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

[Proposal] 3 Cap Dumps


Recommended Posts

 

Trade #1

 

Tampa trades

2019 1st (27 OA) + Ryan Callahan (1 year @$5,800,000)

 

for

 

Vancouver

2019 2nd (40th OA)

 

Trade #2

 

Carolina trades

Buffalo's 2019 2nd (36th OA) + Carolina's 2019 2nd (52nd OA) + Scott Darling (2 years @ $3,125,000 per)

 

for 

 

Vancouver's

2019 3rd (71st) + 2021 3rd

 

Trade #3

 

Detroit trades

2019 2nd (35 OA) + Johan Ericsson ( 1 year @ $4,250,000)

 

for

 

Ben Hutton + Brendan Gaunce

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Trade #1

Tampa does this to shed cap, without hurting the teams core. Tampa drops only 13 spots to achieve this.

Vancouver does this, as Callahan still can play, just not on a elite team, with the contract only being one year, Vancouver can handle the extra cap

Vancouver moves up for a faller.

 

Trade #2

Carolina rids cap, does this so that they can go after big fish (UFA's). Despite what fans think, owners do not like spending money for nothing.

Vancouver does this to gain the asset. 

(Darling's Buy Out is #1,500,000 X4 this year= 6M)

 

Trade #3

Detroit does this for several reason, cap reduction, and gaining 2 young assets.

Vancouver does this to gain asset, and to allow Gaunce the chance of an NHL career....teams do that you know!

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

IN: Ryan Callahan, Johan Ericsson, Scott Darling, = $13,175,000*, + 2019 27th OA, 2019 35th OA, 2019 36th OA, 2019 52nd OA

 

OUT: Ben Hutton, and Brendan Gaunce = $2,800,000 + 2019 40th OA + 2019 3rd + 2021 3rd

 

* Keep in mind, $10,050,000 is gone after 1 year

** Still plenty of cap to Resign Brock Boeser ($6.500.000?)

***5 picks in the top 52 in the 2019 entry draft.

 

2019 10th

2019 27th

2019 35th

2019 36th

2019 52nd

 

(Before 2019-2020)  And still enough cap after clearing unwanted assets to buy a UFA not named Panarin or Karlsson

(Before 2020-2021)  1 year later $10M back from RC + JE + $4M= 14M Cap increase, in time to re-sign EP + QH

(Before 2021-2022)  Another year after that SD off books $3 M + LE $6M + $4 M cap increase clear

Plus there should be a buy out, in there somewhere?????

 

OK......Coastal.....Flame away!

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trade 1 only way Callahan waives no trade to come to Van is if management tells him that they r acquiring him to shop him and retain salary on him which Tampa can’t do. 

 

Trade 2 eliminate Carolina 2nd at 52nd overall and you got a trade that might work. Cause the way you got it the league would 100% block it because it is strictly a cap dump move (cause they can do that u know). Plus if Vancouver does that instead of buying him out he’d probably be the back up to Marky or go 50-50 or 40-60 with demko with the other being traded or demko back in the ahl. 

 

Trade 3 pretty good but yzermans history as a gm seems to only make trades lopsided in his favour never for the betterment of the players or both teams

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trade #1 I think we would make assuming that Vancouver is one of the 16 teams Callahan would accept a trade to.

 

Trade #2 I don't think would interest Carolina. You are assuming Carolina's owner doesn't want to pay a buried salary as much as Vancouver's would? Rationale says that Vancouver does this to gain asset as well but ne mention that Carolina wouldn't do it to avoid losing as asset? CapFriendly disagrees with your buyout option by the way and I think that may be a preferable move IF Carolina needs the cap room.

https://www.capfriendly.com/buyout-calculator/scott-darling/2019-06-15

 

Trade #3 I would do but I doubt Detroit would. Not sure what kind of player Johan Eriicsson is but I think Jonathan Ericsson is still a useful player.:lol: The cap savings are minimal and they are really only acquiring 1 young asset (Hutton). Detroit doesn't really have a cap problem but buying out Ericsson would be a cheaper option than taking on Hutton. Only way it works for Detroit would be if they were high on Hutton......guess that's possible but I doubt it.

https://www.capfriendly.com/buyout-calculator/jonathan-ericsson/2019-06-15

Link to comment
Share on other sites

trade # 1 good for 2 reason we need callahan expensive at bottom 6 grinder and bottom for physical when EP get $&!# on. have RC EP BB

 

trade # 2 don't think carolina would be willing to give so much to get rid of a goalie with only 2 year (3.125M) but would be good idea saying the goalie depth look shady . michael dipietro , jake kielly ,Richard bachman , really no one that would be worth calling up if one of the two end up getting hurt . Good insurance # 3 goaltender.

 

trade # 3 don't think we would make this cuz ottawa would do the deal but maybe for less

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rick Blight said:

Trade #1 I think we would make assuming that Vancouver is one of the 16 teams Callahan would accept a trade to.

 

Trade #2 I don't think would interest Carolina. You are assuming Carolina's owner doesn't want to pay a buried salary as much as Vancouver's would? Rationale says that Vancouver does this to gain asset as well but ne mention that Carolina wouldn't do it to avoid losing as asset? CapFriendly disagrees with your buyout option by the way and I think that may be a preferable move IF Carolina needs the cap room.

https://www.capfriendly.com/buyout-calculator/scott-darling/2019-06-15

 

Trade #3 I would do but I doubt Detroit would. Not sure what kind of player Johan Eriicsson is but I think Jonathan Ericsson is still a useful player.:lol: The cap savings are minimal and they are really only acquiring 1 young asset (Hutton). Detroit doesn't really have a cap problem but buying out Ericsson would be a cheaper option than taking on Hutton. Only way it works for Detroit would be if they were high on Hutton......guess that's possible but I doubt it.

https://www.capfriendly.com/buyout-calculator/jonathan-ericsson/2019-06-15

Thanks for the comments Rick

 

#1

Most hockey players do not hate Vancouver, matter of fact like it, and if the GM comes up and says they have an offer to Vancouver that will help the club, Callahan is a stand up guy and takes it.

 

#2

The pencil was not sharp when I did the math....but it is still 6M, and I think that is enough smoke to get their attention...granted it may take a little more...but the point is the frame work for a trade.....it might take a little work, but I think you could frame it well enough to get it done...….add a futures to, and have Benning whisper we owe ya one.....the point is the frame work... 

 

#3

I don't think Gaunce is any screamer, but he has good underlaying AHL numbers, and I think him and Hutton (who I remind you played great away from Gudbranson) would also get them thinking...….I don't think we are giving away the farm, and we could add, but I am not sure we have to...but we could add a 2020 - 3rd if needed or a 4th this year....but again the frame work is there......

 

But all worthy points to consider...….

 

But the fact is, it really helps us long term, and with minimal pain.

 

Thanks Again for the observations

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I never see management doing these types of deals, your proposals are very realistic and boy would it be nice to have that many picks. Knowing Benning he would cash in on 4/5 players. Producing 2 players a draft that can have NHL careers is great you'll have a good team but getting 4 players look out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there's been some interesting work done on draft pick relative value so it might help to look at that when thinking about trades like this: https://bluebulletreport.com/2017/06/15/expanded-blue-bullet-draft-pick-value-chart/

 

fwiw I don't know how accurate the analysis is but IF its in the ballpark its a bit useful.

 

Basically for trade #1 you're talking about moving up to a player that has nearly 3 times the chance of playing 100 or more NHL games. So you'd expect to have to take on something significant for that bump up. And Callahan might actually work on the top 6, and its only for 1 year. 

 

For trade #2, the pick values are too similar for me to want to take on Darling. Plus we have a goalie log jam then, and who we have now is better than Darling. I suppose we could waive him but for the exchange of pick value it seems to messy. 

 

For trade #3, I can't see Hutty being perceived as having 2nd round pick value. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • -SN- changed the title to [Proposal] 3 Cap Dumps
1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

there's been some interesting work done on draft pick relative value so it might help to look at that when thinking about trades like this: https://bluebulletreport.com/2017/06/15/expanded-blue-bullet-draft-pick-value-chart/

 

Great stat site Jim...….I am a numbers guy so they mean something to me...…….

 

Some things that jump out at me...…..

 

1. That stats used were over a extended period of time, and I have the belief in general, that scouting is getting more precise and with less surprises. This may be the Benning effect, and we just may buck the trend a little, but to me, there seems to be a change.

2. The type of player drafted high is changing, as the game changes, with more emphasis put on agility, speed, and puck moving over size, shot, and aggressiveness.

Again, a general statement.

3. These tables also emphasis the need to collect additional(more) early picks, when rebuilding, as the higher you get the better chance you have, and multiple picks in any round, double or triple your chance of getting that gem in the rough.

4. Remember, these are only averages and not GM specific...…..Meaning, you have good drafters and bad drafters

 

In regards to your comments (that were fair by the way)

 

I consider all 3 trades as cash dumps/cap dumps for their teams, and because of either age or ability, are on their way out. In Callahan's and Ericsson's cases, I believe, that their teams are selling high, as they will not play in the league at all, after their present contracts expire.

 

As per your comments on trade #3 and Hutton...….Hutton played with Gudbranson for over half a season, and Gud was just so bad, so I think Hutton's stats are skewed, and that his play when forced into a 27 minute games, alongside Stecher, with very strong showings, only goes to underline Hutton's ability to rise to the occasion. IMO, Hutton surely showed his ability to be a top 4 Dman...maybe a 4, but still a top 4. 

 

The question is, will Hutton beat the stat for a #35 pick, which is like asking, will Hutton play another 100 NHL games, which I think he easily will. I also think it shows that the year before last, was a sophomore slump, which many have...So, I think that Hutton is close by himself as a one for one trade for the 35th OA, and that again Ericsson is a cash dump.

 

As for Gaunce, I think he has value, as a 4th liner, and I think his underlaying numbers, show that. He is a LWer on a team overloaded with them, but yet he still had time up, I think he is a reliable fringe NHLer....(Take note of his limited play last year) Very respectable.

 

I would remind you, these are frame work deals to get additional high 2nd picks, and are flexible (or at least that is what I had in mind), and as I quoted to another member, we could add to any of these deals, to make them work if need be. 

 

My point in suggesting these trades, was that we have the ability to make these types of trades, and that they are possible without giving away major assets, if you find the right team....

 

In the real world I would not expect all 3 deals to happen in the same year, but I think 2 could...…..But Benning would have to be out in front of them, so the pitchforks did not come out.

 

In saying that, it is all subjective, and I appreciate your points......

 

Cheers! Good Stats!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonathan Ericsson just saying!

 

Thats roughly 15m in actual salary the aqua men shell out. You trade Hutton + Gaunce and two 3rds.

 

In return we receive a late 1st and 2 seconds. I think this is a bad way to do business and you are sending a bad message to your actual team that you are trying to build. 

 

Hutton to me = late 1st 27 oa. If we needed a young top 4 LHD on a decent cap hit at the deadline heading to the postseason I wouldn't be upset if JB spent a late first on a guy like Hutton. So essentially to me this is 15m + Gaunce and 2 thirds for 2 second round pix and some dead wood. That would be a hard sell for me as an owner. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, hammertime said:

Jonathan Ericsson just saying!

 

Thats roughly 15m in actual salary the aqua men shell out. You trade Hutton + Gaunce and two 3rds.

 

In return we receive a late 1st and 2 seconds. I think this is a bad way to do business and you are sending a bad message to your actual team that you are trying to build. 

Hey, I got the J right and I misspelled the rest every time....so does mean I am OK? LOL

 

Yes, I know I did not imply it, but we don't necessarily have to take all 3.....

 

But Hammer, don't you think it also implies something else as well ?. To me it means the team is trying, and that Benning is open to all possibilities.....

 

The way I see it is...…….

 

Callahan is still able to play a 2nd line role on a rebuilding team if not just to get past the year, but I don't think he would do harm

Darling, I see in the Minors....how far down, depends on him

Ericsson can still play 2nd line D, albeit not on a contender.

 

But, the point is that I don't think it sends a bad message, especially if players know it is only temporary, and just because they are signed, doesn't necessarily mean they get those positions, it only means they can. I think in Ericsson's and Callahan's cases, they will be here for such a short time, I think it would be easy for the team to get behind it, especially if Benning does go out and up grade the 1st Line LW spot......

 

There would be lots of work for Benning, but at the end of the day, you are tell EP, QH, BB, and BH that you are working to bring in more high end talent...….I think they understand the process, a lot more then the fans

 

Case in point that in junior, teams will sometimes trade away a veteran star in their last year, if it is time to rebuild...…..in those cases, the GM's come right out and say, this is in the long term interests of the team, I see no difference...…..but that is cool

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

Hey, I got the J right and I misspelled the rest every time....so does mean I am OK? LOL

 

Yes, I know I did not imply it, but we don't necessarily have to take all 3.....

 

But Hammer, don't you think it also implies something else as well ?. To me it means the team is trying, and that Benning is open to all possibilities.....

 

The way I see it is...…….

 

Callahan is still able to play a 2nd line role on a rebuilding team if not just to get past the year, but I don't think he would do harm

Darling, I see in the Minors....how far down, depends on him

Ericsson can still play 2nd line D, albeit not on a contender.

 

But, the point is that I don't think it sends a bad message, especially if players know it is only temporary, and just because they are signed, doesn't necessarily mean they get those positions, it only means they can. I think in Ericsson's and Callahan's cases, they will be here for such a short time, I think it would be easy for the team to get behind it, especially if Benning does go out and up grade the 1st Line LW spot......

 

There would be lots of work for Benning, but at the end of the day, you are tell EP, QH, BB, and BH that you are working to bring in more high end talent...….I think they understand the process, a lot more then the fans

 

Case in point that in junior, teams will sometimes trade away a veteran star in their last year, if it is time to rebuild...…..in those cases, the GM's come right out and say, this is in the long term interests of the team, I see no difference...…..but that is cool

I guess its one way to get the best odds at Lafrienere. The way I see it though is if you play the kids at least you can sell hope. If you go out and get a bunch of underperforming vets you won't be able to give tickets away. I would prefer to accumulate picks or especially prospects that are maybe a lil further along in their development by trading our vets not acquiring more. Even if its short term. The only cap dumps I would be interested in taking are ones that are accompanied by a young proven NHL talent or high end prospects that JB values highly. Something like Phaneuf + Vilardi for XXX

 

Having a butt load of picks in the 30-50 range is only as enticing as the player you like second best. If you have already taken the player you wanted I'm not so sure if there is an algorithm for this but I doubt teams that pick 3x in any round other than the 1st and maybe 6th-7th when it becomes a total crap shoot are 3x more likely to dig up NHL talent. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hammertime said:

I guess its one way to get the best odds at Lafrienere. The way I see it though is if you play the kids at least you can sell hope. If you go out and get a bunch of underperforming vets you won't be able to give tickets away. I would prefer to accumulate picks or especially prospects that are maybe a lil further along in their development by trading our vets not acquiring more. Even if its short term. The only cap dumps I would be interested in taking are ones that are accompanied by a young proven NHL talent or high end prospects that JB values highly. Something like Phaneuf + Vilardi for XXX

 

Having a butt load of picks in the 30-50 range is only as enticing as the player you like second best. If you have already taken the player you wanted I'm not so sure if there is an algorithm for this but I doubt teams that pick 3x in any round other than the 1st and maybe 6th-7th when it becomes a total crap shoot are 3x more likely to dig up NHL talent. 

 

 

I think that in the instance of Callahan, he scored at pretty much the same rate as JV or LE, and has leadership characteristics in spades, IMO, that is a guy Jake should be watching, if only for 1 year......he also has the chance of being traded at the TDL...but either way, there is no one to push him out, other than Jake.....(we are not talking 1st line here)...Even if you sat him, he until injury, I see no real loss, either way.....I also think MacEwen could benefit from watching his attitude towards the game.

 

I would not expect to see Darling in a Canuck uniform (ever) except in emergency...….slightly better that the university kid from Van......slighty

 

Ericsson, is a 3rd pairing Dman, but again, he could be moved at the TDL for assurance for a top team...…….

 

As for the extra players.....proven fact more players means more 100 game players......again proven

Again another proven fact is that 2nd round picks turn out at a better rate than 3rd rounders, and high end 2nd's even better.....

 

It is not that I disagree with you entirely, but I am asking is for you to consider 1 or 2 of these moves, as frame work moves, that would help...…….

 

I am also not saying that Benning would not even go further and move up on the Tampa pick to get a higher 1st round pick or prospect...…..

On the prospect front, I am not sure how many times a good prospect is moved for what I am offering, it is usually for futures (Picks)

I also tried to make sure that who ever we picked up would be on one and 2 year contracts

------------------------------------------------------------

 

I am also of the thought that an educated guess by Benning should be to enquire about Fox and offer a 4th rounder with another conditional 3rd if he signs

or bump it up a round if they take 2020 picks.....

 

educated guess = making some phone call to see if he would even be interested in Vancouver

 

But this is a separate trade idea...….

--------------------------------------------------------------

What I guess, is my point is that Benning should be aggressive and be trying to acquire picks now, as we have a surplus of cap room, and a surplus of middle type players, Hopefully Benning should be exploiting one of those two things, if not both!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

I think that in the instance of Callahan, he scored at pretty much the same rate as JV or LE, and has leadership characteristics in spades, IMO, that is a guy Jake should be watching, if only for 1 year......he also has the chance of being traded at the TDL...but either way, there is no one to push him out, other than Jake.....(we are not talking 1st line here)...Even if you sat him, he until injury, I see no real loss, either way.....I also think MacEwen could benefit from watching his attitude towards the game.

 

I would not expect to see Darling in a Canuck uniform (ever) except in emergency...….slightly better that the university kid from Van......slighty

 

Ericsson, is a 3rd pairing Dman, but again, he could be moved at the TDL for assurance for a top team...…….

 

As for the extra players.....proven fact more players means more 100 game players......again proven

Again another proven fact is that 2nd round picks turn out at a better rate than 3rd rounders, and high end 2nd's even better.....

 

It is not that I disagree with you entirely, but I am asking is for you to consider 1 or 2 of these moves, as frame work moves, that would help...…….

 

I am also not saying that Benning would not even go further and move up on the Tampa pick to get a higher 1st round pick or prospect...…..

On the prospect front, I am not sure how many times a good prospect is moved for what I am offering, it is usually for futures (Picks)

I also tried to make sure that who ever we picked up would be on one and 2 year contracts

------------------------------------------------------------

 

I am also of the thought that an educated guess by Benning should be to enquire about Fox and offer a 4th rounder with another conditional 3rd if he signs

or bump it up a round if they take 2020 picks.....

 

educated guess = making some phone call to see if he would even be interested in Vancouver

 

But this is a separate trade idea...….

--------------------------------------------------------------

What I guess, is my point is that Benning should be aggressive and be trying to acquire picks now, as we have a surplus of cap room, and a surplus of middle type players, Hopefully Benning should be exploiting one of those two things, if not both!

For sure I see the merit in having Callahan for one season especially if Tampa is paying us to take him off their hands. If we are ignoring the fact that he has a NMC sure I'd take a flyer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’d be interested in seeing a line of Pearson - Horvat - Callahan

 

seems chippy, responsible and Grundy that could put up points.

but I’d only do that if we can put together a skilled scoring 3rd line and has nothing to do suter, granlund or shaller

 

that said I think it’ll take more value for Vancouver to take 5.8m contract for a matter of 13 spots

 

 

on the others...

unless marky or demo gets moved we’re not picking up another goalie...

 

detroit... doesn’t seem like an yzerman type of move especially in his first year of stepping in.

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...