[Rumour] Alex Pietrangelo to test free agency

[rekker]

8 minutes ago, oldnews said:

That is good for a laugh, at least.  wouldn't have to move Nylander - but could move the only other forwards they have making more than 2 million....

 

Get rid of Kerfoot and Johnsson - and run with a forward group with 4 guys making 40+ million - while the other 8 earn the salary of 1 Tavares or Matthews.

 

Now that is a novel approach. 

Why change anything - when they can further double-down on the absolutely lopsided, top heavy build they've been failing with for years running?

Same dynamic would be mimicked on their blueline - with 3 guys making 18 million, and the rest....make 4 combined....

 

Just do it Dubas.  Great pose btw - the hands look.....deeply thoughtful.

Keep your 4 forwards. 

Rinse and repeat.

Thank goodness there is the salary cap otherwise TO would just buy there way out of their mess. It's been fun watching this media hyped "Stanley Cup contender" go no where. 

[86Viking]

16 hours ago, oldnews said:

Can you show me the rumour about Montour - I'm curious?

From nhltradetalk.com:

 

Friedman said, “You know who I heard is going to be that guy too maybe? Brandon Montour in Buffalo.” Marek responded, “I heard that.”

Why Give Up on Montour?

On the surface, it doesn’t seem like smart asset management to let a player leave for nothing, especially after giving up a first-round pick and prospect Brendan Guhle to acquire said asset. But, like so many teams in the NHL this coming season, money is tight.

Montour’s current two-year contract with a $3,387,500 average annual salary expires this offseason and to keep him, the team will need to pony up a $3,525,000 qualifying offer after a year that wasn’t pretty. In 54 games with the organization, Montour recorded 18 points (5 goals, 13 assists).

[Provost]

16 hours ago, rekker said:

Thank goodness there is the salary cap otherwise TO would just buy there way out of their mess. It's been fun watching this media hyped "Stanley Cup contender" go no where. 

When I saw the salary cap plan moving forward it was funny how badly screwed it made Toronto’s situation.

 

A rollback of current contracts like Brian Burke was suggesting would have equally impacted all teams.  Just having a flat cap for what will probably be 5 years, directly screws teams that have already signed high value contracts.  They can’t benefit from a depressed market going forward.  
 

Historically signing a young guy to the max was highly beneficial.  With a rapidly rising cap, many of those deals became really valuable due to inflation.  If you look at many Stanley Cup winners in that period, it was teams who had those star players deep into those Max term contracts, and by then underpaid in context of their current market value.

 

Players aren’t likely going to earn $11 million max term contracts for the foreseeable future, so on Toronto those will never have the chance to become good value.

 

On the other side, we are in relatively good shape going forward.  Our stars will be up for new contracts right at the start of that depressed market.  Their agents will either try to sign shorter term bridge contracts for lower AAV and wait out the bad market, or they will still sign max term contracts to less AAV and try to backload money to years when escrow is hopefully less of an issue.

 

What are Hughes and Petterson going to command?  My guess is between $8-9 million on max term deals or $6-7 million on short term bridge deals.  Two years ago they would both be looking at over $10 million.

[oldnews]

4 hours ago, Canuckster86 said:

From nhltradetalk.com:

 

Friedman said, “You know who I heard is going to be that guy too maybe? Brandon Montour in Buffalo.” Marek responded, “I heard that.”

Why Give Up on Montour?

On the surface, it doesn’t seem like smart asset management to let a player leave for nothing, especially after giving up a first-round pick and prospect Brendan Guhle to acquire said asset. But, like so many teams in the NHL this coming season, money is tight.

Montour’s current two-year contract with a $3,387,500 average annual salary expires this offseason and to keep him, the team will need to pony up a $3,525,000 qualifying offer after a year that wasn’t pretty. In 54 games with the organization, Montour recorded 18 points (5 goals, 13 assists).

Montour is a player I would spend another lesser asset to move cap in order to qualify.

 

If Buffalo fails to qualify him, I'd be one of the (fantasy/armchair lol) GMs talking to his agent.

 

I'll be surprised if that happens though - if they're bent on one less RHD, I'd do what it takes to dump Miller instead.

 

Edited September 20, 2020 by oldnews

[Canuck Surfer]

On 9/19/2020 at 11:28 AM, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

Gentlefolk, this is probably the "Naslund/Niedermayer" moment that Benning will need to think hard about.  Nonis failed that test.

please esplain ...

[JM_]

23 hours ago, oldnews said:

 

 

Get rid of Kerfoot and Johnsson - and run with a forward group with 4 guys making 40+ million - while the other 8 earn the salary of 1 Tavares or Matthews.

 

that actually sounds like pure Dubas. 

[Canuck Surfer]

42 minutes ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

Nonis had the decision to make in terms of re-upping Naslund or signing Scotty (with the likely condition being that he trade for Robbie).

 

Ah

 

The deal that Burkie ultimately made in Anaheim.  I wasn't aware we were in it that deep. Or if it was realistic?

 

  ie was there a legitimate deal we could make for Robbie.  Particularly noting Burke, he does put his nose to it when he wants something, may never have offered him up. He was widely quoted as knowing that was his leverage to get Scottie signed. 

[oldnews]

3 hours ago, Robert Long said:

that actually sounds like pure Dubas. 

has he noticed that that core, when surrounded with far more depth than he is proposing to head into the future with(it has withered continuously), has failed repeatedly to win a single playoff round?   

[grandmaster]

4 hours ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

Can you imagine how different things may have looked if we'd actually successfully signed Scott?  Given Naslund had already had his bell rung by Moore at this point, he'd never really be the same player again.  A true #1 D and a decent 3rd liner instead of Naslund... plus we'd have had two Team Canada players for 2010 on our roster, most likely (assuming Scott would've re-upped here).

 

But it was not to be.  

I remember that. We were in contention to reeling him in but I think it was more than just money for him.

 

Anyways, the hockey gods have given us a young Scott Neidermayer a la Quinn Hughes. 

[JM_]

11 hours ago, oldnews said:

has he noticed that that core, when surrounded with far more depth than he is proposing to head into the future with(it has withered continuously), has failed repeatedly to win a single playoff round?   

doesn't seem so.

 

Not moving Nylander was a mistake. $40 million in 4 Fs was a mistake. I wonder what needs to be fixed.... hmm....

[-DLC-]

 

[MystifyNCrucify]

26 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

 

Dont count out gentleman jim. All three theoretically could be canucks next year. 

 

Lots of wasted salary on the team. If he can get rid of most of em, its not impossible. 

 

Just extremely improbable. 

[aGENT]

54 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

 

That's just silly.

[aGENT]

26 minutes ago, MystifyNCrucify said:

Dont count out gentleman jim. All three theoretically could be canucks next year. 

 

Lots of wasted salary on the team. If he can get rid of most of em, its not impossible. 

 

Just extremely improbable. 

I'd be fine letting Marky walk and even 'just' bringing back Tanev and Toffoli while adding AP.

 

And even then, Tanev would be a luxury.

[khay]

16 hours ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

Can you imagine how different things may have looked if we'd actually successfully signed Scott?  Given Naslund had already had his bell rung by Moore at this point, he'd never really be the same player again.  A true #1 D and a decent 3rd liner instead of Naslund... plus we'd have had two Team Canada players for 2010 on our roster, most likely (assuming Scott would've re-upped here).

 

But it was not to be.  

Interesting point to ponder about.

 

I think we still lose 2007 WCF semi final against Ducks even with Niedermayer on our side. But maybe we win? Do we beat Detroit and Hasek that year to reach the SCF and get an all Canadian match up against Ottawa?

 

Would we have been able to beat Chicago in 2009 with Niedermayer? We probably don't get past Detroit or Pens in 2009 anyways nor Chicago in 2010.

 

Overall, I think the difference wouldn't have been huge unless Niedermayer stayed until 2011 or 2012 season assuming Niedermayer would have performed at a high level in 2011, 2012 season like Lidstrom did. Maybe we beat Boston and LA in 2011 and 2012 with Niedermayer in the lineup? In 2012, if we managed to get by LA, we win the cup. Niedermayer would have been just enough to keep the series more tight until Daniel returns from Keith's cheap shot to the head. 

 

Our LHD in 2011 would have been pretty good if we still sign Hamhuis (do we have money though?)

Niedermayer

Hamhuis

Edler

 

RHD

Salo

Bieksa

Ehrhoff

 

I still think letting Willie Mitchell go had the more direct impact on us losing the cup in 2011 and not making a cup run in 2012 but definitely interesting to think about what could have been if we chose to sign Nidermayer and let Nazzy walk to UFA.

 

[khay]

3 hours ago, debluvscanucks said:

 

Signing Marky + Tanev vs Pietrangelo at 9M isn't a fair question to ask for many reasons.

1. Marky + Tanev at 9M? Marky 5 and Tanev 4? lol lol lol What a bargain! Yes please.

2. If we don't sign Marky, we surely will have to grab 1A goalie at around 3-4.5 mil or at the least, a backup at 2-3 mil.

 

The fairer question would have been to ask

 

Marky + Tanev for 11M (6 for Marky + 5 for Tanev) vs Pietrangelo + backup goalie for 11M.

 

This poll just tells us that most fans (64.5%) are reasonable and they would take the bargain deals of Marky + Tanev at 9 mil all day but it doesn't tell us anything about fans preference towards Pietrangelo over Marky + Tanev nor does it tell us anything about if fans have enough faith in Demko to take over as #1 with a low end back up goalie.

 

[rekker]

31 minutes ago, khay said:

Interesting point to ponder about.

 

I think we still lose 2007 WCF semi final against Ducks even with Niedermayer on our side. But maybe we win? Do we beat Detroit and Hasek that year to reach the SCF and get an all Canadian match up against Ottawa?

 

Would we have been able to beat Chicago in 2009 with Niedermayer? We probably don't get past Detroit or Pens in 2009 anyways nor Chicago in 2010.

 

Overall, I think the difference wouldn't have been huge unless Niedermayer stayed until 2011 or 2012 season assuming Niedermayer would have performed at a high level in 2011, 2012 season like Lidstrom did. Maybe we beat Boston and LA in 2011 and 2012 with Niedermayer in the lineup? In 2012, if we managed to get by LA, we win the cup. Niedermayer would have been just enough to keep the series more tight until Daniel returns from Keith's cheap shot to the head. 

 

Our LHD in 2011 would have been pretty good if we still sign Hamhuis (do we have money though?)

Niedermayer

Hamhuis

Edler

 

RHD

Salo

Bieksa

Ehrhoff

 

I still think letting Willie Mitchell go had the more direct impact on us losing the cup in 2011 and not making a cup run in 2012 but definitely interesting to think about what could have been if we chose to sign Nidermayer and let Nazzy walk to UFA.

 

Beating the Ducks that year would of been so good. We would of faced the Devils and we played them great that year. Thing is if we had Niedermayer it means they wouldn't of. Yikes, what a swing. Ugg.

[MikeyD]

On 9/19/2020 at 11:45 AM, peaches5 said:

This is one of the stupidest things I've read on CDC. Edler is by far our best dman. He is way more valuable to our team than Tanev and not only that he has a NMC and he signed contract to prevent him from going to Seattle yet you think he is going to waive this NMC for picks? When he wouldn't even waive his NTC a few years ago when many teams wanted him? What you said makes absolutely no sense at all and has no chance of ever happening. You have to have absolutely no knowledge of hockey to say something like you just did.

Anybody who says Edler is our best defenseman and claims they're intelligent is laughable. What does he do that's better offensively than Hughes? Defensively than Tanev? He's not in the same league in either of those categories as those two. You're living in the past. The guy puts up 0.5ppg playing on the powerplay and over 22 minutes a night. What next, you're gonna tell me he's a fast skater? 

[aGENT]

26 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

Anybody who says Edler is our best defenseman and claims they're intelligent is laughable. What does he do that's better offensively than Hughes? Defensively than Tanev? He's not in the same league in either of those categories as those two. You're living in the past. The guy puts up 0.5ppg playing on the powerplay and over 22 minutes a night. What next, you're gonna tell me he's a fast skater? 

He's our best, all around, 2 way D. He's nearly as good defensively as Tanev while better offensively, physically etc. There's a reasons he's played just under 25mins atoi for like a decade (and was still at just under 23 this year, at 34 years old, and despite the addition of Hughes and Myers). 

 

Have some &^@#ing respect.

 

Tanev BTW has averaged right around 20.

 

Unless you're arguing that our coaches are complete morons who play inferior players more minutes, I'm not sure you really have a leg to stand on here.

 

Hughes is another thing altogether.

[Junkyard Dog]

15 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

Anybody who says Edler is our best defenseman and claims they're intelligent is laughable. What does he do that's better offensively than Hughes? Defensively than Tanev? He's not in the same league in either of those categories as those two. You're living in the past. The guy puts up 0.5ppg playing on the powerplay and over 22 minutes a night. What next, you're gonna tell me he's a fast skater? 

He's definitely the best all-around defenseman. Jack of all, master of none.

 

Edler also was more utilized defensively than Tanev this year. You could argue he's just as good, if not just a minor step down from Tanev defensively. He blocks as many shots, had more defensive zone starts, faces tougher offensive competition 5v5 considering Tanev plays with Hughes, played 3 more minutes a game and has 3x as many hits as Tanev. He was also taken off the #1 PP for Hughes and was eventually replaced by Myers on the #2 so that Edler could be utilized more defensively 5v5 in match up roles.

 

Edler also had the best on ice save percentage(91.4) as well amongst the top 4 D(any defenseman who played more than 16 minutes a game) while Hughes had the worst(88.6) and Tanev 2nd worst(90.5). What that helps determine is that, despite playing more so defensively(being in more of a position to face shots against), Edler was pretty good in his own zone.

 

Also have to consider he did all this on top of losing Tanev as a regular D partner 5v5.

 

Overall it could be argued that Edler was one of our more valuable players on the team. We probably wouldn't have gotten as far as we did without him.