Generational.EP40 Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 (edited) 1.) Tanev+3rd to Tampa for Callahan+Foote > Bolts will be moving into a cap crunch after this season. Lots of extensions that will kick into effect and many others to sign. They’re projected to lose Stralman to free agency, their top RHD and after that right side depth thins out. Tanev replaces Stralman allowing them to remain competitive, we take on a cap dump in Callahan who has 1 year remaining and in return get a promising prospect in Cal Foote. We then retain & flip Callahan to any contending team for whatever assets possible. 2.) Seabrook+Jokiharju for 4th > Seabrook’s full NMC, likely the only place he’d waive to leave Chicago would be for his hometown. Hawks get rid of arguably the worst/biggest anchor contract in hockey allowing them to extend key players going forward. Otherwise will remain in the vicious cycle of trading away upcoming players for lesser ones as they have for the past number of years. Blueprint of this deal is from when they traded away Teravainen+Bickell to get cap relief and Bickell’s contract is nothing compared to Seabrook. Canucks get a NHL ready prospect likewise who can bolster the top4 in the future. 3.) Sign Karlsson to $11.5m x 7yrs > Swedish history in Vancouver, track record speaks for itself...Karlsson made the Canucks the only Canadian exception on his NTC list before the Sens dealt him so he’d be open to coming here. This would make EK the highest paid defenceman in the league next to Doughty’s $11m & it’s enticing enough to work especially now having EP who’s the next Swedish superstar. As well as fellow countryman Edler to gel with. Immediate blueline Edler - Karlsson Hughes - Seabrook Jokiharju - Stecher (Hutton, Biega, Sautner) Future blueline Hughes - Karlsson Juolevi - Woo Jokiharju - Foote (Tryamkin, Hutton, Sautner, Brisebois, Chatfield, Seabrook [LTIR?]) ...what I like about this is the future blueline gives us an excess pieces to able to use as ammunition in deals to address other areas of need. There’s more than the 6 dmen spots so there would be a lot of options and competition. Seabrook in the now would give us a great veteran presence and he’s still got some juice left in the tank. With the Canucks soon to climb out of the league standings gutter and into playoff contenders, Seabrook would act as a rock on the back end as someone who’s been there, done that. Karlsson is rather self explanatory. It’s very fortunate that the 7 year term would only take him to age 36 (he turns 29 this year) considering a lot of these long term deals for prime aged players usually takes them closer to age 40 than anything (look at Burns). I really do think something along these lines would finally help round off the blueline which is clearly the organizations weakest point. Edited March 21, 2019 by Generational.EP40 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 Why would Callahan agree to come here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zigmund.Palffy Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 (edited) eww callahan... Edited March 21, 2019 by WalkWithElias40 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Blight Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 We currently have $28M in cap space for next season but that is with only 18 players signed. We still need to sign Edler, Boeser, Hutton, Leivo and Demko and I am guessing it will take somewhere between $15M - $18M to get them all signed. That leaves us with $10M - $13M available for next season. How are we going to fit the additional $24M you are proposing into our cap space? How are we going to be able to pay EP40 and Hughes in two more years even with Callahan's salary coming off the books after next season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 Chicago doesn't need to dump Seabrook at the cost of Jokiharu, they'll have over 20 mil in cap space next year. In order to afford Callahan, Seabrook and EK who do we not pay here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generational.EP40 Posted March 21, 2019 Author Share Posted March 21, 2019 28 minutes ago, King Heffy said: Why would Callahan agree to come here? With an agreement we soon after, shortly flip him to a team of his choosing. He has a modified NTC. Canucks would act as the side able to retain in order to move him. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tre Mac Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 Caphits? Is this not $20mil+ coming in? I am dead against signing EK long term. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post canuckistani Posted March 21, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted March 21, 2019 No to Seabrook. I get what you are saying, but we absolutely cannot afford to have a NMC in our roster who isn't elite, due to the whole looming Seattle draft. As it is, we get only 3 defenceman protection spots. Two of them likely will be Juolevi and Stecher. Can't have Brent eat up the other spot for free. 1 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngguns19 Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 1 hour ago, Generational.EP40 said: 1.) Tanev+3rd to Tampa for Callahan+Foote > Bolts will be moving into a cap crunch after this season. Lots of extensions that will kick into effect and many others to sign. They’re projected to lose Stralman to free agency, their top RHD and after that right side depth thins out. Tanev replaces Stralman allowing them to remain competitive, we take on a cap dump in Callahan who has 1 year remaining and in return get a promising prospect in Cal Foote. We then retain & flip Callahan to any contending team for whatever assets possible. 2.) Seabrook+Jokiharju for 4th > Seabrook’s full NMC, likely the only place he’d waive to leave Chicago would be for his hometown. Hawks get rid of arguably the worst/biggest anchor contract in hockey allowing them to extend key players going forward. Otherwise will remain in the vicious cycle of trading away upcoming players for lesser ones as they have for the past number of years. Blueprint of this deal is from when they traded away Teravainen+Bickell to get cap relief and Bickell’s contract is nothing compared to Seabrook. Canucks get a NHL ready prospect likewise who can bolster the top4 in the future. 3.) Sign Karlsson to $11.5m x 7yrs > Swedish history in Vancouver, track record speaks for itself...Karlsson made the Canucks the only Canadian exception on his NTC list before the Sens dealt him so he’d be open to coming here. This would make EK the highest paid defenceman in the league next to Doughty’s $11m & it’s enticing enough to work especially now having EP who’s the next Swedish superstar. As well as fellow countryman Edler to gel with. Immediate blueline Edler - Karlsson Hughes - Seabrook Jokiharju - Stecher (Hutton, Biega, Sautner) Future blueline Hughes - Karlsson Juolevi - Woo Jokiharju - Foote (Tryamkin, Hutton, Sautner, Brisebois, Chatfield, Seabrook [LTIR?]) ...what I like about this is the future blueline gives us an excess pieces to able to use as ammunition in deals to address other areas of need. There’s more than the 6 dmen spots so there would be a lot of options and competition. Seabrook in the now would give us a great veteran presence and he’s still got some juice left in the tank. With the Canucks soon to climb out of the league standings gutter and into playoff contenders, Seabrook would act as a rock on the back end as someone who’s been there, done that. Karlsson is rather self explanatory. It’s very fortunate that the 7 year term would only take him to age 36 (he turns 29 this year) considering a lot of these long term deals for prime aged players usually takes them closer to age 40 than anything (look at Burns). I really do think something along these lines would finally help round off the blueline which is clearly the organizations weakest point. I think EK is a possibility. People keep bringing up the cap. By the time we need to resign most of our young core to big contracts. Several high contracts will be off the books. In fact, I will go out on a limb and say, Sutter, Loui, and possibly Tanev will be gone before the summer is over. Tanev maybe not till the deadline, Unless we sign EK and woo makes the team. That is 15 million of the books right there. Brock and Edler will eat up about12 mill of our 24 million cap space. So even without those players leaving we can still sign EK. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-DLC- Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 48 minutes ago, canuckistani said: No to Seabrook. I get what you are saying, but we absolutely cannot afford to have a NMC in our roster who isn't elite, due to the whole looming Seattle draft. As it is, we get only 3 defenceman protection spots. Two of them likely will be Juolevi and Stecher. Can't have Brent eat up the other spot for free. I agree, 100%. A 34 year old on the decline...no thanks. Does not work for me at all. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackofwind Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 No to Seabrook - too old for a long contract, not good enough to bring in as a real ringer. No to EK long-term. Him being Swedish isn't enough to counteract his injury trouble, and we absolutely need to acquire durable D who won't be injured for 20+ games during the season. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shirotashi Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 Id take a chance on Karlsson even with the injury troubles he is legit that good. Listen for him to even be in a serious conversation for a trade is crazy talk. Ottawa would never have let that guy go if it wasnt for the stuff with his and another players wife that went down. He now could be available and teams will be absolutely clamoring to get him. We need to be one of those teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 So you would rather take on guys like Seabrook who we’d have to protect in the expansion draft and risk losing one of our young assets? Hard pass. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curmudgeon Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 1 hour ago, canuckistani said: No to Seabrook. I get what you are saying, but we absolutely cannot afford to have a NMC in our roster who isn't elite, due to the whole looming Seattle draft. As it is, we get only 3 defenceman protection spots. Two of them likely will be Juolevi and Stecher. Can't have Brent eat up the other spot for free. I could be wrong about this, but I thought that when a player with a NMC agrees to a move, the receiving club is NOT subject to a no-move clause. Meaning the new club could trade the guy any time and to any place they want. Found this convo on Reddit: (bolding is mine) The clause can travel with the player even if he consents to being traded or is claimed on waivers This requires that the acquiring team sign an addendum to the contract ensuring that the clause does in fact travel with the player (written by the player's agent) If the acquiring team refuses to sign the addendum, and the player waives his clause anyway, at that point the clause may be nullified If the player is traded before the clause takes effect, the acquiring team can opt to void the clause New person: If I recall correctly, that was the case with Subban/Weber deal. One of them (feel free to chime in to add to this) has a NMC kicking in that summer and once he was traded, it nullified the NMC for the remainder of the deal. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generational.EP40 Posted March 21, 2019 Author Share Posted March 21, 2019 3 minutes ago, Curmudgeon said: I could be wrong about this, but I thought that when a player with a NMC agrees to a move, the receiving club is NOT subject to a no-move clause. Meaning the new club could trade the guy any time and to any place they want. Found this convo on Reddit: (bolding is mine) The clause can travel with the player even if he consents to being traded or is claimed on waivers This requires that the acquiring team sign an addendum to the contract ensuring that the clause does in fact travel with the player (written by the player's agent) If the acquiring team refuses to sign the addendum, and the player waives his clause anyway, at that point the clause may be nullified If the player is traded before the clause takes effect, the acquiring team can opt to void the clause New person: If I recall correctly, that was the case with Subban/Weber deal. One of them (feel free to chime in to add to this) has a NMC kicking in that summer and once he was traded, it nullified the NMC for the remainder of the deal. Correct - excellent find. Which means Seabrook would NOT have to be protected in the case of Seattle expansion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generational.EP40 Posted March 21, 2019 Author Share Posted March 21, 2019 (edited) 50 minutes ago, Pears said: So you would rather take on guys like Seabrook who we’d have to protect in the expansion draft and risk losing one of our young assets? Hard pass. That wouldn’t be the case as per @Curmudgeon‘s post as well for @canuckistani’s post regarding protection Edited March 21, 2019 by Generational.EP40 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DADDYROCK Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 No to Seabrook and a big hell no to Karlsson ,we can wait until after the Seattle expansion, and it looks like some of our young kids can step up(Sautner & Brisebois) and we haven't even seen the skills of Olli O. & Quinn H. yet We might even get GROOT ( Tryamkin ) back,then we can get this team a rollin'. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckistani Posted March 21, 2019 Share Posted March 21, 2019 18 minutes ago, Curmudgeon said: I could be wrong about this, but I thought that when a player with a NMC agrees to a move, the receiving club is NOT subject to a no-move clause. Meaning the new club could trade the guy any time and to any place they want. Found this convo on Reddit: (bolding is mine) The clause can travel with the player even if he consents to being traded or is claimed on waivers This requires that the acquiring team sign an addendum to the contract ensuring that the clause does in fact travel with the player (written by the player's agent) If the acquiring team refuses to sign the addendum, and the player waives his clause anyway, at that point the clause may be nullified If the player is traded before the clause takes effect, the acquiring team can opt to void the clause New person: If I recall correctly, that was the case with Subban/Weber deal. One of them (feel free to chime in to add to this) has a NMC kicking in that summer and once he was traded, it nullified the NMC for the remainder of the deal. Yes, its possible. But if you check cap-geek, most NMCs after trade ends up being modified NTCs with the NMC clause still on their contract. It becomes 'NMC-modified NTC'. And in many cases, it ends up as 'submits list of 10 teams he can be traded to', effectively hamstringing a team. Since capgeek and various other hockey roster sites list it as NMC+modified NTC, i'd rather not take the risk. Maybe the NMC still has effect in draft protection lists, maybe it does not. Either way, his contract is also way too long. I get what you mean about using our cap-space to acquiring dead contracts to teams hard-pressed against the cap or want to save $$. Teams like Detroit, Toronto, Ottawa, etc. have total dead contracts - like McArthur, Horton, Zetterberg etc. who are all never gonna plpay another hockey game again. We are much better off trading for them if draft picks/prospects are thrown in the mix, because those contracts are also much shorter in duration and expire before the expansion draft headache. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Team Bagues Posted March 22, 2019 Share Posted March 22, 2019 Daniel Rahimi and Patrick White for Christian Erhoff and Brad Lukowich.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTramFan Posted March 22, 2019 Share Posted March 22, 2019 No thanks to Karlsson. No thanks to Seabrook. But I would do the first deal with TBL. However I doubt Callahan, nor TBL, would be on board. If they were, Canucks need to replace Tanev with a gap filler for say 2 years to buy some time for prospects to develop/return (e.g. Woo, Juolevi, Foote, Tryamkin). Canucks could sign one of the mid-range pending UFA’s as a gap filler for 2 years – Stralman, McQuaid, Lovejoy. 2019 D corps: Edler Stralman Hutton Stecher Hughes Schenn Sautner Biega 2020 D corps: Edler Stralman Hughes Tryamkin Hutton Stecher Juolevi Woo Sautner Foote 2021 D corps: Hughes Tryamkin Juolevi Woo Hutton Foote Sautner Stecher Rathbone Brassard Brisebois Teves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now