Offseason/Draft Blow-up

[Sundin]

The 'Nucks can turn things around with the following BOLD moves:

 

1.  Canucks win the Draft Lottery (#1 Overall) and Arizona is lower than #3 overall

2.  Trade Sbisa and Hansen to NYI for Hamonic

3.  Trade Hamonic and Etem to WPG for Trouba ($5.5 million for 4 years)

4.  Trade #1 Overall (Matthews), Edler and Burrows to ARI for Ekman-Larsson and 1st Rd Pick (Chychrun, Juolevi, Sergachev)

5.  Depending on whether ANA or SJ gets bounced in 1st Rd of playoffs:

• ANA - Trade Miller and Vey for Andersen ($2 million for 2 yrs)
• SJ - Trade Miller for 2nd Rd Pick

6.  Trade/release/buy-out Higgins, Vey, Bartkowski

7.  Sign Stamkos ($8.5-10 million for 7 years)

8.  Sign Lucic ($6 million for 7 years)

9.  Re-sign Hamhuis ($3.5 million, 2 yrs), Baertschi ($1.5 million, 2 yrs), Granlund ($900K, 2 yrs)

 

D. Sedin / H. Sedin / Stamkos

Lucic / Sutter / Rodin

Baertschi / Horvat / Virtanen

McCann / Granlund / Dorsett

Gaunce

 

Ekman-Larsson / Tanev

Hutton / Trouba

Hamhuis / Tryamkin

Pedan / Biega

 

Markstrom

Andersen (or Reimer)

 

CAP $ 68-72 million

CAP SPACE $ 2-4 million

 

Get it done JB!

[elvis15]

So bad. I mean so, SO bad.

[Nd1989]

arizona already said they wouldnt trade ek for the 1st so nope

[Gurn]

38 minutes ago, elvis15 said:

So bad. I mean so, SO bad.

Thanks for trying to save me time Elvis, but when you said "So Bad" I had to look for myself.

 

It's bad, SO  bad.

 

 

[Me_]

Can't blow up what has already been blown up...

[Where's Wellwood]

Most of that can not happen. Every other team says no. Stamkos will get more than 10 million per

[tyhee]

OP, I agree with Elvis, but will give some comments about why I consider this bad.

 

A. "The 'Nucks can turn things around with the following BOLD moves:

 

1.  Canucks win the Draft Lottery (#1 Overall) and Arizona is lower than #3 overall"

 

I suspect this was a precondition to your proposal rather than one of the Canucks' BOLD moves you're suggesting.

 

B.  "2.  Trade Sbisa and Hansen to NYI for Hamonic "

That would be great if you could convince Garth Snow to make that move.  I don't think that would happen.

 

Aside from the question whether there is sufficient value going from the Canucks (I don't think there is) is the issue of what the Isles want in return for Hamonic.  If I understand correctly Snow wants a quality d-man back.  Here the value going from the Canucks to the Islanders is not the d-man but the forward, the oldest player in the trade by several years.  Sbisa is nowhere near being a replacement for Hamonic on the Isles blueline.  Hamonic is a top-3 d-man (certainly worth top pair on the Canucks) while Sbisa is is a bottom pair guy on a reasonable team who is being paid as if he is more.

 

Value wise, I think this is essentially Hansen for Hamonic, a trade I don't think is close to being reasonable.

 

C.  "3.  Trade Hamonic and Etem to WPG for Trouba ($5.5 million for 4 years) "

It's hard to see the Jets deciding to trade Trouba for a d-man of similar overall quality, a few years older, plus a forward who would be viewed as 4th line or depth quality.  Etem does littlel or nothing to improve the Jets.  The biggest upside in a player in that trade appears to be to be Trouba, which makes the deal look really bad for the Jets.

 

D.  "4.  Trade #1 Overall (Matthews), Edler and Burrows to ARI for Ekman-Larsson and 1st Rd Pick (Chychrun, Juolevi, Sergachev) "

 

There are a few issues here.

 

You run into Edler's full ntc, which he's rumoured to be reluctant to waive.    Arizona may be a great place to golf in the summer, but is there any reason to think the Coyotes' organization is one he'd waive for?

 

Does Burrows have trade value for the Coyotes?  If they have trouble making next season's cap floor he may have some value, but otherwise, does his value as a player match his salary and, if not, what is his trade value?  Remember, he's a guy quite a few posters on CDC think so highly of that they want him bought out.  If the Coyotes think similarly, then Burrows value in the trade is, at best, nil.

 

One think Arizona is not is a rich team.  Taking on the salaries of Edler and Burrows while rebuilding wouldn't be enticing for them.

 

Edler and Burrows are the wrong age for the Coyotes' rebuild.  They aren't looking to get older. 

 

If one leaves out Edler and Burrows, that leaves #1 overall (Matthews) for E-L and an early 1st rounder.   That doesn't seem too unreasonable to me.

 

E.  "5.  Depending on whether ANA or SJ gets bounced in 1st Rd of playoffs:

• ANA - Trade Miller and Vey for Andersen ($2 million for 2 yrs)
• SJ - Trade Miller for 2nd Rd Pick"
•  

I can't see any chance of Anaheim or SJ being interested.

 

Why would San Jose pay $6 million dollars next season to someone to compete for a job with Martin Jones, who is almost a decade younger, has better stats and makes 1/2 Miller's salary. I'd guess that they could re-sign Reimer for at most what he's making now, a little over 1/3 of Miller's salary, to be a backup to Jones.   Last summer SJ might have had interest in Miller, but they've traded for two goalies since then.  It's hard to see why they'd have any interest now.

 

Why would Anaheim be interested in changing their their fine duo of cheap young goalies by trading for an expensive old one?  In what way does Linden Vey have any value to them?  Could he even make their team?

 

F.  "6.  Trade/release/buy-out Higgins, Vey, Bartkowski "

 

You've already included Vey in a possible trade to Anaheim, but assuming that doesn't happen, why would the Canucks have to trade, release or buy out Vey or Bartkowski, both of whom are on expiring contracts?

 

G.  "7.  Sign Stamkos ($8.5-10 million for 7 years)

       8.  Sign Lucic ($6 million for 7 years)"

 

There are quite a few on CDC who would agree with these two signings.  I'm not one of them and think that either of these moves would be a huge long-term mistake.

 

Yes, Stamkos and Lucic are players who would help the Canucks a lot immediately.

 

My problem is with the amount of money and the term.  Signing players in their prime years for long terms and big money is a huge risk.

 

In 7 years Stamkos will be 33 and Lucic 35.  I am fully aware that there are players who maintain a high level of production into their mid-30's.  I'm also fully aware that they are the exception, not the rule.  Most forwards will show significant decline in their scoring in their 30's. 

 

Look at the production of our players from the President's Trophy teams of a few years ago.  How good have Erhoff, Burrows, Raymond, Malhotra, Torres, Hamhuis, Bieksa, Salo, Ballard, Alberts and Higgins been relative to what they were in 2011?  Look at what their ages were and their decline.  Even the twins-they're in great shape, they play through injury, and are still the Canucks' leaders.  They took some time to reach their peaks.  But their production has declined significantly in their thirties.

 

2008-9  age 28  82 pts each, T 13/15

2009-10 age 29 112 pts (1st) and 85 pts (12th)

2010-11 age 30 104 pts (1st) and 94 pts (4th)

2011-12 age 31 81 pts (8th) and 67 pts (31st)

2012-13 age 32 45 pts (20th) and 40 pts (31st) (48 game season)

2013-14 age 33 50 pts (92nd) and 47 pts (109th)

2014-15 age 34 76 pts (9th) and 73 pts (12th)

2015-16 age 35 61 pts (35th) and 55 pts (63rd) (1 game remaining)

 

Remember, the twins do their best to stay fit and healthy.  They are aging relatively gracefully-and even they, as they age, are declining with age and injuries.

 

Now consider how much money you're proposing and how long you're proposing to pay it.  What if in 3 or 4 years Stamkos and Lucic have suffered age or injury related decline?  How will you feel about the last 3 or 4 years of those expensive contracts in a salary cap era in which every dollar you pay one player is a dollar you can't give someone else.?

 

And in Stamkos' case, what reason is there to think he'd even consider that offer from the Canucks?  to put it mildly, there are other organizations whose prospects would be more enticing.

 

In any event, I don't believe it makes any sense to take a bad team and try to make it a good one instantly by signing a few players to huge amounts of money such that in 5 years, when the team should, if well managed, be starting to compete again, those contracts could become anchors weighing the team down, taking up an inordinate amount of valuable cap space.

 

Worst of all is to consider injury-related decline.  If Stamkos and Lucic suffered injuries that made them less effective but didn't end their careers, you're stuck with those large contracts taking up your cap space for several years.

 

Many would support those signings.  I'd consider them bad management, even though for the short term they rate to make the team better.

 

H.  You've estimated that the team would be under the cap in 2016-17.

 

As you've done things, you'll have Hansen, Baertschi, Virtanen, McCann, Horvat, Gaunce, Granlund, Hamhuis, Tryamkin, Hutton, Pedan, Biega, Markstrom and Andersen with contracts expiring over the next two seasons.  Some of those are no problem, but some of them could be due sizeable raises.  If some of the young players progress as hoped, you could be looking at large raises for Baertschi, Virtanen, McCann, Horvat, Tryamkin, Hutton, Markstrom and Andersen.

 

One can only guess what they may be and I haven't added up what might be the cap hits, so will merely flag it as an issue to be addressed.

[Z Hockey]

Arizona is not trading their best player and a D man they probably can't replace for an unproven center that they don't need at all.

 

Coyotes C prospects- They have D. Strome & other future top six Cs likely in

C. Dvorak, Merkley, Bleackley, R. MacInnis, and possibly Henrik Samuelsson, Dauphin, & Gaudet.

 

NYI declines that offer for Hamonic all day, they're just adding cap when they need to re-sign R. Strome, Nielsen, Prince, Cizikas, M. Martin & possibly Okposo.

They want a similar D man one for one back for Hamonic.

If we had Hamonic I would never trade him & Etem for Trouba, that'd be kind of a bad 

overpayment. We keep Etem.

Let Hamhuis walk he's been terrible, always making sloppy plays with the puck and

taking bad penalties. Keep Bartkowski who is younger, cheaper and brings more speed from the backend and can really wheel and can be worked with.