You do not get something for Nothing (Discussion)

[J.I.A.H.N]

Well, I like making proposals as much as the next guy, but we are now to a point where we have a lot of young players and prospects, no cap and we are tight to the cap.

 

So, as my esteemed friend Coastal.view, has painfully pointed out to me, time and time again, "you do not get, what you want for free", it will cost, and a quantity for quality 

 

trade. is not normally the norm, unless a trade has been forced by a player ( Kesler and Hall), but in the Hall case, it comes with a lot of risk, and the asset going back, is mostly

 

futures, and still comes at a pretty significant cost, albeit still not a one for one, quality trade.. 

 

So, in saying that, what assets are we willing to give up, that by doing so, will bring in a top quality winger or Dman, that has an extended contract that would equal, the asset going out,

which is what is needed, to complete the trade and keep under the Cap?

 

Do we want to add, our 2022-1st, Podkolzin, Hoglander, DiPietro, Juolevi, Rathbone and one of our young Canuck players to give incentive, for the other team to give up such an asset?

 

To move enough cap to make room for such a young, top 6 winger or Dman, we need to move a player like Sutter, Eriksson, or Tanev, all of which bring only small returns

 

or none at all, plus a player like Gaudette or Virtanen and an additional piece like the 2022 - 1st or Podkolzin or Juolevi? or Hoglander etc.....

 

Although fun (and that is why I do it), this is something I would be very leery of doing in real life, unless we were getting a very good player, who was locked up, long term...…...

 

So, what do we get with say Pearsson, Gaudette and Podkolzin? or Sutter, Virtanen and 2022 - 1st ?

 

Because that will be a starting point for getting a relatively young, top 6 or top 4 Dman

 

If someone want to put forward a trade suggestion like that, it would be interesting to look at, but I am not interested in looking at a 28/29 or older player 

 

for the type of asset we would be giving up...…..

 

The key to this is, we would be expecting a young player (under 26). that is on a long extended Cap friendly contract. I don't think there are many players out there, that 

 

teams will be willing to give up and this time.

 

I would be interested to hear your views on this, and what assets you would be willing to give up.my suggestion is we wait and develop our assets.

[Vinny in Vancouver]

Yup, too many of those "Naslund for Stojanov" and "Neely and a 1st for Pederson" trade proposals here...

[gizmo2337]

9 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

Do we want to add, our 2022-1st, Podkolzin, Hoglander, DiPietro, Juolevi, Rathbone and one of our young Canuck players to give incentive, for the other team to give up such an asset?

 

Because that will be a starting point for getting a relatively young, top 6 or top 4 Dman

I believe Rathbone will be a top 6, as early as right after his NCAA season is over. Why give up assets when you already have what you need.

[Tortorella's Rant]

To Van: McDavid

To Edmonton: a hearty thanks

[timberz21]

I'm against going for high profile players like Hall (whether he would re-sign or not).  The asset given up and the cap space that such a players will eat up will screw up any chance of building a balanced team.  Another example is Tavares with the Leafs.  It's tough to pass on a guy like Tavares, but with Marner and Matthews coming up and needing a new deal, that signing completely messed up their depth chart and any chance of building an all-around consistent team. 

 

I think JB must not go after these high-profile players, but rather add another JT Miller or a defenseman version of him.

 

Other example of bargain deal that were worth it, without being a high profile acquisition.  Its still a considerable price, but it's fair and manageable without selling the farm.

 

O'Reilly vs Berglund, Sobotka, Thompson, 1st and 2nd

Schenn vs Lehtera, 1st and conditional 1st.

Edited December 17, 2019 by timberz21

[JM_]

there are a lot of good young players in the system who should be knocking at the door over the next 2-3 seasons. A few of them could be outstanding in Podkolzin, Rathbone and Hoglander. No need at all to burn those players for immediate concerns.

 

More than anything Jim needs to now manage the cap. If he can shed a Baer by trading a "b" prospect then fine, but none of the a-listers or high picks. 

 

But the 'not getting something for nothing" caveat is a good one. Thats why the crap-for-crap Loui proposals will never go anywhere, e.g. 

 

Its also why I don't see us getting any kind of "top 6" in trade either for this year, its going to cost us too much. 

 

I'd set sights a little lower, maybe something around Stecher or the b-prospect group (Breisbois, Lind, etc) and look for something in the secondary market. 

Edited December 17, 2019 by Jimmy McGill

[goalie13]

27 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

Well, I like making proposals as much as the next guy

I've always been under the impression you liked making proposals far more than the next guy.

 

[NUCKER67]

Maybe it's not so black and white, but the Canucks have two choices:

 

1) Go for it now, make the trades necessary to make this a playoff team, or

2) Wait for Podkolzin, Hoglander, Madden, Woo and Rathbone etc to develop and make the NHL, which means a lot more patience

[NUCKER67]

The Canucks need to keep pace with what's happening in the Pacific, or they will fall behind. VGK is a lock to make the playoffs. ARI, EDM and CGY will all be battling for a spot. ARI made an improvement that can't be ignored. What's Benning going to do? Bring up Chatfield? Give Eriksson another shot? Try Leivo again in the Top 6?

[BrockBoester]

21 minutes ago, NUCKER67 said:

The Canucks need to keep pace with what's happening in the Pacific, or they will fall behind. VGK is a lock to make the playoffs. ARI, EDM and CGY will all be battling for a spot. ARI made an improvement that can't be ignored. What's Benning going to do? Bring up Chatfield? Give Eriksson another shot? Try Leivo again in the Top 6?

If he plays Eriksson in the top 6 surely Loui will return to form and start pouring in the goals!

 

...right? That's what Loui thinks, anyway.

 

[Ghostsof1915]

7 minutes ago, BrockBoester said:

If he plays Eriksson in the top 6 surely Loui will return to form and start pouring in the goals!

 

...right? That's what Loui thinks, anyway.

 

Absolutely.

Top 6 in Utica. 

[Nuxfanabroad]

1 hour ago, NUCKER67 said:

The Canucks need to keep pace with what's happening in the Pacific, or they will fall behind. VGK is a lock to make the playoffs. ARI, EDM and CGY will all be battling for a spot. ARI made an improvement that can't be ignored. What's Benning going to do? Bring up Chatfield? Give Eriksson another shot? Try Leivo again in the Top 6?

The LEAGUE GIFTED the Lost Vegan Rights that F***ing immediate competitor. So we have to tap dance to that freeken' pace? Sorry Nucker..it takes time to build a sustainable competitor.

 

lost lotto draws

penalties for cap recapture(no allergic 'freebie' LTIRs)

 

There are more examples, but this league IS a rigged casino. Not often an honest person makes $$$ in a rigged casino.

 

They're trying..but it'll take time & patience.

1 hour ago, NUCKER67 said:

Maybe it's not so black and white, but the Canucks have two choices:

 

1) Go for it now, make the trades necessary to make this a playoff team, or

2) Wait for Podkolzin, Hoglander, Madden, Woo and Rathbone etc to develop and make the NHL, which means a lot more patience

Just saw you acknowledge this reality, down this page.

 

I'd guess most fans will accept we need to do this right.(which requires time, of course)

[Gurn]

1 hour ago, BrockBoester said:

If he plays Eriksson in the top 6 surely Loui will return to form and start pouring in the goals!

 

...right? That's what Loui thinks, anyway.

 

And Timrafan.

[grumpyone]

4 hours ago, Tortorella's Rant said:

To Van: McDavid

To Edmonton: a hearty thanks

Don't you meant that Edmonton will retain 50% and take LE, too?

[Canuck Surfer]

5 minutes ago, grumpyone said:

Don't you meant that Edmonton will retain 50% and take LE, too?

That's the best frog pick ever. Welcome to CDC

[BrockBoester]

27 minutes ago, grumpyone said:

Don't you meant that Edmonton will retain 50% and take LE, too?

I nominate grumpyone for CDC GM of the year!

 

Welcome to the forums, brother

 

(Edit: You joined in 2009? lol)

Edited December 17, 2019 by BrockBoester

[coastal.view]

2 hours ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

The LEAGUE GIFTED the Lost Vegan Rights that F***ing immediate competitor. So we have to tap dance to that freeken' pace? Sorry Nucker..it takes time to build a sustainable competitor.

really???

what about that 20 to 25 million in expansion fees that each owner gets to pocket?

think las vegas should get something for that money? like a player from every team at least ?

and yeah the quality of players has gone up with that last expansion draft

but the entry fees went up more dramatically

 

i know you prefer they get nothing

maybe the league can allow teams to opt out of their share of the expansion fee?

aqua man would rather keep demko then receive 20+ million??

yeah right

Edited December 18, 2019 by coastal.view

[qwijibo]

36 minutes ago, coastal.view said:

really???

what about that 20 to 25 million in expansion fees that each owner gets to pocket2

think las vegas should get something for that money? like a player from every team at least ?

and yeah the quality of players has gone up with that last expansion draft

but the entry fees went up more dramatically

 

i know you prefer they get nothing

maybe the league can allow teams to opt out of their share of the expansion fee?

aqua man would rather keep demko then receive 20+ million??

yeah right

This.
 

The Canucks franchise fee in 1970 was $6m.  That’s roughly $40m today.  
 

The Knights paid $500m. Damn rights the league gave them favourable expansion draft rules.  They paid a lot of money to join the league. 

[6string]

3 hours ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

The LEAGUE GIFTED the Lost Vegan Rights that F***ing immediate competitor. So we have to tap dance to that freeken' pace? Sorry Nucker..it takes time to build a sustainable competitor.

 

lost lotto draws

penalties for cap recapture(no allergic 'freebie' LTIRs)

 

There are more examples, but this league IS a rigged casino. Not often an honest person makes $$$ in a rigged casino.

 

They're trying..but it'll take time & patience.

Just saw you acknowledge this reality, down this page.

 

I'd guess most fans will accept we need to do this right.(which requires time, of course)

Buttman has yet another Commie Welfare Expansion team joining the league that likely make the playoffs in year 1.

 

 

Edited December 18, 2019 by 6string

[6string]

10 minutes ago, qwijibo said:

This.
 

The Canucks franchise fee in 1970 was $6m.  That’s roughly $40m today.  
 

The Knights paid $500m. Damn rights the league gave them favourable expansion draft rules.  They paid a lot of money to join the league. 

So the league ois obligated to making your expansion team a playoff team. Of course the NBA, NFL, MLB and MLS just don't get it.

 

Who da thunk?

 

Btw the fees are all economically relative. A price of a ticket in 1970 was like $3.00 and up....

Edited December 18, 2019 by 6string