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

[Proposal] Vancouver & Edmonton and Off season Plan


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Seannnp said:

Newhook because I believe he is better than where he is ranked. Hes had some Barzal comparisons as far as style of play. I would be okay with Dach or Cozens if they dropped ahead of Newhook and even Krebs. I just went with who I wanted to see.

 

For Pujulujarvi, moving up two spots and a 2nd. The 2nd gives us the assets needed to move up into the mid to late 1st or pick up two defenseman. I just don't think anyone is going to get 8th OA for Lucic. They'll look at other options before doing that.


Pool is high risk high reward, just for a second imagine he reaches his ceiling!

Well that's the point I'm trying to make. He's ranked lower, so even if he does become a better player than those above, he's likely available at 10, so moving up to take a player that likely is picked later makes no sense. We may as well squeeze more out of this deal than to "lose value" by moving up unnecessarily. If another team picks Newhook ahead of us, it just means a higher ranked player simply fell to us (eg Quinn Hughes).

 

I understand the belief for Puljujarvi and certainly if he reaches his ceiling, then we have a gamer. But at this point, he simply hasn't shown much of it and I believe he needs waivers next season, so we are forced to give him a spot even if he has a lot of work still. And say he never reaches his ceiling, we are giving Edmonton a free pass on Lucic and taking on the crippling effects on ourselves. The risk is doubled here.

 

I don't think a 38th and 40th nets you a mid-round 1st. I like the idea of nabbing another 2nd though. Just not quite through this process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Monteeun said:

But we are not that desperate...so it's best to leave the capspace wide open...

Agreed, we aren't desperate. But, how do we move this rebuild along? How do we improve the lineup? How do we keep stocking the prospect pool? Cant do it with the assets we have. Its just money, and its FA's money. We have enough players we need to get rid of to keep us in the same spot with the cap space. I don't think its high on Benning's list to make more cap room just yet.


Edler, Tanev, Eriksson, Baertschi, Schaller, Granlund, Goldobin, Motte (prefer him to stay), Pouliot, Gaunce, etc all will be gone in two years. We will save enough cap space with them and take advantage by getting some decent assets by sacrificing a little bit in cap space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Seannnp said:

Agreed it wont be easy, but I don't think it will be impossible. You do have the options to buy him out with only two years left, LTIR, bury him in the minors etc.

 

Also, not sure if this is the case but if he waives him NMC to come to Vancouver, his NMC no longer applies to subsequent moves?

I believe the NMC aspect has to be agreed upon from both sides. I'm not too sure how it works, but all I know is if it gets carried forward on to us, there is absolutely no way I'm taking any deal involving Lucic. On the flip side, this factor is why Edmonton needs to be paying big time to unload him, unless they feel they're not worried about their forward situation with Lucic protected in which case they can just keep him then.

 

Buying him out still adds unnecessary cap during a time when our guys will be looking for extensions. LTIR is only valid if they can get a doctor to say so. Not too sure how management would feel constantly burying millions in the minors. These are options, but not ideal situations if JP doesn't pan out (I think he's also eligible for the expansion as well) and only moving up a couple of spots to pick Newhook as you suggest. The 2nd is nice, but like I said, not the way I would go about acquiring it with so much risk taken on our end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Seannnp said:

What does it matter if we get rid of Eriksson after July 1 and have the cap space? Don't really see a counter argument in your response.

So some team magically takes on Louie’s contract?  Can you provide some examples?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

Well that's the point I'm trying to make. He's ranked lower, so even if he does become a better player than those above, he's likely available at 10, so moving up to take a player that likely is picked later makes no sense. We may as well squeeze more out of this deal than to "lose value" by moving up unnecessarily. If another team picks Newhook ahead of us, it just means a higher ranked player simply fell to us (eg Quinn Hughes).

 

I understand the belief for Puljujarvi and certainly if he reaches his ceiling, then we have a gamer. But at this point, he simply hasn't shown much of it and I believe he needs waivers next season, so we are forced to give him a spot even if he has a lot of work still. And say he never reaches his ceiling, we are giving Edmonton a free pass on Lucic and taking on the crippling effects on ourselves. The risk is doubled here.

 

I don't think a 38th and 40th nets you a mid-round 1st. I like the idea of nabbing another 2nd though. Just not quite through this process.

Im all for picking any one the fallers in this order Byram, Dach, Cozens. I am in no way saying we take Newhook. Just my personal pick but not over the three I mentioned.

 

Pool and Virtanen are producing at almost the exact clip .28 ppg with Virtanen having an extra season to develop. Most of us wont move Virtanen without an overpayment but we aren't willing to take on a similar player, 6'4" 200+ pounds with an above average shot on the low? Makes no sense to me.

 

Maybe not a mid 1st but I could definitely see something between 22-26 for two 2nds especially if a team likes two guys in the that 38-40 spot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alflives said:

I thin the value is actually kind of close.  However, no way does JB want to bring in another anchor contract in Lucic.  Those contracts are death to a team, when the cap dollar is so big.

I could see Sutter for Pool Party as a straight across deal.  Even then, I doubt JB would do that.  Pool Party looks like a serious bustaroo.  He can't produce offence, and he doesn't provide anything else.  He's likely going to be back in Finland in a year.  He reminds me a lot of Nuchuskin. (sp?)  No value in that player.  

I could see Sutter 50% retained for Bouchard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

I believe the NMC aspect has to be agreed upon from both sides. I'm not too sure how it works, but all I know is if it gets carried forward on to us, there is absolutely no way I'm taking any deal involving Lucic. On the flip side, this factor is why Edmonton needs to be paying big time to unload him, unless they feel they're not worried about their forward situation with Lucic protected in which case they can just keep him then.

 

Buying him out still adds unnecessary cap during a time when our guys will be looking for extensions. LTIR is only valid if they can get a doctor to say so. Not too sure how management would feel constantly burying millions in the minors. These are options, but not ideal situations if JP doesn't pan out (I think he's also eligible for the expansion as well) and only moving up a couple of spots to pick Newhook as you suggest. The 2nd is nice, but like I said, not the way I would go about acquiring it with so much risk taken on our end.

I think Benning would know well too ensure that Lucic coming over would have to include disqualifying the NMC.

 

I don't think Edmonton is going to pay a significant sum to move Lucic and there may be a team that may be willing to take him on for less and the Canucks remain staus quo.

 

My main point through all of this is two fold. We don't have assets to improve the team unfortunately and we are still rebuilding. We need to swing for the fences and go high risk high reward. The Pettersson pick played out pretty damn well using that strategy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I could see Sutter 50% retained for Bouchard. 

Never going to happen. Bouchard who I believe is a right hand shot and from what I've heard may make the team out of camp will not be included in any Lucic deal let alone for a 3c. Would you trade Hughes for a 3c, any 3c in the league? Bouchard is to them what Hughes is to us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, theo5789 said:

Chiarelli doesn't work for the Oilers anymore.

I hear you... but - Sutter would be a great fit on the Coilers particularly at that price. With Larsson, Russel and Matt Benning not going anywhere next year there's no room for Bouchard who's probably going to spend the year in the AHL anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Seannnp said:

Never going to happen. Bouchard who I believe is a right hand shot and from what I've heard may make the team out of camp will not be included in any Lucic deal let alone for a 3c. Would you trade Hughes for a 3c, any 3c in the league? Bouchard is to them what Hughes is to us.

no way he makes the team out of camp imo. And who's he going to replace? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I hear you... but - Sutter would be a great fit on the Coilers particularly at that price. With Larsson, Russel and Matt Benning not going anywhere next year there's no room for Bouchard who's probably going to spend the year in the AHL anyway. 

Word on the street is that Russel can be had for a song.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, sonoman said:

So some team magically takes on Louie’s contract?  Can you provide some examples?

Yes of course. Not magically though.

 

Louis Eriksson to any of the cap floor teams. Over 80% I believe of Erikssons salary will be paid after July 1. I think he is owed like 9million over the next 3 years. For a team like Ottawa or Arizona, or rebuilding teams looking to weaponize their space, I think they would be more than happy to take on a 6m cap hit for $3 million a year. We could send over a 2nd tier prospect or a draft pick in either this year or next to make up for it.

 

If you were the owner of a team, would you rather take on someone for 6 million cap hit and pay 6 million or take on a 6 million cap hit but only pay 3 mill? Personally, im all for saving that additional 3 million whilst remaining cap compliant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Seannnp said:

Im all for picking any one the fallers in this order Byram, Dach, Cozens. I am in no way saying we take Newhook. Just my personal pick but not over the three I mentioned.

 

Pool and Virtanen are producing at almost the exact clip .28 ppg with Virtanen having an extra season to develop. Most of us wont move Virtanen without an overpayment but we aren't willing to take on a similar player, 6'4" 200+ pounds with an above average shot on the low? Makes no sense to me.

 

Maybe not a mid 1st but I could definitely see something between 22-26 for two 2nds especially if a team likes two guys in the that 38-40 spot.

Well I don't see any of Byram, Dach, or Cozens falling to 8, but you never know. Perhaps this would be the type of deal you have in place if somehow one of those guys did fall that far. If you like Newhook, well if management agrees, then I think he could be had at 10 anyway. So all we don't gain is the rest of the deal, which IMO isn't enough for what we would have to take on.

 

The thing with Virtanen is he's starting to round out his game defensively. His size and speed make him effective in being capable of shutting down some of the best in the league (although not there yet). This is the aspect that cannot be overlooked by just points alone. Virtanen has been increasing his offensive output every year so far and should have something to prove with next season being the end of his bridge contract. Puljujarvi unfortunately looks lost out there and that could be attributed to the Oilers factor. He now needs to be developed in the NHL with the waiver aspect which simply takes away some of his value. If he ever blossoms (much like if Virtanen does), then of course it could be promising. But like I said, we are taking on the full negative of Lucic, so the stakes are much higher for us for this to be a mistake than if it pans out. We would still have to deal with the Lucic situation even if Puljujarvi starts trending upwards with us (and thus also adding to the future cap issues).

 

It will depend on if there is a target available in the 22-26 region (say if Seider somehow falls here), but I agree that would be where we would be trading up to if we did decide to make that move. I would likely just keep both 2nds though because I think when it gets to that region, it really becomes a crapshoot and there can be many gems in the 2nd round anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

no way he makes the team out of camp imo. And who's he going to replace? 

Anyone on that backend aside from Klefbom, Nurse and Larsson. I know I would prefer him to Benning and Russel. Better skater, bigger body, better shot.

9 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I hear you... but - Sutter would be a great fit on the Coilers particularly at that price. With Larsson, Russel and Matt Benning not going anywhere next year there's no room for Bouchard who's probably going to spend the year in the AHL anyway. 

At that price? When does a 3c who was recently replaced by a rookie equate to a top 10 pick just one year earlier?

 

Sutter does not have anywhere near that value. Bouchard is their top prospect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I could see Sutter 50% retained for Bouchard. 

Don't see EDM wanting to move him (and I don't particularly want him).

 

18 minutes ago, Seannnp said:

I don't think Edmonton is going to pay a significant sum to move Lucic and there may be a team that may be willing to take him on for less and the Canucks remain staus quo.

Don't see that. It's a HUGE anchor of a contract/player. They're going to have to PAY to move that or they're going to have to buy him out (which doesn't really help with his cap hit much but would get them out of protecting him for the ED. If Holland is going to actually transform the Oilers, dumping that contract is job one.

 

And big fat NO on moving up to 8th in the draft. The players available at 8 are basically the same tier as the ones available at 10. There's almost zero value to it.

 

By all means I'm more than open to adding 8th OA (and Puljujarvi for that matter) in something involving taking back Lucic, retaining on Sutter and even taking back cap in Russel/Sekera/Manning though.

 

13 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I'm sure, with that salary and a NMC he's not going anywhere. 

I'd happily take him back if it's part of getting 8th + Puljujarvi (along with Lucic :sick: ). He'd cover our need for a short term, UFA right D and his contract expires just as Hughes/Pettersson need raises. Excellent fit in fact. Would largely depend on whether he'd waive to here.

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

10 minutes ago, Seannnp said:

I think Benning would know well too ensure that Lucic coming over would have to include disqualifying the NMC.

 

I don't think Edmonton is going to pay a significant sum to move Lucic and there may be a team that may be willing to take him on for less and the Canucks remain staus quo.

 

My main point through all of this is two fold. We don't have assets to improve the team unfortunately and we are still rebuilding. We need to swing for the fences and go high risk high reward. The Pettersson pick played out pretty damn well using that strategy.

Edmonton needs to find a suitor that Lucic would be willing to move to. Even if Lucic gives a few options, this isn't like a Kesler situation and Lucic won't be the target these teams will be after, but more about what they can gain for taking him on. If some team is willing to take on less and take the hit, then that only hurts their team. Edmonton is not in a position of power here in moving Lucic whatsoever, so they need to pay or find some other sucker.

 

I don't disagree with you about being creative and improving, but we have been trending well, so I don't see the need to be taking on this type of risk that could actually set the team back for years to come. The Pettersson pick didn't come with the baggage. The baggage is what we don't want when taking these risks because if they don't work, then you're only shooting yourself in the foot after you shot yourself in the other foot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I hear you... but - Sutter would be a great fit on the Coilers particularly at that price. With Larsson, Russel and Matt Benning not going anywhere next year there's no room for Bouchard who's probably going to spend the year in the AHL anyway. 

I'd be willing to move Sutter for less anyway. I agree that Sutter could be a good fit for the Oilers, but I doubt they move Bouchard simply because he won't be with the big club next year. It would be best for Bouchard to be developed for a year in the AHL (get a few looks in the regular season for injuries and what not) rather than be rushed into the NHL anyway. I imagine they would try to move on from Russell first when it comes to it. If Bouchard wins a spot out of camp, Benning would be movable for them for a pick or another player of similar age in a different position of need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Seannnp said:

Anyone on that backend aside from Klefbom, Nurse and Larsson. I know I would prefer him to Benning and Russel. Better skater, bigger body, better shot.

At that price? When does a 3c who was recently replaced by a rookie equate to a top 10 pick just one year earlier?

 

Sutter does not have anywhere near that value. Bouchard is their top prospect.

so play Bouchard on is off side? that does sound Oiler-like. 

 

Since when was Sutter replaced by a rookie? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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