6string Posted June 16, 2019 Share Posted June 16, 2019 53 minutes ago, canucklehead44 said: Are you a Bruins fan? Tavares did finish third in the league for goals. He was a massive addition without giving up assets Posse.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6string Posted June 16, 2019 Share Posted June 16, 2019 17 minutes ago, theo5789 said: I also cheered for Boston to knock them out. But I also paid attention and realized Toronto's issues lied elsewhere and not because of Tavares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6string Posted June 16, 2019 Share Posted June 16, 2019 Tavares has a huge fan club on the west coast 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theo5789 Posted June 16, 2019 Share Posted June 16, 2019 8 minutes ago, RowdyCanuck said: I agree but all their fans thought he would put them over the edge...it didn't if anything it hurt them cause it affected Mathews contract...he didn't even take a discount to play for them...I rather have stammer at 8 mil. JT is a great player but leaf fans will look back and regret that contract....money they should have spent on D... Stamkos had tax benefits. Had he signed practically anywhere else it would've been very close to equivalent to what Tavares got. If people are going to suggest that Tavares didn't take them to the promised land, then Stamkos didn't exactly do much for them this year as they got swept. I would say the Nylander contract is what hurt them in the Matthews negotiations moreso than Tavares. Nylander should've been dealt or just let him sit the year. It basically opened the door for their RFAs (and now likely the rest of the league) to have their RFAs paid with UFA values. I find their fans (and media) obnoxious, which is the main reason why I actually cheered for Boston over Toronto. But their opinion doesn't change the way Tavares contributed for them. It was their team build that did them in and that comes from poor management. I would take Tavares for his deal any day of the week. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowdyCanuck Posted June 16, 2019 Share Posted June 16, 2019 (edited) 15 minutes ago, theo5789 said: Stamkos had tax benefits. Had he signed practically anywhere else it would've been very close to equivalent to what Tavares got. If people are going to suggest that Tavares didn't take them to the promised land, then Stamkos didn't exactly do much for them this year as they got swept. I would say the Nylander contract is what hurt them in the Matthews negotiations moreso than Tavares. Nylander should've been dealt or just let him sit the year. It basically opened the door for their RFAs (and now likely the rest of the league) to have their RFAs paid with UFA values. I find their fans (and media) obnoxious, which is the main reason why I actually cheered for Boston over Toronto. But their opinion doesn't change the way Tavares contributed for them. It was their team build that did them in and that comes from poor management. I would take Tavares for his deal any day of the week. I agree and the Lighting problems is they are built the way the Canucks were....fast and skilled...which works great for winning the president trophey but not so great in the playoffs... If you look at the Stanley cup final teams neither one had a player that makes 10 mil... I agree about the leafs fans.... I agree they should have shipped Nylander....there's players like him in every draft... so you would sign JT for 11 mil before you signed Petey( your star player) ? Like I said they will look back and regret that signing and they will win jack all....the whole time his there. Edited June 16, 2019 by RowdyCanuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theo5789 Posted June 16, 2019 Share Posted June 16, 2019 9 minutes ago, RowdyCanuck said: I agree and the Lighting problems is they are built the way the Canucks were....fast and skilled...which works great for winning the president trophey but not so great in the playoffs... If you look at the Stanley cup final teams neither one had a player that makes 10 mil... I agree about the leafs fans.... I agree they should have shipped Nylander....there's players like him in every draft... so you would sign JT for 11 mil before you signed Petey( your star player) ? Like I said they will look back and regret that signing and they will win jack all....the whole time his there. Sure this finals didn't have the "big money" man, but for the years before had Ovechkin, Crosby, Malkin, Kane, Toews, etc who at the time of signing for their deals, they were some of the highest in the league (a large % of their team's cap). Every year a team wins and that becomes the new way to build the team. There's no point going that path as it's more important to stay ahead of the curve and find the next way to win rather than trying to build historically. Tavares has been basically a PPG his entire career and even so in the playoffs. He takes a massive amount of draws and does well. A Tavares signing would've not made an impact to EP negotiations as I've pointed out that it was Nylander setting the precedent for RFA signings that affected the RFA market on their team. They may win jack all and I would enjoy it, but I still would not attribute the problem with Tavares. He has brought everything to the table that he is capable of. While they could've spent this money on defense, who was available? If management doesn't screw this up, they could easily trade Matthews for example to get a #1 dman (eg to Arizona for OEL before his NMC kicks in which would also save them some cap space). At least for this season, I can't see how Tavares can be blamed for their issues. We will see how the rest of his contract fares before making judgement. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShawnAntoski Posted June 16, 2019 Share Posted June 16, 2019 (edited) Hypothetically, the Canucks and LE can mutually terminate the contract but he wont do it because he knows that he wont be getting paid this much betting on himself. I dont blame him for wanting to get paid but atleast be a pro (since he is getting paid like one) and make yourself an invaluable player so other teams will notice. #growup Hopefully, this will always be reminder to JB and more so to the Aquillini's - if the rumours of ownership meddling is true - to let a proper rebuild happen. Also a big no Lucic ! Edited June 16, 2019 by ShawnAntoski 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riffraff Posted June 16, 2019 Share Posted June 16, 2019 14 hours ago, Canuckster86 said: I will be very happy if we can move him and just get rid of his 6m cap hit so we can give it to Boeser This 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riffraff Posted June 16, 2019 Share Posted June 16, 2019 9 hours ago, Canuck Surfer said: Corey Perry? Funny enough. If we move Loui independently, I could see a nid level prospect to acquire Corey. He finished 2017/18 with 50 points. Just 1 year ago. His contract expires before the expansion draft. Kassian perry lucic 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted June 16, 2019 Share Posted June 16, 2019 3 minutes ago, ShawnAntoski said: Hypothetically, the Canucks and LE can mutually terminate the contract but he wont do it because he knows that he wont be getting paid this much betting on himself. Hopefully, this will always be reminder to JB and more so to the Aquillini's - if the rumours of ownership meddling is true - to let a proper rebuild happen. I dont blame him for wanting to get paid but atleast be a pro (since he is getting paid like one) and make yourself an invaluable player so other teams will notice. #growup I don't think it's possible if he wants to stay in the NHL. Eriksson would have been paid an average of 9M after bonus payment in July, but the Canucks only had a 6M contract on the books. There will always be doubt that teams could agree at contract signing date to mutually terminate the contract before it's term - it's a way to artificially reduce the cap hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grandmaster Posted June 16, 2019 Share Posted June 16, 2019 11 minutes ago, ShawnAntoski said: Hypothetically, the Canucks and LE can mutually terminate the contract but he wont do it because he knows that he wont be getting paid this much betting on himself. I dont blame him for wanting to get paid but atleast be a pro (since he is getting paid like one) and make yourself an invaluable player so other teams will notice. #growup Hopefully, this will always be reminder to JB and more so to the Aquillini's - if the rumours of ownership meddling is true - to let a proper rebuild happen LE did not come into the Canucks while they were on a rebuild. That was never happening at the time, especially when the Sedins were here. LE was a good player at the time of the trade but that turned to crap when he arrived. I don’t know if he could have made himself more valuable. He was given lots of opportunities and benched only once. The guy got tons of ice time and couldn’t produce. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShawnAntoski Posted June 16, 2019 Share Posted June 16, 2019 (edited) 20 minutes ago, grandmaster said: LE did not come into the Canucks while they were on a rebuild. That was never happening at the time, especially when the Sedins were here. LE was a good player at the time of the trade but that turned to crap when he arrived. I don’t know if he could have made himself more valuable. He was given lots of opportunities and benched only once. The guy got tons of ice time and couldn’t produce. Ditto, that it seems the mandate when he was signed was to play with the Sedins and to do a quick rebuild but the lottery balls did not produce any top 3 pick(s) during those years despite having the worst record in the league... Also, I do agree with your second point: that he was given every opportunity to increase his value by the coaching staff but he failed to still produce; and to add insult to the whole situation he is now whining. I wonder how the young core feels about that ??? Atleast, Lucic acknowledges to a certain degree that he has to produce more and still a big no to a Lucic trade. My only point, is that if I was in his shoe, I would at very least add value by mentoring the young core and to not make it too obvious to everyone in the locker room that Iam overpaid. Edited June 16, 2019 by ShawnAntoski 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucklehead44 Posted June 16, 2019 Share Posted June 16, 2019 (edited) I mentioned Gaborik but there are a few players we could move for Eriksson within the realm of possibility. After we pay out Eriksson's signing bonus this year he is not owed that much more over the next three years. The key for Vancouver is to move him for a player with two years remaining on their contract, almost irrespective of how bad that two year contract is. This gives us the ability to free up cap space when we need to sign Hughes and EP. Also, if I were in Benning's shoes I'd focus on two more years of a rebuild then start switching to building a playoff team. LOUI ERIKSSON CAP HIT: $6 million REMAINING $ OWED (after signing bonus): $9 million BUYOUT CAP SAVINGS: $1.7 million DION PHANEUF Bought OutCAP HIT: 7 million REMAINING $ OWED (after signing bonus): $13 million BUYOUT CAP SAVINGS: $2.8 million An Eriksson for Phaneuf swap would actually make a lot of sense. There is a nice buyout savings next year on Phaneuf but after that a buyout does not look very good. Phaneuf is a bottom pairing dman at best now so LA would be getting the better player in the deal, saving four million dollars in cash, and reducing their cap hit by a million per year over the next two yearsKEVIN SHATTENKIRK CAP HIT: $6.65 million REMAINING $ OWED (after signing bonus): $10.6 million BUYOUT CAP SAVINGS: $3 million New York is a wealthy team so the small savings in price wouldn't do much. Compared to Phaneuf, Shattenkirk is a younger, better player on a lower cap hit. A swap is not out of the realm of possibility but Vancouver would for sure need to add assets to make it work. IYLA KOVALCHUK CAP HIT: $6.25 million REMAINING $ OWED (after signing bonus): $5 million BUYOUT CAP SAVINGS: 0 million The situation with Iyla was bad after he stayed home at the end of the year. There is no buyout option with his contract and how things soured I would think the Kings would want to move on. This would be an EXCELLENT swap for Vancouver if we could get it done. BRANDON DUBINSKY CAP HIT: $5.85 million REMAINING $ OWED: $11.7 BUYOUT CAP SAVINGS: $3.9 million This is another deal I think would work out well for both teams. CBJ gets the better player, a slightly lower cap hit, and save $2.7 million dollars which is a nice bonus to a small market team. Dubinsky's buy out is reasonable so that might push his value higher. SCOTT DARLING CAP HIT: $4.15 million REMAINING $ OWED: $7.1 million BUYOUT CAP SAVINGS: $2.5 million Another buyout candidate. Carolina would be financially more secure after their run but are still one of the smallest market teams in the league. From their perspective (given they are not a cap team) they would be paying Loui Eriksson $630K per year since they no longer have to either buyout or pay Darling to play in the minors. Even if he doesn't bounce back with the change of scenery that is still a bargain for a defensively responsible 3rd liner who kills penalties and can put up 20-30 points. If he does play better (20/20 for example) this would be a phenomenal trade for Carolina.The Canucks could actually use a third goalie in the system, and Darling provides some insurance in case Demko struggles or there are injuries. Out of all the potential swaps this is the strangest but probably makes the most sense for both teams. Edited June 16, 2019 by canucklehead44 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpt Posted June 16, 2019 Share Posted June 16, 2019 (edited) On 6/14/2019 at 2:59 PM, brownky said: Schenn is, and always a smart player. He's making up for his deficiency in footspeed by simply remaining in position as a defensive defenceman. Schenn is also not paid $6.5 million to be behind the play for 13 minutes a game. Lucic is a dumb hockey player who, as a winger, has zero hope of regaining form in a league which is only getting faster. He can't keep up. Guys that can’t keep up don't finish the league 7th in hits with only 13 minutes of ice time. If they can’t keep up and have no agility they never get contact, especially not 7th most in the league. Just because people keep saying he’s extremely slow doesn’t make it true. Is he slow than average? Yup, is it as bad as everyone says? Nope! #fakenews Lucic’s biggest problem is his acceleration not his speed Edited June 16, 2019 by mpt 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted June 16, 2019 Share Posted June 16, 2019 9 hours ago, mll said: I don't think it's possible if he wants to stay in the NHL. Eriksson would have been paid an average of 9M after bonus payment in July, but the Canucks only had a 6M contract on the books. There will always be doubt that teams could agree at contract signing date to mutually terminate the contract before it's term - it's a way to artificially reduce the cap hit. is it possible for Loui to be put on waivers this week, not for the purpose of a buyout, just a paper shift to Utica? maybe someone would take him for free if they don't have to give up an asset. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theo5789 Posted June 16, 2019 Share Posted June 16, 2019 3 hours ago, canucklehead44 said: I mentioned Gaborik but there are a few players we could move for Eriksson within the realm of possibility. After we pay out Eriksson's signing bonus this year he is not owed that much more over the next three years. The key for Vancouver is to move him for a player with two years remaining on their contract, almost irrespective of how bad that two year contract is. This gives us the ability to free up cap space when we need to sign Hughes and EP. Also, if I were in Benning's shoes I'd focus on two more years of a rebuild then start switching to building a playoff team. LOUI ERIKSSON CAP HIT: $6 million REMAINING $ OWED (after signing bonus): $9 million BUYOUT CAP SAVINGS: $1.7 million DION PHANEUF CAP HIT: 7 million REMAINING $ OWED (after signing bonus): $13 million BUYOUT CAP SAVINGS: $2.8 million An Eriksson for Phaneuf swap would actually make a lot of sense. There is a nice buyout savings next year on Phaneuf but after that a buyout does not look very good. Phaneuf is a bottom pairing dman at best now so LA would be getting the better player in the deal, saving four million dollars in cash, and reducing their cap hit by a million per year over the next two yearsKEVIN SHATTENKIRK CAP HIT: $6.65 million REMAINING $ OWED (after signing bonus): $10.6 million BUYOUT CAP SAVINGS: $3 million New York is a wealthy team so the small savings in price wouldn't do much. Compared to Phaneuf, Shattenkirk is a younger, better player on a lower cap hit. A swap is not out of the realm of possibility but Vancouver would for sure need to add assets to make it work. IYLA KOVALCHUK CAP HIT: $6.25 million REMAINING $ OWED (after signing bonus): $5 million BUYOUT CAP SAVINGS: 0 million The situation with Iyla was bad after he stayed home at the end of the year. There is no buyout option with his contract and how things soured I would think the Kings would want to move on. This would be an EXCELLENT swap for Vancouver if we could get it done. BRANDON DUBINSKY CAP HIT: $5.85 million REMAINING $ OWED: $11.7 BUYOUT CAP SAVINGS: $3.9 million This is another deal I think would work out well for both teams. CBJ gets the better player, a slightly lower cap hit, and save $2.7 million dollars which is a nice bonus to a small market team. Dubinsky's buy out is reasonable so that might push his value higher. SCOTT DARLING CAP HIT: $4.15 million REMAINING $ OWED: $7.1 million BUYOUT CAP SAVINGS: $2.5 million Another buyout candidate. Carolina would be financially more secure after their run but are still one of the smallest market teams in the league. From their perspective (given they are not a cap team) they would be paying Loui Eriksson $630K per year since they no longer have to either buyout or pay Darling to play in the minors. Even if he doesn't bounce back with the change of scenery that is still a bargain for a defensively responsible 3rd liner who kills penalties and can put up 20-30 points. If he does play better (20/20 for example) this would be a phenomenal trade for Carolina.The Canucks could actually use a third goalie in the system, and Darling provides some insurance in case Demko struggles or there are injuries. Out of all the potential swaps this is the strangest but probably makes the most sense for both teams. I don't get the whole we need to dump LE because of EP and Hughes next contracts. We have over 30 million in cap space this coming season. Assuming the worst (RFA contracts go wild) in that Boeser get 8 million, EP gets 10, and Hughes gets 7-8, that's 25-26 million. So we would have like 4-5 million of space based on today's cap. Likely the cap rises during the next couple of years and in the next couple of years, Sutter, Spooner, Schaller and Baertschi will all expire which gives another 12.5 million or so and will either not be replaced or have cheaper talent come in through our drafted prospects still waiting in the wings. After that 3rd year, LE, Roussel and Beagle's contract expires saving another 12 million. Depending on what we do with Tanev, that's another 4.5 million. Now of course players need to be replaced and quality ones will be pricey, but we also have a lot of depth roles taking big money right now that can hopefully be progressed with cheaper young talent or players taking less to be on a contender at that point. I also am hoping that our RFAs go more along Horvat's route rather than the supposed Nylander path. It's hard to predict what the cap will be like in a couple years down the road because many moves could be made by then, but as of right now, I see no urgency to move LE beyond hockey reasons and we can wait until the last year of the deal to make a move which will cost us less to move if needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theo5789 Posted June 16, 2019 Share Posted June 16, 2019 9 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: is it possible for Loui to be put on waivers this week, not for the purpose of a buyout, just a paper shift to Utica? maybe someone would take him for free if they don't have to give up an asset. No team will be thinking of giving up an asset anyway. They will be thinking about what sweetener they would get. It would only benefit us if someone takes him off our hands at full cap value. Putting him on waivers just puts more pressure on us to make a move to unload him putting us in a worse position to deal him, if it can get any worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted June 16, 2019 Author Share Posted June 16, 2019 (edited) We won’t be buying out Eriksson, we save more cap by burying him in the minors. Buying him out now just saves cap space in the short term but, costs us cap hit when we need it most down the road. If you can’t trade him without giving up a big asset you waive him, make him ride the busses until he refuses to report or retires. He is married with a young family, there is almost no way he wants to leave them for three years... and wouldn’t want to move them to Utica as it may not be a long term thing. ... and no, I don’t feel bad for doing it to him. He and his agent miscalculated by speaking out publicly the way they did. They still seem to think other teams will really want him and bet on that... all they did is give some moral authority for the Canucks to play hardball. Edited June 16, 2019 by Provost 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grandmaster Posted June 16, 2019 Share Posted June 16, 2019 13 minutes ago, Provost said: We won’t be buying out Eriksson, we save more cap by burying him in the minors. Buying him out now just saves cap space in the short term but, costs us cap hit when we need it most down the road. If you can’t trade him without giving up a big asset you waive him, make him ride the busses until he refuses to report or retires. I agree that a buy out doesn’t make much sense for the Cap savings. I wonder if his contract prevents the Canucks from burying him in the minors. This sort of move would generally upset the NHLPA and might cause players to think twice about coming here as free agents in the future (might be good or bad). I think the best move here is to trade and retain some salary. He is basically playing like a good 3rd liner but is being paid as a first liner. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonoman Posted June 16, 2019 Share Posted June 16, 2019 1 minute ago, grandmaster said: I agree that a buy out doesn’t make much sense for the Cap savings. I wonder if his contract prevents the Canucks from burying him in the minors. This sort of move would generally upset the NHLPA and might cause players to think twice about coming here as free agents in the future (might be good or bad). I think the best move here is to trade and retain some salary. He is basically playing like a good 3rd liner but is being paid as a first liner. This is probably the biggest concern for me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts