at best goalies in Lehner and Griess look like stars. Eberle then put up 9 points in 8 playoff games squashing the criticism of being a non-playoff performer. Barzal had over a 20 point drop in production, is he declining as well? With all this said, I would pay a pretty penny to bring in a guy like Eberle, but if all it took was like a 3 or 4 year deal with a limited NTC and costs about 4.5 million a season then I'd be all over it (he made above his weight in money on his previous contract). I do agree that I'd prefer to stick with the top end UFAs if possible (not Skinner).

Doesn't matter if Holland wants to do it or not. Lucic has control on where he wants to go and that means finding a trading partner willing to take him on as well. If they want to free up an expansion spot plus offload his contract, it's going to come at a heavy price no matter what. The ball is not at all in their court here, so they need to make a decision if it's worth what needs to be given up to make the deal or they deal with the anchor on their own. If I was running Edmonton, I would try to find a situation to help Lucic unless they've burned that bridge already, which only makes it worse for them if that's the case.

I also believe the skating is blown out of proportion. He's not the fastest guy, but that's never been his game. My concerns are more about his character. He's said and done some cringe-worthy things. Also he's got the extra year on his deal, plus Edmonton would be removing his NMC. It's a non-starter if he keeps his NMC unless they are giving us McDavid or Draisaitl with 50% retention. And even though LE would balance out the cap for the meantime, most of his salary will be paid out after July 1st and will be much more moveable with a lesser sweetener added. While LE is getting older, his skating looked fine in the World Championships. He just seems less motivated here. These factors suggest to me that they would have to give up quite a bit in return even if LE is headed back the other way. Swapping 8 and 10 means nothing really, but swapping their 8 for our 40 is more reasonable. Even then I think I'd prefer more to be added simply because of what they will be gaining by moving Lucic.

I get the reference. I'm just not confident that Trouba is indeed that guy. He would be our de facto top pairing RHD, much like Edler is currently our de facto #1 but I don't believe Edler to be a true #1. The cost to acquire him may be high depending on if there is a bidding war for his services. Again, not as confident that he's the target worth giving up the needed assets for. Kadri alone opens up some room already and they will just have to get creative in making more space (I'd take on Zaitsev if they gave us their 1st and Kapanen as well), but at least they would be addressing an issue that has been a big problem for them. I'm not saying we don't go after Trouba at all, but I just think other teams will have better offers than what I would want to give up to bring him in. Make the offer, sure, but let some other team overpay to bring him in if it gets to that point. I don't disagree that we should be targeting a RHD, but it has to be acquired reasonably. EK may want to go out East, Trouba may want to get out of a Canadian market, I think Myers UFA value will not be equal to his play, so it doesn't leave a whole lot of options and we cannot simply force the issue and hurt ourselves in the long run.

I have to imagine this is more exception than the rule. There are only so many Chiarelli's in the league.

That defense list does not put a lot of confidence in it's effectiveness as a stat. The forward list is more respectable, but there are some major busts in there as well and Kaliyev could very well be another. Plus I would break it down even further and look at just wingers if we are making Kaliyev comparisons as their are a lot of high profiled centers there in which Kaliyev will never be.

CDC will think he's declining already. In 4 years he'll be playing like a 39 year old. No way we waste a top 10 pick on him

We hope Hughes can become a Karlsson type player, but I wouldn't say we have a player like him yet. EK does need a solid defensive dman partnering him, but he doesn't log around 25 mins a night because he cants defend at all. You also don't get trusted for nearly 2 mins on average of PK time a night if you can't defend. Sure he gets beat every so often, but that happens to best when they are facing the top competition. His high level possession game in the offensive side contributes to not needing to defend nearly as much. I'm not saying he's a Nicklas Lidstrom type dman, but I think his defending is overly criticized. We have never added an EK level player before. We have tried to add subpar offensive players in hopes that they flourish. This is very different. I guess it depends on your definition of contending. We have clearly seen that we don't need to be at the top of the standings in the regular season (Tampa), but we need to make the playoffs to even have a shot. We were fighting well into the year for a wildcard spot and adding a player of EK calibre should only push us over that hump. It might take a couple more years to have the full strength of the team, but EK should help us get into the playoffs at the very least and he's a playoff performer. Getting players at the start of their career is nice and all, but sometimes they don't pan out or they will be expensive to acquire. We have a top end player that can be had for free other than cap space and a roster space. We keep our assets that can slowly be transitioned in helping relieve the cap situation if there becomes one in the future.

Who's to say our offer would be the best? There's a rumour of Kadri for Trouba. The Jets need a 2nd line center and this could provide them that. There could be a bidding war that will drive his price up. My red flags for Trouba is he's had shortened seasons for 4 out of 6 seasons and his production in the playoffs isn't impressive with 6 points in 27 games although he's a tough defender aside from the point production. I think Trouba is good, but not quite the "magical unicorn" that we are looking for, especially for what we would have to give up in return.