[Report] Trade between Vancouver and Chicago fell through over Seabrook

[Tystick]

The problem is we would have had a hard time signing Boeser, Pettersson, and wouldn't have a chance at signing Panarin.

The fans would be at JB's throat. Not a good look.

So a quarter of our capspace locked into aging vets. Just for Byram? Meh.

Podkolzin was a good pick, I'm happy.

[Trebreh]

good no deal! Brent Seahorse is garbage. 

[Noseforthenet]

4 minutes ago, Tystick said:

The problem is we would have had a hard time signing Boeser, Pettersson, and wouldn't have a chance at signing Panarin.

The fans would be at JB's throat. Not a good look.

So a quarter of our capspace locked into aging vets. Just for Byram? Meh.

Podkolzin was a good pick, I'm happy.

You lost me at Panarin, lmfao! If you go down the rabbit hole and see what Chicago would take back to get the albatross contract out, I believe there would have been a deal to be made. And I'm not talking Loui Erkisson either.

[Tystick]

2 minutes ago, Noseforthenet said:

You lost me at Panarin, lmfao! If you go down the rabbit hole and see what Chicago would take back to get the albatross contract out, I believe there would have been a deal to be made. And I'm not talking Loui Erkisson either.

Why did I lose you at Panarin?

[oldnews]

17 minutes ago, Noseforthenet said:

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.

I said the relevent material - not just 'age'

 

And I don't know what you're talking about with this 4-4-2 stuff.

I'm pretty sure the expansion rules remain 7-3-1 or 8-1.

 

Anyhow that is irrelevent - the point was the value that Chicago would have to give up to rid themselves of both that cap and term (whether you buy it out or not) and at the same time, rid themselves of that NMC which in the absence of moving him, will cost them an expansion protection spot.  They have very little leverage to get that done, let alone in a tightening cap context, period.

 

[Kosmo Kramer]

Sounds like this may not even be true.

Either way glad it didn't happen, I'm all for weaponizing cap space but 5 years remaining is way too long.

Has to be 2 years or less.

[oldnews]

18 minutes ago, Tystick said:

Aquilini would not have been happy.

Plus it's not a good look to acquire so many aging, bad contracts.

Yeah - this team, unlike folks that cling to the tank mentality - are not projecting themselves to be horrible five years into the future.  Some people may want an emulation of the Buffalos and Edmontons of the NHL, but the goal is actually to compete at some point, so eating dead cap a half decade into the future isn't necessarily the type of 'weaponized cap' that this team shoudl be engaging in.  It has cap to weaponize in the present, maybe a year or two into the future if it is conservative - but eating Seabrook type contracts could come back to seriously bite this team at an inopportune time.

 

Look at Vegas - who thought it might be wise to eat Clarkson - but are now contending and finding themselves limited in their abilty to get what they need to done this offseason.

They got the benefit of eating that contract, and now they're facing the cost - so it's debatable how wise that was - they may still come out ahead as that is an IR assignable cap, unlike Seabrook - but if this team wants to 'weaponize cap' for assets in return, I'd look at the shorter term and lesser return of taking on a Clarkson - whereas Seabrook imo should involve an extremely heavy incentive, that a mere trade-up is not sufficient to cover.

[Gaudette Celly]

45 minutes ago, GhostsOf1994 said:

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.

He isn't.  And he doesn't know much about hockey either.

[Odjick29willkillyou]

29 minutes ago, Noseforthenet said:

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.

Age 

[coastal.view]

28 minutes ago, Noseforthenet said:

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.

hughes

byram

woulld need no protecting in a seattle expansion draft

 

you do not know basic things about the details of how expansion works

i suspect you understand salary cap issues equally well

why not spend a bit of time reading posts and figure out these things

rather then just making noise on here with your posting

[Gaudette Celly]

1 hour ago, Noseforthenet 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.

Yes, Benning isn't thorough and doesn't dig into things, he just hangs up.  But you would have got a deal done, for sure.

 

1 hour ago, Noseforthenet said:

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.

...and this is why you AREN'T a GM.

 

14 minutes ago, Noseforthenet said:

You lost me at Panarin, lmfao! If you go down the rabbit hole and see what Chicago would take back to get the albatross contract out, I believe there would have been a deal to be made. And I'm not talking Loui Erkisson either.

Pure speculation and wishful thinking.  None of us have any idea.

[LegionOfDoom]

Anyone know where pod was ranked on jimbos list? 

[Noseforthenet]

3 minutes ago, coastal.view said:

hughes

byram

woulld need no protecting in a seattle expansion draft

 

you do not know basic things about the details of how expansion works

i suspect you understand salary cap issues equally well

why not spend a bit of time reading posts and figure out these things

rather then just making noise on here with your posting

You assume too much and I do know how the salary cap works, thank you. You basically just proved my point even more with the comment above, so...THANK YOU!!!!!

[BlueDragon23]

Glad we said no. Seabrook is washed up and his contract is abysmal. Yes, I would have loved to get Byram, but the fact that we landed Podkolzin (who may have a higher ceiling) at 10 without giving up anything or taking on a awful contract was way worth it. 

 

Chicago made their bed with these terrible contracts so they can lie it as far as I’m concerned. 

[Noseforthenet]

17 minutes ago, oldnews said:

I said the relevent material - not just 'age'

 

And I don't know what you're talking about with this 4-4-2 stuff.

I'm pretty sure the expansion rules remain 7-3-1 or 8-1.

 

Anyhow that is irrelevent - the point was the value that Chicago would have to give up to rid themselves of both that cap and term (whether you buy it out or not) and at the same time, rid themselves of that NMC which in the absence of moving him, will cost them an expansion protection spot.  They have very little leverage to get that done, let alone in a tightening cap context, period.

 

Sorry. 8 players and one goalie, so in the Nucks case it would be 4 forwards, 4 D, and 1 goalie. Or maybe even 5 D and 3 forwards because we don't know how JT Miller is going to work out.

[King Heffy]

Happy this didn't happen.

[Noseforthenet]

5 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said:

Yes, Benning isn't thorough and doesn't dig into things, he just hangs up.  But you would have got a deal done, for sure.

 

...and this is why you AREN'T a GM.

 

Pure speculation and wishful thinking.  None of us have any idea.

I didn't know about the buy out bit. Probably a good idea to read the whole thread to contribute properly to the discussion...but any way, yeah trade discussions happen ALL. THE. TIME.

Very few things come to fruition.

That's why we talk about such things.

 

We aren't sure of Chicago's interests here. If it's purely to dump Seabrook to go get Panarin, then yeah, you tell them to choke on it. If you can actually talk about something more palatable for both sides, then something could have happened. I have a couple things in mind. Mostly involving sending Sutter the other way, since Benning is likely looking at moving him this summer anyways, in favour of Gaudette.

[oldnews]

11 minutes ago, LegionOfDoom said:

Anyone know where pod was ranked on jimbos list? 

Speculated to be 8 or 9.

 

I think there's reasonable grounds/possibility he may have been higher than that.

 

Benning specifically said himself that he had deal/s in the works to move down - but Podkolzin being on the board put an end to that consideration - they were not trading down if he was still there - meaning he valued him at a 2nd round pick (or more) more than the remaining field on the board.  It's also possible that any possible intent to trade up may have involved targetting this player (I think that is less of a 'certainty', but a possibility).

 

In any event, valuing Podkolzin enough to not consider trading down puts his value at give or take at least a 2nd round pick relative to the field - possibly worth the value of a few trade up spots, or that 10 spot represented a considerable break point in their list / if it was a tier where value dropped off considerably (meaning they may have highly valued Zegras, Pod, perhaps Seider, etc) - but 10 turned out to be a fortunate spot for them that fell right before a drop off as it played out.

Edited June 24, 2019 by oldnews

[oldnews]

9 minutes ago, Noseforthenet said:

Sorry. 8 players and one goalie, so in the Nucks case it would be 4 forwards, 4 D, and 1 goalie. Or maybe even 5 D and 3 forwards because we don't know how JT Miller is going to work out.

nor do we know how the pick will turn out in 3 or 4 years.

hence the nature of risk when you make a trade.

all you can do is calculate those risks vs each other to the best of your ability - you cannot eliminate risk in the process

I think they calculated the cost/beneift/risk very well - that is all I can ask.  I can't expect them to control countless uncontrollable variables into the future.

[Noseforthenet]

4 minutes ago, oldnews said:

nor do we know how the pick will turn out in 3 or 4 years.

hence the nature of risk when you make a trade.

all you can do is calculate those risks vs each other to the best of your ability - you cannot eliminate risk in the process

I think they calculated the cost/beneift/risk very well - that is all I can ask.  I can't expect them to control countless uncontrollable variables into the future.

Which is exactly why you do interviews. You need to know how determined and focused these kids are. I mean, when Griffin Reinhart was drafted, NYI obviously didn't do their due diligence in getting the right idea about the kid. You're right though. That's the nature of trading. Though I will say this...I don't believe there would be an issue getting Seabrook to waive for Seattle. I mean, it's hard enough for Chicago to get rid of his contract. He waives, they still aren't picking him. Worst case scenario, he's close to home anyways.