[Discussion] PK Subban to Vancouver might make sense

[higgyfan]

4 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

there's +'s and -'s for sure, but focusing on the +'s the contract is 3 more years, he doesn't need expansion protection, he'd be as good a producer as any of the current free agents in all likelihood. 

 

-'s: 9 mil... but we can afford it and it disappears when we're looking at cap issues down the road. 

 

On the personality thing, I'd leave that to Benning and Green, they know what they want and what the fit would be. 

 

Edler-PK

Hughes-Tanev 

 

^ thats certainly better than what we've seen for a while now. 

 

You bring up some interesting details, Jimmy.  His salary cap and term wouldn't really be a factor for the Canucks.

 

He had a down season last year, due to injuries, but he had 59pts in the previous season.  He's a good skater, high energy player, a nasty agitator, who plays a physical game and is not afraid to jump in and protect a teammate.  He is also disliked by a lot of player throughout the league and his personality rubs the old school stodgy NHL, the wrong way.

 

I think he would add and exciting dynamic to our team and his game would certainly be a huge advantage.  The big problem is what Nash would want in a trade.  PK is still worth +++ assets and I would be wary of what Van would have to give up to get him.  I also think that TG might have issues with Subban's style of play and flamboyant personality.  I suspect Travis would try to rein him in too much, which would create a lot of problems.

 

 

[Rob_Zepp]

Interesting how some people still believe PK Subban is elite and that he could be a positive part of a "team".   Drama follows this dude around as does a game that has eroded to the point where his underlying stats are "ok" (his OIGF and OIGA stats continue in wrong direction per 60) but his hits/game and points/game continue to slide which are the two key things this kind of player needs to bring.   Given where the Canucks are in the rebuild process, a Trouba would make waaaaaaay more sense.

[Blömqvist]

Would rather trade for Trouba at this point.

 

That said, I would still be open for Subban depending on the price... I'm assuming it would take Tanev (replacement RHD), a top prospect, a 1st round pick, and an additional mid-round pick.

 

In terms of said top prospect, it's too bad we traded Dahlen away so quickly...

 

 

Edited May 18, 2019 by Blömqvist

[xereau]

1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Nylander for Subban might be a thing. 

Would you make that trade? I sure as hell wouldn't.

Maybe for two Nylanders and a lifetime pass at Disneyland.

 

Also the Leafs are in cap hell. Helllllllll.

[Canucklehead73]

I would vote no.

 

He has a great shot which we do indeed need.

 

My feeling when I watch him play is how long his shifts are...

 

He doesn't have the legs to stay out for the marathon shifts he seems to like and puts his team at a disadvantage as he cannot defend when he is gassed...

[JM_]

38 minutes ago, higgyfan said:

You bring up some interesting details, Jimmy.  His salary cap and term wouldn't really be a factor for the Canucks.

 

He had a down season last year, due to injuries, but he had 59pts in the previous season.  He's a good skater, high energy player, a nasty agitator, who plays a physical game and is not afraid to jump in and protect a teammate.  He is also disliked by a lot of player throughout the league and his personality rubs the old school stodgy NHL, the wrong way.

 

I think he would add and exciting dynamic to our team and his game would certainly be a huge advantage.  The big problem is what Nash would want in a trade.  PK is still worth +++ assets and I would be wary of what Van would have to give up to get him.  I also think that TG might have issues with Subban's style of play and flamboyant personality.  I suspect Travis would try to rein him in too much, which would create a lot of problems.

 

 

I'd actually be excited to have him here, but there's about 10 teams that can outbid us for him, assuming we don't want to burn youth (which I hope and am 99,999% sure Jim doesn't want to).

 

[JM_]

4 minutes ago, xereau said:

Would you make that trade? I sure as hell wouldn't.

Maybe for two Nylanders and a lifetime pass at Disneyland.

 

Also the Leafs are in cap hell. Helllllllll.

I think TO would, yes. 

[Pears]

3 hours ago, Zhukini said:

Makes more sense than the people who think he wouldn’t fit in because of his personality 

Who cares about personality tbh. He isn’t an *** and we could use a guy like him in the room. And in all seriousness he’s exactly what we need. He’ll only be 30 at the start of next season and is one year removed from scoring 59 points. Why wouldn’t you jump at that?

[shazzam]

This would be dumb

[Roger Neilsons Towel]

Note: Tags are mandatory only in the Trades, Rumours, Signings forum and in the Proposals and Armchair GM'ing forum.

[Lancaster]

Might as well just keep those assets and make a play for Karlsson.  

[DADDYROCK]

We do not need a prima dona like PK  on the Canucks.There are several better choices to spend 9 million dollars on.We could use that money to get two decent defense men for example.

There will be some cap strapped teams that can't afford some pretty good players after the playoffs are over, and we might be able to get a better choice at filling our most obvious need with some quality defense men.

[Coconuts]

It's an option, and if he's on the market I'm sure Benning and co will do their due diligence and at least inquire. Subban just turned 30 a few days ago and will be 32 by the time he needs to be re-upped. It does give management some flexibility in regards to making moves.

 

Meanwhile Karlsson will be 29 at the end of the month and will potentially be available for term and cash saving us organizational assets. Personally, even if it cost us a bit more I'd still go for Karlsson if he'd be interested in coming here if I were to pick between the two. Yeah, you're paying a bit more with cap and term right away but personally I see Karlsson as the better rover and better defenseman in general. If we were to trade for Subban I don't imagine it'd be to have him here for two years and allow him to walk. Realistically we'd be looking at having him for 2-6 years anyway. 

 

Is grabbing Subban over Karlsson worth whatever assets we'd have to pay up to get him? For the sake of potential cap/contract flexibility? Because I don't imagine PK would be interested in taking less than what he's making now if he's productive for us during those first two years. Would his contract demands be much different than Karlsson's may be come July 1st if we're interested in retaining him? (And if we pay the price for PK I imagine we will be). I'm not sure it is. 

 

Also gotta factor in the cap has been rising every season and players continue to get more and more. What Karlsson gets July 1st might not be far off from what a player of Subban's would get come July 1st in a couple years. 

 

This is all speculation though. For all we know Karlsson signs elsewhere and Nashville isn't interested in a trade with us as opposed to someone else. But if I had to pick a poison pill of high cap/term I'd probably go with the option that doesn't cost us assets up front. 

Edited May 18, 2019 by Coconuts

[Angry Goose]

not sure about trading a long term and valuable asset (10oa) for a player that has 3 years left.  

[mll]

4 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

there's +'s and -'s for sure, but focusing on the +'s the contract is 3 more years, he doesn't need expansion protection, he'd be as good a producer as any of the current free agents in all likelihood. 

 

-'s: 9 mil... but we can afford it and it disappears when we're looking at cap issues down the road. 

 

On the personality thing, I'd leave that to Benning and Green, they know what they want and what the fit would be. 

 

Edler-PK

Hughes-Tanev 

 

^ thats certainly better than what we've seen for a while now. 

 

But we don't have the pieces to make it happen - this article covers the best trade partners and we don't have the assets:https://thehockeywriters.com/pk-subban-trade-destinations/

 

Nylander for Subban might be a thing. 

 

 

Toronto was interested in Ellis.  Nylander has struggled in the playoffs and Nashville needs guys who won't disappear in the post-season.

[mll]

2 hours ago, Blömqvist said:

Would rather trade for Trouba at this point.

 

That said, I would still be open for Subban depending on the price... I'm assuming it would take Tanev (replacement RHD), a top prospect, a 1st round pick, and an additional mid-round pick.

 

In terms of said top prospect, it's too bad we traded Dahlen away so quickly...

 

 

Unless they completely change their system, which is a possibility,  Tanev is not the kind of D Nashville would be looking for.  Laviolette says if you think defence than you spend more time defending than attacking.  He wants Ds who know how to generate offence - that's not Tanev.  Also the reason to move a D is to give more responsibility to Fabbro.  

 

Their window is also wide open now.  They want to fix their 2nd line and a prospect who needs development time doesn't fill that need.

 

Edited May 18, 2019 by mll

[Tyndall2]

No thanks!

[IBatch]

6 hours ago, Hindustan Smyl said:

Lol.

 

Fair enough.  I’ll be happy to try and explain my (misguided?) thought process to each and every one of my proposals if I get a bit more free time.   Tell me which ones don’t make sense to you and I’ll try and explain as best as possible.

 

As far as Subban goes, there are a few things that I like about him more than Erik Karlsson:

 

1) Lower cap hit.  Subban’s cap hit is 9 million while Karlsson would likely get 10.5-11 million if he signed with us.....and as we are about to see in Toronto, if you sign one guy at a premium (Tavares), you’d better damn sure believe that everyone else will want to sign at a premium as well (Nylander, Matthews, Marner, etc.).

 

2) Subban will come off the books just as he will likely start his age decline.  3 years of Subban and then we can walk away from him......which conveniently will be around the time that Hughes will need to be re-upped.  

 

Two things can can be achieved here (in comparison to if we got a guy like Karlsson or Panarin).

 

A) A much lower risk of future cap complications.   Since Subban’s contract would be off our books just around the time that Hughes would be extended, our cap structure would have a much greater chance of remaining intact.

 

B-).  Still a chance at a possible “buy in” from the rest of our young RFA core.   If we get Subban and he becomes our highest paid player at 9 million, perhaps the team can create an internal cap limit where everyone on the team “buys in” to the idea of taking slightly less money in order to build a winner (ie for example, perhaps a guy like Pettersson signing for 9 million when he becomes an RFA......along with our other RFA’s “buying in.”).   By contrast, if you bring in a guy like Erik Karlsson and sign him for 10.5-11 million (likely closer to 11), then you can forget about the rest of the team “buying in” and taking less money.  You now have a Toronto type situation (ie  all guys being paid at a premium, future cap complications, not having enough cap space to build true depth since an inappropriately high percentage of the cap will be tied into the top talents).

 

So - long story short, a guy like Subban make more sentence from the perspective of....

 

1) Shorter term contract (3 years left as opposed to what would be 7).

2) Significantly greater chance of having less future cap complications.

3) Significantly greater chance of our young core “buying in” and accepting cap friendlier deals when their contracts expire. 

4) The addition of Subban to the team allowing the Canucks to make a push for the playoffs while Pettersson and Hughes are still on ELC’s.   An often overlooked fact is the importance of playoff experience for young kids in the system.   Getting Pettersson, Hughes, Horvat, and Boeser some playoff experience (along with our other young players) is crucial to their development.

 

Now obviously - the big advantage of going after someone like Karlsson, Panarin, or Duchene is that it’s a completely FREE asset (ie only give up money), but again.......if you want to sign one of those guys, it’s going to cost TERM (7 years) and PREMIUM $$$......(which would then put us in the same boat as Toronto as I explained above).

 

Other UFA’s (Dzingel, Ferland, Myers, etc.) arguably wont move the needle much.

 

Hence, my suggestion of Subban, depending on what the acquisition cost would be.

 

I realize that one of the biggest arguments that people have on here (against the idea of trading for Subban) is that Subban wouldn’t make us a cup contender (something that I completely agree with by the way) , but here’s why we should still strongly consider the idea:

 

1) Getting Pettersson, Hughes, and other young core members to “believe” and “buy in.”  If an addition of Subban can make us atleast a 1st or 2nd round caliber team, the young players on the team will not only get playoff experience, but will also come to realize that this management group has their backs and is serious about building a winner.  These factors will be important when it comes time to re-upping RFA’s and getting them to “buy in.”

 

By contrast, if guys like Pettersson, Boeser, Hughes, and Horvat continue to miss the playoffs year in year out, what do you think will happen to their motivation levels?  Or their faith in management?   IF these continue to miss the playoffs year in year out, do you think they will be likely to “buy in” to the idea of taking less money to build a winner here?  I don’t think so.

 

By bringing in Subban, you demonstrate to the team that you are serious about winning, and that you are simply giving them a taste of what’s about to come.

 

edit - one more thing that I forgot to mention:   Mentorship for Hughes.  Yes, we have Tanev for that but let’s face it......Tanev has never been a true superstar in the league whereas PK has.   Hughes is an offensive-minded dman like Subban.  Think Hughes can learn a thing or two from PK?

You forgot one thing, Subban is a egomaniac, or pompous prick or the type of guy (trump) that talks about himself in the third person.   He’s got a “ big personality” or is he off his rocker a bit?  Montreal was happy to trade a recent Norris winner for an older very well rounded perennial finalist and seemingly out of the blue.   Even though he committed 10 million to the kids .. who does that if they don’t want some attention back their way anyways?  Who really knows what’s going on with Subban .... where there is smoke....and he’s made plenty of smoke all the way back to juniors where he infuriated his coaches.  

 

And the other thing you forgot to mention is what would it cost us?  How would we manage to not mortgage the future or trade away a core piece ... these years of Subban would cost us something dear unfortunately.  

 

I’d much rather spend a few extra million and get EK and four or five years of prime EK and 3 or 2 very good but no longer elite for nothing but cap.   He seems a lot more genuine, and a team player.  

[Alflives]

12 hours ago, Hindustan Smyl said:

PK Subban to Vancouver might make sense

 

Obviously, this would be dependent on what Nashville’s asking price would be, but I’m starting to come around to this idea.  Originally, I thought PK’s cap hit was north of 10 million, but I learn the other day that it’s “only” 9 million.

 

Here are some reasons why I’m now on board with Subbann coming here (again, dependent on the actual asking price).

 

1) In today’s NHL, 9 million isn’t too outrageous of a cap hit for a top player.   I’m of the opinion that teams are hardpressed to win Stanley cups if they have players that have cap hits above a certain point (ie higher than Ovechkin’s cap hit).  That’s one reason why I’m not a fan of the “Toronto model,” and am also not a fan of getting Karlsson or Panarin.

 

2) Subbann fills a huge need on our weakest position and side.

 

3). Subbann will be off the books in a few short years.   I think this is he most important point right here.  IF you bring in a guy like Karlsson or some other superstar in his late 20’s, you’re looking at a long term deal.....and would likely be paying for a majority of those years when said player is past his prime.  

 

Conversely, Subbann would be off the books in a few short years, and the Canucks would NOT become Toronto part II where they would have so much money tied long term to a handful of players.

 

4) Subbann’s presence would allow the Canucks to take advantage of Pettersson and Hughes’ ELC’s.   Get the Canucks into the playoffs, and get the team some valuable playoff experience.

 

5) Benning subscribes to the mentorship model, and who better to show Hughes the ropes than a superstar like PK?   In a few years, the Canucks can move on from PK as Hughes would likely be ready to lead our defense.

 

For all of these reasons, I would be onboard with a PK Subbann trade, but it would be dependent on the price.

 

To Nashville:  10th + Hutton + (one of Madden or Gaudette)

To Vancouver: Subbann

 

I don’t know how realistic the above proposal would be, but I think it would revolve around something like that.  I would say no if Nashville asked for Virtanen+ 

 PK is pretty much a cap dump, and you have us giving up prime assets for him!

Just No.

i don’t want anything to do with PK on our team.  There’s a very good reason too.

 

[IBatch]

2 hours ago, mll said:

Unless they completely change their system, which is a possibility,  Tanev is not the kind of D Nashville would be looking for.  Laviolette says if you think defence than you spend more time defending than attacking.  He wants Ds who know how to generate offence - that's not Tanev.  Also the reason to move a D is to give more responsibility to Fabbro.  

 

Their window is also wide open now.  They want to fix their 2nd line and a prospect who needs development time doesn't fill that need.

 

Their ask would be Boeser.  He’d help score the goals they need to.  Benning would (should) chuckle and hang up the phone.