[Discussion] Vancouver and Ottawa

[luckylager]

11 minutes ago, Hindustan Smyl said:

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.

I don't think the canucks are at that critical juncture yet, which is why I absolutely hate your idea.

 

You're shipping out players with actual value for a 2nd round pick and cap space. Cap space we don't even need AND you give away a 10th OA pick to do it.

 

Why again? For future cap space tomorrow?

 

It's a $&!# idea. Awful stuff. 

 

You're fired.

[mll]

LTIR contracts can help a team reach the cap floor.  If contracts are insured the team only pays a small fraction of the cost - typically 20% of salary.    

For teams near the cap having LTIR contracts is a nuisance to deal with as it limits their flexibility to bank cap space.  Teams have given up assets to move such contracts.  Detroit and Vegas might want out of their LTIR contracts and could even be willing to add an asset.  Last year Chicago gave up Hinostroza to move Hossa's contract.  

 

Zetterberg is a 6.1M cap hit for just 1M in salary and if the contract is insured it could be even down to 200K.   The Clarkson contract in Vegas is insured and after his bonus payment it will be 200K for a 5.25M cap hit.  

That could be Melnyk's preferred option to reach the floor rather than bring in Eriksson.  They get an asset towards their rebuild, it costs them significantly less in real dollars and keeps a roster spot open for a young player.  

 

2020/21 is a potential lockout year re CBA negotiations.  Quite a few contracts have been constructed in a way where bonuses are high that year as they are paid regardless of a lockout.  Eriksson has 3M in bonuses that year and it's a risk that Ottawa might not want to take.  

 

Melnyk also made the comment that Stone was too old to receive a long term contract.  He is 26 and a 7/8 year deal would have ended by age 33/34.  Eriksson will turn 34 in July.

 

[Angry Goose]

I really hope OTT is interested in Louie (especially if he has a good showing at the worlds).  

 

Another guy I wonder about is Hutton. 

 

Im hoping Nilsson playing well for the Senators might entice them to chase players who also might need a change of scenery.  

[IBatch]

8 hours ago, Hindustan Smyl said:

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.

If Panarin or EK signed with us then yes maybe this isn’t a bad idea.  But the likelihood is they will not.  Wouldn’t you rather get our guy at ten (future top six or second pairing defenseman, maybe more of course maybe less but not likely) and just wait two more years and then Sutter and Schaller are off the books, the draft pick we got is playing his rookie year and LE could be flipped at the TDL as a rental?  Or Sutter for that matter.   We’d still end up with cap space in the end AND we’d have a solid core player on an ELC, not an aging vet that’s getting overpaid, AND perhaps a couple of mid picks to boot?

[aGENT]

9 hours ago, luckylager said:

I really like the idea.

 

However I don't see how Ceci is much of an upgrade on Stecher. 

 

I'll also go as far as to say - Ceci is a B+ version of Sbisa.

He's not meant to be an upgrade on Stecher (and I'd probably have Tony Strecher above him on the depth chart...but I also think he's better than he probably gets credit for).

 

This team desperately needs more (and younger and bigger and healthier) top 4 D. Ceci may be on the bottom end/fringe of 'top 4' but he checks a lot of those boxes and I say, the more the merrier. Top 4 capable depth please. Plus we get rid of LE.

 

9 hours 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.

 

 

Just no.

 

9 hours ago, luckylager said:

Worst idea ever.

 

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

Indeed, as I told him in another thread the other day...

 

On 5/8/2019 at 10:17 AM, aGENT said:

We already have over $30m in cap heading in to the off season (granted we need to use some of that to re-sign Edler, Boeser and some smaller parts) and plenty of space to add key UFA's should we choose to.

 

Beyond that, Spooner and Schaller are both off the books at the end of next season anyway... That's $5m of space right there. Why the $%#@ would we pay to get rid of Schaller (half of his salary could also be buried in Utica). Tanev's also likely gone next summer as well (another $4.45m).

 

The year after that (if some haven't already been moved) Sutter, Baer and Pearson all come off (another $11.5m).

 

The year after that (again, assuming they haven't been moved) Eriksson, Beagle and Roussel come off opening up a further $12m (plus that's the last year of Luongo's retention for another $800K).

 

Cap is far and away about the last thing we need to be concerned about as a team and in no way, shape or form should we be paying to open up more of it. Particularly our 10th freaking OA.

 

8 hours ago, mll said:

LTIR contracts can help a team reach the cap floor.  If contracts are insured the team only pays a small fraction of the cost - typically 20% of salary.    

For teams near the cap having LTIR contracts is a nuisance to deal with as it limits their flexibility to bank cap space.  Teams have given up assets to move such contracts.  Detroit and Vegas might want out of their LTIR contracts and could even be willing to add an asset.  Last year Chicago gave up Hinostroza to move Hossa's contract.  

 

Zetterberg is a 6.1M cap hit for just 1M in salary and if the contract is insured it could be even down to 200K.   The Clarkson contract in Vegas is insured and after his bonus payment it will be 200K for a 5.25M cap hit.  

That could be Melnyk's preferred option to reach the floor rather than bring in Eriksson.  They get an asset towards their rebuild, it costs them significantly less in real dollars and keeps a roster spot open for a young player.  

 

2020/21 is a potential lockout year re CBA negotiations.  Quite a few contracts have been constructed in a way where bonuses are high that year as they are paid regardless of a lockout.  Eriksson has 3M in bonuses that year and it's a risk that Ottawa might not want to take.  

 

Melnyk also made the comment that Stone was too old to receive a long term contract.  He is 26 and a 7/8 year deal would have ended by age 33/34.  Eriksson will turn 34 in July.

 

That's great and all but they might also want some players who actually PLAY. They're going to need a couple vets around all the kids.

[theo5789]

Ceci plays the prominent defensive role on a very bad team. Does that mean he's going to be better on a better team? Who knows, but if the cost is cheap (eg the OPs proposal of Eriksson, Brisebois and a 6th), then it's well worth the risk. It might cost 5 million a year to re-sign him, but that would be mitigated with the loss of LE. I like Brisebois, but it's a small price to pay for a top 4 RHD (we have Hughes and Juolevi coming up soon to help with the offense, so Ceci would provide more of the solid defending.

 

I would say that Ceci would replace what Tanev brought to us and could even make Tanev a trade chip (even for a moderate return) to make up the loss in this deal and probably more. I think when Ceci gets the proper minutes unlike how he was played in Ottawa with little support, he should become a better player than his current analytics would suggest.

 

I'd be shocked if this deal is made, but this would be an absolute steal IMO (as I believe in Ceci).

[Hindustan Smyl]

22 hours ago, luckylager said:

I don't think the canucks are at that critical juncture yet, which is why I absolutely hate your idea.

 

You're shipping out players with actual value for a 2nd round pick and cap space. Cap space we don't even need AND you give away a 10th OA pick to do it.

 

Why again? For future cap space tomorrow?

 

It's a $&!# idea. Awful stuff. 

 

You're fired.

Trust me,

 

I definitely get where you’re coming from on this and also realize that I’m not doing myself any favors by suggesting this idea (on multiple occasions), but here are my thoughts:

 

1) Sutter, Eriksson, and Schaller having value. I think most on here would agree with me that the aforementioned players have NEGATIVE value.

 

2) Critical juncture:   You mention “critical juncture,” and my response to that is as follows:  It depends when you mean by that.  Would the Canucks be an immediate cup contender if they re-invested that newfound 12 million dollars efficiently? (in the form of Karlsson, Panarin, Duchene, or multiple player depth?).  My answer to that is “no.”  However, I do believe that the Canucks are at a “critical juncture,” where they need to start making the playoffs, and that guys like Horvat, Boeser, and Pettersson need to start getting some playoff experience.  That’s my interpretation of “critical juncture” and that’s where I do believe that this newly freed up 12 million dollars invested wisely would take us.

 

An often overlooked aspect of developing young players and prospects (amongst fans) is the need for playoff experience.  

 

I believe that management making a serious push for the playoffs next year (via “going big” this offseason) will demonstrate the following:

 

1) It will demonstrate to the young core players on this team (Horvat, Pettersson, Boeser, etc.) That this organization is serious about winning and building a long term winner.

 

2)  Incompetence will not be tolerated.   By shipping off Eriksson, Sutter, and Schaller, Management will demonstrate to the players that deadwood will be removed, and that opportunities for kids will be made available if they prove themselves (ie Gaudette).

 

3). Buy in.  I think this is the most important point I’ll make here.   IF this team can “make some noise” over these next two years and maybe even win a round or two while Pettersson and Hughes are on ELC’s, I think the chances of them, and other RFA’s in Vancouver, taking a discount of some kind when their ELC’s expire would increase.  No guarantees obviously, but I do think the likelihood would increase.  They would get a small taste of winning, they will have experienced progress as a group (non playoff team to playoff team), and they will be motivated to do big things.

 

4) Re-investing the freed up 12 million wisely AND having enough money to comfortably re-up Pettersson, Hughes, etc.

 

Some people have mentioned to me that it’s not necessary to remove so much cap space because we already have enough cap space available to re-up our upcoming RFA core.  That’s not my reasoning though.   I want the Canucks to have their cake and eat it too.  Build a playoff caliber team now AND have enough money to comfortably re-up our future RFA’s.

[Guest]

I'm really just not a big fan of Ceci to be honest with you...  it wouldn't be an upgrade over someone like Hutton.  

 

I would almost rather take Bobby Ryan and a high draft pick. 

[Hindustan Smyl]

1 hour ago, VancouverHabitant said:

I'm really just not a big fan of Ceci to be honest with you...  it wouldn't be an upgrade over someone like Hutton.  

 

I would almost rather take Bobby Ryan and a high draft pick. 

Agreed.

 

I’m not big on Ceci either.

 

[Hindustan Smyl]

16 hours ago, IBatch said:

If Panarin or EK signed with us then yes maybe this isn’t a bad idea.  But the likelihood is they will not.  Wouldn’t you rather get our guy at ten (future top six or second pairing defenseman, maybe more of course maybe less but not likely) and just wait two more years and then Sutter and Schaller are off the books, the draft pick we got is playing his rookie year and LE could be flipped at the TDL as a rental?  Or Sutter for that matter.   We’d still end up with cap space in the end AND we’d have a solid core player on an ELC, not an aging vet that’s getting overpaid, AND perhaps a couple of mid picks to boot?

You make fair enough points, but it’s not just about EK, Panarin, or Duchene (and for the record, I don’t want any one of those players as I’ll explain later).

 

It’s simply about correcting 12 million dollars worth of error and re-investing it wisely......while Pettersson and Hughes are on ELC’s.  Period.   Even if the Canucks can’t land one of the big fish, perhaps they can land 2-3 upper-mid sized fish instead? (Which would be my personal choice).  

 

1) Get rid of the 12 million in deadwood

2) Build some real depth with that newly invested 12+ million

3) Get some playoff experience for our boys.

4) Perhaps make a little bit of noise while Pettersson and Hughes are in ELC’s.

 

That’s 

[IBatch]

3 hours ago, Hindustan Smyl said:

You make fair enough points, but it’s not just about EK, Panarin, or Duchene (and for the record, I don’t want any one of those players as I’ll explain later).

 

It’s simply about correcting 12 million dollars worth of error and re-investing it wisely......while Pettersson and Hughes are on ELC’s.  Period.   Even if the Canucks can’t land one of the big fish, perhaps they can land 2-3 upper-mid sized fish instead? (Which would be my personal choice).  

 

1) Get rid of the 12 million in deadwood

2) Build some real depth with that newly invested 12+ million

3) Get some playoff experience for our boys.

4) Perhaps make a little bit of noise while Pettersson and Hughes are in ELC’s.

 

That’s 

Problem is nowadays UFAs almost ALL get paid for past production and end up deadwood at some point, you want to get rid of LE who would fit into the upper mid sized free agent, to get a shot at another one (Neal, Ladd, Okposo, Foligno, Ryan...the list is very long with guys like this).   Sure we need one or maybe two of them to compliment our core at some point, but that time isn’t now, and odds are we’d just enter another LE type contract anyways.

[vannuck59]

On ‎5‎/‎10‎/‎2019 at 11:57 PM, Hindustan Smyl said:

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.

Thats the worst idea I have ever heard. NO 

[IBatch]

35 minutes ago, vannuck59 said:

Thats the worst idea I have ever heard. NO 

And here I go and try and be nice about it ha ha.  It’s a risky move that we don’t need to do right now, draft our guy at 10, in a couple years all the deadwood is coming off the books anyways, just in time to sign the new guys, imagine that it’s like they are planning for it or something.  

[Hindustan Smyl]

13 hours ago, IBatch said:

And here I go and try and be nice about it ha ha.  It’s a risky move that we don’t need to do right now, draft our guy at 10, in a couple years all the deadwood is coming off the books anyways, just in time to sign the new guys, imagine that it’s like they are planning for it or something.  

I see your point, but my only two issues are these:

 

1) Should we really risk having guys like Horvat, Pettersson, Hughes and Boeser possibly miss two more years of playoffs?   How much of an emphasis should there be in making the playoffs?

 

2). Isn’t there be something to be said with regards to taking advantage of both Pettersson and Hughes’ ELC status?  

[IBatch]

6 hours ago, Hindustan Smyl said:

I see your point, but my only two issues are these:

 

1) Should we really risk having guys like Horvat, Pettersson, Hughes and Boeser possibly miss two more years of playoffs?   How much of an emphasis should there be in making the playoffs?

 

2). Isn’t there be something to be said with regards to taking advantage of both Pettersson and Hughes’ ELC status?  

Horvat  I feel for.  He’s been in the league a while already...and yes there is merit in this topic.  I’m just not convinced we can use the cap saved in a way that forwards the group (yet).  Signing Panarin would probably give us the extra goals we need to win more than lose more but will it make us a playoff team?   Probably make the playoffs but once we get there how well will we do?

 

I think that we need two more solid drafts to complete this team, this years and next.  By staying the course we will have more players to use in trades later to plug holes and hopefully add two more Boeser-Horvat types on the way.  We will have those guys on their ELCs too when EP and Hughes gets their deals which will help much like Debrusk, Heinan, Thomas and several other players left in the final four are contributing to their teams fortunes.  

[aGENT]

On 5/11/2019 at 10:56 PM, Hindustan Smyl said:

Some people have mentioned to me that it’s not necessary to remove so much cap space because we already have enough cap space available to re-up our upcoming RFA core.  That’s not my reasoning though.   I want the Canucks to have their cake and eat it too.  Build a playoff caliber team now AND have enough money to comfortably re-up our future RFA’s.

 

On 5/12/2019 at 1:50 AM, Hindustan Smyl said:

Even if the Canucks can’t land one of the big fish, perhaps they can land 2-3 upper-mid sized fish instead?

Again, we already have enough cap space to both re-sign our FA's AND sign 2-3 'upper-mid' fish without giving up our 10th OA. We're going in to the summer with +/- $32m in cap space. Edler will likely get +/- $6 of that, Boeser +/-$7, Hutton $3'ish, Leivo $2'ish etc.

 

That still leaves +/- $10-15m to sign free agents.

 

And that's before trading any of Sutter, Eriksson, Tanev etc or waiving the likes of Spooner/Schaller. None of which requires spending our 10th OA to do.

 

Which is an especially bad idea because $10m of cap comes off the books at the end of next year FOR FREE anyway.