Tre Mac Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 If you could get rid of the LE albatross then for sure I would've done it. Byram is going to be a stud, no question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kragar Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 So, Marleau and his 1 yr remaining was worth almost a first outright. Taking on Seabrook's anchor of a contract should have been at least 3OA plus 2020 1st, plus more, unless they were taking Loui in return. Even if Loui is involved, there is no way 10OA should be sent in the other direction without a lot more involved 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nucker 67 Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 (edited) Good call Jim, we got the 3rd best player anyway Edited June 24, 2019 by NUCKER67 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwijibo Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 6 minutes ago, Kragar said: So, Marleau and his 1 yr remaining was worth almost a first outright. Taking on Seabrook's anchor of a contract should have been at least 3OA plus 2020 1st, plus more, unless they were taking Loui in return. Even if Loui is involved, there is no way 10OA should be sent in the other direction without a lot more involved So by that thinking what should it cost Vancouver to dump Eriksson? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonoman Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 39 minutes ago, timberz21 said: Taking Seabrook outright wasn't worth it. However, what about this? Would have been interesting. Eriksson 10th vs Seabrook 3rd More palatable, but Pod is a decent pick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian42 Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 What about: Eriksson 50% retained for Seabrook 50% retained the reason for 50% retained is for Vancouver’s benefit Seabrook has 2 more years left than Eriksson and The Canucks would be paying Seabrook under 3.5 for those last two years. Two extra years on Seabrook hurts but he is the position we need and debatably better than Eriksson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-P Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 47 minutes ago, Jaku said: What does truth have to do with anything? ;-) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kragar Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 3 minutes ago, qwijibo said: So by that thinking what should it cost Vancouver to dump Eriksson? Dunno, but less than what I would expect for taking on Seabs. Aside from recent news about him, I wasn't desperate to have him go. Never lived up to expectations, but wasn't useless either. Recent news makes it tougher to do a cap dump trade, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noseforthenet Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 49 minutes ago, Jaku said: What worries me about this is if there wasn't a discussion, how much digging is Benning really doing, how far along in trade discussions is he really getting, and if there was a discussion after all, how creative is Benning getting with his trade proposals? I would have come back with something within the right ballpark. It's not like Seabs is THAT bad at the moment. Maybe in 2 or 3 years he just gets bought out? He has experience winning. I see him as an asset. Even if he ends up being a bottom pairing D-man. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 Forgeting/ignoring the truth or myth of the rumour - that's just way too much dump to take to move up 5 spots. And - Seabrook owns a NMC for the next three years - meaning he's going to cost them in the expansion draft. Seabrook isn't bad in the present - if that were a year or two, you could placehold him - but the last 3 years of that deal are disastrous. Even if they took LE back in a deal, that trade-up still would not suffice imo. Without a counter cap-dump, I think even the suggestion is audacious. Chicago made their bed - they got their Cups - I hope they remain on the hook. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastDave Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 18 minutes ago, brian42 said: What about: Eriksson 50% retained for Seabrook 50% retained the reason for 50% retained is for Vancouver’s benefit Seabrook has 2 more years left than Eriksson and The Canucks would be paying Seabrook under 3.5 for those last two years. Two extra years on Seabrook hurts but he is the position we need and debatably better than Eriksson. Yes, it would make it more palatable. Getting a top defencemen is harder than getting a top forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noseforthenet Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 4 minutes ago, oldnews said: Forgeting/ignoring the truth or myth of the rumour - that's just way too much dump to take to move up 5 spots. And - Seabrook owns a NMC for the next three years - meaning he's going to cost them in the expansion draft. Seabrook isn't bad in the present - if that were a year or two, you could placehold him - but the last 3 years of that deal are disastrous. Even if they took LE back in a deal, that trade-up still would not suffice imo. Without a counter cap-dump, I think even the suggestion is audacious. Chicago made their bed - they got their Cups - I hope they remain on the hook. 7 spots. And why couldn't Seabs be bought out at expansion time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostsOf1994 Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 I don't know who this J.D Burke feller is but i have heard him mentioned on CDC a few times. If he's such an insider on what teams the canucks talked to about moving up at the draft, why did he magically ignore the big one of Quinn Hughes asking Jim Benning to call NJD about 1st overall? Which benning commented on saying he made the call but it was a short conversation with njd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Screw Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 VPOD was my wish. So stoked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Noseforthenet said: why couldn't Seabs be bought out at expansion time? https://puckpedia.com/player/brent-seabrook/buyout?s=2020-2021 6.6 milllion in 2020/21 3.6 in 2021/22 6.6 in 2022/23 5.1 in 2023/24 buying him out involves eating a whole lot of dead cap, regardless, for 4 years into 2014 - and 4 more years of minimal penalty. And regardless - the fact he owns a NMC that post-dates the expansion draft is a HUGE amount of leverage against Chicago'd desperate need to move him. Edited June 24, 2019 by oldnews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noseforthenet Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 (edited) 12 minutes ago, oldnews said: https://puckpedia.com/player/brent-seabrook/buyout?s=2020-2021 You could have just said age.... Yeah, that cap hit wouldn't be worth it. If expansion is the problem, then why not go the 4-4-2 route instead, hypothetically. If say this did happen, we'd be protecting Hughes, Byram, Juolevi, Seabrook. Then Petey, Bo, Boeser, and I'm drawing a blank. I guess the 4th would likely be JT Miller. The rest of them I'd not lose sleep over. It doesn't seem that bad does it? Everyone else on the team is kind of swimming in mediocrity. Also, this is assuming Eriksson is likely not playing another game in blue and green. Edited June 24, 2019 by Noseforthenet 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tystick Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 There was more to it than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noble 6 Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 That was the exact deal that I proposed I would have been really happy if it went through. Byram and Hughes together on one blue line makes us so much better than another forward. Seabrook isn't great, but he's still a good middle 6 complimentary piece who would could have been a good fit with either Hughes or Byram moving forward. We wouldn't have to honour his NMC either like Nashville did with Subban so we'd be fine for the expansion draft. If the deal happens, you figure out a way to ship out Eriksson and make it work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maketherightmove Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 1 hour ago, NUCKER67 said: Good call Jim, we got the 3rd best player anyway No, Byram is better than Pod. But Pod is probably 4th best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tystick Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 14 minutes ago, oldnews said: https://puckpedia.com/player/brent-seabrook/buyout?s=2020-2021 6.6 milllion in 2020/21 3.6 in 2021/22 6.6 in 2022/23 5.1 in 2023/24 buying him out involves eating a whole lot of dead cap, regardless, for 4 years into 2014 - and 4 more years of minimal penalty. And regardless - the fact he owns a NMC that post-dates the expansion draft is a HUGE amount of leverage against Chicago'd desperate need to move him. Aquilini would not have been happy. Plus it's not a good look to acquire so many aging, bad contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now