(Speculation) 3 way trade to land PK Suban

[D-Money]

1 minute ago, aGENT said:

Likely 1-2 years IMO (assuming Benning picks another good one).

 

I'm all for mentors etc but not at the expense of the future. Plus (while certainly not at 'Norris level') we already have Edler in that role.

 

Again, I'm not opposed AT ALL to adding Subban for the many, very good reasons you pointed out. But not at the expense of key futures.

 

 

 

If there was 1-2 less years on his deal, I'd be ALL over it if the return is right. But like you said, two of those years have a VERY high chance of causing cap issues.

 

I'd FAR rather focus on the likes of Callahan from TBL and his one year of $5.8 remaining. Send them Tanev to replace the likely walking (hopefully to us) Stralman, take on Callahan for cap relief (maybe send them RFA rights for Granlund as a cheap, club controlled 2 way forward replacement) and take one of Cernak/Foote and maybe a mid'ish pick back.

No wonder you're opposed to all of my ideas, you have your head in the clouds.

 

You think Nashville is just going to give away a Norris-calibre D-man? Really?

 

You think Tampa is going to trade one of their coveted young D-men to ditch 1 year of Callahan? When the thing they need most is cheap D-men?

 

You know what an objectively "fair" trade for Subban is? Boeser. Of course we're not paying that (because we can't afford to), but #10(+?) would be a bargain. I doubt Nashville takes that, but if they do, you take it and run.

[JM_]

21 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

But it's what you're gaining in return. A 1st (that could net a RHD or other such prospect or facilitate another roster move) and a young RHD (albeit maybe a bottom pairing guy) for taking on a 4 year deal, 2 of which have no cap implications whatsoever. Neal at worst would provide toughness and size into our top 6 and if his offense dries up, then we at least would have hopefully shored up a critical need of RD shortage in the process. There's the possibility that he actually finds his 50 point (25+ goals) legs again (Pearson found new life after having a poor year), especially when given the opportunities that he was denied in Calgary. There's certainly risk, but I think the reward outweighs it.

 

I do think we would need to somehow offload Loui at some point though (by the final year of his contract at least) if this does happen.

I just don't think the Flames would look to do something like that in the 1st place. We'd probably get out bid by Arizona if this were really a thing. 

[theo5789]

9 minutes ago, aGENT said:

If there was 1-2 less years on his deal, I'd be ALL over it if the return is right. But like you said, two of those years have a VERY high chance of causing cap issues.

 

I'd FAR rather focus on the likes of Callahan from TBL and his one year of $5.8 remaining. Send them Tanev (with extension negotiation and possible retention) to replace the likely walking (hopefully to us) Stralman, take on Callahan for cap relief (maybe send them RFA rights for Granlund as a cheap, club controlled 2 way forward replacement) and take one of Cernak/Foote and maybe a mid'ish pick back.

There's certainly other options and possibilities. Callahan has a modified NTC, so who knows if he wants to come here, this limiting factor plus the fact that it's only 1 year left isn't going to garner much. I'd love to try to rip teams off, but at the same time, those deals are less common these days.

[aGENT]

10 minutes ago, D-Money said:

No wonder you're opposed to all of my ideas, you have your head in the clouds.

 

You think Nashville is just going to give away a Norris-calibre D-man? Really?

 

You think Tampa is going to trade one of their coveted young D-men to ditch 1 year of Callahan? When the thing they need most is cheap D-men?

 

You know what an objectively "fair" trade for Subban is? Boeser. Of course we're not paying that (because we can't afford to), but #10(+?) would be a bargain. I doubt Nashville takes that, but if they do, you take it and run.

I don't have my head in the clouds, I already stated I don't see us as a fit for Subban as both teams need the same things, legit, top 6 F's. We have none to give.

 

I also don't see spending futures on (albeit talented) players who are on the down slope of their careers at this point in the rebuild, as a remotely good idea. If we can't get him for what works for us (we likely can't), we don't get him. It's that simple.

 

TBL needs cheap, proven D men in their 'contending now' window. An extended, discounted Tanev and swallowing almost $6m of cap next year for them (plus cheap, club controlled forward depth like Granlund) is a solid move for them.

 

Heck PK to TBL would probably work for TBL as well, as they actually have some top 6 F depth they can/need to move. They could add Subban and Tanev in a couple quick moves 

[theo5789]

3 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I just don't think the Flames would look to do something like that in the 1st place. We'd probably get out bid by Arizona if this were really a thing. 

Fair enough if you don't think Calgary would do it on their end and if there is another trading partner interested, but the concept of it if it's available is not something that I would turn down simply because it's Neal.

[JM_]

2 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

Fair enough if you don't think Calgary would do it on their end and if there is another trading partner interested, but the concept of it if it's available is not something that I would turn down simply because it's Neal.

yeah but you're not looking at the whole concept of the post - we'd have Neal and Subban. If both end up busts we've toasted our cap for 3 seasons. 

 

With the cap the way it is, and our need to sign Petey, Brock, Hughes and some other key pieces, we cant afford a Neal-type deal. Look how Marleau's deal hamstrung the Leafs ability to upgrade their d .e.g. I think our years of purposely going out to get a bad contract for picks is over. 

[D-Money]

 

3 minutes ago, aGENT said:

TBL needs cheap, proven D men in their 'contending now' window. An extended, discounted Tanev and swallowing almost $6m of cap next year for them (plus cheap, club controlled forward depth like Granlund) is a solid move for them.

Cernak proved he could handle himself well in the playoffs. He won't be going anywhere.

 

And I'm pretty sure they'd have little interest in a significantly injury-prone player like Tanev, as they just had their season unravel due to injuries to their top-3 D-men (Hedman and Stralman out, McDonagh playing hurt).

[aGENT]

Just now, D-Money said:

 

Cernak proved he could handle himself well in the playoffs. He won't be going anywhere.

 

And I'm pretty sure they'd have little interest in a significantly injury-prone player like Tanev, as they just had their season unravel due to injuries to their top-3 D-men (Hedman and Stralman out, McDonagh playing hurt).

I agree, they'd likely move Foote over Cernak (then again, Cernak will be due a raise sooner).

 

Tanev would likely be on the third pairing of a far better team and far less relied upon.

 

As I was saying, they could move Miller for Subban, Foote for Tanev, Granlund and the Callahan dump and role in to next year with:

 

Hedman, Subban

McDonagh, Cernak

Sergachev, Tanev

 

Looks pretty damn good to me.

[KKnight]

Jason Botchford the perfect GM in his eyes. I swear this guy is partially losing his mind. Botch, Halford and Brough are way out to lunch. He is right about weaponizing cap space, ill give him that. But, he constantly contradicts himself. One day its we have to trade up and get younger, next its $&!#e like this. He said Hutty was a building block on this team in February and now making jokes that he's terrible.

[theo5789]

1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:

yeah but you're not looking at the whole concept of the post - we'd have Neal and Subban. If both end up busts we've toasted our cap for 3 seasons. 

 

With the cap the way it is, and our need to sign Petey, Brock, Hughes and some other key pieces, we cant afford a Neal-type deal. Look how Marleau's deal hamstrung the Leafs ability to upgrade their d .e.g. I think our years of purposely going out to get a bad contract for picks is over. 

I'm not concerned at all about Subban being a bust. He won't be, not for the 3 years left on his contract. Subban would be a boost to our defense, so again not a concern when compared to the Toronto situation. Also, I'm of the belief that Boeser and Petey are not going to get the contracts that many are fearing here so our cap situation will not be as bad. I'll need to see more of Hughes to decide what he may get.

 

If taking on Neal facilitates the Subban deal, then that's the price to pay. And say we deal our #10 and #40 picks for Subban (they can flip whatever picks they have to nab a 1st/2nd line forward if they feel a #10 will take too long for their window now) and their 1st and we acquire Calgary's 1st plus Andersson, we would be getting two 1st rounders while shoring up the defense (with Subban and Andersson for the now and draft a Seider or Soderstrom possibly) and have another pick to look for a forward gem that may be available.

 

I get the concern if the players do not care well, but there's the other side of if they do in fact play well, then it's all gravy. Not saying this would all happen either, but if it did play out this way, it's certainly not as big of a problem as some make it out to be.

[Jaku]

2 hours ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

Eww no.

Dear mods. I'd like permission to be able to upvote this comment at least 5 more times. Thanks.

[JM_]

5 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

I'm not concerned at all about Subban being a bust. He won't be, not for the 3 years left on his contract. Subban would be a boost to our defense, so again not a concern when compared to the Toronto situation. Also, I'm of the belief that Boeser and Petey are not going to get the contracts that many are fearing here so our cap situation will not be as bad. I'll need to see more of Hughes to decide what he may get.

 

If taking on Neal facilitates the Subban deal, then that's the price to pay. And say we deal our #10 and #40 picks for Subban (they can flip whatever picks they have to nab a 1st/2nd line forward if they feel a #10 will take too long for their window now) and their 1st and we acquire Calgary's 1st plus Andersson, we would be getting two 1st rounders while shoring up the defense (with Subban and Andersson for the now and draft a Seider or Soderstrom possibly) and have another pick to look for a forward gem that may be available.

 

I get the concern if the players do not care well, but there's the other side of if they do in fact play well, then it's all gravy. Not saying this would all happen either, but if it did play out this way, it's certainly not as big of a problem as some make it out to be.

whens the last time all facets of a deal like that panned out perfectly?

 

If we're willing to deal our 1st to NSH then why do we need Calgary? we should be able to structure something around the 10th oa for where Subban is at now. 

[theo5789]

3 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

whens the last time all facets of a deal like that panned out perfectly?

 

If we're willing to deal our 1st to NSH then why do we need Calgary? we should be able to structure something around the 10th oa for where Subban is at now. 

Well that's why I'm looking at both options separately rather than one will be a result of the other like Botchford has put out, which I disagree with.

 

We certainly wouldn't need to make the Neal deal, but I'm looking at it as adding a 1st and a young RHD. And Neal could fit into our top 6 as well and provide toughness for Pettersson and Boeser. The cap space concern isn't enough for me to worry about it.

[Monty]

24 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Hedman, Subban

McDonagh, Cernak

Sergachev, Tanev

That defence looks so good, it might win a game in the first round.

[JM_]

7 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

Well that's why I'm looking at both options separately rather than one will be a result of the other like Botchford has put out, which I disagree with.

 

We certainly wouldn't need to make the Neal deal, but I'm looking at it as adding a 1st and a young RHD. And Neal could fit into our top 6 as well and provide toughness for Pettersson and Boeser. The cap space concern isn't enough for me to worry about it.

but he didn't do that in Calgary, so why would he do it here? we'd be banking on him having a bounce back year at 32. Chances are he doesn't. 

 

I like the idea of PK, just not when it involves 2/3 of cap crunching us, trading high picks, and taking on older players. 1/3 of those maybe, but thats it. My 2 cents fwiw 

[theo5789]

3 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

but he didn't do that in Calgary, so why would he do it here? we'd be banking on him having a bounce back year at 32. Chances are he doesn't. 

 

I like the idea of PK, just not when it involves 2/3 of cap crunching us, trading high picks, and taking on older players. 1/3 of those maybe, but thats it. My 2 cents fwiw 

Calgary had more depth in the top 6. We do not. We can provide him with the opportunity. I bring up the Pearson example again where he was stuck on the 4th line in Pittsburgh (not sure of his deployment in LA when he was dealt), but we have him top 6 opportunity here and he bounced back at least for the rest of this season. Neal might not be the offensive driver, but he would compliment what we have. He also adds an element to our top 6 that we lack which Calgary didn't.

 

There are certainly some concerning aspects and I don't blame you for being concerned. Of the 3 concerns, I don't feel the same worry about the cap crunch. We would still have 2 1sts (which remains the same as two picks in the 1st two rounds) in my scenario and add a former 2nd rounder young RHD. Subban's contract ends before he's 33, so really the only concern is Neal's age and progression. A lot of gain for not a whole lot of pain.

[5nothincanucksohno]

2 hours ago, WalkWithElias40 said:

OMG BOTCHFORD is an idiot.. 

He suggests video game style trade scenarios and then sits on the side lines making sarcastic remarks about how Benning can't make trades. smh

[5nothincanucksohno]

Taking on a 32 year old player with four year left makes no sense - plus the suggested return from Calgary would never happen. 

 

Would be more interested in squeezing a 2020 first or something from a team like Tampa in exchange for Callahan i.e. players with one or two years left on their contract. 

 

 

[DrJockitch]

I would say just no to all of it.

PK is a really fun player and a few years ago was just amazing to watch when he was in the playoffs for the Habs.  But just doesn't fit for building a team as young as this one.  

Doesn't mean Benning wouldn't be willing to do it but it would do us better to have a first and Dube anyway.  Regardless if that is the ill conceived, ludicrous deal that all this speculation is based on it isn't worth the Bytes it has taken to discuss it.

[Nuxfanabroad]

Don't want Subban on the Canucks..guy seems pretty high-maintenance & irritating(as personalities go).

 

I'd offer them a pkg of Loui, Hutton & a 2020 2nd...IF they retained on that overpriced lump. In other words, no thanks!