[Discussion] Arizona/OEL

[Barry_Wilkins]

2 hours ago, Junkyard Dog said:

Friday he says but they Canucks are probably saying late Wednesday early Thursday.

 

I highly doubt they want to be negotiating with Toffoli/Tanev starting Friday.

To be fair to JB on this one, I'd be surprised if there's any negotiating to be done on Toffoli. I'm hoping both sides have already agreed to a contract, but it's all contingent on the other major pieces (Markstrom & OEL) falling into place first, or not. As for Tanev, though, last I heard there haven't even been any offers of a re-signing.

[250Integra]

25 minutes ago, PetterssonOrPeterson said:

This is why making the playoffs MATTERS. 

It leaves a good impression on other players 

I'm pretty sure there was a photo of him and Petey hanging out during Covid as well. I remember seeing it on Instagram I think?

[Barry_Wilkins]

2 hours ago, Odjick29willkillyou said:

According to Moj, the rumor is that AZ turned down a deal including OJ as he is not high enough on their scouting scale. That said, I also heard Rathbone is being requested and GMJB is hesitant. I could see that happening if they were willing to take on Sutter or LE as well. If we could get two birds stoned at once with our RHD being solidified for the future and dump a bad contract, I would be willing to throw in a Rathbone. No way in hell do they get Podz or Hogz though. 

At first glance, I'd be hesitant to put Rathbone in a trade, as well. But with OEL and Hughes manning the left side's top 2 spots, Rathbone automatically becomes a 3rd pairing D, as a ceiling, for the next 5-7 years, with the same offensive profile which would be redundant (no PP opportunities, etc).

 

I'd pull the trigger on the trade if that's the only other sticking point.

[UKNuck96]

1 minute ago, Barry_Wilkins said:

At first glance, I'd be hesitant to put Rathbone in a trade, as well. But with OEL and Hughes manning the left side's top 2 spots, Rathbone automatically becomes a 3rd pairing D, as a ceiling, for the next 5-7 years, with the same offensive profile which would be redundant (no PP opportunities, etc).

 

I'd pull the trigger on the trade if that's the only other sticking point.

Potentially - but we may be able to get a better return for rathbone in a few years Especially since he won’t be arbitration eligible  either. 
 

however that’s a forecast we cannot know and why JB has to make those calls. Personally I wouldn’t want to move Rathbone as I think he is legit, plus we could play players on their offsides.

 

we could quite easily have 

 

Hughes, OEL, Myers, Tryamkin, Rathbone +another as our D corps with Tryamkin playing on his off side. 
 

I think unless the package was pretty harsh going back to Arizona I wouldn’t want to include him 

 

 

[garthsbutcher]

18 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said:

i'm going to say Boston will probably end up with OEL or OEL not traded at all. Markstrom Toffoli will all end up hitting free agency and we easily get outbidded. We'll enter 2020-21 season with an inferior lineup than this year since we are just gonna plug all those holes with rookies. that's just a very Canucks way of doing things. i mean if toffoli and Markstrom were to re-sign.. they prolly do it by now.. and not wait till 24hrs before free agency to get the final offer.. i mean might as well hit free agency at that point and see what other teams would offer. so wouldn't surprise me we go into next year minus Markstrom Tanev Toffoli and there's not much in terms of free agency to replace unless you want to overpay for like a hoffman and such and we'll still end up with Loui on our cap lol

Thanks for coming out, see ya

[oldnews]

2 minutes ago, Barry_Wilkins said:

At first glance, I'd be hesitant to put Rathbone in a trade, as well. But with OEL and Hughes manning the left side's top 2 spots, Rathbone automatically becomes a 3rd pairing D, as a ceiling, for the next 5-7 years, with the same offensive profile which would be redundant (no PP opportunities, etc).

 

I'd pull the trigger on the trade if that's the only other sticking point.

Retaining Juolevi would be zero problem for me - I wouldn't hesitate to move forward with him as opposed to Rathbone.

I realize the younger prospect is always the shinier, greater 'potential' - particularly when the shine of a Juolevi is taken off by injuries and Tkachuk-relativism...

I'd be thrilled if Rathbone were the principal and Juolevi remained with the organization.  The only problem there becomes where he would play - and that he'd be exposed in the expansion draft - but where the latter is concerned I'm not sure it makes much sense attempting to dump all the good assets you might have to expose as opposed to simply accepting that you will lose a good asset and continuing to build as much depth as possible - after all, they can  only take one player (really, my principal concern would be limited to Demko - which is why I would not be offering NMCs this offseason.  And on that note, I'm not sure I'd accept Ekman-larsson's travelling with him and lasting the entire duration of his deal.  That may be one thing to work out with his agent - that NMC does not modify at all throughout the contract....I'm not assuming he will decline hard, but in the later years of that deal, a NMC could be problematic imo.

[BoKnows]

If Benning is able to acquire OEL for a solid price, and acquire another dman like Cernak while keeping the core together he would win GM of the year before the season even started IMO.

[D-Money]

3 hours ago, EP40. said:

For a certain user that was downplaying the OEL connection and thinking JB can’t make a vision of that of the Dallas blueline, 

 

JB literally mentioned both the Stars & Lightning defense to something he’d like to incorporate. Both teams have not 1 but 2 clear cut guys capable of moving the puck up the ice. He said we have Hughes but would like to add another guy via trade if it can get done.

 

Literally everything’s aligned up until this point...would be a shocker if a deal doesn’t get done at this rate.

To me, this negotiation has been going on at least as long as when the Canucks confidently stated that they were not going to give a sweetener to get rid of Eriksson’s contract. How would that be even possible, except in a deal such as this?
 

And for them to be so definitive about it... seems like they think it’s going to get done.

[oldnews]

28 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said:

i'm going to say Boston will probably end up with OEL or OEL not traded at all. Markstrom Toffoli will all end up hitting free agency and we easily get outbidded. We'll enter 2020-21 season with an inferior lineup than this year since we are just gonna plug all those holes with rookies. that's just a very Canucks way of doing things. i mean if toffoli and Markstrom were to re-sign.. they prolly do it by now.. and not wait till 24hrs before free agency to get the final offer.. i mean might as well hit free agency at that point and see what other teams would offer. so wouldn't surprise me we go into next year minus Markstrom Tanev Toffoli and there's not much in terms of free agency to replace unless you want to overpay for like a hoffman and such and we'll still end up with Loui on our cap lol

one of, if not the only thing you truly have 'control' over in life - is your perspective.

things can go well, things can go bad - but that's the only real 'anchor' you have in the end

personally, I prefer not to doom and gloom it.  it's a waste of your agency - it's a waste of your energy - and quite often, it proves to be ill-projected - so it's actually your perspective that often 'costs' you more than the underlying realities/eventualities....

Edited October 6, 2020 by oldnews

[BoKnows]

 

 

[oldnews]

3 minutes ago, D-Money said:

To me, this negotiation has been going on at least as long as when the Canucks confidently stated that they were not going to give a sweetener to get rid of Eriksson’s contract. How would that be even possible, except in a deal such as this?
 

And for them to be so definitive about it... seems like they think it’s going to get done.

Exactly.  A very unique set of - relatively unforseeable - circumstances.   Not one the team seeks out (as if looking to 'begin an overhaul').

 

Ekblad type deals - are relative pipe-dreams (that also make very little sense for the teams that have those young cornerstones)...

 

If Ekman-larssson does not happen - I will not be expecting any blockbuster moves.

 

I could see them making a run at whomever is available out of Tampa - personally I might consider poaching Foote to be the 'best-case-scenario' for this team this offseason...

 

But if OEL does not put us on a list of two - if they're not facing a financial crisis - if they're not willing to eat cap and not willing to compromise on market value for this player....I'm doubtful it happens, even if this team is singled out as one of two possibilities, a condition OEL and agent are unwilling to compromise on....

 

[Noseforthenet]

28 minutes ago, oldnews said:

It's ironic you raise that.

First - I haven't 'downplayed' any OEL connection - that's fiction. It's a highly unique situation - what I pointed out is that OEL has identified this team - otherwise they are highly unlikely to go seeking to acquire a player like him - it has so many prerequisites that make it a difficult deal for this team to make - not least of which is the cap tightness and the fact a LHD is not a principal need.  And again he's one defenseman - he's not the 'beginning of an overhaul' - an absurd claim that only people distant from this team could make (half their blueline from last season was new - and two of them are here to stay for some time - this team is not 'beginning' an overhaul - they are well on their way with a mere piece or two in question.

 

Second - you're the poster that claimed Krug is the better defenseman - that OEL is "inferior" - and then declined to answer why you believe that.  Because you didn't want to have a discussion with a 'certain user'...and yet, here you are, attempting make sideways posts where you've neither represented what I have to say, nor have you answered the simple question what makes a Krug 'superior' to Ekman-larsson...

 

OEL is not a comparable to a Krug or Barrie - period.  He's an all-situations defenseman - who - before Hedman arrived, was the #1 on one of the top 3 or 4 national teams in the world - and remains their captain - not a powerplay specialist or guy that needs high ozone starts and a partner to anchor him.

He is that anchor.

Moreover - the team's closest D prospect - Juolevi is a two way, defenseman - a D that is a puck mover - with excellent hockey intelligence - if they dont' acquire OEL they still have a solid prospect in the two way mold to compete for their 3LHD spot.  I have never implied that I don't want a second puck mover in the mix - what I want is a two way D that can move the puck - huge difference wadr.

 

One of the reasons I'd consider Ekman-larsson (in spite of being a LHD) - is that he is quite different in fact than Krug/Barrie types - he would literally make any pairing better - and with him and Edler, the team would have a serious 1-2 punch that would create all kinds of opportunity for Hughes.   However, it absolutely requires Arizona eating a comparable amount of cap in return - for me LE would be non-negotiable - he's in or there is no deal.

Krug and Barrie on the other hand - create an overlap as opposed to complement to Hughes - they don't bring all the other elements that Ekman-larsson does - they are more suited to teams - like Boston - that don't otherwise have a Hughes - and could use him as their top unit powerplay quarterback.   Krug makes little sense here - and to claim that OEL is "inferior" to him is sheer noob / highlight reel stuff. 

There you have it - once again - so you can avoid the matter and make your squiggley face - until the next time you misrepresent the point.

This is one thing we definitely agree on. There is no deal to be made without Eriksson going the other way. You can do it, but it's not a smart move. I still think it gets done though. The fact that Eriksson's contract only takes up cap and not much for salary is why I think a deal gets done though.

 

I don't think that the Canucks give up the 2021 1st in this one. I figure our prospects are better than that and I don't know if you've seen the Benning Zoom call from a day or two ago for the lead up to today, he was propping up our prospects and pumping their tires like I have never seen him do before. Evidently, he does to. At least to the point of posturing at the idea that we could go into next season and just have guys like Juolevi, Rathbone, and Hoglander could even make the team.

[Herberts Vasiljevs]

6 minutes ago, Noseforthenet said:

This is one thing we definitely agree on. There is no deal to be made without Eriksson going the other way. You can do it, but it's not a smart move. I still think it gets done though. The fact that Eriksson's contract only takes up cap and not much for salary is why I think a deal gets done though.

This exactly. 

[The Lock]

1 hour ago, aGENT said:

And apparently wants $9m+ x 7 years and heavy bonus structured toward the end to prevent buyout, as well as zero indication he wants to come here, with likely ten to fifteen teams all competing for him.

 

 

If we can get OEL at bargain rates, it's the obvious choice 

I think it depends on the cap. If we take on the OEL contract and pay Hughes higher than 3 million, we will be in top 5 teams on paying defense. We wouldn't be that far off of a team like San Jose who pays over 30 million on defense alone.

 

This is the unfortunate circumstance to signing a player like Myers. I get why we signed Myers, but to say there's no consequences to a signing like that, it simply wouldn't be reality in the cap world where everything has a consequence.

 

All I'm really saying is we have to be careful with this. We could REALLY shoot ourselves in the foot with this and destroy any hope we have at being a contender if we're not careful enough.

Edited October 6, 2020 by The Lock

[oldnews]

38 minutes ago, BoKnows said:

If Benning is able to acquire OEL for a solid price, and acquire another dman like CernI'ak while keeping the core together he would win GM of the year before the season even started IMO.

I'm guessing that Cernak becomes one of their 'secondary' untouchables/near untouchables - beyong Hedman, Kucherov, Point, Vasilieskiy - I think Sergachev, Cernak and Cirelli will be very difficult to convince them to move.  It would probably take an aggressive and opportune offer - like the one Benning managed to pry Miller out of there with...

 

They simply have too many relatively moveable alternatives imo (various secondary assets that were just part of a championship, that would improve many teams around the league).

Palat, Gourde, Johnson, Killorn - with the exception of perhaps Johnson - probably don't need much sweetener to lubricate a deal....I'm guessing that their focus will be on moving those middle six forwards, all of whom have had productive careers and are still in the later stages of their prime.  I don't think Tampa are going to be in a very 'desperate' position - but the playing field this offseason is very difficult to guage...

 

Of course - you never know - but I think that kind of acquisition (Cernak) would be subject to an "offer we can't refuse" -which pretty much defeats the purpose of looking to deal with them.... (but still an unprotectable like Foote remains?)

Otherwise, there may be better opportunities elsewhere - with teams that are increasingly financially challenged....

 

 

Edited October 6, 2020 by oldnews

[Moose Nuckle]

2 minutes ago, The Lock said:

I think it depends on the cap. If we take on the OEL contract and pay Hughes higher than 3 million, we will be in top 5 teams on paying defense. We wouldn't be that far off of a team like San Jose who pays over 30 million on defense alone.

 

This is the unfortunate circumstance to signing a player like Myers. I get why we signed Myers, but to say there's no consequences to a signing like that, it simply wouldn't be reality in the cap world where everything has a consequence.

 

All I'm really saying is we have to be careful with this. We could REALLY shoot ourselves in the foot with this and destroy any hope we have at being a contender if we're not careful enough.

We need Myers. 

[Barry_Wilkins]

24 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Retaining Juolevi would be zero problem for me - I wouldn't hesitate to move forward with him as opposed to Rathbone.

I realize the younger prospect is always the shinier, greater 'potential' - particularly when the shine of a Juolevi is taken off by injuries and Tkachuk-relativism...

I'd be thrilled if Rathbone were the principal and Juolevi remained with the organization.  The only problem there becomes where he would play - and that he'd be exposed in the expansion draft - but where the latter is concerned I'm not sure it makes much sense attempting to dump all the good assets you might have to expose as opposed to simply accepting that you will lose a good asset and continuing to build as much depth as possible - after all, they can  only take one player (really, my principal concern would be limited to Demko - which is why I would not be offering NMCs this offseason.  And on that note, I'm not sure I'd accept Ekman-larsson's travelling with him and lasting the entire duration of his deal.  That may be one thing to work out with his agent - that NMC does not modify at all throughout the contract....I'm not assuming he will decline hard, but in the later years of that deal, a NMC could be problematic imo.

And there's the very real possibility that Joulevi could remain a "project" for quite a while, even if he makes it full-time as Vancouver's #5, #6 or #7 Dman. If that's the case, then OJ wouldn't be as tempting for Seattle to snag when unprotected in the draft.

 

I'd also keep Joulevi because I've always been higher on him than some others, even at his lowest. I'm just crossing my fingers that his injury problems are behind him. Still time for him to develop, even if not to what he coulda woulda shoulda been.

[The Lock]

Just now, Moose Nuckle said:

We need Myers. 

It's not about if we need him or not. It's about what does he bring per dollar of his contract. Once again, I get why we have him and I get why we signed him to 6mil. I just think there's a consequence to it down the road where it causes issues later on, potentially now.

[PhillipBlunt]

52 minutes ago, oldnews said:

It's ironic you raise that.

First - I haven't 'downplayed' any OEL connection - that's fiction. It's a highly unique situation - what I pointed out is that OEL has identified this team - otherwise they are highly unlikely to go seeking to acquire a player like him - it has so many prerequisites that make it a difficult deal for this team to make - not least of which is the cap tightness and the fact a LHD is not a principal need.  And again he's one defenseman - he's not the 'beginning of an overhaul' - an absurd claim that only people distant from this team could make (half their blueline from last season was new - and two of them are here to stay for some time - this team is not 'beginning' an overhaul - they are well on their way with a mere piece or two in question.

 

Second - you're the poster that claimed Krug is the better defenseman - that OEL is "inferior" - and then declined to answer why you believe that.  Because you didn't want to have a discussion with a 'certain user'...and yet, here you are, attempting make sideways posts where you've neither represented what I have to say, nor have you answered the simple question what makes a Krug 'superior' to Ekman-larsson...

 

OEL is not a comparable to a Krug or Barrie - period.  He's an all-situations defenseman - who - before Hedman arrived, was the #1 on one of the top 3 or 4 national teams in the world - and remains their captain - not a powerplay specialist or guy that needs high ozone starts and a partner to anchor him.

He is that anchor.

Moreover - the team's closest D prospect - Juolevi is a two way, defenseman - a D that is a puck mover - with excellent hockey intelligence - if they dont' acquire OEL they still have a solid prospect in the two way mold to compete for their 3LHD spot.  I have never implied that I don't want a second puck mover in the mix - what I want is a two way D that can move the puck - huge difference wadr.

 

One of the reasons I'd consider Ekman-larsson (in spite of being a LHD) - is that he is quite different in fact than Krug/Barrie types - he would literally make any pairing better - and with him and Edler, the team would have a serious 1-2 punch that would create all kinds of opportunity for Hughes.   However, it absolutely requires Arizona eating a comparable amount of cap in return - for me LE would be non-negotiable - he's in or there is no deal.

Krug and Barrie on the other hand - create an overlap as opposed to complement to Hughes - they don't bring all the other elements that Ekman-larsson does - they are more suited to teams - like Boston - that don't otherwise have a Hughes - and could use him as their top unit powerplay quarterback.   Krug makes little sense here - and to claim that OEL is "inferior" to him is sheer noob / highlight reel stuff. 

There you have it - once again - so you can avoid the matter and make your squiggley face - until the next time you misrepresent the point.

That’s EP40’s style. Complain and then spinelessly retreat and make a confused face. 

[Moose Nuckle]

Just now, The Lock said:

It's not about if we need him or not. It's about what does he bring per dollar of his contract. Once again, I get why we have him and I get why we signed him to 6mil. I just think there's a consequence to it down the road where it causes issues later on, potentially now.

He brings offense around 30 points a year and a physical edge.

 

He's a meaner edler on the other side.

 

Super valuable.