The expansion formula

[theminister]

16 minutes ago, chickenman92 said:

I think we'll see Vegas making deals with teams more so than teams dealing with each other to get a return on X or Y player. 

 

Take Vancouver,. Guessing they protect Hank, Danny, Horvat, Eriksson, Baertschi, Granlund, Edler, Tanev, Gudbranson and Markstrom, and one of Gaunce, Sutter or Boucher. For argument sake, let's say they protect Boucher. 

 

So Vegas has basically Sibsa, Beiga, Sutter and Gaunce to pick from. Vegas decides they will take Sutter. 

 

Vancouver doesn't want to lose Sutter. After all, they locked him up to that big deal and he's a solid centre, that plays in their top-9 and kills penalties. And if they are to lose him they'd like something in return. 

 

So Jim calls up George and makes a deal. Either take one of Gaunce Beiga or Sbisa and we'll toss in a 3rd rd pick for compensation because you didn't take Sutter OR, take Sutter and we'll trade you a 2nd rd pick to re-acquire him.

 

I think the latter is what we will see happen the most. I think in preparation for the expansion draft teams held on to their draft picks at the deadline so that they could re-acquire their players.    

 

 

So your logic is to essentially trade a 2nd or 3rd round pick for Boucher.

 

And you think this is the most likely scenario? That we trade a 2nd to acquire Sutter after leaving him exposed to keep Boucher? Really?

 

FYI, teams need to wait until Jan 1st to require a player from the same team they were selected from in the ED.

[mll]

1 hour ago, theminister said:

Word from where?

I was trying to find the audio via google but it's too far back and it wasn't the main topic of the segment and more a 'for sure they won't use a spot for Bieksa re his age'.  

 

There is this tweet that does suggest that Murray has been pro-active - I don't think they can renegotiate the NMC but there is the option to waive.

 

I just realised that if he injures himself in the playoffs - he can't be bought out.  The CBA does not allow teams to buy out injured players. 

Would Bieksa really refuse to waive.  It's unlikely he gets picked up.  If anything Murray could give a pick to Vegas to not select him if he waives. 

[VIC_CITY]

40 minutes ago, theminister said:

So your logic is to essentially trade a 2nd or 3rd round pick for Boucher.

 

And you think this is the most likely scenario? That we trade a 2nd to acquire Sutter after leaving him exposed to keep Boucher? Really?

 

FYI, teams need to wait until Jan 1st to require a player from the same team they were selected from in the ED.

LV wouldn't take Boucher, they would take Sbisa. Also, if JB left Sutter unprotected, it would be because he wants LV to take him. But Sutter will be protected and rightfully so.

 

I think is really simple. JB will leave the following players unprotected:

 

Megna

Dorsett

Boucher

Gaunce

Biega

Sbisa

and various AHL fodder

 

LV will take Sbisa.

 

[coolboarder]

In a perfect world, Las Vegas would take Dorsett for toughness they need.

[theminister]

11 minutes ago, coolboarder said:

In a perfect world, Las Vegas would take Dorsett for toughness they need.

In a perfect world, Dorsett comes back healthy, provides the grit we lacked in the line-up, kills penalties, skates hard, and is a good role model for the kids.

 

That provides help in major gaps of last year's lineup... toughness, special teams, speed, and leadership.

[tyhee]

12 hours ago, Eastcoast meets Westcoast said:

...

Fluery in Pitsburg  for example could be had for Markstrom and a 3rd potentially, a deal like that would mean not resigning Miller but upgrading in goal.  Bachman would be our expansion eligible goalie and we would protect who ever we traded for.   ...

As to your main point, I agree there may well be situations where a trade can be made in which effectively we upgrade because of who we get to protect.  I would want to judge those situations with future potential a higher priority than short-term upgrade, but agree with you that there can be situations where a trade that doesn't look to make sense on its face will in fact result in an advantage to both trade partners because of the change in quality of players protected from the expansion draft.

 

I'm not so sure about the above-noted example, in which we trade away Markstrom and a 3rd and get (and keep) Marc-Andre Fleury.  We'd still lose whatever skater we rated to lose in the expansion draft.

 

Imo that would be counter-productive.  I'd much rather have Markstrom and the 3rd than a 32 year old goalie (33 later this year) who faded this past season to a 3.02 GAA and .909 save %-despite his showing so far in this season's playoffs.  Giving up draft picks for older players who may be an upgrade now, while the team isn't particularly competitive, seems to me to be throwing away chances of future players for a gain that has little or no long-term benefit to the team.  It risks picking up players on the downside of their careers who might, but probably won't, be helpful when the team is ready to content again while giving up chances at young players who may develop into useful assets in future years when the team has become competitive.

 

Right now I'm not sure whether or not Fleury would be an upgrade over either Miller or Markstrom but if he is, if the Canucks are not going to be contenders in the very near future this seems like the wrong time in the Canucks winning/losing timeline to be giving up future picks or prospects for 30+ year old upgrades.

 

 

[IBatch]

21 hours ago, Eastcoast meets Westcoast said:

Been a while since I made a thread, but after posting this idea in a few threads, I realized it could be a okay topic... Hopefully.

 

One of the things that was hopefully on the organizations radar this season was how to take advantage of a one off event like the expansion draft.  I have been banging the drum that this is the most important part of the year for JB.  First, don't give up any real assets.  We cannot lose good pieces when we have so few.  Second to take advantage of some of the rich teams heavily exposed to the expansion draft.  Before Trymakin left, my idea was to flip Hutton for some good returns due to his exemption, but that is now off the table.  

 

We are still in a fairly unique situation in regards to this draft and how we can capitalize on other teams exposed players by trade prior to the draft, simply put, our exposed offer and our bottom end protected players are not nearly as good as many other clubs.  

 

At first my idea was to flip a eligible player and a protected player for one much better eligible player, but I realized that would playing the market too high, we don't need to give up all that much.  

 

We could flip an eligible player and a pick for another teams much better player and just expose another lower end player at the draft.  

 

Take Slifberg (sp?) as compared to Baer for example.  I think in a pre expansion draft market we would get laughed at for proposing a deal like a 2nd and Baer for Silfberg, or just a second for Slifberg (Ducks option)  No way Anahiem takes that deal, but since they have to expose him and lose him for nothing that pick is worth a lot more than it other wise would be.  

 

Fluery in Pitsburg  for example could be had for Markstrom and a 3rd potentially, a deal like that would mean not resigning Miller but upgrading in goal.  Bachman would be our expansion eligible goalie and we would protect who ever we traded for.  

 

Where we lack the wiggle room for a deal is a defence.  While there is better d men than Sbisa that will be exposed, we would have to trade two defenders before the draft to make this formula work.  

 

But if JB had a deal for Tanev involving a pick the could be done prior to the expansion draft, say to Zona along with another player that can be exposed, like Biega, Pedan or Grenier then that trade could happen prior to expansion draft.  Zona actually needs players that qualify for the expansion draft as they don't currently have enough.  

 

It is a unique one off situation that is only possible for a team rebuilding take advantage of.  

 

Thoughts?  Flame away.

 

 

EmW

 

 

Fluery to Vancouver has been a possibility saved around by experts all season.  I don't know if he would approve the deal though...

Silverberg is a slight upgrade on Bear, we wouldn't have to add anything but ANA might risk exposing him in the off chance they took someone else.

 

Third liners and 4-6 defenseman are who Vegas will be after, so we aren't going to get any gems from this process other than guys a little better than who we have to expose....

Fluery might play himself back on to the team the way he's been going too, or make them not worry about losing Murray at very least...and he might say forget it to Pens management too, and stay put.

[chickenman92]

19 hours ago, theminister said:

So your logic is to essentially trade a 2nd or 3rd round pick for Boucher.

 

And you think this is the most likely scenario? That we trade a 2nd to acquire Sutter after leaving him exposed to keep Boucher? Really?

 

FYI, teams need to wait until Jan 1st to require a player from the same team they were selected from in the ED.

No, I don't think the Canucks would be a team doing this, their roster pretty much sucks, so I can't see them worrying about losing a player or dealing a pick to keep a player. 

 

I just wanted to use players Canucks fans were familiar with. 

 

I could see a contending team doing this in order to keep their team together for another run. 

[theminister]

21 minutes ago, chickenman92 said:

No, I don't think the Canucks would be a team doing this, their roster pretty much sucks, so I can't see them worrying about losing a player or dealing a pick to keep a player. 

 

I just wanted to use players Canucks fans were familiar with. 

 

I could see a contending team doing this in order to keep their team together for another run. 

Leaving aside that what you suggested as the most likely scenario not being allowed under the ED rules, if you wanted to use an example with the Canucks you could have said Boucher for a 7th and been more accurate.

 

[oldnews]

23 hours ago, chickenman92 said:

 

Take Vancouver,. Guessing they protect Hank, Danny, Horvat, Eriksson, Baertschi, Granlund, Edler, Tanev, Gudbranson and Markstrom, and one of Gaunce, Sutter or Boucher. For argument sake, let's say they protect Boucher. 

 

Sorry, not going to argue with that, too busy laughing to bother.

 

Your effort was a little too subtle - you should have gone with Megna.

[oldnews]

On 2017-05-04 at 7:55 AM, Rocksterh8 said:

Its a good avenue to explore, but I don't think Benning is smart enough to take advantage of something like this. 

The ironing.

 

Literally everyone has thought of it.

 

The fact that you hadn't - and that it struck you as so innovative, says something pretty comical about your own 'smarts'. 

[Phat Fingers]

14 hours ago, tyhee said:

As to your main point, I agree there may well be situations where a trade can be made in which effectively we upgrade because of who we get to protect.  I would want to judge those situations with future potential a higher priority than short-term upgrade, but agree with you that there can be situations where a trade that doesn't look to make sense on its face will in fact result in an advantage to both trade partners because of the change in quality of players protected from the expansion draft.

 

I'm not so sure about the above-noted example, in which we trade away Markstrom and a 3rd and get (and keep) Marc-Andre Fleury.  We'd still lose whatever skater we rated to lose in the expansion draft.

 

Imo that would be counter-productive.  I'd much rather have Markstrom and the 3rd than a 32 year old goalie (33 later this year) who faded this past season to a 3.02 GAA and .909 save %-despite his showing so far in this season's playoffs.  Giving up draft picks for older players who may be an upgrade now, while the team isn't particularly competitive, seems to me to be throwing away chances of future players for a gain that has little or no long-term benefit to the team.  It risks picking up players on the downside of their careers who might, but probably won't, be helpful when the team is ready to content again while giving up chances at young players who may develop into useful assets in future years when the team has become competitive.

 

Right now I'm not sure whether or not Fleury would be an upgrade over either Miller or Markstrom but if he is, if the Canucks are not going to be contenders in the very near future this seems like the wrong time in the Canucks winning/losing timeline to be giving up future picks or prospects for 30+ year old upgrades.

 

 

Thank you for the great response. Life got very busy for me just after I posted this topic so I haven't had the chance to respond. 

 

The use of Markstrom for Fluery was only for example. 

 

I agree that short term gains should not be the goal at all over the next season. 

 

Still, anything to improve the team without sacrificing the future is on the table. 

[ruilin96]

On 2017-5-4 at 2:48 PM, coolboarder said:

In a perfect world, Las Vegas would take Dorsett for toughness they need.

In a perfect world LV would pick up Jayson Megna among all ppl

[Crabcakes]

On 5/4/2017 at 7:43 AM, Eastcoast meets Westcoast said:

Been a while since I made a thread, but after posting this idea in a few threads, I realized it could be a okay topic... Hopefully.

 

One of the things that was hopefully on the organizations radar this season was how to take advantage of a one off event like the expansion draft.  I have been banging the drum that this is the most important part of the year for JB.  First, don't give up any real assets.  We cannot lose good pieces when we have so few.  Second to take advantage of some of the rich teams heavily exposed to the expansion draft.  Before Trymakin left, my idea was to flip Hutton for some good returns due to his exemption, but that is now off the table.  

 

We are still in a fairly unique situation in regards to this draft and how we can capitalize on other teams exposed players by trade prior to the draft, simply put, our exposed offer and our bottom end protected players are not nearly as good as many other clubs.  

 

At first my idea was to flip a eligible player and a protected player for one much better eligible player, but I realized that would playing the market too high, we don't need to give up all that much.  

 

We could flip an eligible player and a pick for another teams much better player and just expose another lower end player at the draft.  

 

Take Slifberg (sp?) as compared to Baer for example.  I think in a pre expansion draft market we would get laughed at for proposing a deal like a 2nd and Baer for Silfberg, or just a second for Slifberg (Ducks option)  No way Anahiem takes that deal, but since they have to expose him and lose him for nothing that pick is worth a lot more than it other wise would be.  

 

Fluery in Pitsburg  for example could be had for Markstrom and a 3rd potentially, a deal like that would mean not resigning Miller but upgrading in goal.  Bachman would be our expansion eligible goalie and we would protect who ever we traded for.  

 

Where we lack the wiggle room for a deal is a defence.  While there is better d men than Sbisa that will be exposed, we would have to trade two defenders before the draft to make this formula work.  

 

But if JB had a deal for Tanev involving a pick the could be done prior to the expansion draft, say to Zona along with another player that can be exposed, like Biega, Pedan or Grenier then that trade could happen prior to expansion draft.  Zona actually needs players that qualify for the expansion draft as they don't currently have enough.  

 

It is a unique one off situation that is only possible for a team rebuilding take advantage of.  

 

Thoughts?  Flame away.

 

 

EmW

 

 

I like the way you think OP.

 

As we know this rebuild has taken another shape as of February 2017.  This looks more like a small "r" rebuild rather than a big "R" rebuild.  Silfverberg turns 27 Oct 13 so is just entering his prime.  Is this the age group that Benning wants to add to at this stage of the rebuild even at a bargain?

Based on the Burrows and Hansen moves, I think Benning in general, wants young prospects who are a year or two at least before their 23rd birthday so that they will develop with the other youngsters.

 

I'm not saying that your idea is a no go by any means.  But how does Benning want to structure the team in the medium term?  If Benning has to give up 2 assets to make such a deal, (and from Anaheim's standpoint, there would obviously have to be) the asset would have to be a guaranteed fit with these plans.  Is he still after that left winger to replace Danny in the medium term?  Hmmm......