Please be SELLERS at the deadline

[Salacious Crumb]

30 minutes ago, Westcoasting said:

 

Agree with you on Virt. Another year of junior and then on to AHL for a year. So many players are rushed in nowadays. What do you know about Brule's development anything interesting?

It seemed he was rushed onto a bad team, lost his mojo and never found it again in the nhl.

[oldnews]

Just now, DIBdaQUIB said:

Good point about paying Vegas not o take a player.  I'm not sure how that works but I understand it is an option. Does that require Vegas to agree or does the team (I.e. Nucks) have the option?

Teams can negotiate deals with LV to commit them not select the few exposed players that they may really not want to lose.

Ie. if we were to make no deadline deals involves potentially protection-worthy assets, otherwise leaving Baertschi or Granlund and Sbisa exposed, they (LV) could be offered a something like one of our 2nds (or whatever) to select Biega (or whomever) instead.

This ought to make for some really interesting deals with LV and some added flexibility for some teams heading into expansion.

It will be interesting to see whether LV elects to ice the most competitive team they can from the get-go or to stockpile extra futures and let their club incubate for a few years.

My guess is that they'll fall in between - they probably won't want a complete lottery bottomfeeder (and if they elect to take the best available player off every teams unprotected list they'll have some good players and a reasonably decent team) - but there will probably be some teams that make it worth their while to go with the alternative package of futures they'll undoubtedly be offered by some teams in a tight position.  Teams like Columbus - that want to contend - but also stand to lose one hell of an asset - will likely be all over McPhee to work an alternative deal.  

So despite all the inevitable whining that will take place around here if nothing earth shattering happens between now and the deadline, that doesn't actually foreclose on retaining those players everyone fears losing.

[Bo fan]

16 hours ago, Alflives said:

JB might be going for three strikes and he's out at his TDLs.  God, just think of all the extra prospects we would have if JB traded away our UFAs at the last two TDLs, and not traded away picks?  Could it be 10 or even 20?  

I think Jim Benning plays in a different league then you do.

But that's just my opinion.

[DIBdaQUIB]

8 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Teams can negotiate deals with LV to commit them not select the few exposed players that they may really not want to lose.

Ie. if we were to make no deadline deals involves potentially protection-worthy assets, otherwise leaving Baertschi or Granlund and Sbisa exposed, they (LV) could be offered a something like one of our 2nds (or whatever) to select Biega (or whomever) instead.

This ought to make for some really interesting deals with LV and some added flexibility for some teams heading into expansion.

It will be interesting to see whether LV elects to ice the most competitive team they can from the get-go or to stockpile extra futures and let their club incubate for a few years.

My guess is that they'll fall in between - they probably won't want a complete lottery bottomfeeder (and if they elect to take the best available player off every teams unprotected list they'll have some good players and a reasonably decent team) - but there will probably be some teams that make it worth their while to go with the alternative package of futures they'll undoubtedly be offered by some teams in a tight position.  Teams like Columbus - that want to contend - but also stand to lose one hell of an asset - will likely be all over McPhee to work an alternative deal.  

So despite all the inevitable whining that will take place around here if nothing earth shattering happens between now and the deadline, that doesn't actually foreclose on retaining those players everyone fears losing.

Thanks.  In such a case, based on where the Nucks are interested standings, our 2nd (assuming 2017) would appear on be a strong bargaining chip versus say a CBJ 2nd.  Could boil down to whether JB prefers to keep granny, Baer, sbisa, or Hansen over a 2nd.

Could make for some interesting horse trading.

[189lb enforcers?]

What's the definition of insanity, again? 

History will repeat itself.

 

I like Benning, but I sure don't agree with his "re-fool on the sly" aka "rebuild on the fly", campaigns. 

 

[oldnews]

4 minutes ago, DIBdaQUIB said:

Thanks.  In such a case, based on where the Nucks are interested standings, our 2nd (assuming 2017) would appear on be a strong bargaining chip versus say a CBJ 2nd.  Could boil down to whether JB prefers to keep granny, Baer, sbisa, or Hansen over a 2nd.

Could make for some interesting horse trading.

LV is free to start making deals the moment they pony up their expansion fees.

[Wilbur]

25 minutes ago, DIBdaQUIB said:

Good point about paying Vegas not o take a player.  I'm not sure how that works but I understand it is an option. Does that require Vegas to agree or does the team (I.e. Nucks) have the option?

As far as I'm aware, teams can trade assets to Vegas in the agree they don't select a player.  For example, the Canucks trade a 2nd to Vegas for not picking Hansen.  But yeah, both teams would have to agree.

[Sedintwinpowersactivate]

I think the pure rental UFA's will be the only ones moving at the deadline because they do not affect a teams expansion draft plans unless they plan to resign that player after the season is over.

[billabong]

I agree. It's a safe move to make. The faster you tear it down, the faster you can build it back up.

 

Some teams will be able to take on Hansen and sbisa for example and pay a 2nd or 3rd willingly because they either have a fit where they can protect him or if they get snagged in the exp draft then they were just a rental. Teams pay 2nd picks for rentals all the time so the value stays the same 

[Jack Fig]

14 hours ago, Standing_Tall#37 said:

Teams know that Hansen will be exposed for the expansion draft if not traded...we have absolutely no leverage in that situation as for Edler, D-men that finish -20 rarely fit a need. Teams usually don't shop for defenseman that cough up the puck and create more scoring chances against than for.... if that was the case, Edler could have got us a 1st+ quite a while ago.

With the number of stiffs on the roster, it would pretty awful to lose a guy like Hansen, who can do a lot of things and plays his guts out every night, to expansion. Makes me sick. 

[oldnews]

15 hours ago, Standing_Tall#37 said:

Teams know that Hansen will be exposed for the expansion draft if not traded...we have absolutely no leverage in that situation as for Edler, D-men that finish -20 rarely fit a need. Teams usually don't shop for defenseman that cough up the puck and create more scoring chances against than for.... if that was the case, Edler could have got us a 1st+ quite a while ago.

That's not really determined - and in addition, teams can cut deals with LV to send futures as opposed to giving up pieces they don't want to lose in the expansion draft, so there's nothing cut and dried about what's going to happen there.

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, oldnews said:

That's not really determined - and in addition, teams can cut deals with LV to send futures as opposed to giving up pieces they don't want to lose in the expansion draft, so there's nothing cut and dried about what's going to happen there.

If we are "rebuilding" shouldn't we be collecting futures, not trading them away to protect a 31 year old Hansen?   Maybe if JB is not able to move Hansen, he exposes Baer?  

[189lb enforcers?]

11 minutes ago, Jack Fig said:

With the number of stiffs on the roster, it would pretty awful to lose a guy like Hansen, who can do a lot of things and plays his guts out every night, to expansion. Makes me sick. 

Short-term pain for long-term gain.

Plugs, is right. With or with out him, plugs. 

[hateleafs]

3 hours ago, Alflives said:

Maybe we missed out on the two best deadlines (the last two)?  

The problem is the Sedins. They have done so much for the Canucks now management thinks it's unfair to sell. That's the problem. The Sedins are done. We can't keep on hoping they will get better. 

[oldnews]

13 minutes ago, Alflives said:

If we are "rebuilding" shouldn't we be collecting futures, not trading them away to protect a 31 year old Hansen? 

If "rebuilding" and "collecting futures" were simple synonyms I might find more persuasion in your 'logic' - but I don't see it as quite that simple.

 

And Hansen vs a 2nd round pick is a really easy question for me to answer for myself - a no-brainer in fact.  The 30 going on 31 thing I'll leave to you youth culture fans to assign excessive meaning to.

[JM_]

17 minutes ago, Alflives said:

If we are "rebuilding" shouldn't we be collecting futures, not trading them away to protect a 31 year old Hansen?   Maybe if JB is not able to move Hansen, he exposes Baer?  

You have to have veterans that can help usher the kids along. Hansen is a perfect fit for a young team, he made it as a 7th rounder, is a bargain contract, and happens to also be an incredibly versatile guy with a good attitude. Honey badger is gold, I really hope we can find a way to keep him.

 

 

[Alflives]

4 minutes ago, oldnews said:

If "rebuilding" and "collecting futures" were simple synonyms I might find more persuasion in your 'logic' - but I don't see it as quite that simple.

I guess I just see rebuilding through the draft (JB's stated philosophy) as collecting picks.  Plus, I would protect Hansen over Baer.  

[JM_]

35 minutes ago, oldnews said:

That's not really determined - and in addition, teams can cut deals with LV to send futures as opposed to giving up pieces they don't want to lose in the expansion draft, so there's nothing cut and dried about what's going to happen there.

I'm not sure how well known this fact is. Benning may in fact not have to do anything - with roster players -  at the TDL regarding expansion draft decisions. 

 

As far as the UFAs, sure it would be nice to get a 1st rounder for Miller. 

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, S'all Good Man said:

I'm not sure how well known this fact is. Benning may in fact not have to do anything at the TDL regarding expansion draft decisions. 

 

As far as the UFAs, sure it would be nice to get a 1st rounder for Miller. 

Doesn't "promising futures" imply giving up either young players or picks?  Should we be doing that?  

[JM_]

6 minutes ago, Alflives said:

I guess I just see rebuilding through the draft (JB's stated philosophy) as collecting picks.  Plus, I would protect Hansen over Baer.  

I wouldn't be surprised to see that actually. Granny would be snapped up, so would Hansen. But Vegas choosing between Gaunce, Baer, and maybe Boucher (if he sees 16 more games) might not be that easy of a call depending on who else Vegas goes for, all 3 of these guys have some good points and bad points. 

 

On D I think if you asked 30 teams would you want Sbisa or Edler I'm pretty sure 30 say Edler, so expose Sbisa too. Sure he's playing well but with 3.6 mil we can find a serviceable fill in until OJs ready.