Proposal - Draft Pick Frenzy EDM-DAL-CAR-PITS-OTT

[Gurn]

11 minutes ago, Seannnp said:

13 trades by Montreal in 1999/2000

13 trades by Buffalo in 2014/2015

22 trades by Tampa in 1999/2000

16 trades by Colorado in 2003/2004

12 trades by Penguins in 2008/2009

 

this what I found after doing google searching for 2 minutes. So when you said I was mistaken, you just assumed I was wrong? Based on what? Because you couldn't comprehend a team could turn over a roster in a year?

Gave you a plus, for being able to back up what you said.

 

On 5/22/2019 at 2:09 PM, Seannnp said:

TO DAL

Tanev, Goldobin, 3rd in 2020 (Conditional, changes to a 2nd if Tanev plays less than 65 games)

TO VAN

18th OA, Honka

Think you meant if Tanev plays More than 65 games?

 

On 5/22/2019 at 2:09 PM, Seannnp said:

TO OTT

Eriksson, 3rd round in 2019

TO VAN

6th round in 2020

I wouldn't include the third rounder with Eriksson, if the Sens want cap help let that be enough.

Loui is over paid, but still useful.

[Seannnp]

8 hours ago, IBatch said:

Yes NYR multiple  first rounders last draft...and NYI too (Dobson and Whalstrom)  ... but they had good assets they traded to get those with using the TDL to leverage them as well (which usually makes it a little easier to get more than other times of the year).  

 

EDM doesn’t do that deal even if Chia was still there 99/100 times.  Sutter doesn’t have much of any value to a team even with the retention.   Last year was a disaster for him, why take a gamble on a player who is usually injured  and that is easily replaceable with free agency for free and with a guy that will actually play?  They can shed a couple million in cap space without much difficulty to make room for that player to make up for the rentention aspect.  You don’t get a high first and a second for a deal like that, they need those picks to balance the books later.   Lucic is a terrible contract and but he’s not going anywhere soon if ever. 

 

The PIT trade is plausible (if they had that a similar opportunity with another team).  

 

finally, sincerely thank you for actually adding some value to this discussion. I come here to talk Canucks, listen to what others have to say, etc not face the remarks of  a bunch of wannabe comedians, so thank you.

 

NRY and NYI did have good assets to get some of those mid round 1st picks. Im not proposing mid 1sts. I'm proposing acquiring one of the last picks in the round at 29 and mid to late pick with Dallas (I still believe Tanev has top 4 value and would remain healthy if deployed in a different role in a different market - so im assuming we have a good asset in Tanev).

 

With the Edmonton deal you are claiming Lucic is a terrible contract - which I agree with - but you also seem to imply hes not going anywhere because of it. I can only assume that would be the case if teams were unwilling to take it on regardless of the return 8th OA and 38th OA or that Edmonton will never give up that much and just keep him. I don't think they have the option of keeping him, they absolutely have to move that contract out. They do not have the cap  space to sign legitimate difference making wingers that can help with their secondary scoring. They are playing RNH as the 3c which takes away from their scoring need. I don't think you can get a defensive 3c that is capable of 20 goals for 2 million in this league anymore. So given the appetite to move the Lucic contract and free up some space, add offensive wingers through free agency, free up RNH to play wing in the top 6 and the need for a 3c, this trade checks off all the boxes for the Oilers. They still have decent prospects in Bouchard, Yamamoto, Pujuljarvi and can still pick up some guys in the 3rd,4th, 5th round.

[Seannnp]

2 minutes ago, gurn said:

Gave you a plus, for being able to back up what you said.

 

Think you meant if Tanev plays More than 65 games?

 

I wouldn't include the third rounder with Eriksson, if the Sens want cap help let that be enough.

Loui is over paid, but still useful.

Appreciate that man.

 

If Tanev plays more than 65 games they get a 3rd round pick. If he plays less than 65 games for them, the pick goes up to a 2nd. I think Tanev and a 2nd has pretty decent value. If he plays more than 65 games( 70 plus for example), Tanev alone is worth that 1st round pick. Are we really undervaluing him because of one off year? He didn't play great this year but he is more than just a serviceable defenseman. He still has one year left, great cap hit, can play big minutes against the top guys in the league and not look out of place and helps keep the puck out of the net, and shots away from our goalie. Im sure Tampa would have loved to have him this year in the playoffs.

 

Despite him being useful, the Sens will realize that we are trying to offload a contract we don't want on the books and will leverage that against us to get max value. I think the most Benning will give up is a 3rd.

 

I literally do negotiations, mediations, arbitrations every single day. I know a thing or two about leverage, perceived value, etc.

[Gurn]

8 minutes ago, Seannnp said:

If Tanev plays more than 65 games they get a 3rd round pick. If he plays less than 65 games for them, the pick goes up to a 2nd.

Ok, I see that now, I think my dyslexia got in the way the first time

[Seannnp]

1 minute ago, gurn said:

Ok, I see that now, I think my dyslexia got in the way the first time

All good my friend, I had to read it a few times myself to make sure that I wasn't the one that wrote it wrong lol

[CaptainLinden16]

23 hours ago, Seannnp said:

But why? lol

 

I really though the values were close. Whether GM's will make the trade is a different story. Whether all of them happen before the draft, after the draft or whenever isn't really what this proposal is for. It just to gauge value and see the options that are viable for this team.
 

Edmonton does that deal 9 times out of 10.

 

Pittsburgh would likely do that deal as well. If that deal was offered to Vancouver and there wasn't really a player at 21 that I absolutely loved, I would drop 8 spots to pick up another 2nd round pick, more importantly an early 2nd round pick.

 

The Dallas deal, I admit, is likely the toughest one to make happen. With Carolina though, they have a great defense corp and have been rumored to be actively shopping one of them to upgrade their forward lineup. Ferland is gone which opens up another hole on the wing. I believe Carolina is looking to compete now. Hutton provides a solid option for their top 6 and has shown he can handle a top 4 role when called upon. He is still young and will likely sign his next contract at an affordable price and term. Alone, Hutton is likely worth a 2nd, maybe a 3rd. Baertschi, despite his injuries is still a 50 point winger that provide secondary offense and can slot in anywhere in your top 9 and has a manageable, almost cheap, contract. Carolina can then move Pesce or Hamilton for move scoring help. Don't think the 29th OA is going to be ready to help them for the next 2-3 years.

 

With Dallas I think a deal could be had for Goldobin for Honka 1 for 1. Both are 23 years old, former 1st round picks that haven't quite lived up to expectations. Tanev and 2nd might be enough to get a mid first. I might be over valuing Tanev here and Dallas may never go for it but they are very thin on the right side. Lovejoy, Fedun, Polak and Methot are all UFA's. That's 3 RD you've just lost. Klingberg is their only RD followed by Honka who is their Goldobin on defense. They could definitely use Tanev on the 2nd pairing. If Tanev remains healthy he is worth a 1st rounder without a doubt.

Are the deals individually plausible? Eriksson, Granlund, Schaller, Spooner do not have to happen before the draft and weve already moved on from Pouliot and Gaunce. That would leave Hutton, Baertschi, Goldobin, Sutter and Tanev (5 players) I really don't understand some of these smartass comments sometimes. If you don't have anything valuable to add stop wasting your time commenting .

 

didn't NYR or one of the other teams have like 3 first round picks and 2 2nd round picks last year? I think a few years ago there was another team that had 6-7 picks in the first two rounds and if I remember correctly 4 or 5 of them were 1st round picks (1998 or 1999). Didn't realize CDC became a stage for some of you stand-up comedians

The reason why is that you are mostly trading quantity for quality.  Most if not all GMS want the best player in a trade.  Free agency is coming up so its unlikely someone trades for Baertschi and Hutton directly without looking for a free agent first.  Certainly not giving up a 1st round pick.  Tanev and 2nd for 1st isn't going to happen either.  Try free agency first then offer 3rd and Honka for Tanev. 

 

Why would Pittsburgh want to move down in the draft without knowing who is available at their pick first?   Again they wouldn't be getting the best player in the trade.

 

The Edmonton trade is highway robbery.  8th and 38th overall just to take Lucic and you get 40 games a year Sutter for 50% discount.  If Erik Karlsson is dead set on playing Edmonton then maybe they make a trade like this to free up the capspace, but otherwise its not a deal they would make.  More realistic is 2019 2nd 2020 2nd + Lucic for Sutter.  8th overall is a significant draft pick with a high probability of being an impact player.  You dont trade that for a camp dump.

 

The most realistic trade is the Eriksson deal, but both teams really have no reason to do it.  Vancouver doesn't need the cap space and Ottawa doesn't need the player.  They could get two 2nds for Lucic, so why not do that instead?  Why wouldn't they trade for Lucic to get the 38th and 8th like you proposed.  If you are going to take on cap then you might as well go for the biggest return possible.  I mean you can see the problems in your bias when Eriksson, who I actually like, garners a 3rd while Lucic who is maybe slightly worse gets the 8th and 38th.  That's a big stretch.

 

Again, I don't mean to be harsh; and I am all for ideas.  These just don't work.

 

Tanev is likely worth a 2nd round pick right now.

Sutter likely has negative value

Goldobin will likely get waived

Baertschi is worth a 3rd pick max and probably not even that due to the concussions.  Its not like his history is a secret.

Hutton is worth a 3rd pick max probably a 4th or 5th and only after pre-season starts.

 

Most teams will look to obtain players of this caliber in free agency.  You don't really target these guys in trades.  I like the Goldobin for Honka idea, but I am not sure if Dallas will like that.  I wouldn't care if Jim did the Jim special and did Goldobin+6th for Honka or whatever just so everyone here can go crazy about wasting pickz.

 

Edited May 24, 2019 by CaptainLinden16

[CaptainLinden16]

I wonder if Roope Hintz could be had for Tanev?  He is a phenom.  A really lethal shot.  I think he is going to blow up next year.  I would put in a 3rd or even a 2nd if needed.

[qwijibo]

1 hour ago, Seannnp said:

13 trades by Montreal in 1999/2000

13 trades by Buffalo in 2014/2015

22 trades by Tampa in 1999/2000

16 trades by Colorado in 2003/2004

12 trades by Penguins in 2008/2009

 

this what I found after doing google searching for 2 minutes. So when you said I was mistaken, you just assumed I was wrong? Based on what? Because you couldn't comprehend a team could turn over a roster in a year?

I stand corrected. Although you can lose the condescending attitude. 

[IBatch]

3 hours ago, Seannnp said:

finally, sincerely thank you for actually adding some value to this discussion. I come here to talk Canucks, listen to what others have to say, etc not face the remarks of  a bunch of wannabe comedians, so thank you.

 

NRY and NYI did have good assets to get some of those mid round 1st picks. Im not proposing mid 1sts. I'm proposing acquiring one of the last picks in the round at 29 and mid to late pick with Dallas (I still believe Tanev has top 4 value and would remain healthy if deployed in a different role in a different market - so im assuming we have a good asset in Tanev).

 

With the Edmonton deal you are claiming Lucic is a terrible contract - which I agree with - but you also seem to imply hes not going anywhere because of it. I can only assume that would be the case if teams were unwilling to take it on regardless of the return 8th OA and 38th OA or that Edmonton will never give up that much and just keep him. I don't think they have the option of keeping him, they absolutely have to move that contract out. They do not have the cap  space to sign legitimate difference making wingers that can help with their secondary scoring. They are playing RNH as the 3c which takes away from their scoring need. I don't think you can get a defensive 3c that is capable of 20 goals for 2 million in this league anymore. So given the appetite to move the Lucic contract and free up some space, add offensive wingers through free agency, free up RNH to play wing in the top 6 and the need for a 3c, this trade checks off all the boxes for the Oilers. They still have decent prospects in Bouchard, Yamamoto, Pujuljarvi and can still pick up some guys in the 3rd,4th, 5th round.

No worries.  Your working hard on figuring out a way for us to add with what vets we have left which is something I’d be over the moon if it happens.   Lucic NMC might not mean as much if he was coming back to Vancouver so this deal does have some legs.  One of those two picks might be our reward...actually who really knows...what we have to consider is what has happened in the past, what teams get for taking on bad contracts (Datsyuk?).    That would be a good idea of what market will bear. 

[Seannnp]

3 hours ago, CaptainLinden16 said:

The reason why is that you are mostly trading quantity for quality.  Most if not all GMS want the best player in a trade.  Free agency is coming up so its unlikely someone trades for Baertschi and Hutton directly without looking for a free agent first.  Certainly not giving up a 1st round pick.  Tanev and 2nd for 1st isn't going to happen either.  Try free agency first then offer 3rd and Honka for Tanev. 

I see your point and maybe Tanev holds more value to the Canucks than he would Dallas but Honka isn't something I would trade Tanev for...at all. That's like trading Goldobin for Adam Larsson or Travis Hamonic or Marc Edouard Vlasic. Top 4 defensive defenseman that are excellent in their crafts do not trade for a projects. I think the value of a first round is dependant on team need and position for contention. Dallas seems to be in compete now mode. Benn and Seguin are getting older and they don't have much coming up in their pipeline for forwards. Im assuming they want to ice the most competitive team possible now and would not place the same value on 18th OA as the Canucks, Wings or Rangers would. Two GM's involved in every trade, both GM's cant have the best players in a single trade. Someone has to give to get (to fill a need). RHD is huge need for Dallas.

3 hours ago, CaptainLinden16 said:

 

Why would Pittsburgh want to move down in the draft without knowing who is available at their pick first?   Again they wouldn't be getting the best player in the trade.

This trade could happen before the 21st selection. Canucks could call up 19OA, 20OA, 22OA, 23OA as well. With Pittsburgh's depleted prospect pool, I was thinking it would be beneficial for them to start with 3 picks in the first two rounds as opposed to 2

3 hours ago, CaptainLinden16 said:

 

The Edmonton trade is highway robbery.  8th and 38th overall just to take Lucic and you get 40 games a year Sutter for 50% discount.  If Erik Karlsson is dead set on playing Edmonton then maybe they make a trade like this to free up the capspace, but otherwise its not a deal they would make.  More realistic is 2019 2nd 2020 2nd + Lucic for Sutter.  8th overall is a significant draft pick with a high probability of being an impact player.  You dont trade that for a camp dump.

No way any GM in the league is taking on the Lucic contract unless their is a huge overpayment. Lucic also has a NTC and has said that he wants to play in Vancouver. Holland has no leverage in this case. You either trade Lucic to Vancouver or you move a roster player to free up the necessary cap space to add to the roster. In Lucic's case its the best example of addition by subtraction. 2 2nds isn't nearly enough for a 6 million dollar player for 4 more years that is likely going to play 4th line minutes. In 2 years from now when Vancouver is hopefully competing or at the very least on paper seems to have a good team that can compete but need to add one or two significant pieces, you wouldn't trade your 1st and 2nd to get rid of Eriksson? I would do it in a heartbeat given we have enough prospects and a young roster.

 

3 hours ago, CaptainLinden16 said:

 

The most realistic trade is the Eriksson deal, but both teams really have no reason to do it.  Vancouver doesn't need the cap space and Ottawa doesn't need the player.  They could get two 2nds for Lucic, so why not do that instead?  Why wouldn't they trade for Lucic to get the 38th and 8th like you proposed.  If you are going to take on cap then you might as well go for the biggest return possible.  I mean you can see the problems in your bias when Eriksson, who I actually like, garners a 3rd while Lucic who is maybe slightly worse gets the 8th and 38th.  That's a big stretch.

Eriksson can still play. He can keep up with the game, he can penalty kill and is not a liability on the ice. He also carries a 6m cap hit with only 9 million remaining over 3 years. The financial situation in Ottawa is a dumpster fire, they have legal matters that cost a fortune, ongoing, an owner that hates having to pay. With Lucic they pay close to 24 million over 4 years, with Eriksson they pay 9 million over 3 years and the cap hit is the same. Ottawa has every reason to do this if they cant get to the floor. Put yourself in Melnyks shoes what would you rather have? Eriksson or Lucic (similar offensive production, except one could be a PK specialist and a mentor for your up and coming group at 9 million or pay an extra 15 million?) Don't think Melnyk cares about the 1st and 2nd enough to pay an extra 15 million. If he did hed still have Stone and Karlsson.

3 hours ago, CaptainLinden16 said:

Again, I don't mean to be harsh; and I am all for ideas.  These just don't work.

Im all for constructive criticism

 

3 hours ago, CaptainLinden16 said:

 

Tanev is likely worth a 2nd round pick right now.

Yes unless he can stay healthy and then he is absolutely worth a 1st.

3 hours ago, CaptainLinden16 said:

Sutter likely has negative value

Agreed somewhat but he is what the Oilers need and at 2m, he is a lot cheaper than most 3c's

3 hours ago, CaptainLinden16 said:

Goldobin will likely get waived

Last heard they were working on resigning/qualifying him.

3 hours ago, CaptainLinden16 said:

Baertschi is worth a 3rd pick max and probably not even that due to the concussions.  Its not like his history is a secret.

Agreed

3 hours ago, CaptainLinden16 said:

Hutton is worth a 3rd pick max probably a 4th or 5th and only after pre-season starts.

this is where I disagree. Hutton made great strides this year. Took on top pairing minutes for a stretch of time alongside Stetcher. Has consistently played top 4 minutes. He is still young, improving and cost controlled somewhat. top 4 dmen are at a premium. Given his age, contract status and what he shown so far, late 2nd or 3rd and prospect is where I put his value.

3 hours ago, CaptainLinden16 said:

 

Most teams will look to obtain players of this caliber in free agency.  You don't really target these guys in trades.  I like the Goldobin for Honka idea, but I am not sure if Dallas will like that.  I wouldn't care if Jim did the Jim special and did Goldobin+6th for Honka or whatever just so everyone here can go crazy about wasting pickz.

 

I would love to take a chance at Honka. I think they might go for it with the Benning special. Gives both players a change of scenery and maybe they put it together.

[The Lock]

These values are not close at all. "Doing Edmonton a favour" by ridding them of their draft picks just for them to get rid of Lucic? That's not even close to a favour. We probably get at least 2 or 3 times more value than Edmonton gets back in that trade alone. It's a favour for us more like.

 

And the other trades are pretty similar too. Nice try but these are just way too far off value for me to even come up with a counter proposal. Also note that it's not always about value for value either, but more why a team would want that. Think about it this way: would you want our 10th OA traded away just to get rid of our Eriksson contract? This isn't even counting the rest of that trade which makes it even more lopsided.

Edited May 24, 2019 by The Lock

[Seannnp]

3 hours ago, qwijibo said:

I stand corrected. Although you can lose the condescending attitude. 

my apologies if I come across that way but that's twice now that you've left remarks without adding anything of value to the discussion at hand. Specifically with the number of trades, you were dismissive and based your opinion on nothing factual but more so on the fact that because you weren't aware of it, it couldn't be possible.

 

Again with the Eriksson comment you did the same thing. You didn't understand why there was a difference in the return value and instead of asking for clarification implied I had no other reason to propose those returns other than they benefitted the Canucks. You seemed to be condescending in that post yourself and never backed up your claim of how these trades "heavily favored" our team.

[IBatch]

5 hours ago, Seannnp said:

finally, sincerely thank you for actually adding some value to this discussion. I come here to talk Canucks, listen to what others have to say, etc not face the remarks of  a bunch of wannabe comedians, so thank you.

 

NRY and NYI did have good assets to get some of those mid round 1st picks. Im not proposing mid 1sts. I'm proposing acquiring one of the last picks in the round at 29 and mid to late pick with Dallas (I still believe Tanev has top 4 value and would remain healthy if deployed in a different role in a different market - so im assuming we have a good asset in Tanev).

 

With the Edmonton deal you are claiming Lucic is a terrible contract - which I agree with - but you also seem to imply hes not going anywhere because of it. I can only assume that would be the case if teams were unwilling to take it on regardless of the return 8th OA and 38th OA or that Edmonton will never give up that much and just keep him. I don't think they have the option of keeping him, they absolutely have to move that contract out. They do not have the cap  space to sign legitimate difference making wingers that can help with their secondary scoring. They are playing RNH as the 3c which takes away from their scoring need. I don't think you can get a defensive 3c that is capable of 20 goals for 2 million in this league anymore. So given the appetite to move the Lucic contract and free up some space, add offensive wingers through free agency, free up RNH to play wing in the top 6 and the need for a 3c, this trade checks off all the boxes for the Oilers. They still have decent prospects in Bouchard, Yamamoto, Pujuljarvi and can still pick up some guys in the 3rd,4th, 5th round.

I agree that they would love to move Lucic out and might be willing to part with an asset or a pick to make it happen.  First thing is they have to approach Milan and see if he’s willing to part ways, and if so what teams he’s ok with.   I’m sure Vancouver would be on that list but I guarantee their GM would work hard to do the trade out of our division first.   The last thing any team wants is to get burned for the next ten years playing head to head with a high pick that worked out better than expected or a high end prospect.  

 

EDM is an easy target given their cap issue and same with TO and their pending cap purgatory.  Thing is the biggest trade I can recall ever was moving Steve Staois, who at the time was a Beiga type who worked out pretty well for them.   

 

Kesler to ANA was an outlier, he was running the show and had a small list.   

 

Trades like Hansen for Goldobin are about the ceiling when it comes to trades normally between us and teams in our division...

 

That said one of the better proposals I’ve seen on here with EDM is our 10OA, and Tanev, for Lucic and Bouchard (not exactly they had LE going the other way but that solves nothing for them and this is more realistic, it hurts both ways which usually means it’s pretty fair).  They shed a monster contract and give up on the third best defensive prospect in the world behind Makar and Hughes, at least according to THN.  In return they get a very good oft injured second pairing defensive specialist at a team friendly cost, on a lesser term deal that they could keep or flip someowhere else and two cracks at the bat in the top ten..and a couple million extra from the get go, and in a few short years 6 million extra..or flip him and get it right away plus a second or something.  

 

Edit:  I was wrong about Stoias getting traded to EDM from us...I counted all the trades with EDM ALL-TIME...7....And two have been since 2014, Gagne and Philip Larsen...and Gagne might be the biggest trade we’ve ever made with them...

Edited May 24, 2019 by IBatch

[Seannnp]

10 minutes ago, The Lock said:

These values are not close at all. "Doing Edmonton a favour" by ridding them of their draft picks just for them to get rid of Lucic? That's not even close to a favour. We probably get at least 2 or 3 times more value than Edmonton gets back in that trade alone. It's a favour for us more like.

 

And the other trades are pretty similar too. Nice try but these are just way too far off value for me to even come up with a counter proposal. Also note that it's not always about value for value either, but more why a team would want that. Think about it this way: would you want our 10th OA traded away just to get rid of our Eriksson contract? This isn't even counting the rest of that trade which makes it even more lopsided.

If we were expecting to compete for the playoffs, were constrained by the cap and couldn't add secondary scoring to the best player in the world, with a decent defense core and up and coming prospects already in the system; not to mention free agents like Karlsson, Panarin and Lee available that we could potentially go after, absolutely I would.

 

Oilers have 2 first line centers, a 2nd line center, 3 top 4 defenseman with Bouchard likely to make the jump next year. They need desperate help on the wings. RNH takes one spot if someone like Sutter can come in and play 3c and take on the defensive responsibilities. They are missing top 6 forwards as Pool and Yam haven't shown they are ready to take on that role. They do not have the cap space to bring on guys like Lee, Panarin or Karlsson to help with the offense because of 6 million tied into a player that cant play the top 6 role they need him to play. The 8th OA isn't going to be ready for a minimum of two years and likely wont be an impact forward in his first year, so that's 3 years away. They have little to no cap space and need a 3c (Brock Nelson just signed a 6x6 contract today to play 3c for the Islanders for his 20-25 goals a year), and two more top 6 wingers. How do you expect them to fill those spots and compete with no cap space.

 

Other GM's not only need to consider the 6 million cap hit but also the 24 million salary that actually needs to be paid and the expansion protection slot. The NMC that Lucic has can be disqualified when he gets traded to the Canucks so long as both parties agree to it. I would expect Benning to ensure that happens. Lucic also decides where he wants to go and hes expressed his feelings to return home. Holland has no leverage. He needs to bring in players to produce and help McDavid get this team to the playoffs and that Lucic contract is his biggest obstacle.

 

Maybe the additional 2nd doesn't happen but if you think someone is going to take on a 6m cap hit for 4 more years, pay 24 million dollars in cash for 1st round pick only its never going to happen and if there is a team that is willing to do that Lucic has to agree to the trade. Oilers don't have very many options. I don't think they have any options actually.

 

The Canucks are gearing upto compete but likely wont be for another year or two, they have the cap space at the very least for the next two years, they can renegotiate the NMC allowing us to move Lucic or expose him during the expansion draft (he wont get picked up anyways), we can still move Eriksson, and our owners are in a pretty good financial position to take on the additional salary.

 

 

[CaptainLinden16]

1 hour ago, Seannnp said:

I see your point and maybe Tanev holds more value to the Canucks than he would Dallas but Honka isn't something I would trade Tanev for...at all. That's like trading Goldobin for Adam Larsson or Travis Hamonic or Marc Edouard Vlasic. Top 4 defensive defenseman that are excellent in their crafts do not trade for a projects. I think the value of a first round is dependant on team need and position for contention. Dallas seems to be in compete now mode. Benn and Seguin are getting older and they don't have much coming up in their pipeline for forwards. Im assuming they want to ice the most competitive team possible now and would not place the same value on 18th OA as the Canucks, Wings or Rangers would. Two GM's involved in every trade, both GM's cant have the best players in a single trade. Someone has to give to get (to fill a need). RHD is huge need for Dallas.

This trade could happen before the 21st selection. Canucks could call up 19OA, 20OA, 22OA, 23OA as well. With Pittsburgh's depleted prospect pool, I was thinking it would be beneficial for them to start with 3 picks in the first two rounds as opposed to 2

No way any GM in the league is taking on the Lucic contract unless their is a huge overpayment. Lucic also has a NTC and has said that he wants to play in Vancouver. Holland has no leverage in this case. You either trade Lucic to Vancouver or you move a roster player to free up the necessary cap space to add to the roster. In Lucic's case its the best example of addition by subtraction. 2 2nds isn't nearly enough for a 6 million dollar player for 4 more years that is likely going to play 4th line minutes. In 2 years from now when Vancouver is hopefully competing or at the very least on paper seems to have a good team that can compete but need to add one or two significant pieces, you wouldn't trade your 1st and 2nd to get rid of Eriksson? I would do it in a heartbeat given we have enough prospects and a young roster.

 

Eriksson can still play. He can keep up with the game, he can penalty kill and is not a liability on the ice. He also carries a 6m cap hit with only 9 million remaining over 3 years. The financial situation in Ottawa is a dumpster fire, they have legal matters that cost a fortune, ongoing, an owner that hates having to pay. With Lucic they pay close to 24 million over 4 years, with Eriksson they pay 9 million over 3 years and the cap hit is the same. Ottawa has every reason to do this if they cant get to the floor. Put yourself in Melnyks shoes what would you rather have? Eriksson or Lucic (similar offensive production, except one could be a PK specialist and a mentor for your up and coming group at 9 million or pay an extra 15 million?) Don't think Melnyk cares about the 1st and 2nd enough to pay an extra 15 million. If he did hed still have Stone and Karlsson.

Im all for constructive criticism

 

Yes unless he can stay healthy and then he is absolutely worth a 1st.

Agreed somewhat but he is what the Oilers need and at 2m, he is a lot cheaper than most 3c's

Last heard they were working on resigning/qualifying him.

Agreed

this is where I disagree. Hutton made great strides this year. Took on top pairing minutes for a stretch of time alongside Stetcher. Has consistently played top 4 minutes. He is still young, improving and cost controlled somewhat. top 4 dmen are at a premium. Given his age, contract status and what he shown so far, late 2nd or 3rd and prospect is where I put his value.

I would love to take a chance at Honka. I think they might go for it with the Benning special. Gives both players a change of scenery and maybe they put it together.

You make good points but you only think in prism where all of these teams have to trade with Canucks.  Tanev is not the only defensive defensmen that Dallas could go after.  Maybe Stralman in a cap strapped TB team would be more appealing to them.  Or insert other player here__.  In order to trade a 1st round pick they would have to really WANT Tanev.  If that WANT was there then there would be some smoke coming out about something like this.  I haven't heard a Tanev rumor in ages.  

 

As a GM, I personally would almost never ever trade down.  The success probability chart is exponential not linear.  Each position is worth significantly more than the one above it based on career success probability.  These types of trades are very infrequent in the first round, so I am fairly certain most GMs are of the same opinion.  

 

If you have Hutton and Baertschi both worth a 3rd round pick then how on Earth does that equal a 1st round pick.  If you traded me 10 - 3rd round picks, I would still keep my 1st and say no thank you.  

 

Moving Lucic will not require the 8th overall.  I am very confident of that.  Maybe he only wants to come here and maybe thats all you would be willing to take for him, but there is noway Edmonton does that.  They dont need to win now and they dont have the roster for it.  There is no reason to sacrifice such a significant piece for cap flexibility.  You take on a 4M per year bad contract or 3M plus a 2nd rd pick from some other team and throw in a B prospect and someone will find that enticing.  

 

I completely don't agree on trading a 1st and a 2nd to get rid of Eriksson.  Why?  Free agents are very rarely worth the money.  UFA = over valued contract because of the supply and demand dynamics.  Every GM wants a "free" player.

 

1st round picks not at the trade deadline get typically traded for a marquee player in a package.  I don't remember the last time a GM traded a 1st round pick for spare parts on June 1st.

[mll]

5 hours ago, CaptainLinden16 said:

I wonder if Roope Hintz could be had for Tanev?  He is a phenom.  A really lethal shot.  I think he is going to blow up next year.  I would put in a 3rd or even a 2nd if needed.

 

The Dallas Stars have only allowed 200 goals last season - 2nd best in the league.  They need scoring - they were bottom 3 in goals for.  Tanev is a free agent in one year and doesn't help with scoring.  Hintz is 22, under team control and brings scoring.

[CaptainLinden16]

2 minutes ago, mll said:

 

The Dallas Stars have only allowed 200 goals last season - 2nd best in the league.  They need scoring - they were bottom 3 in goals for.  Tanev is a free agent in one year and doesn't help with scoring.  Hintz is 22, under team control and brings scoring.

I was just trying to spit ball off of the initial proposal.  Baertschi and Goldobin for Hintz?  I dunno what his value is to them, but I would trade a lot more than that for him.

[mll]

25 minutes ago, CaptainLinden16 said:

I was just trying to spit ball off of the initial proposal.  Baertschi and Goldobin for Hintz?  I dunno what his value is to them, but I would trade a lot more than that for him.

Hintz is only 22 and fits their team.  There's no reason for them to trade him. 

[CaptainLinden16]

Just now, mll said:

Hintz is only 22 and fits their team.  There's no reason for them to trade him. 

how about Baertschi+10 for Hintz+15?

[mll]

5 minutes ago, CaptainLinden16 said:

how about Baertschi+10 for Hintz+15?

It's not worth the risk for them.  Baertschi has a history of concussions and the 10th pick is going to be several years away from making the league while Hintz is contributing now.   Hintz is also still on his ELC.

 

Edited May 25, 2019 by mll