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

[Discussion] Vancouver and Ottawa


Recommended Posts

Seems to be a relative consensus that Eriksson to OTT would be a good fit. They could likely use a few vets to mentor/shelter kids and his 'upside down' contract after July 1 amounts to actual salary of $3m per year remaining while his cap hit is still $6m. This works well to get them to the cap floor with their *ahem* 'frugal' owner not having to shell out real dollars.

 

Ceci is a pending RFA for OTT who needs a raise they won't want to pay and is an in his prime, right side, 2nd pair D. Let's call him younger, bigger, healthier Tanev. And that's not to oversell him, he's clearly not the first pairing D of our dreams and he doesn't have that ceiling. But let's call him our target.

 

Now by all means I'm not suggesting Eriksson is enough to acquire Ceci or even his expiring rights (though I think he and that upside down contract likely have more value than the negative value I'm going to see comments on). But I would like to open discussion on what else it might take in everyone's opinions.

 

Clearly Ottawa will want youth/picks. Does Eriksson, Brisebois and their 19 6th back move the needle? I'd like to think something close to that might work but feel free to add your thoughts.

  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I... just don't think I want Ceci. He is pretty bad man. There are articles and articles and threads and charts about how bad he is. He may not be as bad as all the hyperbole makes him out to be. But it feels like us targeting another team's Gudbranson. Whatever assets we give up, I feel like we would just be taking a nose dive into 4 years of "how can we get rid of Ceci".

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its creative. Value seems close. They're not u0 against the cap so they can afford little things cap hit. Ceci checks alot of canuck boxes (big, young, rhd).

 

Thumbs up for me.

 

 

Im pleasantly suprised. I visited this thread expecting to rip hugh-mungus for his 14 lobsided trade proposals per day.

  • Cheers 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Sygvard said:

I... just don't think I want Ceci. He is pretty bad man. There are articles and articles and threads and charts about how bad he is. He may not be as bad as all the hyperbole makes him out to be. But it feels like us targeting another team's Gudbranson. Whatever assets we give up, I feel like we would just be taking a nose dive into 4 years of "how can we get rid of Ceci".

Ceci skates better, and sees the ice better than Guddy.  He’s not going to set the world on fire with dazzling plays, but he would be a solid bottom pair guy.  I don’t think we’re a winning team if he’s in our top four.  It comes down to cap cost for him.  If he expects top four dollars, then no thanks.  If he will sign long term for bottom pair dollars, he’d be a good get.  

Edited by Alflives
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Ceci skates better, and sees the ice better than Guddy.  He’s not going to set the world on fire with dazzling plays, but he would be a solid bottom pair guy.  I don’t think we’re a winning team if he’s in our top four.  It comes down to cap cost for him.  If he expects top four dollars, then no thanks.  If he will sign long term for bottom pair dollars, he’d be a good get.  

I think the issue is also that if Ceci was willing to take bottom pairing $ then OTT would be willing to resign him

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd actually do this deal if Ceci agreed to a one year extension that would take him to UFA status.  He's probably agree to that and would play hard to get his next big contract.  Loui would then be off the books and we could determine next summer if we want to re-sign Ceci as a UFA.  Or if he plays really well next year playing for that next big contract he could be a good trade chip at the deadline.  I'd throw in a prospect and a pick to sweeten the deal as long as Ottawa takes Loui's full cap hit and we don't have to retain anything.

  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

I'd actually do this deal if Ceci agreed to a one year extension that would take him to UFA status.  He's probably agree to that and would play hard to get his next big contract.  Loui would then be off the books and we could determine next summer if we want to re-sign Ceci as a UFA.  Or if he plays really well next year playing for that next big contract he could be a good trade chip at the deadline.  I'd throw in a prospect and a pick to sweeten the deal as long as Ottawa takes Loui's full cap hit and we don't have to retain anything.

Yep I would go for that. It will be hard to say if Ceci will go for that in advance of trading OTT for his rights though. So we may risk losing him without signing him.

 

However a one year deal is very low risk for VAN even if we pay a decent top 4 salary. If he doesn’t work out then we will have Woo and potentially Tryamkin that could be added to the RHD the following year. If Ceci plays as good as a top 4, then we ink a deal.

  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sygvard said:

I... just don't think I want Ceci. He is pretty bad man. There are articles and articles and threads and charts about how bad he is. He may not be as bad as all the hyperbole makes him out to be. But it feels like us targeting another team's Gudbranson. Whatever assets we give up, I feel like we would just be taking a nose dive into 4 years of "how can we get rid of Ceci".

 

41 minutes ago, Zhukini said:

Ceci is not as good as you think he is. Most sens fans want him gone. Then again maybe he is a good swap for Eriksson in that case. 

Again, not attempting to claim he's something he's not but I think he gets a bit of a bad rap being the veteran guy on a bad team tasked with all the hard matchups and minutes and that is playing over his head due to a lack of any better options. See: Edler here the last few years, Ristolainen in BUF etc, etc.

 

I think he's a solid 2nd-3rd pair tweener that could fill in for us until more kids arrive and would allow us to more easily move Tanev in separate deal, give us solid young right D Depth and be fair value for Eriksson+.

 

35 minutes ago, BigTramFan said:

I think the issue is also that if Ceci was willing to take bottom pairing $ then OTT would be willing to resign him

I think he wants out of the gong show and ii don't think they want to pay what it would take for him to stay and would prefer rebuild assets either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, BigTramFan said:

Yep I would go for that. It will be hard to say if Ceci will go for that in advance of trading OTT for his rights though. So we may risk losing him without signing him.

 

However a one year deal is very low risk for VAN even if we pay a decent top 4 salary. If he doesn’t work out then we will have Woo and potentially Tryamkin that could be added to the RHD the following year. If Ceci plays as good as a top 4, then we ink a deal.

Yeah, sorry. I should have noted it would need to include an extension @Elias Pettersson

Edited by aGENT
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally don't have enough faith in the front office to pull off something like this. The creativity to do something with Eriksson post-July 1, especially to a team that would benefit from an "upside-down" contract is something that this management team has never showed promise to do. I'm not basing this off of any one move, but they have failed to show the ability to extract value out of pieces when there had a chance to make a move. At times it has felt like they have overplayed their hand or simply have not wanted to do a certain deal - which is fair.

 

I like the idea a lot personally, I think that they do have an ability to get themselves out this Eriksson deal with minimal to no retention. Just clearing him off the books would be a win in itself, any return would be a cherry on top. 

  • Wat 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't seen enough of Ceci to be certain, but I've also gotten the impression he's the Sens version of Gudbranson.

 

If we could get Ceci for Eriksson & a minimal add, I'd do it. Although I'd be more than happy just giving up Eriksson for nothing.

 

Your offer? I'm in. We aren't giving up much to offload a problem. If Ceci is also a problematic player, atleast your not tied to him. I'd be willing to give him a chance, and any positive performance from him is just gravy when your getting rid of Eriksson in the deal.

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more I think about this, the more I think OTT won’t be on board...

 

My sense is that Eriksson has slightly negative value, even with the $3m salary.

 

Ceci, although demanding higher salary than he is worth, is still a young RHD and his rights have some value.

 

Ideally OTT wants picks and/or prospects.

 

It seems more realistic that OTT might deal Ceci’s rights for say a 3rd or 4th rounder.

 

Then potentially VAN could offload Eriksson to OTT, along with a pick/prospect, for a pick. For example:

 

To OTT: Eriksson, Goldobin

To VAN: 5th round 2019

 

or maybe

 

To OTT: Ericksson, 5th round

To VAN: 6th round 2019

 

Either of these is a win for VAN imho

 

I think it’s ok for OTT...they offload Ceci and pick up a 3rd rounder, plus Goldobin and Eriksson. All for the price of a 5th round pick.

Edited by BigTramFan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, BigTramFan said:

The more I think about this, the more I think OTT won’t be on board...

 

My sense is that Eriksson has slightly negative value, even with the $3m salary.

 

Ceci, although demanding higher salary than he is worth, is still a young RHD and his rights have some value.

 

Ideally OTT wants picks and/or prospects.

 

It seems more realistic that OTT might deal Ceci’s rights for say a 3rd or 4th rounder.

 

Then potentially VAN could offload Eriksson to OTT, along with a pick/prospect, for a pick. For example:

 

To OTT: Eriksson, Goldobin

To VAN: 5th round 2019

 

or maybe

 

To OTT: Ericksson, 5th round

To VAN: 6th round 2019

 

Either of these is a win for VAN imho

 

I think it’s ok for OTT...they offload Ceci and pick up a 3rd rounder, plus Goldobin and Eriksson. All for the price of a 5th round pick.

I did include Brisebois and a 6th...

Edited by aGENT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, aGENT said:

Seems to be a relative consensus that Eriksson to OTT would be a good fit. They could likely use a few vets to mentor/shelter kids and his 'upside down' contract after July 1 amounts to actual salary of $3m per year remaining while his cap hit is still $6m. This works well to get them to the cap floor with their *ahem* 'frugal' owner not having to shell out real dollars.

 

Ceci is a pending RFA for OTT who needs a raise they won't want to pay and is an in his prime, right side, 2nd pair D. Let's call him younger, bigger, healthier Tanev. And that's not to oversell him, he's clearly not the first pairing D of our dreams and he doesn't have that ceiling. But let's call him our target.

 

Now by all means I'm not suggesting Eriksson is enough to acquire Ceci or even his expiring rights (though I think he and that upside down contract likely have more value than the negative value I'm going to see comments on). But I would like to open discussion on what else it might take in everyone's opinions.

 

Clearly Ottawa will want youth/picks. Does Eriksson, Brisebois and their 19 6th back move the needle? I'd like to think something close to that might work but feel free to add your thoughts.

1) 10th OA + Eriksson + Sutter + Schaller for a 2nd round pick.  Ottawa gets a 1st rounder and easily make the cap floor while the Canucks rid themselves of bad contracts.

 

2)  The Canucks act like a great white shark on July 1st.  Their newfound cap space gets invested into good players.   The Canucks use this opportunity to take advantage of Pettersson and Hughes’ ELC’s, while also having enough money to re-up them afterwards.

 

 

  • Wat 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hindustan Smyl said:

1) 10th OA + Eriksson + Sutter + Schaller for a 2nd round pick.  Ottawa gets a 1st rounder and easily make the cap floor while the Canucks rid themselves of bad contracts.

 

2)  The Canucks act like a great white shark on July 1st.  Their newfound cap space gets invested into good players.   The Canucks use this opportunity to take advantage of Pettersson and Hughes’ ELC’s, while also having enough money to re-up them afterwards.

 

 

Worst idea ever.

 

What in the actual why the living hell $&!#damn&^@#inghellsman

  • Cheers 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, luckylager said:

Worst idea ever.

 

What in the actual why the living hell $&!#damn&^@#inghellsman

Zero retention on Eriksson, Sutter, and Schaller would be a huge advantage.   That 12 million can *easily* be re-invested into

 

A) A 10-12 million dollar player like Karlsson, Panarin, or Duchene.

 

B-) A “very good” 7-8 million dollar guy (Dzingel caliber) + more than enough money to exceed that newly freed up 12 million, and go after another good player (Ferland, Myers, Gardiner, Stralman, Connolly, etc.).

 

For the record, I would opt for option B.

 

Two potential advantages would stem from this:

 

1) The Canucks could field a competitive team  with Pettersson and Hughes still being on ELC’s.

 

2) The Canucks would still have enough money to comfortably re-up Pettersson and Hughes after their ELC’s expire.

 

I agree that building through the draft is a very important part of the rebuilding process, but I would also argue that teams aren’t built exclusively through the draft.  At a certain juncture, GM’s need to know when their team is rising and what complementary pieces can be brought in to support said core.  This core needs playoff experience, and I believe that my idea would get them that.

Edited by Hindustan Smyl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...