Sign in to follow this  
DarkIndianRises

[proposal]Virtanen as a sweetener to move Brandon Sutter (retention required?)

Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, mll said:

There's a bonus overage - you have to deduct at least 1.7M from that amount.  CapFriendly hasn't done the numbers yet.  

Even then, we should still be ok. 

18 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

Say Marky and Tanev come in at around 11 million. Minus the bonus overage leaves about 4.5 million left. I imagine we buyout Baertschi. Even then, we may have to make a small move to sign the rest of those guys and fill in whatever spots left in the lineup. IMO, Toffoli is only signed if we can move out some of the big contracts (which I think is unlikely). An alternative is we trade Boeser for a top 4 RD at roughly the same cost of less, but in the end it's at wing where it's going to take the hit and we have the youth there to hopefully up the odds of replacement one or the other.

 

Optimistically, I hope we get Marky signed to 5.5 million for 6 years (likely with no movement clause), Tanev at 4.5 for 4 years (less term would be better, but would also bump up the dollar amount then) and thus only 10 million committed to the two, so an extra million to work with. If we do sign Toffoli, I'm hoping it's closer to 5 million rather than 6, which would simply be unaffordable for us IMO. Even at 5 million, we would have to move out Baertschi, Sutter and Roussel (Eriksson will be tough to move) to get it done I would think. In other words, it's not going to be easy. I would try to move Sutter and Roussel with some retention (hopefully not 50%) as that likely doesn't cost us any major assets.

 

I could see a situation where Sutter and Ferland potentially on the IR, which may open up some room, but it makes things more complicated.

My scenario involves us mutually terminating Baertschi’s contract, then find a team out east with a good chunk of cap space to take on Sutter and Roussel’s contracts. Sutter we’d have to retain 50% but that would leave us with just enough room to spare. All it takes is doing 5-10 minutes of number crunching to realize our cap situation isn’t anywhere near as bad as some are making it out to be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Pears said:

Even then, we should still be ok. 

My scenario involves us mutually terminating Baertschi’s contract, then find a team out east with a good chunk of cap space to take on Sutter and Roussel’s contracts. Sutter we’d have to retain 50% but that would leave us with just enough room to spare. All it takes is doing 5-10 minutes of number crunching to realize our cap situation isn’t anywhere near as bad as some are making it out to be. 

Why would Baertschi terminate his contract - he could have done it all year and didn't.  Cannot imagine him giving up that kind of cash now that he has a family especially in this economic climate and his concussion history.

 

Trading unwanted contracts is going to be significantly more challenging.  Owners are set to lose considerable money and contract efficiency is going to be key.  Some teams might elect to operate under an internal cap to limit their losses.  Also there might not be an AHL either - ie teams might prefer to promote prospects so that they have a place to play.

 

Some cap strapped teams might make some unexpected players available - opportunity for teams to be on the lookout for JT Miller type trades.  With cap so limited there might be more player for player trades - eg Pearson for Gudbranson / Lucic for Neal type deals rather than cap clearing trades for mid-level players.  High end players will always be desirable.

 

Edited by mll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Pears said:

Even then, we should still be ok. 

My scenario involves us mutually terminating Baertschi’s contract, then find a team out east with a good chunk of cap space to take on Sutter and Roussel’s contracts. Sutter we’d have to retain 50% but that would leave us with just enough room to spare. All it takes is doing 5-10 minutes of number crunching to realize our cap situation isn’t anywhere near as bad as some are making it out to be. 

I definitely agree that the cap situation isn't that bad, but I still don't think we can fit in Toffoli barring significant moves to unload cap.

 

Mutually terminating is just that, it has to be mutual. Does Baertschi give up millions to sign likely a million dollar or less contract elsewhere? Are there even teams looking for his services? I don't think it'll be that simple. A buyout is more likely and that only saves us about 500k from last season. Teams with cap space will be hot commodities. The price for cap relief will have gone way up. There aren't many, if any at all, cap floor teams, so they can play hard ball. Players with trade restrictions likely block those teams also.

 

With that said, Virtanen will cost 2.5, Gaudette 1.5-2, Motte 1, MacEwen 1, Stecher replacement 1, Fantenberg or replacement around 1. We are looking at roughly 8 million here. Add to Marky and Tanev's 10-11 and the overage of 1.7, so for math sake 12 million. That's 20 million without Toffoli and we have 17 million in space right now. So I see us needing to make those other moves you suggest along with a Baertschi buyout, but still not being able to afford Toffoli. We would have to lose Eriksson to do so and that's a damn near impossibility at this point.

 

Upon further look, we could also buyout Sutter and save about 2.3 million in cap space for next year (while adding just over a million the following season). That is an option if we can't find a trade partner and assuming we need to retain anyway, it's about the same savings. Just trading him saves the million the following season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You wanna trade what would have been a 20 goal scorer to free us from one year of Sutter AND we may need to retain? Sure, lets throw in Woo and Hoglander to get rid of Roussel while we're at it. Since it's so important to keep Toffoli and Tanev I guess.

  • Vintage 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iirc, if the Canucks make the play offs, they lose the first round pick to New Jersey. If so then next years 1st pick will be theirs. So not such a terrible thing to lose veteran players after this season, play the youth and plan to kick butt the year after. Cap room will be back and the younger folks more experienced.

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah. The team is just establishing a strong offensive core and it would not make sense to trade a piece of that core away just to get rid of a player who some have deemed a flop signing. Trade him straight up or let him walk after the contract is expired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CONFUSED!!!!!!!!

 

So I’ve noticed that my original post has received 4 “confuses” zero beers and zero upvotes, and so I can only assume that most people hated my initial post, lol.   No problem.  Even the greats like me will throw in some stinkers every now and then :-p (I kid I kid).

 

In all seriousness, I do love Virtanen, but let me clarify my stance a little:

 

1) Something will likely have to give cap wise. I hope Benning finds a way to keep all of the players we love, but I’m not sure if it will be possible.

 

2) Benning loves Brock and I don’t see Benning moving Brock anytime soon.   
 

3) I think Benning will do whatever he can to re-sign Toffoli, Tanev, and Markstrom.   Having Toffoli and Brock here finally gives Horvat a consistent producer on the 2nd line, while Markstrom is a better goalie than Demko right now.   Benning sees this team being in “compete now” mode and so I can’t see him accepting a downgrade from Markstrom to Demko.   Benning loves the influence that Tanev has on the younger defenseman on the team and feels that Tanev is a leader in the room.  With Tryamkin resigning in the K, it seems less likely that Tanev will be let go.

 

4) Benning was trying to trade Virtanen+ for Barrie during the 2019 draft.   
 

5) Although I would love it, I’m not sure if Virtanen alone being used as a sweetener would be enough to rid ourselves of Eriksson. Hence, my idea of Virtanen and Sutter instead of Virtanen and Eriksson.  
 

6) Although it’s early, this training camp already seems to be showing that MacEwen has passed Virtanen on the depth chart.   Sutter also seems to our defacto #5 center now, playing behind Petey, Horvat, Gaudette, and Beagle. 
 

Anyways, that’s what was going on in my mind.  :-)

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/20/2020 at 1:29 PM, DarkIndianRises said:

[proposal]Virtanen as a sweetener to move Brandon Sutter (retention required?)
 

Few questions:

 

1) Would Virtanen being used as a sweetener be enough to move Sutter?

 

2) With Virtanen as a sweetener, would retention still likely be required to move Sutter?  If so, how much?

 

Assuming that we were able to make the above move without retention, we would clear $5,625,000 of cap.  
 

Miller-Pettersson-Toffoli

Pearson-Horvat-Boeser

Roussel-Gaudette-MacEwen

Motte-Beagle-Eriksson 

 

If Ferland is healthy, Motte switches to the right side and Eriksson comes out of the line-up.

 

FWIW - I would also let Leivo walk (1.5 million off the books) and also unqualify Stecher (2.325 million) to clear up another 3.825 million, which would give us about 9.45 million in extra cap.  
 

In an independent deal, Demko + draft pick should be a good enough sweetener to move Eriksson which would give us a little more than an extra 7 million in cap.  
 

That should be more than enough money to re-sign Toffoli, Markstrom, and Tanev.

Hard Pass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Buffalo

- Brandon Sutter

To Vancouver
- Colin Miller

Miller struggled in Buffalo after a couple of productive seasons in Vegas. He was in the bottom pair with 17 minutes per game and has 3 years remaining at $3.875 Million. 

Miller fills a gap on the right side to replace Tanev effectively saving us $500k on the trade plus another $4.5 million in Tanev. Buffalo gets a veteran who they can trade at the next deadline as Sutter will be on his last year of his contract next season. Miller's underlying stats were great in Vegas and Boston although he was heavy in offensive zone starts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎23‎/‎2020 at 2:08 PM, canucklehead44 said:

To Buffalo

- Brandon Sutter

To Vancouver
- Colin Miller

Miller struggled in Buffalo after a couple of productive seasons in Vegas. He was in the bottom pair with 17 minutes per game and has 3 years remaining at $3.875 Million. 

Miller fills a gap on the right side to replace Tanev effectively saving us $500k on the trade plus another $4.5 million in Tanev. Buffalo gets a veteran who they can trade at the next deadline as Sutter will be on his last year of his contract next season. Miller's underlying stats were great in Vegas and Boston although he was heavy in offensive zone starts.

I don't mind the trade, but I bet Buffalo is on Sutter's no-trade list!

  • Huggy Bear 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎22‎/‎2020 at 2:36 PM, DarkIndianRises said:

5) Although I would love it, I’m not sure if Virtanen alone being used as a sweetener would be enough to rid ourselves of Eriksson. Hence, my idea of Virtanen and Sutter instead of Virtanen and Eriksson. 

Haha I proposed moving Eriksson + Virtanen for future considerations and got absolutely pasted for it...now everyone seems to have realised that cap space is going to be really hard to clear.

 

Anyway, Sutter is a lot more useful than LE, so I think Sutter + Virtanen is worth an asset back such as a 2nd round pick or a B level prospect

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/24/2020 at 4:44 AM, BigTramFan said:

Haha I proposed moving Eriksson + Virtanen for future considerations and got absolutely pasted for it...now everyone seems to have realised that cap space is going to be really hard to clear.

 

Anyway, Sutter is a lot more useful than LE, so I think Sutter + Virtanen is worth an asset back such as a 2nd round pick or a B level prospect

I could see a trade like LE + Virtanen to a team with a bit of cap space for another overpriced player. Wennberg from CB, Clutterbuck/Komarov from NY, Rask from Minnesota, Darren Helm from Detroit 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, canucklehead44 said:

I could see a trade like LE + Virtanen to a team with a bit of cap space for another overpriced player. Wennberg from CB, Clutterbuck/Komarov from NY, Rask from Minnesota, Darren Helm from Detroit 

Wennberg,    3 more years at $4.9        

Clutterbuck  2 more years at $3.5

Komarov       2 more years at $3.

Rask              2 more  years at $4.

Helm             1 more  year   at $3.85         maybe this one, the others are not enough savings when including Jake's replacement costs

 

 

Loui               2 more years at $6.

Edited by gurn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/26/2020 at 6:40 PM, gurn said:

Wennberg,    3 more years at $4.9        

Clutterbuck  2 more years at $3.5

Komarov       2 more years at $3.

Rask              2 more  years at $4.

Helm             1 more  year   at $3.85         maybe this one, the others are not enough savings when including Jake's replacement costs

 

 

Loui               2 more years at $6.

Don't forget Jake is an RFA so he likely gets about 3 million so the two together are 9 million. I see Wennberg/Rask as a Sutter replacement (if he gets moved in a different deal) and Clutterbuck/Komarov/Helm kind of a Virtanen replacement albeit without as much offence or upside. 

Eriksson gets replaced by Motte as a full-time player (or Mac) so that is 1 million. 

So if we were looking at perhaps a deal like Sutter for a right side Dman to replace either Stecher or Tanev - Demers, Miller, Manson, etc. Lets say for example we move Sutter for Demers and Eriksson + Virtanen for Wennberg. I believe at this stage Wennberg might have somewhat negative value so the positive value of Virtanen offsets the negative value of Eriksson. Given Eriksson's contract is two years vs Wennberg's 3 years and he is owed around 21.3 in salary vs Eriksson's 5 million a small market team like CBJ who isn't near the cap might benefit from the dollar savings. 

"Blue Jackets fans have been calling for Wennberg’s head for years now and may finally get their wish. The once-promising young forward turned a 59-point 2016-17 season into a six-year, $29.4MM contract and then proceeded to regress immensely over the past few seasons instead of continuing to improve as expected. With another three years left at $4.9MM per, Wennberg doesn’t seem likely to get back to a level of play that would warrant his current cap hit and Columbus could move on, even from a 25-year-old homegrown product."



Salary In 
Wennberg 4.9
Demers 4.5
MacEwen 1 
Motte 1 
---
11.4

Salary out
Eriksson 6
Virtanen 3
Sutter 4.3
Tanev 4.5 UFA
--
17.8

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, canucklehead44 said:

Don't forget Jake is an RFA so he likely gets about 3 million so the two together are 9 million. I see Wennberg/Rask as a Sutter replacement (if he gets moved in a different deal) and Clutterbuck/Komarov/Helm kind of a Virtanen replacement albeit without as much offence or upside. 

Eriksson gets replaced by Motte as a full-time player (or Mac) so that is 1 million. 

So if we were looking at perhaps a deal like Sutter for a right side Dman to replace either Stecher or Tanev - Demers, Miller, Manson, etc. Lets say for example we move Sutter for Demers and Eriksson + Virtanen for Wennberg. I believe at this stage Wennberg might have somewhat negative value so the positive value of Virtanen offsets the negative value of Eriksson. Given Eriksson's contract is two years vs Wennberg's 3 years and he is owed around 21.3 in salary vs Eriksson's 5 million a small market team like CBJ who isn't near the cap might benefit from the dollar savings. 

"Blue Jackets fans have been calling for Wennberg’s head for years now and may finally get their wish. The once-promising young forward turned a 59-point 2016-17 season into a six-year, $29.4MM contract and then proceeded to regress immensely over the past few seasons instead of continuing to improve as expected. With another three years left at $4.9MM per, Wennberg doesn’t seem likely to get back to a level of play that would warrant his current cap hit and Columbus could move on, even from a 25-year-old homegrown product."

Ooh if the Jackets are down I'm down.  Wennberg's draft comparable was a Marcus Kruger type, smart skilled two-way center.  He's also decent at face-offs at 46% and can probably fit in well with the gritty wingers around him, esp. with his good play-making.  Better to have a buy-low project with potential than a guy in definite decline in Loui.

If we can get Demers for Sutter I'd take that too, can let Tanev walk since Jason's kinda underrated.  Not sure what the Coyotes need or if they need Sutter but if they do that's a good hockey trade.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/27/2020 at 12:26 AM, canucklehead44 said:

I could see a trade like LE + Virtanen to a team with a bit of cap space for another overpriced player. Wennberg from CB, Clutterbuck/Komarov from NY, Rask from Minnesota, Darren Helm from Detroit 

For some teams it's far more efficient to buyout the player rather than take on more cap.

 

Rask is only a 1.3M buyout cap hit.  That's far more manageable than being stuck with Eriksson and Virtanen, who they have no use for.  It would also severely limit their ability to sign key players in a year as Eriksson has that extra year.  

 

Wennberg is a 450K buyout cap hit.  He's under 26 so his contract costs only a 1/3rd to buyout.  Pretty much the remaining salary owed to Eriksson. 

 

Edited by mll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On July 20, 2020 at 2:29 PM, DarkIndianRises said:

[proposal]Virtanen as a sweetener to move Brandon Sutter (retention required?)
 

Few questions:

 

1) Would Virtanen being used as a sweetener be enough to move Sutter?

 

2) With Virtanen as a sweetener, would retention still likely be required to move Sutter?  If so, how much?

 

Assuming that we were able to make the above move without retention, we would clear $5,625,000 of cap.  
 

Miller-Pettersson-Toffoli

Pearson-Horvat-Boeser

Roussel-Gaudette-MacEwen

Motte-Beagle-Eriksson 

 

If Ferland is healthy, Motte switches to the right side and Eriksson comes out of the line-up.

 

FWIW - I would also let Leivo walk (1.5 million off the books) and also unqualify Stecher (2.325 million) to clear up another 3.825 million, which would give us about 9.45 million in extra cap.  
 

In an independent deal, Demko + draft pick should be a good enough sweetener to move Eriksson which would give us a little more than an extra 7 million in cap.  
 

That should be more than enough money to re-sign Toffoli, Markstrom, and Tanev.

I would hate to lose Jake for nothing......so why not go a lil bigger....trade Jake , Demko and Sutter to the wings.....say mantha and a 1 st. 

 

Then sign marky and I know we need D men but wings can't spare any. 

I'm sorry but teams don't trade top D men very often so getting a first should do that. 

Personnally I wish the Canucks would do a deal with buffalo for 8th overall and Montour. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RowdyCanuck said:

I would hate to lose Jake for nothing......so why not go a lil bigger....trade Jake , Demko and Sutter to the wings.....say mantha and a 1 st. 

 

Then sign marky and I know we need D men but wings can't spare any. 

I'm sorry but teams don't trade top D men very often so getting a first should do that. 

Personnally I wish the Canucks would do a deal with buffalo for 8th overall and Montour. 

I don’t think the Wings would accept that deal.

 

The 8th for Montour definitely sounds interesting though.   
 

I’d definitely consider it if we could make it work from a cap perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.