J.I.A.H.N Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 (edited) Yep! Me again! So there has to be some way to entice a top 12 team( in the 18 to 31 OA range), to give up their 2019 1st, with out giving up our own 2019 pick...……. Over the last while I have bounce a few proposals off of ya all, some with a little agreement, other cold dead. My focus is to focus on this and next years entry drafts, keeping in mind that our young core will be starting to enter UFA status, about the time that next years pick enters the NHL. I think this is a huge thing to understand, and plan for, it is not "The sky is falling", it is just that we need to focus on the last of the rebuild now,. so that we can enjoy a few years, before we start facing the pressures of players having the ability to start to change teams. I have called this "condensing of draft picks", it is basically a lateral transaction, in terms of asset management. IMO, our trading chips are decent for a pick in the 18 to 31 OA pick Markstrom + Tanev + Hutton + 2019 2nd + 2021 1st 2020 2nd + 2021 2nd DiPietro + Cash Dump These are our largest tradeable assets that we should be able to move and not suffer to greatly, albeit moving Markstrom, has its risks...…….I would like to deal with each asset individually and consider the possibility of each. 1. Markstrom +...……..my thought that Markstrom is replaceable, and this is the time to trade him, as it is the first time he has showed his potential, the rub is he will be 30 this coming year and has only shown growth this year. (it is a small sample size), but he is replaceable via UFA, and could bring in a decent 1st with an additional asset added. 2. Tanev +...……….Tanev is a top 80 defenseman, period, but with his reduced playing time due to injury, his return would be down graded to that of a 3/4, which is still a much sought after commodity, if packaged properly. Remember 60 games of Tanev is still work more than 80 games with Gudbranson. It should also be noted, that most NHL defenseman loose injury time every year, some closing in on Tanev's pace, yet you seldom hear of their value being reduced. I accredit some of this to our proximity to Tanev, and our local media. Tanev in the correct environment, which he does not have to do the heavy lifting, would thrive, so again with the addition of an additional asset, Tanev become very marketable. 3. Hutton...……….Ben's game this past year should be divided into Pre and Post - Gudbranson. Ben's commitment this year was very evident, and when working with other defensemen, in particular Stecher, was able not only prove his value, but increase it, with the apex being when playing 1st pairing minutes because of other injuries. Players that can play 27/28 minutes for extended periods of time, and not be overly exposed, have proven their worth. Ben played better than in his 1st season, where he was dubbed a 3/4 defenseman with upside. But again, and I need to remind some of you, Ben showed differently pre and post Gudbranson. His value is that of a late1st when an additional asset is added. 4. 2019 2nd...…….At 40th OA, it would not take much to convince a team picking 25th to 31st to trade assets. The question what and who? And do we want to keep the 40th and add the additional 1st in addition? Personally, I would like to keep and add another 1st, but I think it is an easy reach to move that pick up into the late 1st round. What is the add? 5. 2021 1st...……..Again, it is a valuable asset, and not one you just move, without some thought, but as it is 2 years out, and as the team moves up, the exchange of picks will have to have some additional asset added. This is could be done with a retain veteran asset, or by cash dump, as all other could. But the point is, it is very viable, and very possible, with the right incentive. 6. 2020+ 2021 2nds...…..This will get you into the late 1st round, and is giving up future asset, but there may be a team willing to take that chance...….an idea not without merit 7. DiPietro+...……...DiPietro was never intended to develop so quickly, and to a team wanting to move up their goaltending development date, DiPietro is an excellent asset. Would he get a 1st by himself, no, but he would with additional asset...…..again with an additional player, or a cash dump or a later pick. He will not just be given away, he is that good. 8. Cash Dumps and Salary Retention...………...as with all transaction above, a cash dump or salary retention is on the table, and is a great tool to add and can be the thing to make the trade happen. Not all trades need such a incentive, but it is available to make the trade palatable to the other trading partner if need be. Large Cap Dump are dangerous and should only be considered if the return is huge, but a 1 year cap dump, should not worry anyone, and may truly help the other team cop with the Cap Ceiling. My intention with this Thread is to hear your opinions on what you agree or disagree on, in regards to this thread, and whether you feel any are a realistic course of action. Please feel free to pick apart...………. Note*…………………….Poll is general in design, please post what your Plus would be Edited April 30, 2019 by janisahockeynut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xereau Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 If Byram is available at 4th: Markstrom + 10OA + 2020 2nd -- Varlamov + 4OA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonMexico Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 1 minute ago, xereau said: If Byram is available at 4th: Markstrom + 10OA + 2020 2nd -- Varlamov + 4OA I'd prefer to give up Hutton or another roster player over a 2nd round pick but it seems like a decent offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Blight Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 8 minutes ago, xereau said: If Byram is available at 4th: Markstrom + 10OA + 2020 2nd -- Varlamov + 4OA Varlamov is UFA this summer so that won't be an incentive for Colorado to make the deal. Even if you thought Vancouver wanted him as part of the deal it likely wouldn't work because of the impending UFA status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanuck Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 11 minutes ago, xereau said: If Byram is available at 4th: Markstrom + 10OA + 2020 2nd -- Varlamov + 4OA If Byram is available I don't think that package gets it done xereau. Just ask yourself, what would LA get in return for Drew Doughty and then you'll have your answer as to what it would cost to acquire Byram. Probably looking at our 10th overall and a core piece (BB, EP, BoHo, ect....) - which obviously is a non-starter for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
come_canucks Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 The goal is to get more draft picks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Blight Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 Here is a list of trades involving 1st round picks moving during the off season over the past two years. I did not include the trades Vegas made for expansion draft considerations nor did I include the Erik Karlsson move. There was only one trade involving a 1st round pick last off season and 4 the previous year. Perhaps this may help in assessing what is needed in a trade to acquire an additional 1st round pick. St. Louis Blues acquire Date Buffalo Sabres acquire Ryan O`Reilly July 1, 2018 Vladimir SobotkaPatrik BerglundTage Thompson 2019 1st round pick 2021 2nd round pick Calgary Flames acquire Date New York Islanders acquire Travis Hamonic 2019 conditional 4th round pick June 24, 2017 2018 1st round pick 2018 2nd round pick 2019 conditional 2nd round pick Arizona Coyotes acquire Date New York Rangers acquire Derek StepanAntti Raanta June 23, 2017 Anthony DeAngelo2017 1st round pick St. Louis Blues acquire Date Philadelphia Flyers acquire Brayden Schenn June 23, 2017 Jori Lehtera2017 1st round pick2018 conditional 1st round pick Pittsburgh Penguins acquire Date St. Louis Blues acquire Ryan Reaves2017 2nd round pick June 23, 2017 Oskar Sundqvist2017 1st round pick 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brownky Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 Lol at Ryan Reaves and a 2nd getting a first rounder... and another player. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaku Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 I voted yes - so the Canucks land like 6 additional first rounders? Right? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 1 hour ago, brownky said: Lol at Ryan Reaves and a 2nd getting a first rounder... and another player. Well Pittsburgh's 1st round pick was close to 30th overall, so it wasn't too far from St Louis' 2nd round pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
48MPHSlapShot Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 Cap dumps scare me. If it's only for one year, fine. But any more than that and we start to enter dicey territory. We're a couple years away from truly being a contender again, but I also do believe we're on the tail end of our rebuild, so taking on a multi-year cap dump for a first rd pick may end up costing us cap space when we really need it. Also, we have the Luongo situation staring us in the face now. There's going to be some significant retention there. We also may end up having to buy out Eriksson, so again, more retention. And then the big one. Unless I'm wrong, both Pettersson and Hughes will be up for extensions at the same time, and assuming Hughes is as good as we all know he is, we're looking at at least 12-14 mill per season to sign both of them. Maybe more, depending on how good they get. So yeah, I'll vote yes on cap retention, but ONLY on the condition that we're only stuck with the contract for one season.. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwijibo Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 None of those deals is going to score another 1st. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanukfanatic Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 Most of those proposals would be stupid for a rebuilding team. Plus the Canucks have already seen what happens to a good team when they continue to trade away high picks. They suffer like a bottom feeder for years. Canucks cannot start trading away high picks in 2021 . The only proposal that makes a bit of sense imo is Tanev + but there is no way he gets us anything near a first unfortunately. The time to do that was 2 years ago imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewbieCanuckFan Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 19 minutes ago, Kanukfanatic said: Most of those proposals would be stupid for a rebuilding team. Plus the Canucks have already seen what happens to a good team when they continue to trade away high picks. They suffer like a bottom feeder for years. Canucks cannot start trading away high picks in 2021 . The only proposal that makes a bit of sense imo is Tanev + but there is no way he gets us anything near a first unfortunately. The time to do that was 2 years ago imo. Recent history of the Canucks dealing 1st round picks (past 25 years): None by Benning One by Gillis (25th overall) - 2010 None by Nonis One by Burke (17th overall) - 2002 Our problem has been amateur scouting more than anything else (at least prior to Benning being hired). Heck, we've added more 1st round picks in the past 25 years than ones we've dealt. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.I.A.H.N Posted May 1, 2019 Author Share Posted May 1, 2019 2 hours ago, qwijibo said: None of those deals is going to score another 1st. Q So you are saying Tanev + 2019 2nd (40th OA) could not get you a late 1st(26th - 31st OA), I think most PO teams would take that..... and you are saying 2019 2nd (40 OA) + 2020 2nd (45th - ish) doesn't get you a 2019 - 31st OA Really? OK...…. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hindustan Smyl Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 7 hours ago, Fanuck said: If Byram is available I don't think that package gets it done xereau. Just ask yourself, what would LA get in return for Drew Doughty and then you'll have your answer as to what it would cost to acquire Byram. Probably looking at our 10th overall and a core piece (BB, EP, BoHo, ect....) - which obviously is a non-starter for us. In my opinion, we should stay the course and build through the draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanuck Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 2 hours ago, Hindustan Smyl said: In my opinion, we should stay the course and build through the draft. Is that so: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hindustan Smyl Posted May 1, 2019 Share Posted May 1, 2019 17 minutes ago, Fanuck said: Is that so: Stay the course and build through the draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vannuck59 Posted May 4, 2019 Share Posted May 4, 2019 On 4/30/2019 at 1:51 PM, janisahockeynut said: Yep! Me again! So there has to be some way to entice a top 12 team( in the 18 to 31 OA range), to give up their 2019 1st, with out giving up our own 2019 pick...……. Over the last while I have bounce a few proposals off of ya all, some with a little agreement, other cold dead. My focus is to focus on this and next years entry drafts, keeping in mind that our young core will be starting to enter UFA status, about the time that next years pick enters the NHL. I think this is a huge thing to understand, and plan for, it is not "The sky is falling", it is just that we need to focus on the last of the rebuild now,. so that we can enjoy a few years, before we start facing the pressures of players having the ability to start to change teams. I have called this "condensing of draft picks", it is basically a lateral transaction, in terms of asset management. IMO, our trading chips are decent for a pick in the 18 to 31 OA pick Markstrom + Tanev + Hutton + 2019 2nd + 2021 1st 2020 2nd + 2021 2nd DiPietro + Cash Dump These are our largest tradeable assets that we should be able to move and not suffer to greatly, albeit moving Markstrom, has its risks...…….I would like to deal with each asset individually and consider the possibility of each. 1. Markstrom +...……..my thought that Markstrom is replaceable, and this is the time to trade him, as it is the first time he has showed his potential, the rub is he will be 30 this coming year and has only shown growth this year. (it is a small sample size), but he is replaceable via UFA, and could bring in a decent 1st with an additional asset added. 2. Tanev +...……….Tanev is a top 80 defenseman, period, but with his reduced playing time due to injury, his return would be down graded to that of a 3/4, which is still a much sought after commodity, if packaged properly. Remember 60 games of Tanev is still work more than 80 games with Gudbranson. It should also be noted, that most NHL defenseman loose injury time every year, some closing in on Tanev's pace, yet you seldom hear of their value being reduced. I accredit some of this to our proximity to Tanev, and our local media. Tanev in the correct environment, which he does not have to do the heavy lifting, would thrive, so again with the addition of an additional asset, Tanev become very marketable. 3. Hutton...……….Ben's game this past year should be divided into Pre and Post - Gudbranson. Ben's commitment this year was very evident, and when working with other defensemen, in particular Stecher, was able not only prove his value, but increase it, with the apex being when playing 1st pairing minutes because of other injuries. Players that can play 27/28 minutes for extended periods of time, and not be overly exposed, have proven their worth. Ben played better than in his 1st season, where he was dubbed a 3/4 defenseman with upside. But again, and I need to remind some of you, Ben showed differently pre and post Gudbranson. His value is that of a late1st when an additional asset is added. 4. 2019 2nd...…….At 40th OA, it would not take much to convince a team picking 25th to 31st to trade assets. The question what and who? And do we want to keep the 40th and add the additional 1st in addition? Personally, I would like to keep and add another 1st, but I think it is an easy reach to move that pick up into the late 1st round. What is the add? 5. 2021 1st...……..Again, it is a valuable asset, and not one you just move, without some thought, but as it is 2 years out, and as the team moves up, the exchange of picks will have to have some additional asset added. This is could be done with a retain veteran asset, or by cash dump, as all other could. But the point is, it is very viable, and very possible, with the right incentive. 6. 2020+ 2021 2nds...…..This will get you into the late 1st round, and is giving up future asset, but there may be a team willing to take that chance...….an idea not without merit 7. DiPietro+...……...DiPietro was never intended to develop so quickly, and to a team wanting to move up their goaltending development date, DiPietro is an excellent asset. Would he get a 1st by himself, no, but he would with additional asset...…..again with an additional player, or a cash dump or a later pick. He will not just be given away, he is that good. 8. Cash Dumps and Salary Retention...………...as with all transaction above, a cash dump or salary retention is on the table, and is a great tool to add and can be the thing to make the trade happen. Not all trades need such a incentive, but it is available to make the trade palatable to the other trading partner if need be. Large Cap Dump are dangerous and should only be considered if the return is huge, but a 1 year cap dump, should not worry anyone, and may truly help the other team cop with the Cap Ceiling. My intention with this Thread is to hear your opinions on what you agree or disagree on, in regards to this thread, and whether you feel any are a realistic course of action. Please feel free to pick apart...………. Note*…………………….Poll is general in design, please post what your Plus would be Hey I admire your enthusiasm Some of your trades would get another First in my book..But what do I know. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vannuck59 Posted May 4, 2019 Share Posted May 4, 2019 On 5/1/2019 at 1:22 AM, Hindustan Smyl said: Stay the course and build through the draft. On 5/1/2019 at 1:22 AM, Hindustan Smyl said: Stay the course and build through the draft. you keep saying that but do you mean it? 1 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