[Discussion] Arizona/OEL

[DeNiro]

1 minute ago, Pears said:

Glad you aren’t running the team in that case

I guarantee any GM in the league wouldn’t feel that way either. 
 

If Virtanen was such a hot commodity Benning would have likely dealt him already.

[DeNiro]

1 minute ago, Brock Botanen said:

could throw them Stecher and Woo. i mean theyre no Ekblad but thats why we are paying what we are paying. i think Ekblad is a real possibility for the right package

Difference being Florida isn’t motivated to trade Ekblad, whereas Arizona is motivated to move OEL.

 

If the cost is way lower you go with OEL. We can’t afford to be selling the farm to fix the D.

[Provost]

9 minutes ago, Alienhuggyflow said:

Elder is 36 when his current contract expires. He's been my favourite Nuck for many years but he will not be signed for 4-5 million. If his body holds up for the 21-22 season or beyond it will be all about winning not money. I could easily see him taking 1-year cheap deals as long as he's healthy and still an NHL calibre. I hope he gets a ring with this team. He is one loyal dude and about as drama-free as they come. 

Exactly this.  If Juolevi went out in a trade like this, we have Edler there to play on a 3rd pairing in a reduced role (if he wants).  The team would be amazingly well served by that, and Edler would be able to extend his career by not being thrown to the wolves for the hardest minutes at his age.

 

A 15-16 minute Edler who can take over in the top 4 in case of injury makes us a better team.

 

Within a couple of years we can hope Rathbone is ready to take on that role, but Edler is a great transition plan.  If Edler doesn’t want to sign in the $2-3 million range, then it is Rathbone earlier and in protected minutes.

 

Hughes-Myers

OEL-XX

Edler-Rafferty

Rathbone-Tryamkin 

Edited October 4, 2020 by Provost

[stawns]

25 minutes ago, Provost said:

Umm... I... well... but....

 

Nevermind... with that starting point, I don’t think I can even map any road back to objective reality...

How come?

 

More goals in significantly less playing time this season, with lesser linemates.  He was first in gwg, 4 in hits, 4 in takeaways, 4th in pp goals........17th in avg toi.  Can you tell me what makes you think Jake wouldnt be up to Brock's potential numbers with more ice time and better linemates?

[stawns]

7 minutes ago, Pears said:

Glad you aren’t running the team in that case

Why?  The numbers back me up, as does the eye test.  

[RomanP]

How is this topic still going? This discussion should have been closed once we all looked at his remaining contract - 7 years @8.5 mil for a 29 year old who never lived up to the hefty expectations. He’s being paid based on his draft ranking, nothing else. Didn’t we have enough headache with Louie overinflated contract?

[oldnews]

Back to the capfriendly armchair calculator to attempt to see how this could possibly work - assuming the team would want to be going relatively 'all-in' in the shorter run.

 

 

So I have:

- moved Pearson and Roussel to the Habs for a couple mid picks.

- used the higher of those picks to move Baertschi to Detroit.

- spent the other pick and a 2nd pick to move Ferland* to Detroit.

- spent a 1st round pick to acquire Cal Foote - if we're moving this many futures, we need more potential youth offset on the right side in the future imo...

- signed Richardson at his present cap hit, and Fantenburg likewise.

- re-upped Stecher and Virtanen to slightly deflated Covid terms

- completed the deal with Arizona - receiving OEL and Dvorak - sending Juolevi, Gaudette, Brisebois, 2nd, 4th, Benn and LE (call it a lowball - idc - that's the range of limit that I'd consider to go so far off the rails of my personal 'plan'). 

- re-signed Markstrom, Tanev and Toffoli = and that depends on Markstrom accepting Lehner terms, and Tanev and Toffoli signing in the range of their expiring deals.

To be clear - that is one tall order - and it's a 'best case scenario' imo - I'm not attached to the 'realism' of it - it's for illustrative purposes - how far this 'plan' would have to go to fall into place/work - because imo, if you're going to make this move - you have to get aggressive with other moves, and be willing to sacrifice a handful of futures/picks in the process.

For me - if there is a further sacrifice to be made, I'd probably refrain from re-signing Toffoli and look to the deflated market. combined with counting on a young forward to step up.

 

My fantasy lineup becomes...(to be clear, my fantasy lineup would not necessarily include this move, but adding OEL, a two way stud, makes more sense than many of the alternatives being floated)...

 

EP Miller Boeser

Dvorak Horvat Toffoli*/?

Richardson Sutter Virtanen

Motte Beagle Leivo

                        (MacEwen)

 

Ekman-larsson Myers

Hughes Tanev

Edler Stecher

(Fantenburg/Foote)

 

Markstrom

Demko

 

The two biggest sticking points imo - would be the attempt to move Ferland - whose NMC doesn't modify until next offseason....and the deal with Arizona, where we give up 5 futures, but move LE and return Dvorak (clearing nearly 13 million of salary for them on the way to the floor - where they would presumably have to eventually get for LE's contract to be of utility...)   That is still a hard deal for Arizona to make - but if they're not that desperate, I'm not that interested...and it still pushes the boundaries of 'comfort' from our viewpoint, imo.   It also still leaves us with (deferred) bonus/overage issues....Otherwise, any level of Bruin interest and we're probably out imo...

I might compromise on certain futures - ie I'd consider adding DiPietro to a deal, we have other LHD prospects that could possibly be moved, etc

But really, that is quite a lot of chips falling favourably to hope to get to where it truly makes sense....

 

Any responses to the effect 'that's not realistic' will be ignored = of course it's not 'realistic' = it's a capfriendly, armchair best-case-scenario exercise, and a borderline pipe dream (with the qualifier that who knows how crazy this offseason gets).

If Benning pulled something like that off I'd be extremely surprised - but then again, I did not expect to land both Miller and Myers last summer, then watch Hughes bust into the league on a 64pt/82 g pace while handling his defensive duties far better than I'd anticipated,  and to top it off, see Toffoli added at the trade deadline....so who knows...

 

 

 

Edited October 4, 2020 by oldnews

[MeanSeanBean]

43 minutes ago, sampy said:

Erik Karlsson

Karlsson was in the midst of a 3 year decline in not only point production, but games played. It was pretty widely known that he was having significant foot and ankle problems at the time of his trade. I wouldn't consider that low mileage.

[oldnews]

4 minutes ago, RomanP said:

How is this topic still going? This discussion should have been closed once we all looked at his remaining contract - 7 years @8.5 mil for a 29 year old who never lived up to the hefty expectations. He’s being paid based on his draft ranking, nothing else. Didn’t we have enough headache with Louie overinflated contract?

that was 11 years ago.

a bit has happened since then.

[Rush17]

Whats the odds Edler gets traded to bring in OEL or isn't re-signed after next season.

[CRAZY_4_NAZZY]

Sounds like Arizona is waiting on Boston's decision with Krug.  Seems with that up in the air, we are in a holding pattern for now until that is sorted out.  

 

As was reported by Friedman - Arizona prefers Boston's prospects over Vancouver's should they work out a deal.

[rekker]

10 minutes ago, Rush17 said:

Whats the odds Edler gets traded to bring in OEL or isn't re-signed after next season.

Close to zero.

[JM_]

7 minutes ago, CRAZY_4_NAZZY said:

Sounds like Arizona is waiting on Boston's decision with Krug.  Seems with that up in the air, we are in a holding pattern for now until that is sorted out.  

 

As was reported by Friedman - Arizona prefers Boston's prospects over Vancouver's should they work out a deal.

sounds to me like Shah is guessing. 

 

Since Krug's rights have not been moved they are probably heading in the right direction on a new deal for him. They can't be that far off, Boston offered 40 mil over 6 years, no one is going to offer much more. 

[Provost]

19 minutes ago, CRAZY_4_NAZZY said:

Sounds like Arizona is waiting on Boston's decision with Krug.  Seems with that up in the air, we are in a holding pattern for now until that is sorted out.  

 

As was reported by Friedman - Arizona prefers Boston's prospects over Vancouver's should they work out a deal.

We need to give a drop dead time so we can move on and get our other business done.  Tuesday is not good enough as it means no other moves can be made.

[oldnews]

20 minutes ago, CRAZY_4_NAZZY said:

Sounds like Arizona is waiting on Boston's decision with Krug.  Seems with that up in the air, we are in a holding pattern for now until that is sorted out.  

 

As was reported by Friedman - Arizona prefers Boston's prospects over Vancouver's should they work out a deal.

I'd like to hear more about that.  Beyond Vaakanainen, and possibly including him, that's a difficult story to sell imo.

 

I think what would likely tilt them towards Boston is Vancouver's insistence that an LE be included, where Boston wouldn't necessarily need to send cap, let alone relatively dead cap, back.

Edited October 4, 2020 by oldnews

[oldnews]

Just now, Provost said:

We need to give a drop dead time so we can move on and get our other business done.  Tuesday is not good enough as it means no other moves can be made.

I agree.  It runs the risk of being such a substantial distraction and time-consumer, when there is plenty of work to do - and in terms of need, this doesn't necessarily scream top order of business for the offseason.  I warm up to it to the extent of a well below market value possibility, but as you point out - it consumes time, energy and focus regardless - which could wind up at a dead end. 

I would imagine the team is hedging as well.

 

[Provost]

26 minutes ago, Rush17 said:

Whats the odds Edler gets traded to bring in OEL or isn't re-signed after next season.

Zero on the 1st part, quite possible on the 2nd.  It will be up to Edler whether he wants to have a more limited role.

 

It would make sense as we have seen this season, that expecting him to play the toughest minutes all the time may be too much to ask.  He was excellent at the start of the season but noticeably dropped off as it went on.

 

Edler at 15–16 minutes a night is more what he should be getting down the road.  He would likely be excellent for a couple more seasons without riding him a hard as we do.

[FireGillis]

Canucks hold all cards in a trade. I wouldn't even do Hoglander for oel 1 for 1 with that contract. Arizona needs to get him off the books and should accept Louie and Sutter to save real money and thank us for taking oel's contract! 

Edited October 4, 2020 by FireGillis

[Provost]

2 minutes ago, oldnews said:

I agree.  It runs the risk of being such a substantial distraction and time-consumer, when there is plenty of work to do - and in terms of need, this doesn't necessarily scream top order of business for the offseason.  I warm up to it to the extent of a well below market value possibility, but as you point out - it consumes time, energy and focus regardless - which could wind up at a dead end. 

I would imagine the team is hedging as well.

 

Yep, I am all for it at the right price... specifically being able to exit bad cap for the next two years and turn it into a top 4D for the same dollars.... all while not giving up our very best prospects.

 

As you say, it isn’t the be all and end all of our priorities.  We absolutely need to know the answer on Markstrom because the goalie carousel is staring to slow down.  There are trade options we should be considering depending on how that ends up.  Either replacing Markstrom or moving Demko if Markstrom is signed long term with a NMC.

[Ferlands_Head]

34 minutes ago, stawns said:

Why?  The numbers back me up, as does the eye test.  

 

 

36 minutes ago, stawns said:

How come?

 

More goals in significantly less playing time this season, with lesser linemates.  He was first in gwg, 4 in hits, 4 in takeaways, 4th in pp goals........17th in avg toi.  Can you tell me what makes you think Jake wouldnt be up to Brock's potential numbers with more ice time and better linemates?

Jake is that you!?

 

Offense isn't all about goals. Brock almost had as many assists as Jake did total points in 12 less games. 

 

You're saying given the same ice time and linemates Jake can score at a 65 pt pace!?? You're either seriously overrating Jake and underrating BB imo. 

 

If you've watched Jake his entire career up until now you'd know why Jake would never even sniff BB's numbers. His offensive skills (shooting, passing )is nowhere near BB and he's way too inconsistent. He had his chance to play with EP, Miller and Bo when Brock was hurt, guess what 12pts in 27 game about the same pace as usual. What makes you think he's a better player? Cause he certainly doesn't pass the eye test most nights for me.