The Case for UFA’s

[Dixon Ward]

6 hours ago, 10pavelbure96 said:

Good idea except the draft is before July 1st free agency. Unless you mean next years draft

I just meant in general we could stop focusing on seeking defenseman prospects for a while and look for high end offensive skills

[OneSeventeen]

7 hours ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Is anyone actually surprised that JB’s age-gap Plan replace-athon reduces down to this? 

 

The excusers will spin this, but I think it’s pretty obvious by now that the pool suffered from the lack of draft picks and even the loss of McCann. Others can rewrite the summary in this saga, but I can’t be bothered.

 

We can also move the elastic blame to Aquaman for refusing to tap out in 2013. 

 

There is no skill in the pool and not much coming up to supplement the core, even after all this time in the basement. Had EP not been a superstar out of the gate, I don’t think there’d be much for JB to stand on today. 

I completely agree with this. I think the age-gap replacement plan caused more steps to be taken backwards rather than forwards. The loss of picks in the Sutter and Gudbranson trades are especially glaring. 

 

Management must essentially draft extremely well to maintain decent prospect depth. 

[kloubek]

1 hour ago, shazzam said:

No, the team was supposed to rebuild but instead goes out to get a winger for 2 players at the tail end of their careers. It was just desperate and dumb

Firstly, we were not in full rebuild yet.  At that point 3 years ago, ownership wanted us to work with a team in the Sedin era. Benning was expected to ice a cup winning team without a cup winning team. He did what he felt would help the team compete.

 

Eriksson (as mentioned) had previous chemistry with the Sedins and was coming off his best season in years.

 

It wasn't supposed to be the tail end of his career.  He was showing no signs of regressing and was 30 which should be his prime.  Yes, the contract was longer than many fans wanted and he was expected to regress near the end but as far as I know that was what was required to get him to sign.

 

It is easy to say now that we have seen 3 substandard seasons from him that it was a bad choice but many of us supported it at the time, given what ownership wanted out of this team.

[Honky Cat]

4 hours ago, Provost said:

Neither Woo, nor Juolevi really project there... we might get lucky and they develop to that point several years down the road, but they are far off.  Go check out recent rankings of prospects not in the NHL.  Neither of them are there.  TSN had Hughes, Gaudette, and Demko from us in the top 50.  All three of the guys on the list are now already in our lineup.

It is math.  You can't build exclusively through the draft.  If you get really, really lucky, and are drafting in the top 10 every single year (= missing the playoffs every single year), you get one player per year who plays in the top half of your roster.  Each year the guys you already have get a year older and closer to getting paid as their ELCs expire and eventually roll off to unrestricted free agency.  You can never get ahead unless you draft a true superstar who is better than the guy who is getting older.

We drafted that superstar in Petterson, or as close as we are likely to get.  We have a few more good pieces in Boeser, Horvat, and Hughes.

Keeping this year's 1st round pick, that player is probably in our lineup in 2-3 years and the moment we draft him will immediately be one of our closest and best prospects.  

We start negotiating Petterson's and Hughes' new contracts in a year.  Horvat's in three years.  The price tags on those are higher, the worse our team is.

Trading doesn't often end up adding top end players without subtracting top end players.  I would say of any picks, this year's first should not be on the table.  They are going to be ready in the window we need them.  Next year and beyond, trade every first round pick if you want, as long as you are getting a young club controlled guy who fits in the top half of your roster.  That is the only way you get a critical mass hit at the same time for a window to contend.

Getting UFAs doesn't mean you stop drafting.  We still draft plenty of guys and some of them will end up in our lineup, though unlikely at the top. 

 

Saying that Juolevi and Woo are projected to be in the main squad in the next year or two is a total Hail Mary..In most projected lineups, they're not really included anymore...Unrealistic at this point.

[appleboy]

5 hours ago, Maniwaki Canuck said:

Absolutely agree with trying to move some of our forward depth before the draft for picks.  Ericksson, Sutter, Spooner, Schaller, Granlund, and Goldovin  at a minimum should all be in play.  We aren't likely to succeed in most cases or get much value back, even for Sutter, but it's about making roster space. 

If we can get one of the worthwhile younger ufa forwards like Duchene, Hayes, Eberle, Nelson, Lee, Donskoi, Karlsson, Ferland, Connolly, or Dzingle, that would be huge.  Another legit top-6 forward to play with Bo has to be a priority.  Two would be even better!  Move some top-6 in, some 'tweeners down, and some bottom-6 out..

On D, I'm coming around to the Karlsson or bust position.  Go big or go home.  Assuming we re-sign Edler, we don't need any help on the left side, and overpaying on Myers looks like a bad bet.  Would move Hutton for any reasonable return also. 

Capfriendly estimates we have $27,135,835 in free cap space for next year and $47,866,668 for 2020-1.  That's a lot, even figuring in new contracts for Brock and Edler.  We can definitely afford to take a swing at some higher end FAs.  Petey and Hughes are on entry-level deals for another 2 years.  We have the chance to improve our lineup and become a playoff team again while our young guys are still growing.  Now is the time!

Go to capfriendly and build a team for next year. It is quit interesting to try. I put one there for **its and giggles.   

[appleboy]

2 hours ago, Alflives said:

I don’t worry about EK.  He’s a super smart and competitive guy.  He will lead.  Gardiner, however, has a bad back.  That is worrisome.  

If I was to sign Karlsson I would offer a ton for two years only. 12 mil for two.

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, appleboy said:

If I was to sign Karlsson I would offer a ton for two years only. 12 mil for two.

Or max salary for five? 

[appleboy]

5 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Or max salary for five? 

Five gets you into Petey's contract time and Hughes.  That would mean that there was not much money to add up front.  I put a team on capfriendly.  Go try to build one and play with salaries. It is an eye opener.  I couldn't find a way to leave money to cover for Luongo potential recapture and add enough to make it worth  while. 

Edited April 14, 2019 by appleboy

[shazzam]

40 minutes ago, kloubek said:

Firstly, we were not in full rebuild yet.  At that point 3 years ago, ownership wanted us to work with a team in the Sedin era. Benning was expected to ice a cup winning team without a cup winning team. He did what he felt would help the team compete.

 

Eriksson (as mentioned) had previous chemistry with the Sedins and was coming off his best season in years.

 

It wasn't supposed to be the tail end of his career.  He was showing no signs of regressing and was 30 which should be his prime.  Yes, the contract was longer than many fans wanted and he was expected to regress near the end but as far as I know that was what was required to get him to sign.

 

It is easy to say now that we have seen 3 substandard seasons from him that it was a bad choice but many of us supported it at the time, given what ownership wanted out of this team.

That's what I said. The team should have went into rebuild mode but didn't. Instead commited to a 6 year contract. That's why the signing was highly criticised 

[theo5789]

7 hours ago, Canuck Surfer said:

No its not.

 

Take at Lucic on a line with McDavid. He cant get to the blue line in time to collect a rebound on one of McDavids shots. I personally believe Looch can still play on the right team. Columbus? Simmonds could no longer keep up with Giroux, Konecny. He's not doing great with Nashville's mobile D. Maroons ok. Johansen?

 

But not one built on speed as we are building. I believe we are building anyway...   

Lucic is one of the slowest examples and certainly slower than any other the players mentioned. None of our players play at the speed level of McDavid either.

 

We indeed are trying to build a team with more speed and skill as Benning has been saying when draft time comes, but the players mentioned are far from slugs.

 

Simmonds has for years had been consistently a 50-60 point guy while playing a physical game and just this year has been off for him. I wouldn't write him off just yet because of this because Pearson had looked to have lost his game until he came here and seemingly has found a fit and brought back his game. His down season could be a good reason to either get him on a lower term or cap as teams may have some concern if his game is dipping.

 

As for Maroon, he's probably the slowest of the bunch, but had done alright keeping up with McDavid especially compared to someone like Lucic. But again, he's more of a cheap option that won't affect us long term and will be there to stand up for his teammates.

 

Johannson is an excellent player with just unfortunate injury concerns. He's certainly not slow (probably the quickest of these three mentioned) and again he would be a cheap short term option until hopefully our prospect depth can take over.

 

With all this said, Boeser isn't exactly the quickest player and while Bo and Pearson can skate well, I'm not concerned with the mentioned players being able to keep up with them. Speed would be a welcome addition, but not the be all end all when deciding if a UFA is worth bringing in.

[Hairy Kneel]

11 hours ago, Provost said:

I probably add another tier of guys in there as well in my opinion.  As long as they are legitimate top 6 forwards or top 4 D.  Lee, Duchene, Skinner, Myers, Nyquist, Dzingel, Stralman.  The odds of getting a top guy are low, and any of the above guys help us be better going forward and more attractive to UFAs the next offseason.  The narrative around our team changes pretty dramatically if we have a surprising season next year, maybe win a playoff round, and have another Calder candidate in Hughes.  Suddenly we look like a team you can win going forward with as a UFA.

I actually think there is a decent chance Eriksson isn't on our roster next season.

I think a player coach position for Eriksson could be our best solution, that is because I don't think it's possible to trade him. Not really anyway. I think Cull could use a seasoned vet. Might as well make use of him. 

[Miss Korea Bob.Loblaw]

I don't think I want to see Benning do any more free agent signings.  He is very weak in this regard.

[oldnews]

On 4/14/2019 at 8:26 AM, 189lb enforcers? said:

Totally agree(d).

 

Which do you agree with?

You agree with the OP and think the team has spent enough time at the bottom - and believe that the team should try to sign UFA big fish?

Or you agree with Alf and don't want a premature/'unnatural' bump in the standings leading out of lottery contention.

You can't have it both ways - (that is, unless it's merely political, in which case riding contradictions is the 'art' of the business).

[oldnews]

On 4/14/2019 at 8:20 AM, Alflives said:

Those middling UFAs will ruin our coming draft spot.  Our kids should be the ones leading us to where we finish.  I don’t want us to get an unnatural bump up in the standings because of middling UFA signings.  

If the 'upcoming' draft spot is 'ruined' why would it be due to 'middling UFAs' as opposed to EP, Horvat, Hughes, Boeser, Markstrom (existing, growing talent)......Edler, Tanev, Sutter, Beagle, Pearson (existing 'middling' foundational support).....Stecher, Demko, Gaudette, Virtanen, Motte (existing, emerging youth).....etc, etc.

 

Would a 'middling' UFA or two make this team "too competitive" all of a sudden?   What does chasing bigger fish do?  Put them 'over the top'.  It's ironic for me to see proposals that weed out all the alleged "debris" - leaving a half-empty top 6F and top 4D - and yet simultaneously propose to chase the biggest of fish. 

 

I don't agree with either 'side' here - I think both are oversimplified - and I'm no fan of blowing the team's cap flexibility on the biggest fish they can catch with the biggest lures in the UFA market - that's a likely a 'premature' move as any - and it's not only highly risky, but if anything is going to hamstring your rething, it's blowing your load prematurely attempting to 'speed up' the rething before players like EP, Hughes, etc are truly ready for long playoff runs.  

 

If this team is going to contend - imo it will be on the backs of EP, Hughes, Horvat, Boeser, and a few other emerging core players not necessarily yet determined.

Imo that group isn't necessarily ready to contend - so count me out of the speed up the rething, massive UFA expenditures. 

Keep the flexibility, stay the course - look to add good value UFA, most likely in the 'middling' to low range - keep the 10th overall pick -absolutely do not spend that for 'now assets' unless you're prying the most unlikely of young players from other team's rosters.... And don't play for lottery picks either.  Stay the course.

 

 

 

 

[Alflives]

7 minutes ago, oldnews said:

If the 'upcoming' draft spot is 'ruined' why would it be due to 'middling UFAs' as opposed to EP, Horvat, Hughes, Boeser, Markstrom (existing, growing talent)......Edler, Tanev, Sutter, Beagle, Pearson (existing 'middling' foundational support).....Stecher, Demko, Gaudette, Virtanen, Motte (existing, emerging youth).....etc, etc.

 

Would a 'middling' UFA or two make this team "too competitive" all of a sudden?   What does chasing bigger fish do?  Put them 'over the top'.  It's ironic for me to see proposals that weed out all the alleged "debris" - leaving a half-empty top 6F and top 4D - and yet simultaneously propose to chase the biggest of fish. 

 

I don't agree with either 'side' here - I think both are oversimplified - and I'm no fan of blowing the team's cap flexibility on the biggest fish they can catch with the biggest lures in the UFA market - that's a likely a 'premature' move as any - and it's not only highly risky, but if anything is going to hamstring your rething, it's blowing your load prematurely attempting to 'speed up' the rething before players like EP, Hughes, etc are truly ready for long playoff runs.  

 

If this team is going to contend - imo it will be on the backs of EP, Hughes, Horvat, Boeser, and a few other emerging core players not necessarily yet determined.

Imo that group isn't necessarily ready to contend - so count me out of the speed up the rething, massive UFA expenditures. 

Keep the flexibility, stay the course - look to add good value UFA, most likely in the 'middling' to low range - keep the 10th overall pick -absolutely do not spend that for 'now assets' unless you're prying the most unlikely of young players from other team's rosters.... And don't play for lottery picks either.  Stay the course.

 

 

 

 

We agree.  I don't want any more middling UFA's.  I think we already (as you pointed out) have enough middling players, with experience to insulate our top young guys. Jake Gardiner is not what we need.  

[oldnews]

8 minutes ago, Alflives said:

We agree.  I don't want any more middling UFA's.  I think we already (as you pointed out) have enough middling players, with experience to insulate our top young guys. Jake Gardiner is not what we need.  

We agree on Gardiner - I'm not really interested and don't see him as a good fit - and doubt he's going to be good UFA value.

But I want 'middling' signings.  I'd prefer a Stralman - 'middling' cap over short to mid term (2-3ish years) - and up front - a relatively young prime forward like Nelson would make me very happy.  Stralman doesn't get in they way longer term of guys like Woo, and whomever (might draft a D prospedt at 10 and need a few years) - Stralman could enable them to move a guy like Tanev for a younger RHD (I propose to Tampa. after they lose to the CBJ haha, lose a number of UFA D, and perhaps look to upgrade for their now window = Tanev in a deal for a Cernak or Foote type  move).  Stralman doesn't get in the way of a Hughes - as a Karlson would - and he doesn't hamstring the team long term with a premature albatross.   Nelson is a potential 'foundational' forward that can play up and down the lineup - 3rd to 1st line - good fit imo - and 'middling' range relative to the big fish.  If this team drafts a high-end forward, Nelson doesn't get in their way - he's very versatile and could fit in a number of scenarios moving forward.

Edited April 15, 2019 by oldnews

[Salming]

On 4/14/2019 at 10:46 AM, Canuck Surfer said:

Not for me thanks.

 

Want only guys with speed.  

Marcus Johansson got speed buddy.

[Canuck Surfer]

19 minutes ago, Salming said:

Marcus Johansson got speed buddy.

I'm not your buddy.

 

And yeah, sorta. He's faster than Vanek, sure? A top end 3rd line guy, who still dabbles in 2knd line minutes who we signed two years ago. In the scale of Baertschi quick. But I would rather just bring back Baer. Give playing time to Gaudette. Johansson was expendable, not preferred by his coach to play on top lines elsewhere. Don't see how we project him elevating Brock & Petey's game. We don't have the same need for high end 3rd line guys anymore. Save salary for a difference maker.

 

So if we were to sign a forward, they would need to have either size (Anders Lee), or electric speed (Panarin). Be a match up problem that free's up Petey & Brock, can capitalize on their play. 

 

 

[Hindustan Smyl]

For this off season, I think the Canucks should focus on two things as far as UFA’s go:

 

1) A long term “core” piece number one left winger.

 

2) A short term RHD (Stralman would be my target).

 

As far as the 2nd line RW position goes, I was originally thinking someone like Connolly or Dzingel, but I’m now strongly contemplating the idea of promoting Gaudette or Eriksson to that line......or even Virtanen if he takes a leap.

In the case of Gaudette, perhaps he’d be better served playing on the wing where he’d be less burdened with responsibilities.  

 

[Duchene/Skinner/Panarin]-Pettersson-Boeser

Pearson-Horvat-Gaudette

Leivo-Sutter-Virtanen

Roussel-Beagle-MacEwan

 

Motte

 

Edler-Stecher

Hughes-Tanev

Hutton-[Stralman]

 

Eriksson

 

Markstrom

Demko

[theo5789]

15 hours ago, Canuck Surfer said:

I'm not your buddy.

 

And yeah, sorta. He's faster than Vanek, sure? A top end 3rd line guy, who still dabbles in 2knd line minutes who we signed two years ago. In the scale of Baertschi quick. But I would rather just bring back Baer. Give playing time to Gaudette. Johansson was expendable, not preferred by his coach to play on top lines elsewhere. Don't see how we project him elevating Brock & Petey's game. We don't have the same need for high end 3rd line guys anymore. Save salary for a difference maker.

 

So if we were to sign a forward, they would need to have either size (Anders Lee), or electric speed (Panarin). Be a match up problem that free's up Petey & Brock, can capitalize on their play. 

 

 

You're underrating his speed. He's not going to be playing with McDavid, none of our forwards are that quick and Johannson can easily keep up with our group. If speed is the only concern here, well IMO it shouldn't be.

 

With that said, when I brought his name, it was in response to a potential RW for Bo and Pearson and not a guy for the EP-BB line, although I'm sure it may be tried at some point when the lineup blender happens. The other reason why I brought him up is because he would be a cheap option (cap and term) that won't affect us long term if he doesn't pan out.

 

Of course I would take Panarin over Johannson if he was interested in coming here, but he's going to be expensive (should be well worth it though). Lee is more of a question mark where he will likely get paid well and get decent term, but who knows how he fares in a different environment. He has more "Loui Eriksson" potential IMO.