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

[PROPOSAL] Van-Pens


Recommended Posts

To Canucks: Fleury, Schultz and Kunitz

 

To Penguins: Miller, Biega and Burrows

 

This kinda helps out both teams.  Penguins need to get rid of Fleury and his NMC; Canucks would ask him to waive his NMC; Canucks also needs an established goalie to back up Marky for next couple years; Both Pens and Nucks retain $2 mill each year in Salary for Fleury and Miller.

 

I included Schultz as a consolation prize for Nucks taking Fleury contract out of their hands; Biega is a solid 6/7 RHD; Schultz would replace Larsen if he doesn't cut it; definitely gives our D more depth.

 

Kunitz would be 2LW with Sutter; Nucks retain $1 mill; Burrows is a couple years younger than Kunitz; Burr is working on his skating so it may look a bit more attractive.

 

What say you? lol 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you thought what the other team wants? The Penguins are coming over a stanley cup victory. Miller is more of a backup now and Markstrom Demo Garteig are the future. Biega is more defensive but not as good as shultz. Burrows probably wouldn't even waive. You gotta think what the other team wants not just what the canucks want. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes lol

 

this is expansion draft protection for Pens goalie Murray.  Canucks would be doing them a favour with this deal.  All these other pieces are consolation pieces.  Maybe Schultz isn't in the deal, but it would fill the need for Canucks 2LW with Kunitz.  Burrows would be doing the organization a favour (just like the organization did for him by not buying him out) to take the trade, maybe he fits and gets resigned for a couple extra years because I seriously doubt he will get resigned in Vancity.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Odjick_fan said:

Yes lol

 

this is expansion draft protection for Pens goalie Murray.  Canucks would be doing them a favour with this deal.  All these other pieces are consolation pieces.  Maybe Schultz isn't in the deal, but it would fill the need for Canucks 2LW with Kunitz.  Burrows would be doing the organization a favour (just like the organization did for him by not buying him out) to take the trade, maybe he fits and gets resigned for a couple extra years because I seriously doubt he will get resigned in Vancity.  

Why can't Pittsburgh trade Fleury next off season before the expansion draft? Fleury still has to waive his NMC but a team like Calgary/Carolina will gladly take that contract. Fleury is still a good goalie, he isn't a pure cap dump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the idea of Fleury for Miller (with salary retention on both goalies), plus extra value coming back our way. Maybe switch it up a little, considering we already have a logjam at defence and need more scoring.

 

PIT: Miller ($2.0M retained) and Hansen

VAN: Fleury ($2.0M retained) and Hornqvist

 

Hornqvist is a consistent 20 goal, 50 point player that creates offense in the dirty areas. He has a good two-way game too, and isn't afriad to play a physical brand of hockey as this past season he had 160 hits in 82 regular season games and 88 hits in 24 playoff games. He's just a year younger than Hansen, but provides much more offense which we sorely need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Piggy Bank said:

if both team retain 2 mill then nothing is techincally done for either side. ^^

I think the OP's original idea to retain money on both goalies is so that the Canucks aren't stuck with Fleury's extra cap hit and salary for the 2nd and 3rd year of his contract. 

 

Miller has 1 year left at $6M whereas Fleury has 3 hears left at $5.75M

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2016-08-16 at 8:44 PM, Odjick_fan said:

To Canucks: Fleury, Schultz and Kunitz

 

To Penguins: Miller, Biega and Burrows

 

This kinda helps out both teams.  Penguins need to get rid of Fleury and his NMC; Canucks would ask him to waive his NMC; Canucks also needs an established goalie to back up Marky for next couple years; Both Pens and Nucks retain $2 mill each year in Salary for Fleury and Miller.

 

I included Schultz as a consolation prize for Nucks taking Fleury contract out of their hands; Biega is a solid 6/7 RHD; Schultz would replace Larsen if he doesn't cut it; definitely gives our D more depth.

 

Kunitz would be 2LW with Sutter; Nucks retain $1 mill; Burrows is a couple years younger than Kunitz; Burr is working on his skating so it may look a bit more attractive.

 

What say you? lol 

The whole trade fleury thing is to drop cap and run Matt Murray in the cage.

 

This trade also leaves the Pens with a cap of around 76m with a $250k increase

 

Fleury NMC, Kunitz M-NTC, Schultz just extended contract with pens, Miller M-NTC, Burrows NTC, Biega just sigined a 2 year year with the canucks.

 

Lots of things can go wrong with this deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 8/16/2016 at 9:06 PM, Odjick_fan said:

this is expansion draft protection for Pens goalie Murray.  

But can the Pens get around Fluerys NMC? If Fluery is willing to waive the no move clause it'll be easier to retain Murray, but if Fluery doesn't want to leave a team that just won the cup the Pens might be cornered into letting Murray go, no?

 

I don't think Demko is eligible for a snag and grab during the draft. What about some sort of Demko and Murray deal? Or, looking at it from a Pens prospective, is there another goalie that the Pens would want but wouldn't be eligible for the Expansion Draft?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't think Pens have to worry about losing Fluery to expansion draft yet.. As long as Tampa has Bishop + Vasilevski then one of those 2 will be claimed before Fluery. That said if they can't get Fluery to waive NMC so they can expose him rather than being forced to expose Matt Murray then maybe a trade would be the only option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, goblix said:

As long as Tampa has Bishop + Vasilevski then one of those 2 will be claimed before Fluery. 

Bishop is an UFA next year, and won't be eligible for the Expansion Draft if I understand it right. I think the player has to be under contract from a particular team in order to be selected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Boris Badenov said:

Bishop is an UFA next year, and won't be eligible for the Expansion Draft if I understand it right. I think the player has to be under contract from a particular team in order to be selected.

 

Oh you are right

Still I believe they have to expose at least one goalie that qualifies the NHL games played requirements as well as the ineligibility of pro ranks. Not sure if Tampa has a goalie in their system that qualifies for that other than Vasilevski

 

Imagine if they are forced to expose Vasilevski and bishop walks away asking for more money than Yzerman wants to fork over to him... Ouch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rick Blight said:

Why would Vancouver acquire another goalie unless he is substantially better than Markstrom? Markstrom will be the one goalie we can protect in the expansion draft so trading for a Fleury type wouldn't make sense.

Hmm... I guess it depends on what your definition is for "substantially better".  Other than raising the cup during the summer, I was impressed by his regular and playoff season performance. To compare I guess:

 

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=130608

 

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=112727

 

1 hour ago, goblix said:

 

Oh you are right

Still I believe they have to expose at least one goalie that qualifies the NHL games played requirements as well as the ineligibility of pro ranks. Not sure if Tampa has a goalie in their system that qualifies for that other than Vasilevski

 

Imagine if they are forced to expose Vasilevski and bishop walks away asking for more money than Yzerman wants to fork over to him... Ouch

I don't know how the Bishop-Vasilevski scenario is going to play out, but I know Bishop was projected as someone they may have to lose in order to meet cap space and Vasilevski was going to be the new starter wasn't out of the question. 

 

http://www.rawcharge.com/2016/7/28/12299442/two-to-tango---looking-at-the-potential-trade-partners-for-ben-bishop

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...