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

[Proposal] Time to Shift our Strategy to Improve Our Beloved Canucks


Recommended Posts

After what happened yesterday with lottery that is so random that can screw teams, pushing their rebuilding a year even further, I have been thinking about this strategy for a while.  No more drafting 2nd and 3rd round where we might have to wait for years before seeing them play the first game for us and it is not a guarantee that they might pan out, and we could use this strategy and determine which year is a weak draft like this year, and if we used a RFA offer sheet last year, we might not have this year draft which is ok and could have that player as a part of our rebuild.   So for 2017 summer, we will have 17 million cap space to fill out and in 2018 summer, we will have 42 million cap space according to cap friendly website.  I do not know the cap number for 2017/18 season or 2018/19 season will be like.

 

The chart below was for 2016 free agent compensation cost.

 

Calculated Offer Sheet Amount  Draft Pick Compensation
$1,239,226 or below  None
Over $1,239,226 to $1,877,615  Third Round
Over $1,877,615 to $3,755,233  Second Round
Over $3,755,233 to $5,632,847  First Round & Third Round
Over $5,632,847 to $7,510,464  First Round, Second Round, and Third Round
Over $7,510,464 to $9,388,080  Two First Rounds, Second Round, and Third Round
Over $9,388,080  Four First Rounds

 

If we are using this strategy for 3rd round or 2nd round compensation, signings other team's RFA, we can get a few good young RFA players in expense of our draft picks, as long as they are under 25 years old and we can sign them for a few years of their service when they are entering the prime.  I would not advise using this strategy this summer because next year draft is deep but for 2018 summer, we can make this move and poach other teams' RFA, their potential best player in 2018 summer.  UFA signing is not working out for us and burned us too often.  I'll elaborate them later.   So shifting the strategy to RFA poaching fills out our needs for young players with long years of our control.  If we had known that 2017 draft is going to be a weak year, why waste a year keeping those picks when we could have a 5.6 M to 7.5 million dollar player on their RFA year and could get those good players, forcing teams to match the price they do not want to make that offer because they have better players to worry about and also, UFA planning to go with it as well.  That's shifting our strategy and other teams are in a cap hell and they might not be able to match the price we offer for their service.   That would go a long way filling some hole but it would create a new hole in term of prospect pool which I will bring this strategy in other way.  Let's not go Kessel crazy thing like Toronto did but reasonable depth RFA signings that is being developed even further that might cost us 2nd round or 3rd round for a player or two.

 

Our prospect pool might not improve that much because of weaker 2017 draft and we could have used that RFA strategy last summer to allow our 2016 prospect more time in the farm system to develop.    If we are going to go this route, we must make an offer sheet.   We can go after other teams best RFA prospect that yet to play in NHL with 1.2 million with no compensation, forcing other team to match and the trick is, offer them one-way term that has yet to play in this league.    Other GM might hate us for that but we are desperate to improve our team anyway and if the RFA player is not ready, we can still bury them in the minors with just 300k cap hit on the book which is worth the risk and they might be more advanced on development  helping other players to develop better and it also help our farm system to have some talent to develop our players more with better talent around them with expensive RFA with no compensation.   It also help to build a winning culture in Utica with better talent and developed further at more cost at the owners' expense.     We could try and make an experiment this summer on 1.2 million one way with no compensation to any prospect that is RFA and has yet to play a game in NHL and bury them intentionally in the minors with 300k cap hit cost for a year or two that is waiver exemption.  We should save a million dollar on cap space for this purpose for a year or two with 2 or 3 RFA players with no compensation.  

 

There is an issue of players filing for arbitration for any RFA so there should be a planning involved in this aspect using scouting skill by the Canucks staff and pitch an offer sheet to any RFA players before they actually file for arbitration, on 5th of July, I believe.   Once they file for arbitration, we cannot make any offer sheet to that player.     To accomplish this strategy, we must act fast before a player file for an arbitration deadline on July 5 so we could make an offer sheet before then.    Most often, players file for arbitration is because all teams in the NHL is focused on UFA so if we switch that strategy, RFA first then make some offer and we might actually force teams to abandon their UFA strategy just to keep their own players to fit under the cap.  

 

After seeing Eriksson flop, it has changed my philosophy on how I would approach free agents.  Any signing over age of 30 is not advised because most often than not, they begin to decline after 31 to 32 years old with some exceptions.   I feel that UFA over 30 is not worth it anymore.  Any signing with RFA is worth it as long as it's not first round compensation so any price to sign a RFA up to 3.7 million might be worth sacrifice especially only 30% of drafts from 2nd round actually make it into the NHL.   If there is a deep draft then I wouldn't do RFA strategy until there is a year with a weak draft like this year then it might be worth it.  If a team that matches, we then continue our search for any RFA that did not file for arbitration to make another offer sheet since our own pick has not been traded away or compensated by the offer sheet.  We could make two offer sheets, for each category on a given year, one for 2nd round and one for third round to improve our line-up so that our prospects could be developed longer in the farm system at a higher price.   We might have some room for a cap hit in 2018 summer to bury a RFA that cost us 2nd round or 3rd round prospects and put them in our farm system until they are ready and when they are ready, we'd have them at a same price during the season and we can only bury 900k in cap hit.   Until we start getting stacked and we can afford to gain picks when other team put some revenge on our prospects by offer sheet and we can lose them and get those picks back through compensation system anyways if we are under a cap hell.  That is a way to maintain a winning culture in Utica and develop them in the minors slowly in the future.   I'd say, let them make a revenge in the future and we don't have to match and we get the picks back anyways.     It might cost us a prospect but we get a pick back to prepare for next cycle because prospects in a stacked team is harder to crack into the lineup anyways.  

 

This strategy is not wrong because we might get players we actually want to create more depth on our roster and UFA is not the way to improve our roster because other teams has locked up their best players and buy their UFA years and fewer UFA pool nowadays than in the past.  RFA is the better way to go with the way the cap works and if other team cannot match because of cap constraint then it is their problem, not ours, and we better not spend up to the cap space once the Sedin's contract is off the book.    So, I would say, make our move in 2018 summer and poach other teams' top RFA and make an offer before they file for arbitration and let them get angry at us and extract some revenge in the future and we better be careful to lock up our players we want to keep and let go other players we do not want to keep and get those picks back during our contender years.

 

Discuss.   Any thoughts, pro and con?  I think that pretty much cover everything with this strategy for our rebuild and our contending years.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Fanuck said:

JB/TL have repeatedly said it - this team will be built through the draft. 

Yes, they have said that but they never thought of this RFA strategy, as long as RFA is under 25 and also, have you thought of RFA signings with no compensation for our farm system?   Most teams sign their prospects for 600k to 900k with two way contract so if we offer them 1.2 million one-way contract with no compensation, we can do that this summer.   Burying them in minor with 300k each so if we want 3 high price RFA of 1.2 million for a couple of prospect that has not played a NHL game for them yet, we use 1 million of cap space for this purpose by burying them in the minors to help with the development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, bloodycanuckleheads said:

Don't forget - these are the guys who thought Virtanen was a Top-6 talent!  And don't get me started on McCann...

 

Oh yeah, and they're also the guys who thought Tkachuk didn't bring what we needed to the table!

Is only 20 years old. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, I don't 100% disagree with you, but I 100% disagree with you right now based on where the Canucks are at.

 

If we were a better team, sure, not opposed to using any means necessary for making our team better. Based on our current team though, we are very likely to finish in the bottom 1-10 over the next couple of years. Using a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round pick to acquire a player that doesn't have any loyalty to the Canucks organization who could bolt to the highest bidder as soon as he is a UFA, pretty risky.

 

Using this strategy, we could have potentially traded away picks such as:

2015 - Boeser (1st), Brisebois (3rd) didn't even own a 2nd

2014 - Virtanen (1st), Demko (2nd), Tryamkin (3rd)

2013 - Horvat (1st), Cassels (3rd) again no 2nd rnd pick

 

Most recently Juolevi (1st), Lockwood (3rd) again no 2nd

 

I won't go back farther then 2013, as our draft history prior to that, for lack of a better term, was $#!t!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My guess is you like this strategy because they can acquire players that have been battle tested in the NHL rather than raw draft picks.

 

I can't fault you for being skeptical of the Canucks draft choices. I was not in favour of drafting Virtanen and I think taking Juolevi over Tkachuk was a mistake as well. Time will tell if they pan out, still too early to tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was mentioned in the lotto thread, in regards to poaching Draisaitl. I'd offer sheet him a high enough figure to send Edmonton into cap hell, knowing that they'll match the offer. I'm not comfortable sacrificing the picks the more I think about it, so you have to be willing to play chicken under that scenario. Draisaitl would have to agree to the offer sheet too. 7 years at 6.9 million would probably high enough for him to accept, but low enough for the Oilers to match.

 

Then they have to invest a third of their cap into McDavid, Draisaitl and Lucic, and dump RNH and Eberle (among others). Their bottom 6 will be comprised of a bunch of spare parts. Their current success is based on the depth they have, due to ELC's for their top two players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Four posters I am replying to on each quote on one post.

 

24 minutes ago, Salacious Crumb said:

JB is old school. Offer sheets wouldn't seem to be in his wheelhouse.

 

True but at the season ender presser, they regret that they did not give Utica enough support with so many injuries so I figure that this strategy could actually afford them some type of prospect that has yet to play a NHL game an few of offer sheet that do not require compensation and other teams might not want to bury 300k of their prospect should they choose to match the offer if they are not ready for NHL.   That way, it does not cost us picks.  A quick glance of 2017 RFA from a couple of teams that players at end of their ELC that is buried in minors are RFA at 22 or 23 years old could be poached at 1.2 million to help Utica with 300k cap hit to our roster for the year.  We might actually get some good prospects at that price where other teams might resign their prospects at under 1 million with 2 way contract.   There are no shortage of good RFA that might sign with us for 1.2 and other team will not want to carry 300k cap hit to bury them in minors if they feel that their prospect is not ready.  

 

5 minutes ago, Glory_Days said:

Eh, I don't 100% disagree with you, but I 100% disagree with you right now based on where the Canucks are at.

 

If we were a better team, sure, not opposed to using any means necessary for making our team better. Based on our current team though, we are very likely to finish in the bottom 1-10 over the next couple of years. Using a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round pick to acquire a player that doesn't have any loyalty to the Canucks organization who could bolt to the highest bidder as soon as he is a UFA, pretty risky.

 

Using this strategy, we could have potentially traded away picks such as:

2015 - Boeser (1st), Brisebois (3rd) didn't even own a 2nd

2014 - Virtanen (1st), Demko (2nd), Tryamkin (3rd)

2013 - Horvat (1st), Cassels (3rd) again no 2nd rnd pick

 

Most recently Juolevi (1st), Lockwood (3rd) again no 2nd

 

I won't go back farther then 2013, as our draft history prior to that, for lack of a better term, was $#!t!

 

 

I agree with you there, I did mention that we should not RFA with 2nd or 3rd round compensation this summer just yet but when we are ready to climb out and the draft year might be weaker in 2019 or 2020 or whenever, we can use that RFA poaching strategy to fill up some holes and we are not there yet,  I agree.   However we could use a few RFA signing from other team this summer with no compensation category to help Utica, to fill some holes and to make Utica competitive at a cost of 300k cap hit for each player since we are not contending for a playoff next season without trading for a prospect using a pick and we should act that before some minor players file for arbitration.    It is a price to pay for some good development for our own draft picks in recent years for a winning culture we need.  

 

1 minute ago, BowtieCanuck said:

Considering teams like Anahiem, Chicago, Pittsburgh, etc. have built their teams through drafting, I'd prefer to stick with that strategy. It's a strategy that has proven itself to work much more than buying a team.

Yes, stick to drafting but if it's late 1st or whatever, it's worthless as history proven, Gaunce?  Not worth a first round at that time but worth an offer sheet for that player at young age at that year and let other team get mad at us and make a offer sheet at our own prospects or a fringe NHLers at a higher category for draft pick, we replenish our own pick at later date when we are contending and cannot afford to keep that player and we get pick back at their expense.   Prospect will be having a hard time cracking at the line-up if we are contending just like 2011 - 2013 so if we had an offer sheet that falls to us at expense of draft pick, antoher team might get angry and poach from us lesser player and we get a pick back for 2014, for example.  

 

3 minutes ago, Great Granny said:

This was mentioned in the lotto thread, in regards to poaching Draisaitl. I'd offer sheet him a high enough figure to send Edmonton into cap hell, knowing that they'll match the offer. I'm not comfortable sacrificing the picks the more I think about it, so you have to be willing to play chicken under that scenario. Draisaitl would have to agree to the offer sheet too. 7 years at 6.9 million would probably high enough for him to accept, but low enough for the Oilers to match.

 

Then they have to invest a third of their cap into McDavid, Draisaitl and Lucic, and dump RNH and Eberle (among others). Their bottom 6 will be comprised of a bunch of spare parts. Their current success is based on the depth they have, due to ELC's for their top two players.

Exactly is what I'm saying, poaching them when it is widely known that draft year might be weaker, just like this year but say weakest draft year in 2019 or 2020, we do it in 2018 to poach in expense of losing that pick might not matter.   We might improve our team that way.   We can always replenish our picks at later date when other team is angry and overpay for that player and we let him go for that pick, it's a win-win situation.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bloodycanuckleheads said:

Don't forget - these are the guys who thought Virtanen was a Top-6 talent!  And don't get me started on McCann...

 

Oh yeah, and they're also the guys who thought Tkachuk didn't bring what we needed to the table!

Because they flipped him for a top 4 D?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, coolboarder said:

Yes, stick to drafting but if it's late 1st or whatever, it's worthless as history proven, Gaunce?  Not worth a first round at that time but worth an offer sheet for that player at young age at that year and let other team get mad at us and make a offer sheet at our own prospects or a fringe NHLers at a higher category for draft pick, we replenish our own pick at later date when we are contending and cannot afford to keep that player and we get pick back at their expense.   Prospect will be having a hard time cracking at the line-up if we are contending just like 2011 - 2013 so if we had an offer sheet that falls to us at expense of draft pick, antoher team might get angry and poach from us lesser player and we get a pick back for 2014, for example. 

There are many examples since the draft started in the 60s that show being drafted first round does not mean you will be a successful player in the NHL. Hell, there are plenty of examples of late round players becoming stars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, coolboarder said:

Yes, they have said that but they never thought of this RFA strategy, as long as RFA is under 25 and also, have you thought of RFA signings with no compensation for our farm system?   Most teams sign their prospects for 600k to 900k with two way contract so if we offer them 1.2 million one-way contract with no compensation, we can do that this summer.   Burying them in minor with 300k each so if we want 3 high price RFA of 1.2 million for a couple of prospect that has not played a NHL game for them yet, we use 1 million of cap space for this purpose by burying them in the minors to help with the development.

Remember when Gillis tried this? Drops an offer sheet on a St Louis player and they match. He then trades a 2nd and 3rd for RFA Bernier. Before Gillis has a chance to sign him St Louis drops the same offer sheet on him which he accepts. Now Gillis has a choice of matching or getting a 2nd for a player he traded a higher 2nd and a 3rd for. We wind up with an overpaid 3rd line player that is a cap dump part of a trade a couple of years later. Offer sheets have a way of coming back to bite you in the butt. There's plenty of GM's that don't get mad, they get even.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bloodycanuckleheads said:

Don't forget - these are the guys who thought Virtanen was a Top-6 talent!  And don't get me started on McCann...

 

Oh yeah, and they're also the guys who thought Tkachuk didn't bring what we needed to the table!

Just gonna collect these quotes. Just cause I wanna throw it in peoples faces somewhere down the road. In Jake we trust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Baggins said:

Remember when Gillis tried this? Drops an offer sheet on a St Louis player and they match. He then trades a 2nd and 3rd for RFA Bernier. Before Gillis has a chance to sign him St Louis drops the same offer sheet on him which he accepts. Now Gillis has a choice of matching or getting a 2nd for a player he traded a higher 2nd and a 3rd for. We wind up with an overpaid 3rd line player that is a cap dump part of a trade a couple of years later. Offer sheets have a way of coming back to bite you in the butt. There's plenty of GM's that don't get mad, they get even.

Oh yes, I actually remember that one, I actually wish that Gillis would let him go and we could get some of those picks back for no first three rounds in 2010 draft.   Let them get even and we could have one of those in our roster right now and let St. Louis match and overpay for one of our own and we get compensation anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shifting strategy??  Nice try.  Geezuz, do people always have to have it now?  So many impatient Canuck fans.

 

You can't build a team in the Cap age by paying through the nose for free agents, both in cap space and in prospects & picks.

 

Draft and develop is the only way this is going to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, coolboarder said:

Oh yes, I actually remember that one, I actually wish that Gillis would let him go and we could get some of those picks back for no first three rounds in 2010 draft.   Let them get even and we could have one of those in our roster right now and let St. Louis match and overpay for one of our own and we get compensation anyways.

Considering he just traded a higher 2nd plus a 3rd for Bernier not matching, and getting a later 2nd as compensation, wasn't an option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Baggins said:

Remember when Gillis tried this? Drops an offer sheet on a St Louis player and they match. He then trades a 2nd and 3rd for RFA Bernier. Before Gillis has a chance to sign him St Louis drops the same offer sheet on him which he accepts. Now Gillis has a choice of matching or getting a 2nd for a player he traded a higher 2nd and a 3rd for. We wind up with an overpaid 3rd line player that is a cap dump part of a trade a couple of years later. Offer sheets have a way of coming back to bite you in the butt. There's plenty of GM's that don't get mad, they get even.

Nonis didn't do much when Clarke gave out that stupid offer sheet to Kesler.  Forced Nonis to match & pay Kelser more than he would've normally had to pay.  It was a stupid offer sheet in that it wasn't high enough (Canucks had room - it would be tight cap-wise but there was room) plus our center depth was craptacular (a 2nd round pick compensation wouldn't have been anywhere nearly useful in that situation).

 

So Mr Congeniality Bobby Clarke ("not our fault - we didn't give Roger Neilson cancer") hands out a nuisance offer sheet with zero repurcussions to them.  **** the Flyers (well...actually **** Clarke).

 

Nonis was too nice. 

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...