Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

[Discussion] Arizona/OEL


mll

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, HC20.0 said:

Do if Boston passes, we’re option B?

 

2 minutes ago, Squamfan said:

AHHH This smells like a overpayment

 

 

These are how negotiations work. You look at competing offers and you go back to the teams to see if you can get better deals. Given that Boston doesn't really want to do this deal, we have all the leverage. Armstrong, the GM, still has to do the best he can in a lose-lose situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Wilbur said:

Smells like Arizona doesn't like the Canucks offer and is trying to get an overpayment.  

Guys, this doesn't necessarily mean an overpayment.

 

Think of it this way. When you're shopping for items online, what do you do? You compare prices. You look to see what the best deal is. It's the same concept.

 

It doesn't necessarily mean there is an overpayment on the Canucks side. People assume it is, for various reasons, but we actually have no idea what is being offered right now.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dazzle said:

 

These are how negotiations work. You look at competing offers and you go back to the teams to see if you can get better deals. Given that Boston doesn't really want to do this deal, we have all the leverage. Armstrong, the GM, still has to do the best he can in a lose-lose situation.

I agree , but I don't get why Benning not set our own timeline. Is OEL going to make that much of a differences if we are losing our last years' starting goalie, 1 of our top D and the top 6 F that you traded one of your best prospect for? then again, this is the same GM called Sutter a corner stone player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, OYF said:

not quite sure why Benning has to be this Mr nice guy. I am worry even if Van left to be the only destination, he would still offer up  1st+2nd+prospect just so he is not being viewed as the bad guy trying to take advantage of other team's situation.

Quite the assumption based on literally nothing.

 

Are you a part of these negotiations?  No? 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, OYF said:

not quite sure why Benning has to be this Mr nice guy. I am worry even if Van left to be the only destination, he would still offer up  1st+2nd+prospect just so he is not being viewed as the bad guy trying to take advantage of other team's situation.

Cause otherwise, it will become another GMMG situation where no one other than Florida will trade with us.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, OYF said:

I agree , but I don't get why Benning not set our own timeline. Is OEL going to make that much of a differences if we are losing our last years' starting goalie, 1 of our top D and the top 6 F that you traded one of your best prospect for? then again, this is the same GM called Sutter a corner stone player.

Benning wants to shore up the defense significantly, and he's showing that he's at least trying.

 

If he tries, he gets blasted. If he doesn't try, he gets labelled as lazy lol.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, OYF said:

not quite sure why Benning has to be this Mr nice guy. I am worry even if Van left to be the only destination, he would still offer up  1st+2nd+prospect just so he is not being viewed as the bad guy trying to take advantage of other team's situation.

This is a ridiculous take.  Arizona isn’t under any requirement to trade OEL. This season. They only owe him another $4m for this season.  If they don’t like the offers on the table they can choose to walk away.

 

 Even if Vancouver is the only offer it still has to be an offer that makes sense for Arizona. It has nothing to do with being a “nice guy” 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far Jim Benning has been very steadfast and assertive when it comes to UFA negotiations. I am impressed. I hope the same approach is applied towards trade negotiations. I will however be against this trade and I will berate Jim Benning publicly if any of the following transpire:

 

- Louie Eriksson's contract is not part of the deal;

- Jack Rathbone is part of the deal;

- Vancouver gives up both a 1st round pick and in addition a 2nd round pick; or

- Brock Boeser is part of the deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Maddogy said:

So far Jim Benning has been very steadfast and assertive when it comes to UFA negotiations. I am impressed. I hope the same approach is applied towards trade negotiations. I will however be against this trade and I will berate Jim Benning publicly if any of the following transpire:

 

- Louie Eriksson's contract is not part of the deal;

- Jack Rathbone is part of the deal;

- Vancouver gives up both a 1st round pick and in addition a 2nd round pick; or

- Brock Boeser is part of the deal.

You're the type of guy who probably cried when we traded Hunter Shinkaruk. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Maddogy said:

So far Jim Benning has been very steadfast and assertive when it comes to UFA negotiations. I am impressed. I hope the same approach is applied towards trade negotiations. I will however be against this trade and I will berate Jim Benning publicly if any of the following transpire:

 

- Louie Eriksson's contract is not part of the deal;

- Jack Rathbone is part of the deal;

- Vancouver gives up both a 1st round pick and in addition a 2nd round pick; or

- Brock Boeser is part of the deal.

I have similar feelings, although I'm not that concerned about including Rathbone.

 

Edit: I would add that I want salary retained by Arizona on OEL. 

Edited by thundernuts
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, qwijibo said:

This is a ridiculous take.  Arizona isn’t under any requirement to trade OEL. This season. They only owe him another $4m for this season.  If they don’t like the offers on the table they can choose to walk away.

 

 Even if Vancouver is the only offer it still has to be an offer that makes sense for Arizona. It has nothing to do with being a “nice guy” 

There is a tremendous amount of pressure allegedly coming from the owner to offload it.

 

Edited by Dazzle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Maddogy said:

So far Jim Benning has been very steadfast and assertive when it comes to UFA negotiations. I am impressed. I hope the same approach is applied towards trade negotiations. I will however be against this trade and I will berate Jim Benning publicly if any of the following transpire:

 

- Louie Eriksson's contract is not part of the deal;

- Jack Rathbone is part of the deal;

- Vancouver gives up both a 1st round pick and in addition a 2nd round pick; or

- Brock Boeser is part of the deal.

-I'd be ok with Sutter and Baertschi instead. That might make more sense for Arizona in terms of real money and helping us get the cap room.
-Agreed, I'd consider sending Juolevi or Rafferty over Rathbone

-If we have to give up a 1st to steal someone's captain, I'd be grudgingly ok with that.

-Doesn't make any sense for us to trade Brock here. He's the younger player with more upside.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Squamfan said:

AHHH This smells like a overpayment

 

 

"Remains an option"?  Time for Benning to say adios and good luck with that huge contract for several more years with a player that now knows you don't want him on the team lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, HKSR said:

"Remains an option"?  Time for Benning to say adios and good luck with that huge contract for several more years with a player that now knows you don't want him on the team lol

It's really scary how so many people don't know how a negotiation process works. Everything is an option when you're in talks like these. The goal is to maximize options for yourself.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, -Vintage Canuck- said:

 

Sounds like they are not ready to pull the trigger on our offer. They want Boston to pony up. last call type situation.  They better decide quick or they're gonna have the Canucks walk and be stuck with OEL or accepting a lesser offer from boston. Just bite the bullet and move the guy. Stupid new GM lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like this deal to go down if we underpay and dump Loui on them, but otherwise am happy to pass.  In a couple of years, OEL will decline somewhat and one or both of Juolevi and Rathbone will improve to the point the difference may not be that great.  So if we do it, it's about accelerating our rise in the next couple of years, which makes sense, but not at any cost.  It also affects other things like Markstrom, who is on the same age curve as OEL.  Benning has to resolve a number of issues at once while deciding when to go for it.  There is more than one way to play it.  So it doesn't surprise me that this and other negotiations are taking a while.

Arguably the "none of the above" option could be the best way to contend both short and long term:  no OEL, Markstrom, Tanev or Toffoli.  Just bargain shopping with short-term contracts to fill in around our young core, and let the bad contracts expire over the next 2 years.  No big drop-off in the short term, and then we have money for some big game UFA hunting in a few years. 

Whatever the case, I feel like Benning is on top of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Rush17 said:

Sounds like they are not ready to pull the trigger on our offer. They want Boston to pony up. last call type situation.  They better decide quick or they're gonna have the Canucks walk and be stuck with OEL or accepting a lesser offer from boston. Just bite the bullet and move the guy. Stupid new GM lol

As I said earlier first loss is often the best, considering he is starting the negotiations with a weaker hand sometimes it makes more sense to accept that it’s not going to be fully equitable and get as favourable terms as you can and then bite the bullet. The longer you drag it out, the more likely the other side will squeeze consessions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...