[Proposal] Cap Space Opportunities

[underrated]

It has been mention on these boards how we'd love to see the Aquilini's willing to spend the cap in order to get us more future assets.  I think Benning should be aggressive with this, and sell Francesco on the idea, promising how it will pay off in the long-run.

 

I just want to throw out a few ideas of how we can do this.  

 

WHO NEEDS TO CREATE CAP SPACE?

There are several teams who need to create cap space, and have some dead weight on their rosters.  Benning should be reaching out to each team to see what asset he can acquire for taking a bad contract.  Potentially Benning also offers some more affordable player as part of the deal in return, like Tanev or Sutter with 50% retained, or Hutton, Leivo or Goldobin.  

 

The important thing, in my opinion, is to try to only take on players who have 1-2 years left on their contract.  We don't need the cap space for the next couple years, but after that we will be re-signing young players, potentially trying to sign a free agent, as well as likely dealing with a Luongo recapture penalty (on that note, we're better off if Luongo retires sooner rather than later unless he will play three more years which is unlikely).  If we take on a player with 3+ years, I think we need to receive far more value back in return.

 

Here is a list of the players who would likely be traded along with an asset by a team needing cap space.  Some teams, like Ottawa or LA are rebuilding and likely wouldn't give up assets for contracts but I included the players anyways.

1-2 Years Remaining On Contract: David Clarkson (LTIR), Patrick Marleau, Ryan Callahan, Matthieu Perreault, Andrej Sekera, Ilya Kovalchuk, Marion Gaborik

3+ Years Remaining On Contract: Milan Lucic, James Neal, Andrew Ladd, David Backes, Ryan Kesler, Jeff Carter, Dustin Brown, Seabrook, Bryan Little, Bobby Ryan

 

I'd like to see a deal like Andrej Sekera and a 2nd round pick (38th overall) for Goldobin
 

JAMES NEAL? ONLY FOR THE PRIZE OF RASMUS ANDERSSON

Offer to take James Neal from Calgary ONLY if they include Rasmus Andersson.  If not, then don't take Neal.  I wouldn't even take on Neal for the 26th overall pick in this draft.  The trouble with Neal is that he has four years left on the deal, which is far longer than we want but he may actually be an effective veteran for us for the next couple years, plus get a good young right hand shot defenseman then likely try to trade Neal (or buy him out) in 2-3 years.

 

USING SALARY CAP SPACE TO FACILITATE A SUBBAN TRADE WITH A THIRD TEAM

There has been a lot of talk about a PK Subban trade this offseason.  I definitely do NOT think the Canucks should go for him, however I think that many teams looking to trade for him may not have $9 million of cap space.  This is where the Canucks could use their cap space and take on a contract and draft pick from the team that Subban is going to.  The key would be for us to only take deals that have two or less years on them, as we will need that cap space in the future.

For example, if Subban was traded to Toronto, we could take Marleau and/or Zaitsev, along with a sweetener in a deal so that the Leafs open up cap space.  Or if he went to the Oilers we could take back Sekera or Gagner (lol), but not Lucic, along with a pick.  Or if he was traded to Boston, we could take on Backes + extra value.  
 

TRADE WITH VEGAS

Similar trades have been suggested before on these boards, but this one is worth repeating, IMO:

To Vegas: Tanev (50% retained)
To Vancouver: Colin Miller, David Clarkson (insured contract, on LTIR), 2nd round pick

 

Vegas gets a veteran, playoff proven right hand defenseman at a great cap hit in Tanev at $2.2 million, while sending out $3.875 million (Miller) and $5.25 million (Clarkson) for cap purposes.  Clarkson's contract is insured, so it doesn't cost the Aquilini's more actual money.  The Canucks get a younger, healthier right hand d-man, a good second pairing guy, and a 2nd round pick in exchange for using our cap space that we don't need.

[coastal.view]

pretend you are aquaman

you want him to spend 7 million or so on some asset addition

 

what do you think he'd prefer

a bad contract or 2, plus a so so player, and a meh draft pick

(which will not move the needle on ticket sales)

 

or 1 almost elite player who can contribute in the upcoming season

(which likely will have an immediate impact on ticket sales)

 

what do you think he'd be more receptive to

cuz he has in the past been quite prepared to spend on top talent

 

Edited June 20, 2019 by coastal.view

[underrated]

14 minutes ago, coastal.view said:

pretend you are aquaman

you want him to spend 7 million or so on some asset addition

 

what do you think he'd prefer

a bad contract or 2, plus a so so player, and a meh draft pick

(which will not move the needle on ticket sales)

 

or 1 almost elite player who can contribute in the upcoming season

(which likely will have an immediate impact on ticket sales)

 

what do you think he'd be more receptive to

cuz he has in the past been quite prepared to spend on top talent

 

I hear what you're saying about acquiring a top player but a few key things to consider. 

 

There are probably less than a handful of acquisitions this offseason that are exciting enough to get fans to buy tickets based on them adding to the roster.  Karlsson re-signed, so that's not an option.  Panarin would fit that category.  Maybe Duchene but he doesn't really fit our biggest need.  I don't think guys like Tyler Myers would really make a difference to ticket sales.  So it's Panarin or bust.  And Panarin isn't going to be $7 million/season, even if he would sign here, which is unlikely.  He'd be over $10 million/year likely.

 

Second, acquiring a guy like Clarkson who has insurance on his contract wouldn't actually cost more money.  Some other players would cost money, and more than they're worth, but at the same time could still be contributors to the team in the meantime.  Taking on Lucic is mostly a dud, but a guy like Marleau, Perreault or Neal could still add value short term.

Third, you would hope the owner has a bit of delayed gratification and foresight during a rebuild.  If the Canucks rebuild proves successful, there could be many years of deep playoff runs.  That pays off big-time for an owner.  I can't guarantee that making a trade using cap space would bring that added piece or two we need, but it sure does help a lot.  

I hear your point that if I was an owner, I wouldn't necessarily jump at the chance to pay a player $5-10 million over a couple years just because it could add an asset or two that may or may not help the rebuild long-term.  I don't know how much the Canucks make or lose right now, which would be a factor.  But an NHL owner is clearly invested in the success of a franchise more than anyone else, and some short term pain could go a long way, especially if the team is still making money during these down years.

Edited June 20, 2019 by underrated

[coastal.view]

1 hour ago, underrated said:

I hear what you're saying about acquiring a top player but a few key things to consider. 

 

There are probably less than a handful of acquisitions this offseason that are exciting enough to get fans to buy tickets based on them adding to the roster.  Karlsson re-signed, so that's not an option.  Panarin would fit that category.  Maybe Duchene but he doesn't really fit our biggest need.  I don't think guys like Tyler Myers would really make a difference to ticket sales.  So it's Panarin or bust.  And Panarin isn't going to be $7 million/season, even if he would sign here, which is unlikely.  He'd be over $10 million/year likely.

 

Second, acquiring a guy like Clarkson who has insurance on his contract wouldn't actually cost more money.  Some other players would cost money, and more than they're worth, but at the same time could still be contributors to the team in the meantime.  Taking on Lucic is mostly a dud, but a guy like Marleau, Perreault or Neal could still add value short term.

Third, you would hope the owner has a bit of delayed gratification and foresight during a rebuild.  If the Canucks rebuild proves successful, there could be many years of deep playoff runs.  That pays off big-time for an owner.  I can't guarantee that making a trade using cap space would bring that added piece or two we need, but it sure does help a lot.  

I hear your point that if I was an owner, I wouldn't necessarily jump at the chance to pay a player $5-10 million over a couple years just because it could add an asset or two that may or may not help the rebuild long-term.  I don't know how much the Canucks make or lose right now, which would be a factor.  But an NHL owner is clearly invested in the success of a franchise more than anyone else, and some short term pain could go a long way, especially if the team is still making money during these down years.

i sense you are trying to sell me

(and i don't know why you need to nitpick.. i said 7 million or so . i could have picked any number really)

why?

 

i know where i'd prefer to put my money if it i was in such an fantastical position to be able to actually make these decisions you are discussing

 

we all know he is a business man

he makes way more high level business decisions likely then you do

in all his non sporting businesses as well as the sporting ones

 

owning a sports franchise might be a business he'd like to play a bit more at 

and get more of those so called non delayed gratification responses in

we all know he is a big fan of the team

Edited June 20, 2019 by coastal.view

[J.I.A.H.N]

3 minutes ago, coastal.view said:

i sense you are trying to sell me

why?

i know where i'd prefer to put my money if it i was in such an fantastical position to be able to actually make these decisions

 

he is a business man

he makes way more high level business decisions likely then you do

in all his non sporting businesses

owning a sports franchise might be a business he'd like to play a bit more at 

and get more of those so called non delayed gratification responses in

we all know he is a big fan of the team

Let's hear where you would put your money...….

Let's actually have an "idea" from you

[coastal.view]

2 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

Let's hear where you would put your money...….

Let's actually have an "idea" from you

scroll 3 posts above your post

i note i did not identify any player by name though

[J.I.A.H.N]

9 minutes ago, coastal.view said:

scroll 3 posts above your post

i note i did not identify any player by name though

That is just it, you never do

Or seldom

It is hard to get your player value system down

you are mostly vague

[J.I.A.H.N]

1 hour ago, coastal.view said:

pretend you are aquaman

you want him to spend 7 million or so on some asset addition

 

what do you think he'd prefer

a bad contract or 2, plus a so so player, and a meh draft pick

(which will not move the needle on ticket sales)

 

or 1 almost elite player who can contribute in the upcoming season

(which likely will have an immediate impact on ticket sales)

 

what do you think he'd be more receptive to

cuz he has in the past been quite prepared to spend on top talent

 

To answer your question

 

The move depends on where I believe we are now, and how far away I believe we are

This will depend on my personal views, and the input I get from my Pres and GM

 

Questions I would ask are...…...how good is our depth?

Do we have enough depth?

Is my core really mature enough to compete?

Can I afford to wait another year?

and are the assets worth obtaining?

Are we better off waiting a year to invest long term?

How does my face base and ticket holders feel?

 

This information would come from my GM, "IF" I had confidence in him, which I had better!

 

Edited June 20, 2019 by janisahockeynut

[Canucklehead73]

Weaponizing cap space is for teams with zero prospects and are desperate to land some sort of talent by taking on a cap hit.

 

We are not in this position... if you want to weaponize cap space, sign a good player to actually make a difference on the ice.

 

I am more of a proponent of taking advantage of teams in cap hell by taking a useful player off their hands not a bum...

 

If they don't like it they can pay the cap penalties...

[J.I.A.H.N]

3 minutes ago, Canucklehead73 said:

Weaponizing cap space is for teams with zero prospects and are desperate to land some sort of talent by taking on a cap hit.

 

We are not in this position... if you want to weaponize cap space, sign a good player to actually make a difference on the ice.

 

I am more of a proponent of taking advantage of teams in cap hell by taking a useful player off their hands not a bum...

 

If they don't like it they can pay the cap penalties...

ME TOO

but teams don't give up their good players

They give up their middle, which we have in spades

So, we would be no further ahead

maybe a small up grade, but chances are. not

 

Example......Vegas....you might get Miller, but you won't get Karlsson

you will get....2 - 2nds value, not usually 1st value

IMO

 

Another example is.........Tampa

you will get picks, maybe a middle player, but not a Cal Foote

 

Maybe a team like Toronto or San Jose, who don't have many picks loose out

[the grinder]

weaponizing the cap  so u want Clarkson at 5.25    and then loungo retires so add another 3 million  plus ericsson  6 mill  14 million in cap space right there  and then u wanna retain 50 percent of tanev  contract , you know how many blueberries aquaman needs to pick   to make that kinda of cash, 

[coastal.view]

1 hour ago, janisahockeynut said:

ME TOO

but teams don't give up their good players

They give up their middle, which we have in spades

So, we would be no further ahead

maybe a small up grade, but chances are. not

 

Example......Vegas....you might get Miller, but you won't get Karlsson

you will get....2 - 2nds value, not usually 1st value

IMO

 

Another example is.........Tampa

you will get picks, maybe a middle player, but not a Cal Foote

 

Maybe a team like Toronto or San Jose, who don't have many picks loose out

i seem to recall chicago gave up panarin

 

you mighta heard of him

 

i tend to agree with Canucklehead73

 

 

[J.I.A.H.N]

1 hour ago, coastal.view said:

i seem to recall chicago gave up panarin

 

you mighta heard of him

 

i tend to agree with Canucklehead73

 

 

Yes, you can quote examples...…..I never made that statement as an absolute...….you are attacking it like I did......LOL...…...

Absolutely there are Naslund's and Neilly's out there...…...

 

But you should not exclude one looking for the other.

 

Personally, I would take Marleau for a couple of 2nds and use him for the year...…….I believe that is weaponizing your cap, and those 2 seconds could turn out to be young Subban's and Webber's, or could turn out to be duds...………...but teams today will live and die by the draft (IMO) and picks will be valuable.

 

It is proven that there is direct correlation between the amount of picks, and the amount of home grown talent, and the success of those teams, and that is no more prevalent than in todays NHL, where players are becoming younger on average, with shorter careers. Again, I am not saying that looking for player deals should not be done. Only that it should be considered as 1 of the ways to weaponize cap.

 

Todays fans are becoming far too impatient and rebuilds need to be done in at mach 1 speed, and miss the point that practically every, if not all dynasties that have existed in the NHL have been organically created, with strong drafting and player development.

 

Today, as we approach July 1st, where teams need to meet certain cap criteria, and move players while other teams are still filling out their rosters, Benning has a fantastic opportunity to find beneficial deals. Teams that can land young players, or picks as part of their deal will benefit...……...

 

I hope we are one of those teams...……….. 

[mll]

The Canucks are active on the trade market - Zucker, Hoffman, Ristolainen, possibly giving Gardiner a 50M contract.

 

It really doesn't look like Benning has any interest in taking on bad contracts.  By the sound of it he wants to compete now.

[Pepe Silvia]

1 hour ago, mll said:

The Canucks are active on the trade market - Zucker, Hoffman, Ristolainen, possibly giving Gardiner a 50M contract.

 

It really doesn't look like Benning has any interest in taking on bad contracts.  By the sound of it he wants to compete now.

He probably HAS to compete now. I don't think he wants to, but he has to speed things up. I think he's been told (my own speculation) it's playoff, or pack your $&!#. I think this core is still another year or two, piece or two away from really being in the thick of it. I really don't like the idea of handing Gardiner/Myers $50m only because they're the best available at the moment. 

[Canucklehead73]

14 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

ME TOO

but teams don't give up their good players

They give up their middle, which we have in spades

So, we would be no further ahead

maybe a small up grade, but chances are. not

 

Example......Vegas....you might get Miller, but you won't get Karlsson

you will get....2 - 2nds value, not usually 1st value

IMO

 

Another example is.........Tampa

you will get picks, maybe a middle player, but not a Cal Foote

 

Maybe a team like Toronto or San Jose, who don't have many picks loose out

Sure that's what they want... you play hardball... if they will not give up a top six player you move on. Other teams needing bottom six players can "help" them.

[IBatch]

On 6/20/2019 at 4:51 AM, Pepe Silvia said:

He probably HAS to compete now. I don't think he wants to, but he has to speed things up. I think he's been told (my own speculation) it's playoff, or pack your $&!#. I think this core is still another year or two, piece or two away from really being in the thick of it. I really don't like the idea of handing Gardiner/Myers $50m only because they're the best available at the moment. 

Both Gardiner and Myers are huge upgrades for our defense...one that managed to stay close to the playoff race despite a 12 game losing streak.  Hughes has displaced Pouilet who was awful most nights ... and Gudbranson ended up as addition by subtraction (Schenn did everything and more) even without Pearson who was scoring at an almost 40 goal pace (he’s good for 20 at least!)...over an entire season the team we were near the end of the season was much better then the one we started with, even with EP slowing down (Hughes included).

 

Gardiner would be Edlers long term replacement and mean Hutton is out so we add something for Hutton also in this scenario... he’s a reliable or very good third pairing guy who Hughes would displace.  That’s a huge upgrade again.  With Myers we’d have a very solid top four on the right side even with Tanevs 49 games per year record.   We could trade Tanev and not blink, or displace someone else (Schenn most likely).  Personally I’d trade Tanev, add a second rounder etc and have Myers, Stetcher, Schenn, that’s also an upgrade.  

 

Of course the cap hit should be fair.  I’d say 6 is fair anything less is good for us and 7 plus would hurt us later a little.  The difference between team friendly and ugly is about 2 million per year, that’s a Schaller.  Is it really that big of a deal considering the upgrade?  Not really and if Benning has to make the playoffs to keep his job we will find out soon ...

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, IBatch said:

Both Gardiner and Myers are huge upgrades for our defense...one that managed to stay close to the playoff race despite a 12 game losing streak.  Hughes has displaced Pouilet who was awful most nights ... and Gudbranson ended up as addition by subtraction (Schenn did everything and more) even without Pearson who was scoring at an almost 40 goal pace (he’s good for 20 at least!)...over an entire season the team we were near the end of the season was much better then the one we started with, even with EP slowing down (Hughes included).

 

Gardiner would be Edlers long term replacement and mean Hutton is out so we add something for Hutton also in this scenario... he’s a reliable or very good third pairing guy who Hughes would displace.  That’s a huge upgrade again.  With Myers we’d have a very solid top four on the right side even with Tanevs 49 games per year record.   We could trade Tanev and not blink, or displace someone else (Schenn most likely).  Personally I’d trade Tanev, add a second rounder etc and have Myers, Stetcher, Schenn, that’s also an upgrade.  

 

Of course the cap hit should be fair.  I’d say 6 is fair anything less is good for us and 7 plus would hurt us later a little.  The difference between team friendly and ugly is about 2 million per year, that’s a Schaller.  Is it really that big of a deal considering the upgrade?  Not really and if Benning has to make the playoffs to keep his job we will find out soon ...

If we could get both Gardiner and Meyers for a total cap of 14 over 7 year terms, that's got to good.  

[JM_]

On 6/20/2019 at 12:23 AM, mll said:

The Canucks are active on the trade market - Zucker, Hoffman, Ristolainen, possibly giving Gardiner a 50M contract.

 

It really doesn't look like Benning has any interest in taking on bad contracts.  By the sound of it he wants to compete now.

thats good, that phase has passed. There's nothing wrong with leaving 10 mil open for the TDL or of next year. 

[J.I.A.H.N]

3 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

thats good, that phase has passed. There's nothing wrong with leaving 10 mil open for the TDL or of next year. 

Thing is Jim

A 1 year cap dump is the same thing as leaving it open next year

and 

you can always move that cap dump at the TDL, with minimal hit to the team

 

If we had to clear cap at the TDL...….even a 6M contract shrinks substantially 

6M at TDL = 2.4M @ 50% = 1.2M for the remainder of the year....I think you can find a trade for that that is painless

Then you can add a 6M player at the TDL and the cap cost is only 2.4 M if you wanted.....

I don't think JB would be putting the team that close to the cap anyways....