[Signing] Tyler Myers to Vancouver

[stawns]

1 minute ago, aliboy said:

And hopefully we don't qualify Hutton, let him walk, or sign for a much more reasonable number.

there's no way they let Hutton walk

[BO_Scorvat]

3 minutes ago, stawns said:

there's no way they let Hutton walk

Hutton would be traded if that's how much he'd make

[FlyLow_]

7 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

lets hope its reasonable.... but looking at our right side depth chart is  at the moment  so its probably going to cost. 

 

I also just don't see a trade market that doesn't involve a young core piece. So I'd rather overpay by 1.5 mil or so vs. losing a Boeser. We're not going to get a 1D with Jake + scraps. 

We aren't getting a number 1D anywhere but the draft. It's not the 1.5 mill overpayment, it's the term of that overpayment. Myers is going to get 7-8 mill for 6-8 years plus a NTC or NMC, that is a nightmare contract. I am trying to make peace with it because Jimbo is the most desperate guy at the dance but I really can't. It wouldn't take that much to get Zaitsev or Colin Miller. There are other options out there. A Stralman overpayment would be 3 years @ 5mill which does nothing to hinder us in the near future.

[DeNiro]

12 minutes ago, aGENT said:

We can probably swing a 2nd pair-#4 guy with only moderate discomfort. But a top pair guy's probably not in the cards via trade. 

 

I mean there's an OFF chance you could swing the likes of Ristolainen for something like Marky + Virtanen + prospect and sign a UFA to somewhat replace Marky but even then BUF might not budge/someone else likely outbids us. And it would have to assume they've struck out in the goalie FA market as well.

That would be a bold move for Benning to trade Markstrom. One I wouldn't totally be against.

 

Lets face it Markstrom's value may be the highest it's gonna be right now. We can't wait around until he expansion draft to get something done. If Demko is the future, then he needs to be protected. Does that mean we end up losing Markstrom for nothing?

[aliboy]

6 minutes ago, stawns said:

there's no way they let Hutton walk

Look at the latest post in the Hutton thread, looks like he won't be qualified, which is the right call. After that, sign him for a lot less or he walks.

[aliboy]

9 minutes ago, BO_Scorvat said:

Hutton would be traded if that's how much he'd make

If they can trade him. He could be a UFA by tomorrow afternoon.

Edited June 24, 2019 by aliboy

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

21 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Zaitsev's numbers look pretty good.  It's his cap and term that could be the problem. Stecher is similar (not nearly as big though) and way cheaper.  It's about the cap dollars I think between the two.  The Leafs would definitely like the cap Stecher brings.  

Zaitzev’s numbers aren’t good. Sure, he has decent enough basic CF%, etc. But that’s because he plays on a good team. Bad players on good teams can have decent looking raw stats. When you look at his team relative stats, it gets a little scarier. He’s basically bottom of the entire Toronto D for everything from shot shares, to scoring chances, to expected goals. He’s also a negative GAR and WAR player (meaning that, statistically speaking, he’s “below replacement” level).

 

His statistical profile is just not very good. Many would go so far as to say he’s a “negative value” player.

 

https://canucksarmy.com/2019/05/31/should-the-canucks-trade-for-nikita-zaitsev/

 

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/oilonwhyte.com/2019/06/14/avoiding-disaster-nikita-zaitsev/amp/

 

Never mind the fact he’s 27 years old with a 5 year contract remaining. Zaitsev likely is what he is, at this point, and isn’t getting any better. He’s around a replacement level or 3rd pairing defenseman who’s getting paid second pairing money. And he probably will decline over the next five years.

 

On a cheap contract, sure, I wouldn’t be completely against the idea of Zaitsev. He’s not all bad. He does an OK job eating some tougher minutes, and possibly provides close to neutral impact relative to deployment, maybe even moves the needle ever so slightly in suppressing goals against. But that’s about I see, in terms of positives.

 

Once you consider the contract, however, this guy really starts to have the look of a negative value player. That’s just too much term and cap to have tied up in a pretty marginal value player (and that statement is possibly being too kind), especially one whose statistical profile suggests he creates numerous negative team relative on-ice effects.

[Maketherightmove]

2 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

That would be a bold move for Benning to trade Markstrom. One I wouldn't totally be against.

 

Lets face it Markstrom's value may be the highest it's gonna be right now. We can't wait around until he expansion draft to get something done. If Demko is the future, then he needs to be protected. Does that mean we end up losing Markstrom for nothing?

They absolutely should be heavily exploring trading one of Markstrom or Demko now. If they feel Marky is their guy they're running with then maybe you hope to god Demko has a great year getting maybe 1/3rd of the games, stays healthy, and you offload him next offseason, but a decision is certainly going to need to be made soon. 

[aGENT]

3 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

That would be a bold move for Benning to trade Markstrom. One I wouldn't totally be against.

 

Lets face it Markstrom's value may be the highest it's gonna be right now. We can't wait around until he expansion draft to get something done. If Demko is the future, then he needs to be protected. Does that mean we end up losing Markstrom for nothing?

 

I agree and it's certainly a more of a possibility than some here are giving it credit for. Still doubt it lands us #2-#3 D Risto though unfortunately 

 

And I'm happy to keep both our solid goalies for a little while longer as well. But Marky expiring this year, the TDL and the ED will all put pressure on SOMETHING happening sooner than later there....

[Silky mitts]

26 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

lets hope its reasonable.... but looking at our right side depth chart is  at the moment  so its probably going to cost. 

 

I also just don't see a trade market that doesn't involve a young core piece. So I'd rather overpay by 1.5 mil or so vs. losing a Boeser. We're not going to get a 1D with Jake + scraps. 

If they go for an overpayment i hope its a shorter term. The tail end of a potential long term contract would be ugly.

[Gaudette Celly]

1 hour ago, Silky mitts said:

7 x 7 benning needs to

get fired on the spot 

If that contract is signed, it's because Aqualini approved it.

[aliboy]

If we sign Myers and could pry Dillon out of the Sharks, we'd be good? Sharks have ~$15M in cap room and I think they have 7 forwards signed, they need room. Dillon is pretty cheap for one more season, so might make sense for Sharks to keep him, but then who are they going to trade, where do they find cap space?

Edited June 24, 2019 by aliboy

[Borvat]

15 minutes ago, stawns said:

I do too.........he's a BC resident in the summer, played for the Rockets and he can probably see what they are trying to do here in Van.  It's not unreasonable to think that he wants to be here and might take slightly less to do so, if he believes in what JB is building here.  

 

That said, I feel like he ends up in the Peg when the smoke clears.

I would tend to agree.  But apparently things are not that rosy in the Peg and maybe a change of scenery is desired by some of the players.

 

https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/sports/hockey/jets/cracks-in-the-ice-508921712.html

[Gaudette Celly]

3 minutes ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

Zaitzev’s numbers aren’t good. Sure, he has decent enough basic CF%, etc. But that’s because he plays on a good team. Bad players on good teams can have decent looking raw stats. When you look at his team relative stats, it gets a little scarier. He’s basically bottom of the entire Toronto D for everything from shot shares, to scoring chances, to expected goals. He’s also a negative GAR and WAR player (meaning that, statistically speaking, he’s “below replacement” level).

 

His statistical profile is just not very good. Many would go so far as to say he’s a “negative value” player.

 

https://canucksarmy.com/2019/05/31/should-the-canucks-trade-for-nikita-zaitsev/

 

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/oilonwhyte.com/2019/06/14/avoiding-disaster-nikita-zaitsev/amp/

 

Never mind the fact he’s 27 years old with a 5 year contract remaining. Zaitsev likely is what he is, at this point, and isn’t getting any better. He’s around a replacement level or 3rd pairing defenseman who’s getting paid second pairing money. And he probably will decline over the next five years.

 

On a cheap contract, sure, I wouldn’t be completely against the idea of Zaitsev. He’s not all bad. He does an OK job eating some tougher minutes, and possibly provides close to neutral impact relative to deployment, maybe even moves the needle ever so slightly in suppressing goals against. But that’s about I see, in terms of positives.

 

Once you consider the contract, however, this guy really starts to have the look of a negative value player. That’s just too much term and cap to have tied up in a pretty marginal value player (and that statement is possibly being too kind), especially one whose statistical profile suggests he creates numerous negative team relative on-ice effects.

Sid, you need to tune into MLSE/TSN and get your opinion corrected on this sweet gem.

[Silky mitts]

1 minute ago, Hutton Wink said:

If that contract is signed, it's because Aqualini approved it.

Aquaman never has been a cheap owner he will open his pockets. Up to the managment staff to sign players to contracts worth there respective values. 

[Maketherightmove]

5 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said:

If that contract is signed, it's because Aqualini approved it.

Pretty sure any contract that gets signed is because the owner approves of it.

[captainhorvat]

3 hours ago, rekker said:

Actually, back load it then no need for a NTC. No way Seattle claims a heavy back loaded contract IMHO. 

Interesting....never thought of it that way.

[Elias Pettersson]

5 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

oh god the pink and blue charts have been trotted out. I think this means Myers is a lock to be here. 

I'm waiting for the HERO chart to come out to close the deal...

[Silver Ghost]

1 hour ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Size. Once again, Myers is really tall, but not very heavy for his weight, and doesn't have the reputation of a player who uses his size to his and his team's advantage. In fact, Edler had more hits last year than Myers and is way more consistent with his size.

 

There are other players in FA (Chiarot being one) who possess ideal NHL size, and use it far more convincingly.

 

This team had one of the worst GAA in the league last year, so the defensive side of things needs serious improvement.

Seeing as how there are a few young defensemen in the Canucks prospect pipeline (Hughes/Juolevi/Woo/Sautner etc etc) having players that some of the younger players can learn from is great. Edler helped Stecher, Hutton, Tanev and others, as did Tanev help Hutton. Hughes appreciated having Schenn as a partner to learn from. Will Myers provide that?

 

As well, having NHL defensemen who will help to protect the younger players is key right now. Myers doesn't strike me as that type of player.

Based on what exactly? Frankly, Edler is a far better defenseman still, and the only knock on him is that he's 33.

Yet signing an underwhelming, middling defenseman because he's tall and in his 20's (barely) is the answer? Oh.....cool.

We already have Edler so its not like Myers will cost us Edler. He wouldnt be replacing Edler so most of your points are moot on that front. Complementing what Edler brings and limiting Tanev's exposure to hopefully let him play a season of games are what Myers would hopefully bring. 

 

You know what also helps defensively? Controlling the puck more in the offensive zone and generating more offense. Thats why one dimensional defensive dmen are not going to be the only answer. Who knows if Myers will provide mentorship, etc. Who knows if they even need him to at this point. Protecting the young players is an overused cliche. Protecting them from what? The more you have the puck the less your D are getting turned around, hit, or having to block shots. All key factors in dman injuries in general. Protecting them doesnt mean fighting when they get hit. Protecting them within the lineup is what coaches are paid for. 

 

The available dmen out there are what they are. Signing one dimensional defensive bruisers is not going to help at all. 

[kanucks25]

12 minutes ago, aliboy said:

If we sign Myers and could pry Dillon out of the Sharks, we'd be good?

Adding a #4/5 on a contender and a #6 on a contender doesn't make us good. It doesn't do much of anything for us except waste cap space.

 

It creates depth both for a healthy roster and for when we inevitably face a rash of injuries but overall, for where we want to be a few years into the future, all it does is hinder us from making other/better moves.

Edited June 24, 2019 by kanucks25