Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Nikita Tryamkin | D


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Hairy Kneel said:

I'd like 6'4" Dillon from Surrey, 30 NHL fights.Throws his weight around. 3.2 M. I think he may like the idea of playing for his hometown.

I like this.   his shutdown isn’t too bad, his crease presence is great..  

tough as nails..  decent shot.

.. I’ve only seen him get caught out of position if he plays in a lower case pairing.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, SilentSam said:

I like this.   his shutdown isn’t too bad, his crease presence is great..  

tough as nails..  decent shot.

.. I’ve only seen him get caught out of position if he plays in a lower case pairing.

 

 

He can lead our Scott Road celly's!

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, aGENT said:

 

You've got those two backwards FWIW. One's a tradeable NHL player, the other is dead cap playing in the AHL that nobody has wanted on waivers, for free, more than once.

 

You might be able to trade him with 50% retention given he's only got a year left but a regular buyout also cuts his cap roughly in half as well failing that. If there's a second compliance buyout, dead cap like his is the FAR likelier scenario.

I don't think so personally.

 

I'd rather get rid of the guy with the extra year and get an extra million in cap than the guy who's only costing just over 2M after he is sent down and expires the same time we need to sign Petey/Hughes. I also don't know how tradeable a guy like Roussel is when he plays no roles(PK/PP) effectively and when the cap is probably going down and he's signed for a year longer. He really doesn't seem enticing to any team whatsoever.

 

So it's dead cap for a year vs more cap/more term. I'd pick the more cap more term to get rid of. We can survive a year of Baer at 2.2M if we can't move him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, theo5789 said:

I think we would be lucky to get one buyout. It'll depend how much the cap drops. However if we even get one compliance buyout, that does mean the cap has dropped or best case stagnated, therefore not many teams will be taking on cap dumps, at least not without a heavy add to it as cap becomes even more of a premium. I doubt we would be able to move the full cap of any of those players.

 

IMO, if we do get two buyouts, I'd be buying out the obvious in LE, but use the other on Baer, who is dead cap. Roussel IMO is still a moveable asset (perhaps with slight retention). Sutter may also be moveable if the right situation came about, but I think we would have to retain this not getting his full cap back. Benn probably is at best a waiver candidate to save us a million if we are truly done with him as I doubt there's a trade market here for a position that could be filled by a lot of budget options.

read post above for most of the response regarding Roussel/Baer.

 

Only teams that would take cap dumps are rebuilding ones for assets. I don't think that would change. Deals could still be done to rid us of these expiring expendable players.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said:

I don't think so personally.

 

I'd rather get rid of the guy with the extra year and get an extra million in cap than the guy who's only costing just over 2M after he is sent down and expires the same time we need to sign Petey/Hughes. I also don't know how tradeable a guy like Roussel is when he plays no roles(PK/PP) effectively and when the cap is probably going down and he's signed for a year longer. He really doesn't seem enticing to any team whatsoever.

 

So it's dead cap for a year vs more cap/more term. I'd pick the more cap more term to get rid of. We can survive a year of Baer at 2.2M if we can't move him.

You don't buyout useful NHL players. You do buyout guys that are costing you $2.3m to not play in the NHL. And next year is our only real cap crunch.

 

Plenty of teams would have loads of interests in Roussel. Might take some retention but we'd have zero issue moving him IMO. And I'd have zero issue with us moving him on top of buying out Baer to clear even more cap (assuming we'd already compliance buyout Eriksson as well).

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, aGENT said:

You don't buyout useful NHL players. You do buyout guys that are costing you $2.3m to not play in the NHL. And next year is our only real cap crunch.

 

Plenty of teams would have loads of interests in Roussel. Might take some retention but we'd have zero issue moving him IMO. And I'd have zero issue with us moving him on top of buying out Baer to clear even more cap (assuming we'd already compliance buyout Eriksson as well).

 

 

We're at odds on his usefulness. I think he's useless and plays no roles. I don't find that enticing and I don't see why teams would. Doesn't PK, Shouldn't PP, Isn't as offensive or physical enough to make up for the either. Leadership? There's a lot of leaders out there who bring more to the table. Throw the fact he is signed for another year it at 3M it amplifies his lack of enticement.

 

We can't move him he's a 3M extra for us and he'd be around after we sign Petey/Hughes. If Ferland's back or we re-sign Leivo his spot is then guaranteed taken. I'd rather have my hands clean with Both Roussel and Baer without any retention for a following year than what you're suggesting personally.

 

In your scenario we gain the most cap early, if we somehow move Roussel, and have to probably retain lets say a third of Roussel's cap 1ish M for 2 seasons compared to having 2.2(1.2M more cap roughly) for just a single season with the off-chance of being able to trade Baer(with assets). If the difference between the cap retained on Roussel(1M estimate) in your scenario and the 2.2M from Baer staying sent down in my scenario was an actual problem next year(rough estimate 1.2M in cap) then that would be extremely astonishing.

 

Either way we come out with more cap in my scenario 1 year from now and I'd rather have that. If our opinions only differ on Roussel's usefulness then agree to disagree. My mind's not gonna change on him and I am not gonna try to change yours.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Junkyard Dog said:

read post above for most of the response regarding Roussel/Baer.

 

Only teams that would take cap dumps are rebuilding ones for assets. I don't think that would change. Deals could still be done to rid us of these expiring expendable players.

In this scenario, the cap has dropped or stagnated and thus cap becomes more of a premium. If we want to sell off cap, the price will have risen. Deals could be done, but it'll be pricey.

 

In this scenario, we are talking about a 2nd compliance buyout. Roussel is more tradable than Sven (we tried to give him away for free last year with no takers). Roussel is at least still an NHLer and can provide a role for us in the meantime with his skating and agitation (sparks of offense). In his 1st season with us, he had career offensive numbers and was on the PK. He came in this season injured and for whatever reason didn't get the PK time, nor the offensive chances, but he can play a bottom 6 role. So we move the unmoveable and look into moving the potentially moveable if we need more cap (and if we can't, at least he is playing for us and trying to contribute to our success, rather than hanging onto dead cap). Roussel would be one of the first guys picked up if he's bought out IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/13/2020 at 1:28 PM, Hairy Kneel said:

Some D UFA's:

Brodie 6'2" 4.6m, Kulikov 6'1",4.5m,

(Det)Ericsson 6'4" 4.2m,

Scandella 6'3", 4.0m, Braun 6'2"  3.8m,

Dillon 6'4", 3.2m, Dillon w 30 NHL fights

Edmunson 6'4",3.1m,  Forbert  6'4"2.5m,

K. Miller 6'2", 2.5m

Polak6'1" 230lbs,1.7m,  Stone 6'3",1.2m,  Petrovic 6'4" .7m 

These are d man that we can consider.

 

Pieterangelo/Parayko will probably resign.

Vatanen is too small we already have Huggy.

Vatanen really reminds me of Erhoff, just a fabulous skater, that if you put him with good players in the right system, he could be very deadly. I've always been a big fan of his in Anaheim. If you guys remember, Erhoff was just a middling mobile d-man in the sharks but you surround him with the right personnel like he was here, just absolutely phenomenal. If you can get Vatanen for the the right price, I think he'd be a massive upgrade on PP2 especially if Tanev or Stetcher were to leave

  • Hydration 2
  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, filthycanuck said:

Vatanen really reminds me of Erhoff, just a fabulous skater, that if you put him with good players in the right system, he could be very deadly. I've always been a big fan of his in Anaheim. If you guys remember, Erhoff was just a middling mobile d-man in the sharks but you surround him with the right personnel like he was here, just absolutely phenomenal. If you can get Vatanen for the the right price, I think he'd be a massive upgrade on PP2 especially if Tanev or Stetcher were to leave

Vatanen is good for what he does. But we already have Huggy. Vatanen will be a @5.5 M signing, plus protection in exp draft. And he's still on IR for his leg? Is he a 5'10" Stecher sized replacement? I think the chemistry and timing is a bit off for V. Getting the puck out of our crease and out of our D zone is a primary concern. So I think a bigger tougher D like Dillon would help our mix. We have a great mix of skill in our top 6 and Huggy. I think a younger D like Rathbone could help our pp2. And at a cheaper price than Vatanan. If we didn't have Huggy then yeah sure. But our needs are elsewhere.

Edited by Hairy Kneel
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Junkyard Dog said:

We're at odds on his usefulness. I think he's useless and plays no roles. I don't find that enticing and I don't see why teams would. Doesn't PK, Shouldn't PP, Isn't as offensive or physical enough to make up for the either. Leadership? There's a lot of leaders out there who bring more to the table. Throw the fact he is signed for another year it at 3M it amplifies his lack of enticement.

 

We can't move him he's a 3M extra for us and he'd be around after we sign Petey/Hughes. If Ferland's back or we re-sign Leivo his spot is then guaranteed taken. I'd rather have my hands clean with Both Roussel and Baer without any retention for a following year than what you're suggesting personally.

 

In your scenario we gain the most cap early, if we somehow move Roussel, and have to probably retain lets say a third of Roussel's cap 1ish M for 2 seasons compared to having 2.2(1.2M more cap roughly) for just a single season with the off-chance of being able to trade Baer(with assets). If the difference between the cap retained on Roussel(1M estimate) in your scenario and the 2.2M from Baer staying sent down in my scenario was an actual problem next year(rough estimate 1.2M in cap) then that would be extremely astonishing.

 

Either way we come out with more cap in my scenario 1 year from now and I'd rather have that. If our opinions only differ on Roussel's usefulness then agree to disagree. My mind's not gonna change on him and I am not gonna try to change yours.

He's a 2 way, 3rd line pest. Arguably one of the better ones in the league in fact. The reason we're paying him that $3m is because there was a lot of competition for his services when he was UFA. You're out to lunch if you think other teams wouldn't still have interest. You can agree to disagree all you like but reality disagrees with you.

 

So yes, we can move him. Making most of your post moot.

 

And again, next year is our only real cap pinch until our second waive of kids start needing major raises. We don't particularly need to clear cap the following year with expiring contracts and the ED already clearing plenty of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, filthycanuck said:

Vatanen really reminds me of Erhoff, just a fabulous skater, that if you put him with good players in the right system, he could be very deadly. I've always been a big fan of his in Anaheim. If you guys remember, Erhoff was just a middling mobile d-man in the sharks but you surround him with the right personnel like he was here, just absolutely phenomenal. If you can get Vatanen for the the right price, I think he'd be a massive upgrade on PP2 especially if Tanev or Stetcher were to leave

We get the annual complaints of how players aren't worth their contracts because they are injured too often. And this is for players that had good health records before joining us. Adding a player with a track record of Sami's injuries already isn't going to go over well. It'll just lead to more "why did Benning sign an injury prone player?" nonsense. With that said, I agree that Vatanen is a great player and I'm not opposed to adding him like you said for the right price. But there is that cloud hanging over him.

  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm becoming more convinced that the NHL will indeed be playing some sort of televised (no fans in attendance) playoffs in a neutral location, and it will run long into the summer.

I really do hope Benning jumps on signing Tryamkin next week and brings him to North America stat so that he can be part of the team that challenges for the Cup. He is a critical piece, in my mind, and the fact that he could be available for this potential cup run is very exciting. Even as a 5th / 6th defenseman, he will provide the depth and toughness that we need.

  • Hydration 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Slegr said:

I'm becoming more convinced that the NHL will indeed be playing some sort of televised (no fans in attendance) playoffs in a neutral location, and it will run long into the summer.

I really do hope Benning jumps on signing Tryamkin next week and brings him to North America stat so that he can be part of the team that challenges for the Cup. He is a critical piece, in my mind, and the fact that he could be available for this potential cup run is very exciting. Even as a 5th / 6th defenseman, he will provide the depth and toughness that we need.

I wonder about social distancing in the stands? Two seats per family/friends. Every 10 feet? Partially filled stadiums? 

A shortened playoff schedule?

Edited by Hairy Kneel
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hairy Kneel said:

I wonder about social distancing in the stands? Two seats per family/friends. Every 10 feet? Partial stadiums? 

A shortened playoff schedule?

Hard to say. I'd imagine one City, using multiple rinks, no fans in the rinks, all teams in the area, playing a crazy schedule in the evenings, the western teams getting later start times, and television viewership going through the roof.

 

The Canucks would have a great advantage - no travel to deal with, a young team that is fresh, in shape, ready to go, and injured players like Tanev and Markstrom ready to roll. It really could be the stars aligning if it happens.

 

 

  • Hydration 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hairy Kneel said:

I wonder about social distancing in the stands? Two seats per family/friends. Every 10 feet? Partially filled stadiums? 

A shortened playoff schedule?

 

2 hours ago, Slegr said:

Hard to say. I'd imagine one City, using multiple rinks, no fans in the rinks, all teams in the area, playing a crazy schedule in the evenings, the western teams getting later start times, and television viewership going through the roof.

 

The Canucks would have a great advantage - no travel to deal with, a young team that is fresh, in shape, ready to go, and injured players like Tanev and Markstrom ready to roll. It really could be the stars aligning if it happens.

 

 

I don’t know if they’ll get to finish the season unless games are played without fans..

The Mayor of L.A. had said he sees all arena sports and concerts may be canceled until 2021..

im sure it’s a topic of discussion for all U.S. governors over the next few days..

sure to see The NHL align with the other sports leagues in fact finding and problem solving.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/14/2020 at 7:22 PM, theo5789 said:

In this scenario, the cap has dropped or stagnated and thus cap becomes more of a premium. If we want to sell off cap, the price will have risen. Deals could be done, but it'll be pricey.

 

In this scenario, we are talking about a 2nd compliance buyout. Roussel is more tradable than Sven (we tried to give him away for free last year with no takers). Roussel is at least still an NHLer and can provide a role for us in the meantime with his skating and agitation (sparks of offense). In his 1st season with us, he had career offensive numbers and was on the PK. He came in this season injured and for whatever reason didn't get the PK time, nor the offensive chances, but he can play a bottom 6 role. So we move the unmoveable and look into moving the potentially moveable if we need more cap (and if we can't, at least he is playing for us and trying to contribute to our success, rather than hanging onto dead cap). Roussel would be one of the first guys picked up if he's bought out IMO.

IDK if Roussel would be more tradeable then Sven. I think both are untradeable. It's kind of up in the air. Cap would be a premium with more cap heavy/playoff teams IMO. I think rebuilding ones would be possible but you'd have to be ahead of the curb because teams are gonna want to cap dump right away and there are only so many teams to do it with. So yeah we probably would have to attach something with whoever we dump but we'd have to do that with everyone we try to dump and all teams are gonna be in that same boat. Rebuilding teams are gonna get a real nice boost from cap dumps if the cap goes down.

 

Everything you said about last season means less than this season, minus the injury. This year he has been played with pretty decent secondary scorers in Gaud/Jake. Hasn't touch a lick of PK time, probably because we have had better options. Hasn't been used in any defensive roles and has been on a sheltered line. He isn't a huge physical presence either. IMO if you want to be a good/successful player in the NHL you have to do a couple/few things well or be really good at one thing. Beagle for example is a great defensive player while Motte can play d and is a physical presence. It's kind of why I am hesitant to bring in more young forwards till Virtanen/Gaud round out their games because they've only really been secondary scorers for us hence why they've been sheltered from defensive responsibilities. What I want is a better player for that line and if Ferland(physical secondary scorer) comes back he is that and Mac has shown he can bring more to the table than Roussel.

 

Kind of went off-course with the 2nd paragraph but it gives you an idea where I am coming from.

 

Kicker for me is the 2nd year with Roussel. It's gonna cost more in a dump to get rid of more term than whether or not one is more useful than the other. Rebuilding teams won't really care unless they really don't have any/enough veterans but that's why they got FA and they can acquire one their that can eat up those tough minutes for their youngsters that would be better a better option than Roussel. They usually do have enough most of the time and are just looking for more assets in a dump.

 

You should usually take it season by season with cap dumps if you're in the amidst of a rebuild because you never know when young guys will break out, example being Petey. Unless you're just starting a rebuild like ANA who've stated they'd take back contracts. That's why I'd be looking at a guy like Sutter to ANA.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Junkyard Dog said:

Like I have stated I don't share the same opinion of you of Roussel. Whether you believe I am out to lunch, my point is moot or reality disagrees with me is entirely your opinion. And those sentiments of my opinion I share of yours as well. I don't want to argue with how useful/useless Roussel is because we are just gonna jaw back and forth because, like I have stated we aren't gonna change either of our minds.

 

Also it isn't a huge topic we should debate about that would be worth the time to and I like debating with people here hockey-wise. 

 

I remember like 6 years ago before you and I changed our usernames we argued about whether or not we should trade Tanev during the rebuild for like 20+ pages. People were telling us to chill even though we weren't attacking each other personally, we just wouldn't break from our opinions. Equal levels of stubbornness(in a good way) is gonna equate to that. We usually share the same opinion about 90% of things here hockey related and the majority of time we differ it's usually about trivial things like Roussel, what Dmen we should/could target, etc.

Largely agreed and cheers ;)

 

Though I'd say that given the fact numerous teams were after his UFA services, that would tend to tilt towards my opinion of his value, and other teams interest in him, closer to reality as well ;)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Largely agreed and cheers ;)

 

Though I'd say that given the fact numerous teams were after his UFA services, that would tend to tilt towards my opinion of his value, and other teams interest in him, closer to reality as well ;)

Maybe, times have changed a bit since then. A lot of things have yet to transpire too. Like I was talking to Theo if the cap went down a lot of teams might be looking to dump someone and it could change the market for cap dumps being more pricey. We both can agree and hope that JB can be ahead of the curb if that goes down so we get a deal done early before a high bar is set on cap dumps, similar to what he did with Toffoli.

 

Either way we are arguing a 1-2M cap difference for a year or two so ultimately I wouldn't flame JB or be salty if I didn't get what I want. There are bigger concerns I have with the team than Roussel, especially with the D-core, Ferland's health and signing Toffoli/top 6 forward.

 

A lot of work JB has to do with the cap/contracts. Hopefully he gets some help with a compliance buyout or two. Makes for an interesting off-season. Team could look more different next year and if JB does well it will be for the better.

 

  • Hydration 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...