J.I.A.H.N Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 Vancouer Tanev, Erikksson (30% retained) for Arizona's 2017 1st (7th OA) + 2017 2nd (34th OA) + L. Schenn This is about the best we get, while getting rid of Eriksson now, instead of later when he has no value. Schenn becomes a free bee and a small cash dump, which makes it easier for Arizona to add additional pieces. Arizona is close to breaking out.....with a strong stable waiting to get in as well.....if they can pick up one of Alzner or Shattenkirk, which they can afford, they will be close....certainly they will be moving up, and may be able to pull a goalie out of the hat as well.....they have a lot of cap space! For Vancouver, this puts them at rock bottom, but they will be collecting for another year or so. but in the end will have a tremendous amount of cap space, will have the ability to take a bad contract for gain, and will be in position to pick high quality picks in the 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 draft. This year is a crap shoot at the top, but the over all feel from Benning was the top 40 is as solid as any other year.... more top picks means a better chance at finding the gems...... Having (5th OA), (7th OA), (33rd OA), (34 OA), (55 OA), and (64 OA) gives us a chance to catch up to the other young teams, we may be behind momentarily, but long term this gives us possible 1st, 2nd and 3rd liners, as well as defencemen to move into the top 4........this is a win for us! PS......(95 OA + 112 OA) are not bad picks either! Remember that Kesler, Broeser, Demko, Schneider were all late 1st and early 2nds In short, give Benning the tools and let him do his job.......If he is to be known as a good drafter, then let him draft! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 I seem to always like your proposals, Nut, but why would any team want Errikson at any dollar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanuck Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 Why does Eriksson waive his NMC to go to a team marginally better (and it's debatable if they're even marginally better) than where he already is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckmen84 Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 4 minutes ago, Alflives said: I seem to always like your proposals, Nut, but why would any team want Errikson at any dollar? Because he is a good player. One off year and and all of a sudden he has the value of Megna ?? I don't think so! As far as the trade offer goes i think we are getting to little for our top 6 forward and our top 2 D-man...perhaps they are top4 and top 9 players on other teams but non the less. L.Schenn i wouldn't even take in free agency personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.I.A.H.N Posted May 25, 2017 Author Share Posted May 25, 2017 4 minutes ago, Fanuck said: Why does Eriksson waive his NMC to go to a team marginally better (and it's debatable if they're even marginally better) than where he already is? Fair Question.....Alf and Fanuck My belief is that Eriksson had an off season offensively.......not so much defensively. If we were further along in our process, I would suggest keeping him, but we are not....I think his offense will return. Arizona on the hand has a great young team and cupboard......I disagree that they are marginally better....I think they are set up with their youth, and now need to supplement with veterans, like Edmonton did, and what Toronto is in the process of doing.....I don't think they are that far behind. IMO of course! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seannnp Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 I like the trade but would rather Keep Eriksson for one more year instead of picking up Schenn. I think Tanev would best be used in a trade with Dallas for their 3rd overall. Edler should also be used in a package to secure a mid first. He is a very serviceable top 3-4 d on a decent contract. Canucks should be aiming for at least 3 first round picks. 3rd Heiskanen 5th Glass/Middelestadt/Villardi Mid first - Vesalainen (favourite pick outside the top 5) Trade Sutter next year. Pray we get a top two pick next year. Dahlin and Svechnikov are unreal. Sorry kind of jumped the gun here but very excited about the Canucks future. IF everything works out, in 3 years we could have Dahlin Horvat Boeser Vesalainen Glass Goldobin Granlund Gaudette Virtanen Juolevi Dahlin Heiskanen Stecher Demko Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
groovy Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 If Loui is a good player with an off year and Schenn is a cash dump why retain $9 mill of Louis salary? Seems unnecessary to me (not that Loui accepts to be traded unless he is a big golfer). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bane Harper Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 Same here don't understand the Errikson added. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.I.A.H.N Posted May 25, 2017 Author Share Posted May 25, 2017 6 hours ago, groovy said: If Loui is a good player with an off year and Schenn is a cash dump why retain $9 mill of Louis salary? Seems unnecessary to me (not that Loui accepts to be traded unless he is a big golfer). Well, if you were selling Loui coming off a good year, you could expect more, but honestly most people on here are uncomfortable with his term, I would expect Arizona may be as well, so the discount takes some of that away. Arizona knows that Eriksson in a regular year is worth a late 1st round pick, but there lays the risk, and why his value is only a 2nd. Arizona runs the same risk as Vancouver does.....no scoring with a long expensive contract.......I think you pay down the salary with cap retention and reduce the cost down to a high 2nd.......value wise, if he gains all his scoring back such as Vrbata......Arizona wins big time, but Vancouver is trading him to protect from him not scoring and coming to Vancouver too late in his career, when the Sedin's have already started to regress..... The risk is to both teams.....do you want to carry a 6 million dollar hockey player for 5 more years if he doesn't score? Arizona's risk is less with Vancouver's cap retention, with a salary of 4.2 million for 5 years.......if before last year Eriksson would have signed a contract for that anywhere, people would have said that is was great deal for the signing team.....I think the potential far out weighs the risk for Arizona, as they get veteran leadership with potential, which is worth that 4.2 million. We can't look back.......we clear that 4.2 million off the books and get a pretty decent pick for it......don't forget we are getting a 7th OA for Tanev also, which gives Vancouver a great advantage at the draft table......... If Eriksson scores well ....too bad for us! I could live with that, as it may be situational to Vancouver not having the complementary players for him to succeed..... That's how I see it anyways! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckmen84 Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 38 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said: Well, if you were selling Loui coming off a good year, you could expect more, but honestly most people on here are uncomfortable with his term, I would expect Arizona may be as well, so the discount takes some of that away. Arizona knows that Eriksson in a regular year is worth a late 1st round pick, but there lays the risk, and why his value is only a 2nd. Arizona runs the same risk as Vancouver does.....no scoring with a long expensive contract.......I think you pay down the salary with cap retention and reduce the cost down to a high 2nd.......value wise, if he gains all his scoring back such as Vrbata......Arizona wins big time, but Vancouver is trading him to protect from him not scoring and coming to Vancouver too late in his career, when the Sedin's have already started to regress..... The risk is to both teams.....do you want to carry a 6 million dollar hockey player for 5 more years if he doesn't score? Arizona's risk is less with Vancouver's cap retention, with a salary of 4.2 million for 5 years.......if before last year Eriksson would have signed a contract for that anywhere, people would have said that is was great deal for the signing team.....I think the potential far out weighs the risk for Arizona, as they get veteran leadership with potential, which is worth that 4.2 million. We can't look back.......we clear that 4.2 million off the books and get a pretty decent pick for it......don't forget we are getting a 7th OA for Tanev also, which gives Vancouver a great advantage at the draft table......... If Eriksson scores well ....too bad for us! I could live with that, as it may be situational to Vancouver not having the complementary players for him to succeed..... That's how I see it anyways! So a 31 Year Old Eriksson is only worth a 2nd yet a 36 Year Old Burrows essentially was worth a high 2nd ...? I don't see the logic of your value. Yes his contract is longer than we want it to be but he still has some good years left in him and if we do decide to get rid of him at some point i'm sure at a trade deadline we can cash in on him and get something better then a 2nd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 Rather trade Edler than Tanev. Or perhaps both for draft picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.I.A.H.N Posted May 26, 2017 Author Share Posted May 26, 2017 9 hours ago, canuckmen84 said: So a 31 Year Old Eriksson is only worth a 2nd yet a 36 Year Old Burrows essentially was worth a high 2nd ...? I don't see the logic of your value. Yes his contract is longer than we want it to be but he still has some good years left in him and if we do decide to get rid of him at some point i'm sure at a trade deadline we can cash in on him and get something better then a 2nd. Well, that is a good point..... But, Burrows was on an expiring contract......that was good for Ottawa, because they could control the term and price or walk away.............With Eriksson a trading team can not do that, they get all 5 years whether he plays well or not, teams don't gamble too much any more..........but if you think we can get Arizona's 23rd OA......hey that's great! I don't think you can.......maybe a 2018 3rd in addition....maybe! But you will not be able to go to the TDL and offer a regressed Eriksson for 5 yrs and expect a return....so you better hope he starts showing something, and then you still won't move him at aTDL deal......too much term It was foolish to sign him in the first place, but if we can get a first or early second...and get rid of the contract...hey I am all for it! Schenn is only around for a year, so I am not bothered one way or another.....move him for a late round pick if you want....... But maybe we get more for Eriksson, but again, we need to move him sooner that later...he was free anyways! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crotch_Crescent Posted May 26, 2017 Share Posted May 26, 2017 On 5/24/2017 at 9:22 PM, janisahockeynut said: Vancouer Tanev, Erikksson (30% retained) for Arizona's 2017 1st (7th OA) + 2017 2nd (34th OA) + L. Schenn This is about the best we get, while getting rid of Eriksson now, instead of later when he has no value. Schenn becomes a free bee and a small cash dump, which makes it easier for Arizona to add additional pieces. Arizona is close to breaking out.....with a strong stable waiting to get in as well.....if they can pick up one of Alzner or Shattenkirk, which they can afford, they will be close....certainly they will be moving up, and may be able to pull a goalie out of the hat as well.....they have a lot of cap space! For Vancouver, this puts them at rock bottom, but they will be collecting for another year or so. but in the end will have a tremendous amount of cap space, will have the ability to take a bad contract for gain, and will be in position to pick high quality picks in the 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 draft. This year is a crap shoot at the top, but the over all feel from Benning was the top 40 is as solid as any other year.... more top picks means a better chance at finding the gems...... Having (5th OA), (7th OA), (33rd OA), (34 OA), (55 OA), and (64 OA) gives us a chance to catch up to the other young teams, we may be behind momentarily, but long term this gives us possible 1st, 2nd and 3rd liners, as well as defencemen to move into the top 4........this is a win for us! PS......(95 OA + 112 OA) are not bad picks either! Remember that Kesler, Broeser, Demko, Schneider were all late 1st and early 2nds In short, give Benning the tools and let him do his job.......If he is to be known as a good drafter, then let him draft! I don't think zona is there yet to be adding a piece like Tanev. TBay, Dallas, TO and the Rangers are likelier destinations. They don't need Louie, they can just resign Vrbata. Benning has to drum up a market for Tanev and one of those 4 will overpay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Posted May 26, 2017 Share Posted May 26, 2017 I keep forgetting about Eriksson's contract. Thanks for the reminder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckmen84 Posted May 26, 2017 Share Posted May 26, 2017 14 hours ago, janisahockeynut said: Well, that is a good point..... But, Burrows was on an expiring contract......that was good for Ottawa, because they could control the term and price or walk away.............With Eriksson a trading team can not do that, they get all 5 years whether he plays well or not, teams don't gamble too much any more..........but if you think we can get Arizona's 23rd OA......hey that's great! I don't think you can.......maybe a 2018 3rd in addition....maybe! But you will not be able to go to the TDL and offer a regressed Eriksson for 5 yrs and expect a return....so you better hope he starts showing something, and then you still won't move him at aTDL deal......too much term It was foolish to sign him in the first place, but if we can get a first or early second...and get rid of the contract...hey I am all for it! Schenn is only around for a year, so I am not bothered one way or another.....move him for a late round pick if you want....... But maybe we get more for Eriksson, but again, we need to move him sooner that later...he was free anyways! I believe it is well known Eriksson usually has a bad year after joining a new team and i believe he will have a bounce back year. When the Sedins retire it would not hurt to have a veteran or two on the team, yes his contract is not friendly in his later years but he is still only 31 and still has some good years left in him. It doesn't hurt to have a guy in the lineup that has the ability to score 30 goals. Even when Eriksson is 35 with 1 year left on his contract he is worth more than what we got for Burrows, i don't think Burrows was worth that much more just because he was on an expiring contract but hard to argue values right. I think it's too early to judge the Eriksson contract, if he has another bad year i'm all game for trying to move him but at the moment i am not convinced. Tanev for a 1st round pick + is desirable for sure unfortunately Benning has said he is not looking to do that. http://www.tsn.ca/canucks-plan-to-keep-miller-tanev-and-edler-1.762165 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeydownUnder Posted May 27, 2017 Share Posted May 27, 2017 17 hours ago, canuckmen84 said: I believe it is well known Eriksson usually has a bad year after joining a new team and i believe he will have a bounce back year. When the Sedins retire it would not hurt to have a veteran or two on the team, yes his contract is not friendly in his later years but he is still only 31 and still has some good years left in him. It doesn't hurt to have a guy in the lineup that has the ability to score 30 goals. Even when Eriksson is 35 with 1 year left on his contract he is worth more than what we got for Burrows, i don't think Burrows was worth that much more just because he was on an expiring contract but hard to argue values right. I think it's too early to judge the Eriksson contract, if he has another bad year i'm all game for trying to move him but at the moment i am not convinced. Tanev for a 1st round pick + is desirable for sure unfortunately Benning has said he is not looking to do that. 17 hours ago, canuckmen84 said: I believe in him as well but as is his contract is a negative. The most value you can get from an older player is in the last year or two of their contract. If Eriksson can put up Vrbata numbers then he will be worth something at that point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBatch Posted May 27, 2017 Share Posted May 27, 2017 On 2017-5-25 at 1:11 AM, Seannnp said: I like the trade but would rather Keep Eriksson for one more year instead of picking up Schenn. I think Tanev would best be used in a trade with Dallas for their 3rd overall. Edler should also be used in a package to secure a mid first. He is a very serviceable top 3-4 d on a decent contract. Canucks should be aiming for at least 3 first round picks. 3rd Heiskanen 5th Glass/Middelestadt/Villardi Mid first - Vesalainen (favourite pick outside the top 5) Trade Sutter next year. Pray we get a top two pick next year. Dahlin and Svechnikov are unreal. Sorry kind of jumped the gun here but very excited about the Canucks future. IF everything works out, in 3 years we could have Dahlin Horvat Boeser Vesalainen Glass Goldobin Granlund Gaudette Virtanen Juolevi Dahlin Heiskanen Stecher Demko Add Hughes to that list and we will be pushing the Oilers in our division for the next ten years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBatch Posted May 27, 2017 Share Posted May 27, 2017 18 hours ago, canuckmen84 said: I believe it is well known Eriksson usually has a bad year after joining a new team and i believe he will have a bounce back year. When the Sedins retire it would not hurt to have a veteran or two on the team, yes his contract is not friendly in his later years but he is still only 31 and still has some good years left in him. It doesn't hurt to have a guy in the lineup that has the ability to score 30 goals. Even when Eriksson is 35 with 1 year left on his contract he is worth more than what we got for Burrows, i don't think Burrows was worth that much more just because he was on an expiring contract but hard to argue values right. I think it's too early to judge the Eriksson contract, if he has another bad year i'm all game for trying to move him but at the moment i am not convinced. Tanev for a 1st round pick + is desirable for sure unfortunately Benning has said he is not looking to do that. http://www.tsn.ca/canucks-plan-to-keep-miller-tanev-and-edler-1.762165 Personally I wonder if Benning is more interested at loading up for the two or even three drafts following this one. All have generational talent (Svechnikov/Dahlen 2018, Jack Hughes 2019, Lafreniere 2020) that could become replacements for the Sedins if we are lucky enough to get them, and by then the lottery hopefully will be dialed back a little too. The orignal purpose of the selection order has been bastardized, it's supposed to be that bad teams get the best chances to turn things around, COL and Vancouver got boned and eventually enough GMs and owners will start calling foul and the rules will be revised. Personally I think they should only include the two worst teams in each division in the lottery. Those eight teams should have the same sliding scale odds on the top two picks, those that are out pick according to their overall standings. This would help with tanking, even a wild card could still win first, and the worst that could happen is sliding two spots instead of three. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckmen84 Posted May 27, 2017 Share Posted May 27, 2017 6 hours ago, HockeydownUnder said: 6 hours ago, HockeydownUnder said: 17 hours ago, canuckmen84 said: I believe in him as well but as is his contract is a negative. The most value you can get from an older player is in the last year or two of their contract. If Eriksson can put up Vrbata numbers then he will be worth something at that point I would love to know when or where i posted this?? You can go through my activity on my profile....i have never even mentioned Vrbata in any post! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckmen84 Posted May 27, 2017 Share Posted May 27, 2017 4 hours ago, IBatch said: Personally I wonder if Benning is more interested at loading up for the two or even three drafts following this one. All have generational talent (Svechnikov/Dahlen 2018, Jack Hughes 2019, Lafreniere 2020) that could become replacements for the Sedins if we are lucky enough to get them, and by then the lottery hopefully will be dialed back a little too. The orignal purpose of the selection order has been bastardized, it's supposed to be that bad teams get the best chances to turn things around, COL and Vancouver got boned and eventually enough GMs and owners will start calling foul and the rules will be revised. Personally I think they should only include the two worst teams in each division in the lottery. Those eight teams should have the same sliding scale odds on the top two picks, those that are out pick according to their overall standings. This would help with tanking, even a wild card could still win first, and the worst that could happen is sliding two spots instead of three. I Agree, hopefully they make the odds more favorable for the losing teams because right now the odds are not fair. It should be an interesting few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.