Cap strategy between now and Summer of 2021 when we have to re-up Petey and Hughes

[Darius]

1 minute ago, Lazurus said:

No injuries, a chance at the overall #1, a chance for, who is that kid on Boston?

No bombs, isn't that why Benning was hired? Should there not have been a late bloomng and often in the doghouse Virtanen, Juolevi and a lot more later round picks should be playing. BTW I like Jake's offensive and defensive game but he has to be careful with his bad shoulder, they are a b@#$h.

Young players can play in the league. There is no rule that states they are not ready until they are 20 or 21, just they may not be as good yet.

You are all over the map here Lazurus.

Now you are bringing in a #1 overall pick into this....

 

Regarding injuries.  Im not willing to write off the kid after 3 years.  First year injury was a freak accident.  Last couple years could be an aberration, who knows.  Using your line of thinking Pittsburgh should have unloaded guys like Malkin and Letang because they have been injured for long periods of time for like 8 years in a row.  How long have you been watching this team.  I can tell you this...you wont find many players we have drafted, in 50 years, that have been able to produce like BB has in his first few years here.  You just dont throw that out the window when he is 22 years old with the hopes that you draft another guy that can produce.  

 

The problem with your line of thinking is that you think top 10 picks are a sure thing.  Fact of the matter is there is always an element of crap shoot involved no matter how good the GM is at picking.

[Lazurus]

19 minutes ago, Darius said:

The problem with your line of thinking is that you think top 10 picks are a sure thing.  Fact of the matter is there is always an element of crap shoot involved no matter how good the GM is at picking.

97% make the NHL.

21 minutes ago, Darius said:

You are all over the map here Lazurus.

Now you are bringing in a #1 overall pick into this....

 

Regarding injuries.  Im not willing to write off the kid after 3 years.  First year injury was a freak accident.  Last couple years could be an aberration, who knows.  Using your line of thinking Pittsburgh should have unloaded guys like Malkin and Letang because they have been injured for long periods of time for like 8 years in a row.  How long have you been watching this team.  I can tell you this...you wont find many players we have drafted, in 50 years, that have been able to produce like BB has in his first few years here.  You just dont throw that out the window when he is 22 years old with the hopes that you draft another guy that can produce. 

Not #1, the chance for #1

Boser injured his wrist his last year in college and then had to have it operated on twice, yes it was a freak accident that hurt his back but it is an injury that will haunt a player. Shooting isn't so different than a golf stroke and look what that did to maybe the best golfer in the world.

Boeser hasn't won a scoring title before getting injured bringing up Malkin and Letang is stretching. The CHANCE for a #1 overall is something achievable and a possibility but it is a guarantee of never getting one if there is no lottery pick, Even if there is no lottery where does the team get its players from?

 

I always like the idea of trading him with Minnesota, his home state and close to home, they have to rebuild soon and need younger players they can star on the ice, they cannot wait because they rely a lot more on a finicky fan base, don't win and they don't go so that team will deal to save a few years of waiting.

Boeser for Greenway (23 yrs old, 6'6", 230 lbs) and their #1 at the least.

[Darius]

4 minutes ago, Lazurus said:

97% make the NHL.[/quote]

Making the NHL and becoming a top line player are two different things.  

4 minutes ago, Lazurus said:

Not #1, the chance for #1

So you would trade Boeser for a "chance" at number one.  If he is injury prone and on his way downhill as you are implying why the hell would the other team not just keep their chance at #1.

 

4 minutes ago, Lazurus said:

Boser injured his wrist his last year in college and then had to have it operated on twice,

Yet he went on to become the Calder runner up.  

 

4 minutes ago, Lazurus said:

yes it was a freak accident that hurt his back but it is an injury that will haunt a player. Shooting isn't so different than a golf stroke and look what that did to maybe the best golfer in the world.

Even with a supposed bad wrist he was on pace for 25 goals.  If someone like Jake gets 25 goals there will be a parade, Brock puts up those numbers - trade him,

 

4 minutes ago, Lazurus said:

Boeser hasn't won a scoring title before getting injured bringing up Malkin and Letang is stretching.

 

 

Why?  Go look at Letang's record on db.  Guy has been injured for like a decade.  I wonder if the fans there lost patience with him after 2.5 years. Lol.

 

 

4 minutes ago, Lazurus said:

I always like the idea of trading him with Minnesota, his home state and close to home, they have to rebuild soon and need younger players they can star on the ice, they cannot wait because they rely a lot more on a finicky fan base, don't win and they don't go so that team will deal to save a few years of waiting.

Boeser for Greenway (23 yrs old, 6'6", 230 lbs) and their #1 at the least.

What astounds me is the cuthroat attitude among some in the fan base.  Kid has put up phenomenal numbers, relative to his peers and players in his age group who have been drafted by this team in 50 years...has a mediocre (by his standards) 3 months...a really rough time in his personal life (which some care not to factor in) gets injured and there are calls to cut the rope and get rid of him....after less than 3 years.

 

I think what has happened is that EP and QH has spoiled us and clouded our vision of what development trajectores of 20-22 year olds  normally look like.

 

[aGENT]

Step one is unfortunately to trade Roussel and his $3m hit. I love that guy but winger depth is one of our strengths and not only does he not costs us anything to move, we'd actually stand to gain a small return. 

 

A small return we could perhaps add to Baer as step two (perhaps/likely also with retention) to move his salary out.

 

Step 3...pay Loui his summer bonus then pray he retires or we can move him, likely with retention, without adding too much. This one might sting a little.

 

That's anywhere from $7.5-$12.5m cleared right there (depending on retention etc).

 

Move Stecher's RFA rights.

 

Unless Leivo is willing to re-sign for about what he's currently making, he's likely gone too.

 

Same goes for Fantenberg unless he re-signs cheaper than Benn (which would make Benn and his $2m expendable).

 

With Ferland presumably on Robidas island, that should be enough to bump Marky up to $5.5-$6, Virtanen up to $2-$2.5, Motte to say $1.25'ish, Gaudette up to $1.5, re-sign Toffoli at around $5 and Tanev around $4-$5. Bring in some cheap ELC's/bridge players like MacEwan at F and one or two of Tryamkin/Rafferty/Brisebois/Juolevi on D.

Edited February 20, 2020 by aGENT

[stawns]

1 hour ago, Darius said:

lol...regressed? at worst he has leveled off.  And you should know that part of the reason is because he went from being able to hide behind the sedins in year one to becoming one of the two primary point getters on the team in year two.  Its what happens when you are only 21 years old and basically "you are the guy" and everybody and their dog on the other team zeros in on you.

 

Funny how you have given jake 6 years to become a semi consistent 40 point guy (maybe) but Brock needs to be shuffled out the door after 3 years because even though he is younger than Jake he wont improve.  Meantime Jake is still developing. Lol.

29 goals, 26 goals and this year he was in danger of not hitting 20.  That's the definition of regression.  I'm not sure how someone can look at Brock's game in the last two years and say he's worth what they're paying him.

 

I actually don't have an issue with Boes, but the team needs cap space and they don't have a first or second in the coming draft.  I'd take Toffoli (in his prime), a first and depth dman for BB.  

 

I'm

[Darius]

1 minute ago, stawns said:

29 goals, 26 goals and this year he was in danger of not hitting 20.  That's the definition of regression.  I'm not sure how someone can look at Brock's game in the last two years and say he's worth what they're paying him.

 

I actually don't have an issue with Boes, but the team needs cap space and they don't have a first or second in the coming draft.  I'd take Toffoli (in his prime), a first and depth dman for BB.  

 

I'm

lol, talk about embellishing...in danger of not hitting 20....he has 16 goals, you really think he wouldnt have scored 4 times in the last almost 30 games? question for you - do you think Jake will hit Brock's point total this year - even with Brock out for like 25 games....with one point in last 8 games it looks doubtful eh?

 

Kid putting up .84ppg between ages 20 and 21 and hes not worth what he is getting paid...ok....

 

Toffoli is 27 years old....i would rather keep Brock - 5 years younger and already has put up more goals in a year than Toffoli has in his whole career except once.  Doubtful Toffoli will keep producing for the next 5 years like Brock will.  In 5-6 years Brock will be likely worth more than Toffoli in a trade.  Thats when you unload him, not now.

Im not worried about cap space, the fodder will be gone soon..Loui, Sutter etc etc, cap will also go up. 

 

Trading Brock for a first will unlikely produce a player like Brock, even though you have been trying to get rid of the kid since day one I dont think JB would do this.  

 

 

 

 

 

[Baggins]

2 hours ago, Lazurus said:

No injuries, a chance at the overall #1, a chance for, who is that kid on Boston?

No bombs, isn't that why Benning was hired? Should there not have been a late bloomng and often in the doghouse Virtanen, Juolevi and a lot more later round picks should be playing. BTW I like Jake's offensive and defensive game but he has to be careful with his bad shoulder, they are a b@#$h.

Young players can play in the league. There is no rule that states they are not ready until they are 20 or 21, just they may not be as good yet.

 

And your reason is why they have to deal him because they might be able to get two good players in return. Two that score 20 a year but play the whole year, maybe bigger and faster.

Good luck finding a GM that never drafts a bomb. That's the mythical GM. Some are better than others, but not a single one gets it right every time.

[JM_]

35 minutes ago, Baggins said:

Good luck finding a GM that never drafts a bomb. That's the mythical GM. Some are better than others, but not a single one gets it right every time.

just the armchair ones. 

[Lazurus]

1 hour ago, Darius said:

Even with a supposed bad wrist he was on pace for 25 goals.  If someone like Jake gets 25 goals there will be a parade, Brock puts up those numbers - trade him

I think if Jake got the same icetime and played with the best players for more than 10 games a season and on the power play he would get 25, right now he is on pace for the same as Boeser playing 5 min a game less.

 

36 minutes ago, Baggins said:

Good luck finding a GM that never drafts a bomb. That's the mythical GM. Some are better than others, but not a single one gets it right every time.

True Canucks luck have it around 3 out 7

[Baggins]

7 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

just the armchair ones. using hindsight

Fixed that for you. 

Edited February 20, 2020 by Baggins

[Darius]

1 minute ago, Lazurus said:

I think if Jake got the same icetime and played with the best players for more than 10 games a season and on the power play he would get 25, right now he is on pace for the same as Boeser playing 5 min a game less.

now here is the important question.

 

Brock is gone/injured.   Why didnt they just put Jake there?  They traded some good assets to get a replacement for BB - Benning basically said they made the trade for Toffoli when they knew Brock was out for a while.

 

If Jake is just as good, or can score like you think he would, why would the org spend all those assets on what looks like a rental when the solution (Jake) is sitting right under their nose.  Its a free solution...why not?

 

In fact, Toffoli even has good chemistry with Pearson.  They could easily put him on the second line and Jake on the first...so why dont they put Jake on the first?  Could it be that they dont trust him to play on the first line? Could it be that they dont think he can process the game at first line player level (like Brock does)

 

Jake has 1 point in the last 8 games where he played a good amount of time with the top line btw.

 

 

[Lazurus]

20 minutes ago, Darius said:

Brock is gone/injured.   Why didnt they just put Jake there?  They traded some good assets to get a replacement for BB - Benning basically said they made the trade for Toffoli when they knew Brock was out for a while.

They did for a bit, a couple of games, Jake got some points.They say they traded for a replacement but IMO it was to push for the playoffs. Funny about Boeser, where is he? Looked at that contact and just can't see how he broke ribs or rib cartilage, i have had that or maybe he traded because Brock is moving?

[wai_lai416]

On 2/18/2020 at 7:27 PM, Rounoush said:

One thing that I've been thinking about for a bit is that Luongo cap hit. I feel like that is something we can appeal to the league to change much like New Jersey did when they got punished for the Kovalchuck contract. Nobody who was apart of that deal is even here anymore. Why punish us with a cap hit?

Lol LA King didnt manage to get out of the mike richard fiasco.. Vancouver ain't getting out of Luongo..  itll be more interesting if they dont punish Nashville for Weber..  then maybe we can get draft pick compensation 

[wai_lai416]

26 minutes ago, Darius said:

now here is the important question.

 

Brock is gone/injured.   Why didnt they just put Jake there?  They traded some good assets to get a replacement for BB - Benning basically said they made the trade for Toffoli when they knew Brock was out for a while.

 

If Jake is just as good, or can score like you think he would, why would the org spend all those assets on what looks like a rental when the solution (Jake) is sitting right under their nose.  Its a free solution...why not?

 

In fact, Toffoli even has good chemistry with Pearson.  They could easily put him on the second line and Jake on the first...so why dont they put Jake on the first?  Could it be that they dont trust him to play on the first line? Could it be that they dont think he can process the game at first line player level (like Brock does)

 

Jake has 1 point in the last 8 games where he played a good amount of time with the top line btw.

 

 

Jake never was the solution lol hes streaky and tends to fade down the stretch. 0 consistency to his game.. some games hes all world.. some games hes no where to be found 

[Darius]

1 minute ago, Lazurus said:

They did for a bit, a couple of games, Jake got some points.They say they traded for a replacement but IMO it was to push for the playoffs. Funny about Boeser, where is he? Looked at that contact and just can't see how he broke ribs or rib cartilage, i have had that or maybe he traded because Brock is moving?

But this is my point - if management saw Jake as a viable option for that first line i highly doubt they would have paid so much to get a potential rental just to fill in that first line rw   Benning basically said that the trade was instigated by BB's injury.  We can infer that the trade would not have happened if BB didnt get injured.   Mangement simply dont see Jake as a long term solution for line 1.

[Darius]

1 minute ago, wai_lai416 said:

Jake never was the solution lol hes streaky and tends to fade down the stretch. 0 consistency to his game.. some games hes all world.. some games hes no where to be found 

some in here think that he is a bigger impact player than Boeser and can step into that first line spot and consistently put up points like BB did for the long term,

[stawns]

1 hour ago, Darius said:

lol, talk about embellishing...in danger of not hitting 20....he has 16 goals, you really think he wouldnt have scored 4 times in the last almost 30 games? question for you - do you think Jake will hit Brock's point total this year - even with Brock out for like 25 games....with one point in last 8 games it looks doubtful eh?

 

Kid putting up .84ppg between ages 20 and 21 and hes not worth what he is getting paid...ok....

 

Toffoli is 27 years old....i would rather keep Brock - 5 years younger and already has put up more goals in a year than Toffoli has in his whole career except once.  Doubtful Toffoli will keep producing for the next 5 years like Brock will.  In 5-6 years Brock will be likely worth more than Toffoli in a trade.  Thats when you unload him, not now.

Im not worried about cap space, the fodder will be gone soon..Loui, Sutter etc etc, cap will also go up. 

 

Trading Brock for a first will unlikely produce a player like Brock, even though you have been trying to get rid of the kid since day one I dont think JB would do this.  

 

 

 

 

 

Toffoli is a far better player, overall than Boeser, so yes, I'd rather have toffoli, the high draft pick and add on player you'd get from moving him.  Brock simply has not been scoring since November, I think he would have struggled to get those 4 goals, yes.

 

They're past rebuild stage, now it's about fine tuning and using your assets to complete the picture.  

 

If he got the same time and opportunity as Brock, Jake would be have comparable production and he'd be superior in the other two zones.  

 

I absolutely understand BB has a lot going on in his life, and I feel for terrible for what he's going through, but that doesn't factor into what's best for the team, imo.  I've been saying this for well over a season........his style just doesn't fit with the game they're trying to play here.  They need cap space, they need to recoup their first and they need depth.......you cover that in one move and you probably get Brock closer to home, which I believe he wants.

 

 

Edited February 20, 2020 by stawns

[Patel Bure]

Choosing between Boeser and Toffoli:

A couple of posters have asked me as to why I’d choose Toffoli over Boeser.  Here are my reasons:

 

1) The potential to sign Toffoli to a longer term deal.   I don’t think Toffoli will cost a whole lot (relatively speaking), and so we could perhaps get Toffoli at a decent cap hit for 5 years or so.   With Boeser on the other hand, he’d be looking at a huge raise once his contract expires in two seasons (assuming that he gets back to playing like he used to).  Even though Toffoli is older, our “window” might actually be longer with Toffoli in the line-up.
 

2) Recoup the 1st round pick.    We won’t be able to trade Toffoli to recoup our 1st round pick from the Miller Trade.   We can do that with Boeser however, while also clearing cap space.

 

3) Toffoli is a better all around player.   Boeser is probably a better sniper, but Toffoli is a better overall player.   He’s better defensively, physically, and can also play center.   Toffoli’s cup experience will also come in handy.   

[Darius]

1 minute ago, stawns said:

Toffoli is a far better player, overall than Boeser, so yes, I'd rather have toffoli, the high draft pick and add on player you'd get from moving him.  Brock simply has not been scoring since November, I think he would have struggled to get those 4 goals, yes.

I agree with many things you say about other subjects but I think you are out to lunch on this one. 4 goals in his remaining 26 games when his career ppg is higher than that.

 

You extrapolate him not scoring since november but wont do the same with Jake who has gone MIA again...1 point in last 8 games.  You also give Jake the benefit of the doubt that he will improve but the younger brock wont.  

 

 

1 minute ago, stawns said:

 

They're past rebuild stage, now it's about fine tuning and using your assets to complete the picture.  

 

If he got the same mind and sand opportunity as Brock, Jake would be have comparable production and he'd be superior in the other two zones.  

 

Then why did management trade for Toffoli if Jake was a realistic alternative?  If Jake could produce like Brock and is supposedly superior in many other areas wouldnt it be a no brainer to put him on the first line instead of spending organizational assets to fill in the hole in Brock's absence?

 

Think about it.  They gave up a top prospect and a second rounder because Brock got injured - Benning basically said that BBs injury triggered the deal.  If Jake was the superior player he would be on the top line and there would have been no need to pay a price to fill in the hole.

 

Even if they wanted to bring Toffoli here, regardless of Brock's health, why not put Toffoli on the second line and play Jake on the first?

 

They dont trust him, they dont think they can process the game at a first line level...whatever the reason...they just dont want him on the first line.  

 

Either they are out to lunch on this or you are....i think you know where I stand :-)

 

 

1 minute ago, stawns said:

I absolutely understand BB has a lot going on in his life, and I feel for terrible for what he's going through, but that doesn't factor into what's best for the team, imo.  I've been saying this for well over a season........his style just doesn't fit with the game they're trying to play here.  They need cap space, they need to recoup their first and they need depth.......you cover that in one move and you probably get Brock closer to home, which I believe he wants.

 

 

Sorry stawns, i dont trust your assessment here.   Despite what you say you havent liked this kid from the start.  You were calling for him to be in Utica since he got here.

 

They can get cap space without trading a core piece.  And yes they do consider him an important piece because look at what they just spent to get a rental to fill the hole his absence has created.

[Baggins]

31 minutes ago, Darius said:

now here is the important question.

 

Brock is gone/injured.   Why didnt they just put Jake there?  They traded some good assets to get a replacement for BB - Benning basically said they made the trade for Toffoli when they knew Brock was out for a while.

 

If Jake is just as good, or can score like you think he would, why would the org spend all those assets on what looks like a rental when the solution (Jake) is sitting right under their nose.  Its a free solution...why not?

 

In fact, Toffoli even has good chemistry with Pearson.  They could easily put him on the second line and Jake on the first...so why dont they put Jake on the first?  Could it be that they dont trust him to play on the first line? Could it be that they dont think he can process the game at first line player level (like Brock does)

 

Jake has 1 point in the last 8 games where he played a good amount of time with the top line btw.

 

 

Brock and Jake are both on the roster regardless of where. So with Brock gone for the season who replaces him as a call up that is an equivalent?