EternalCanuckFan

Datsyuk. Bergeron had a great career, but Datsyuk was at yet another level higher of player.

@smithers joe That's a real possibility, especially if retention still doesn't yield much return value. Just one of the many things to stay intrigued about heading into the offseason. To me, as long as they don't trade their any 1sts to clear cap space, then I'm somewhat ok with pitiful trade returns to clear cap space. If they have to include 2nd or 3rd Rd picks, then that would be painful but better than losing a 1st. If they have to trade any 1sts, then I think management will justifiably be questioned.

IMHO, giving up the NYI 1st for Hronek was mainly palatable because the Canucks didn't have to give up their own 1st. If they have to deal a 1st to clear cap (even it's from 2024 or later), then that's going to be difficulty to accept.

I think the problem is that the team can get cap compliant with its CURRENT construction, but there's little to no wiggle room for improvement (factoring in re-signing Bear). Pearson and Poolman on LTIR helps, but if Allvin is really going after a 3C UFA, then that alone would presumably require clearance of a substantial amount of cap room.

Trading Myers with retention will probably help, but that might only be more plausible later in the off-season. Trading Boeser sounds like it may still be a possibility, and would likely clear a fair bit of cap unless teams demand the Canucks retain a substantial portion of the contract.

Dealing Miller would initially clear a lot of cap space (depending on the return) but it would likely just create another hole in the line-up unless a quality (but inexpensive) 2C is part of the return.

This issue combined with what you have identified about the team's management of prospect/project RFAs like Hoglander and Kravstov and the logjam at wing will make for an interesting off season.

If I'm not mistaken, then Hoglander will still be waiver exempt at the start of next season so I suspect there is a good chance he will be start next year with Abbotsford if the team is otherwise unable to make space on wing. Kravstov is the intriguing question as he might well be lost on waivers if he cannot play his way into the top-9. I personally suspect Studnicka might be the 13th forward next season as he hasn't really shown much ability to produce but is willing to play a bottom-6 style game.

Personally, I am expecting the Canucks to make significant effort to move Boeser and Myers this summer which should clear up cap space but still leave ongoing roster construction questions. I suspect the team could look at moving Garland too, but that depends on a few factors including whether they can find the 3C they want and how confident they are in relying on the younger wingers in the system.

With Johansen injured for the rest of the year, and rumors about them shopping Ekholm, my guess is they're rebuilding. If that's the case, then I can't see them trading for Boeser or Garland, but stranger things have happened.

Considering Wright not only fell past the Habs but two other teams, it's hard to judge their decision to go with Slafkovsky as negative right now.  Time will tell, of course, but there's a lot to like about Slafkovsky, and apparently at least two other teams did not like Wright enough to go with other players (including another center).

As for what essentially became Dach for Romanov, I agree that the value of that trade is questionable.  They might have been better off keeping the pick as there are a lot of questions about Dach, even though he's only 21.  If Dach pans out at least as a legitimate 2C behind Suzuki, then this might end up being a decent trade for MTL, but even then the value of Romanov, the 13th OA, the 66th OA, AND the 98th OA would still presumably be a pretty steep price for a 2C.

Kuemper was fairly decent in Minnesota early on and then had a really good but short run with the Kings.  He then had a good stretch with the Coyotes through the Bubble Playoffs and then was pretty bad in 2020-2021.

I think Kuemper is one of those goalies that is good enough to backstop a very good team in front of him.  He might still a game or two during a playoff run, but can't be relied on to steal a series.  Made sense for Colorado to go with Kuemper instead of Grubauer, if only for some cap savings.  Obviously it worked out perfectly for them.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Av's consider running with Francouz next season if Kuemper's contract demands are too high.  They have a lot of cap space this summer but also a lot of players to re-sign (or replace).

If the question is whether we would do that this summer, then no.  The loss of Demko would create a massive hole at the goalie position for the Canucks while simultaneously bolstering the ranks of a divisional rival (as already pointed out).

Goalies haven't really traded for excessive value in recent years, so even if a late 1st was the "market rate" for Demko, the loss in value to the Canucks would presumably not be worth the trade.  The only way I could see it being possible is if Demko was in the last year of his contract and the Canucks had a goaltender who looks poised to become the #1.  Martin has been good, but can he do that over 30, 40, or 50 games in a season?  He's not exactly a young prospect either.  Jury is still way out on DiPietro, Silovs and Koskenvuo.  Demko's contract isn't even that problematic at $5M AAV.

I personally don't mind watching the Oilers suffer with poor goaltending and poor defense.  Unless there is excess value coming back to the Canucks and they have a solution to the hole that losing Demko would create, I don't see this ever happening.

Makar's transition to the NHL has been incredibly impressive.  I remember when Makar was drafted, there were significant questions about whether his dominant play was primarily a result of his play in a lesser known league (the AJHL) or if it was truly indicative of his skillset.  I suspect Makar's two years in college have helped tremendously with his development to give him a bit more time to mature physically and to further hone his game as an adult.

Depends on the skillsets that the Canucks are looking at for their D core and if management actually does end up moving Myers.  I'm convinced Allvin is going to be actively working to deal Myers, notwithstanding Myers' better season.

As far as skillset is concerned, I don't think the Canucks are going to be looking for a D with higher end offensive skills (e.g. Klingberg).  I think they'll be looking for a defensively responsible D with at least league average competent puck moving skills (passing, skating). 

More importantly, I think they're going to be looking at building a larger and more physical D core.  Moving Myers is kind of counter intuitive to that, but the issue with Myers is more with play style as pairing him with OEL had effective stretches but it basically neutralized OEL offensively.

I'm partial to the Canucks going after guys like Lyubushkin, Manson, and possibly Zadorov although I'm pretty sure the latter two are going to get big paydays.  Presumably cheaper options include Colin Miller (BUF) or Joshua Brown (BOS) but that's likely starting to see diminishing returns in terms of ability if those are the only guys acquired.  Schenn obviously wouldn't be FA signing this summer but keeping him gives the Canucks proven depth and possibly an incumbent D partner for Hughes.

We'll have to see if there are any acquisitions from trade that change the picture also.  For example, if Grans (LAK) is someone that the Canucks can actually acquire this summer, then I assume he'll be full-time next season.

Physical play has always been part of the game.  I am all for the league calling penalties to keep things in check so that the skill elements of the game can still be exhibited, but the ability to both initiate and respond to physical play is part of the game too.  Showboating or doing something that may be perceived as attempting to embarras an opponen is an easy way to get a target on your back.

The crosscheck on Zegras was hard but, as others have pointed out, it's something that he should have expected digging at the goalie for the puck in a 5-0 game.  

I personally do think Beagle went over the top in his repsonse to Terry considering he never actually saw Terry drop the mitts.  I imagine Beagle assumed he was being challenged to a fight considering that he just gave a hard cross check to Zegras since that's typically what happens.

I think the commentary by Tyson Nash about the Ducks "skilling it up" and then getting beaten up was part of the whole thing being overblown.

It's been good to see Pearson improve his production from last season. 

I think the concerns last year when he was re-signed had more to do with re-signing him so early and to an amount that seemed high based on the trend of his production up to that point of the season.  If I'm not mistaken, he finished the season with 10G 8A but when he was re-signed, he had 7G 5A which was quite underwhelming after his productive 2019-2020 season.  I think the other issue was that the Canucks may have given out another $3M+ contract to a bottom 6 forward trending downward.  A lot of the concerns being raised about age regarding Miller were also raised about Pearson.

At the end of the day, $3.25M for Pearson was easier to stomach even if Pearson trended downward, but it only made for good value if he could recapture at least his 2019/2020 form.  Pearson's doing that this season which is a good sign and is great for him and the team.  It's hard to fault the guy for being unproductive pre-Boudreau when the whole team was playing poorly, but there's no doubt that the coaching change did something to get him going.

I'm not necessarily against keeping Motte, but it's hard to see him signing for an amount close to his current AAV.  Having a more valuable contract might work on a short term, but that takes away some security for Motte which I would assume a lot of players would prefer to have.  It might also work better if the Canucks are able to trade Dickinson and gain some cap space there. 

Whatever the case is, I hope the Canucks don't commit too much of their cap to the bottom 6 like they did before.

I wouldn't mind the Canucks giving these guys callups but some guys are able to dominate the AHL but never in a way that translates in the NHL.  I think the odds are very low for any expectation that they will be difference makers in the NHL at this point.  Happy to be wrong, of course.

Petan has generally had a success in the AHL and he has had multiple chances to break into the NHL but just hasn't been able to contribute to anywhere near the same degree in the NHL.

This is a breakout year for Rempal and while he has had fewer chances to break into the NHL, his age and size are going to be limitations on the chances he will receive.

Ekblad has been a good NHL Dman since he started playing in the league but he has definitely hit a new level in the last couple years.  As mentioned above, it was really starting to show last year until he got injured.  Good to see that Ekblad's continued on that trend.  Amazing that this is Ekblad's 8th season in the NHL and he's only 25.

@NewbieCanuckFan I think the issue for Gillis is that he actually realized that the team needed to be rebuilt but didn't get a chance to do it.  Whether Gillis would have done a good job will always be a mystery, but it would have meant that the rebuild would have started quite a bit earlier (which was probably the right call).  Benning tried to do a "rebuild" by acquiring older prospects (e.g. Vey, Clendening, Baertschi) but that basically didn't work at all with Baertschi being the only one to find a modicum of success in the NHL for a period.

The way I see things unfolding is that if there are any changes, it will start with Green and the coaches (though perhaps not a wholesale change - Clark will almost definitely survive a cull and Shaw might too).  It's entirely possible that Benning might get the axe too, but firing coaches is usually the last card a GM has to save his job, so Benning might get a little more road.  If the team still can't get it together, then we'll start seeing players shipped out.

I agree that the Canucks should not be trading any 1sts at this point to try and rectify their situation.

Not that MTL is what the Canucks should aim for, but they ran with Edmundson, Chiarot and Kulak for much of the season and the playoffs.  Romanov got a lot of playing time too.  That means at least one of them was receiving top-4 type minutes.  Of course, MTL has Weber and Petry, but quality minutes still needed to be eaten by other D.

It's fair to argue about whether those MTL D are better than the Canucks' D platoon that currently looks to be in place for next season, but I think there's a chance this group could be OK.

I don't know if I would go with GM of the Year unless and until the team that the Canucks ice next season truly shows improvement.  With the additions made so far, I think there's a lot of hope for that outcome but we'll see how they round out the roster tomorrow and what Hughes and Pettersson are eventually re-signed for.

I'm generally positive about the OEL+Garland trade but I think it's fair to acknowledge how much risk there is with that deal.  I do think the team is better than last year with them on the team.

As far as clearing cap space, the Virtanen+Holtby buyouts were the most likely outcome given how hard it is to move salary, and the Schmidt deal is decent to good because the Canucks were able to clear the entire salary and recoup their original cost of acquisition (I'm just glad they didn't have to add a sweetener like $ retention or an asset to make it happen).  Without the Canucks' cap issues (or Vegas for that matter), it sounds like Schmidt could have yielded a better return given the amount of interest in him which is why I'm not prepared to call the deal with the Jets a homerun.

I am excited about next season and very interested to see what happens tomorrow.  It will be interesting to see how much they have earmarked for Pettersson and Hughes out of the remaining cap space.

Maybe it's also to see if any of the teams have a longer term interest in Holtby?  He's only 31 and while his play has declined, he otherwise has a solid list of accomplishments (Vezina and a Cup) which could be of interest to some teams.  I'm just speculating of course, since @Jimmy McGill's suggestion that it's to have more people working the phones is also reasonably possible.  I agree with you though, it doesn't necessarily sound like the interest is that great.  My suspicion is that everyone interested once the Canucks to retain at least the max possible salary, possibly add a sweetener, and send nothing back.

@Fanuck That's too bad.  Khaira seemed like a solid bottom 6 player.  Wouldn't have minded the Canucks bringing him in in a depth role with low cap hit.  For Khaira's sake, hope his health is good enough that he can find another place to continue his NHL career.

I think your points of criticism are valid.  I'm all for the Canucks trying to acquire a guy like Appleton from WPG but the question mark, as always and as it should be, is the price. 

If teams are very willing to deal guys on the outside of their protection lists for less than market value, then why the hold up?  They're clearly not going to give up a player for a low cost for basically the same reason they won't want to give up a player for free in expansion, if they can help it.  Between the two options however, sometimes letting one player go in expansion may be preferable.

The cost is probably still going to be high for younger players with upside (especially one with one more year remaining at a low cap hit) and the more affordable the player, the more likely many teams will be interested which would drive up the price.  The Canucks aren't really in a position to take on a cap dump which is probably one of the only transactions that should be cheaper.  It's teams that have both expansion and cap problems that would likely be the most motivated to move someone, but again, per the Ray Shero quote, expansion really only means losing one player so I don't see teams selling low unless there's a cap dump element on their side of the equation.

@Where's Wellwood Yeah, I didn't realize VGK was exempt until I re-read the rules recently.  I would otherwise agree that Fleury (whom I assume would be exposed since he only has one year left) would be more attractive an option than Holtby.

Allen (whom I agree is an attractive G option) and Holtby are exactly the goalies EH has projected the Kraken selecting and I think that's a pretty good tandem for them to start with.  They could also go after whichever CBJ goalie is made available instead of Holtby, but personally I think there really is a strong chance that Holtby is selected (which would be great for the Canucks' cap situation).

Of course, things could change significantly in the next week if teams start to make major moves.

I think it makes a lot of sense unless there are some surprises in terms of goalies left exposed for expansion.  Holtby's expiring contract and not terribly expensive cap hit could make him an attractive trade chip for a contender looking for a veteran back up, especially if the Kraken may be willing to retain some salary.  This seems to make the most sense for the Kraken to maximize the value of their pick.

Some other expansion draft mocks have the Kraken selecting MacEwen (assuming he's exposed which I think is nearly guaranteed) but I just don't see it.  With all due respect to MacEwen, if the Kraken are looking to maximize value with each pick, then I just can't see them taking him.  I am still rooting for MacEwen to carve out a full-time spot with the Canucks but it seems like a rather significant gamble for the Kraken to pick a guy who wasn't really a full-time players for the Canucks last year.

There really aren't any other players that I could see the Kraken having a great deal of interest in outside of a prospect like Lind or Gadjovich, but again, do they really want to spend their expansion draft pick on one of those unproven guys whom, if they select them and they don't pan out they probably can't recoup much value for?  I can't see the Kraken selecting any of the other veteran contracts the Canucks are likely to expose (e.g. Roussel or Beagle).  Myers would be a possibility if he's exposed, but I doubt that (whether he should be exposed is a different question, but even with the cap savings losing Myers would leave a massive hole unless the Canucks have something up their sleeve in terms of a trade).

If the price is low, then this could be a good under the radar acquisition.  He's a winger that can play C but is probably better on wing.  Not sure how good of a fit there is with the overall roster but at $1.25M next year, could be a nice addition who can play up and down the line-up.

I agree that D is the weakest area for the Canucks future right now.

It isn't completely devoid of hope however.  Juolevi and Rathbone should help with the D within the next year or two (with Juolevi actually transitioning now).  Woo could still be an effective NHLer even though I would not necessarily expect him to be a top 4 D.

There are also prospects like Utunen, Jurmo and Persson who could potentially make the jump, especially with other D prospects like Brisebois and Chatfield eventually aging out.  Utunen may one day have a Fantenberg type role and I suspect he has the highest likelihood of transitioning to the NHL simply because he has a simpler game.  Both Jurmo and Persson are high risk, high reward prospects, and both could be huge adds if they pan out.  The odds of all of them panning out are obviously super low, but there's still some hope.

If Tryamkin does return, then he's at the right age to help bridge the gap between the older vets like Schmidt and Myers and the young players.

Is this a contending team's D roster?  Probably not, but it's hard to completely write them off if Hughes can find another level not only in offensive production but also in his D play.  Myers and Schmidt (who was looking more comfortable with the team in the few weeks before the COVID outbreak) can still eat important minutes even if neither necessarily spark immense confidence.

The team really needs at least Juolevi and Rathbone to make the jump and then find a way to add cost effective, physical depth.  Personally that's why I'm not opposed to the Canucks bringing back Tryamkin if there's any chance of that at all.  Not saying Tryamkin is nearly as good a player as Zadorov, but there are some similarities and Zadorov has been an important add to the Blackhawks D core.

Can't hurt for depth in the organization, especially at C, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Emil to become a star in the NHL.