[Friedman] Canucks looking to “overhaul blue line” ...Ekblad & Cernak could be available

[oldnews]

11 hours ago, EP40. said:

Now this is where I think me and everyone else knows you’re being oblivious to the fact there are contracts like Eriksson that prevent teams from bettering themselves in other areas of the ice

And this is where you are being oblivious to the fact that you haven't really spent much time looking at other actual builds/lineups around the NHL.

Too much fishbowling in this market, where armchairs form #proper-rebuild concepts of how it's 'supposed' to be done - and in the process are blind to the facts of 'mistakes' made right accross the league, mistakes that in fact are not necessarily as 'fatal' as you perceive, and that are the cost of doing business when literally every team has to make as many decisions as they do.

 

@Mike Vanderhoek, on the other hand, is a boss - who knows what he's talking about.

 

I've posted this elsewhere, but I'm going to bother to repeat this - so those of you with this provincial concept - that Benning has sunk this team moving forward by virtue of a contract or two that you don't like, that you over-state - will prevent the team from improving....

 

FYI. 

Sammy Blais Tyler Bozak Oskar Sundqvist

Alex Steen Jacob DeLaRose MacEachern/Kyrou

 

That is/was the bottom six of the Stanley Cup Champions - that this team defeated.

 

Alex Steen - a 35 yr old 4th liner with a 5.75 million cap hit.

Tyler Bozak - a 33 yr old 3rd line center with a 5.0 million cap hit.

Oskar Sundqvist - a bottom six winger with a 2.75 million cap hit.

Blais and Barbashev combine for another 2.95 million. MacEachern/DeLaRose/Kyrou are two of six that made between 700-900k.

 

So - to 'do the math' - that is a $17+ million bottom six.

Did it prevent St Louis from being good enough elsewhere in their lineup?  Dumb question, isn't it.  They won a Cup.

They were, ironically, the team that everyone who chases goalposts would have been emulating for the past year.

Is any of that to say that it's 'ideal' to have Alex Steen - or LE - in your bottom six - among your depth forwards at that cap hit?   No, of course not.

But it's also not an excuse not to compete - and it's not going to preclude a team's ability to - or to improve.

 

You also seem oblivious to the very real likelihood the team improves regardless of additions - they have a handful of key young players - very young - who will continue to grow stronger, to get better, to gain experience.

 

The reality is that St Louis was good enough, and deep enough everywhere else in their lineup - to win a Stanley Cup.

And the further irony is that our bottom six - was absolutely instrumental in knocking them off this playoffs - anyone that is too fishbowl to remember how good, how deep that team effort was before the compounding injuries to their centers and forwards in general left them in harm reduction mode deeper into the Vegas series.

 

So instead of dramatic panic, try an in depth analysis instead.

That St Louis reality ought to give you a 'better' estimation of what is possible, even with a veteran bottom six that costs you more than you think it 'should'.

The difference in the team's performance - with Miller/Sutter on wings, and Horvat's line struggling - might also give you an idea of how much better it was when it's veterans were healthy and able to provide the foundation for the young top 6 forwards.  This team's core is far younger than St Louis' - or Vegas' - so if you're going to rip anyone, you ought to ask yourself why/how those idiots in St Louis found themselves in the position they did - Benning has relatively sound reasoning behind his 'foundation' - whether he made a 'mistake' or two in the process and the extent of which is something to debate, but ignorance in general is not grounds on which to pretend to one-up him on his concept of team-building. 

[Provost]

17 hours ago, 24K PureCool said:

Ekblad might be one of the few players I wouldn't mind trading Boeser for. That said, more curious on how we can pry Cernak out of Tampa. Probably won't cost Boeser. Maybe Hoglander?

Well to be nasty. he could cost a 2nd rounder.  Offer sheet him for $4 million and TB can't match without becoming even more screwed.  I don't see us going that route, but it certainly reduces his trade value since they have to clear cap immediately after the Cup is awarded so they don't run the risk of teams offer sheeting their RFA.

Cernak, Sergachev, and Cirelli.  Teams can offer sheet any of them and Tampa has no money to match as of right now.  The Wild are desperate for centres.. Cirelli could easily be their 2C going forward so I wouldn't at all be surprised to see them push for him.  

If Tampa does win the Cup it will be a short lived celebration.  The draft is a week a week afterwards, and as little as 9 days later free agency opens and offer sheets can be tendered.  There will be several of those players who would be driving from the parade right to the airport.

[aGENT]

11 hours ago, BigTramFan said:

Picks and prospects are nice to have but I reckon you said it yourself "clearing cap" is their concern and getting even stronger with their lineup if they can, whilst clearing cap will be their focus.

And what's the best way to remain competitive while reducing costs/cap?

 

Good young players you can insert in ELC's. That's where.

 

Any guess where those come from?

[JM_]

1 hour ago, mll said:

They were 6th in scoring but 28th in goals against.  They have some forwards gone likely gone UFAs so scoring could go down, but defence has been such a major weakness the past few seasons that they won't be able to take a step forward if they don't fix that.    

so trading Ekblad makes even less sense.

 

I'm starting to think Harman might not be an actual "insider" 

[aGENT]

Just now, Robert Long said:

so trading Ekblad makes even less sense.

 

I'm starting to think Harman might not be an actual "insider" 

*Ding, ding ding!*

[Ilya Mikheyev]

1 minute ago, Robert Long said:

so trading Ekblad makes even less sense.

 

I'm starting to think Harman might not be an actual "insider" 

i also don't think Harman said there was any official rumour just linked the Friedman piece and was spitballing; it's CDC that ran with it

[Gurn]

11 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Any guess where those come from?

[Provost]

8 minutes ago, Teemu Selänne said:

i also don't think Harman said there was any official rumour just linked the Friedman piece and was spitballing; it's CDC that ran with it

... and the stated logic was.

 

IF they want to move out money on D to rebalance it towards forwards.  The other three big ticket guys are on unmovable contracts.  Ekblad is the only guy who they could move. 

 

Looking at their scoring from last year and not deducting how many of those goals are being lost to free agency is ignoring the reality of how the Panther’s offence could be next year.  They have one line... then nothing at all.

[DefCon1]

1 hour ago, NeilColville said:

Boeser, Virtanen 1st and 2nd for Ekblad would probably be the asking price. Do that and add Dillon in the off season. Re sign Toffoli. Boom. 

wow Boeser, Virtanen, 1st, 2nd...you forgot to add Petersson and Hughes. Ekblad isnt an elite superstar D to give up a young 1st line sniper, a young powerforward that scored 18 goals last season and has potential  a 1st and 2nd round picks which are now really valuable in the flat cap world. I would give Boeser plus maybe a low pick for Ekblad but nothing more than that. Boeser still has a lot of value as a 1st line 30 goal scorer which Canucks fans seem to have a short memory of. In fact the only reason why we would even trade Boeser is to get a top pairing D. Any less than that, Benning would just hang up the phone.

[Ilya Mikheyev]

9 minutes ago, Provost said:

... and the stated logic was.

 

IF they want to move out money on D to rebalance it towards forwards.  The other three big ticket guys are on unmovable contracts.  Ekblad is the only guy who they could move. 

 

Looking at their scoring from last year and not deducting how many of those goals are being lost to free agency is ignoring the reality of how the Panther’s offence could be next year.  They have one line... then nothing at all.

For sure. I do agree with some of the critique's of Harman's logic, including @oldnews', I don't really see Yandle as being 'unmoveable' but certainly Ekblad's value is higher and his lack of NMC makes things more straightforward for a newbie GM. I doubt he moves Ekblad realistically but I'm sure he's listening harder than Tallon would have only a few months ago 

Edited September 20, 2020 by Teemu Selänne

[86Viking]

Ekblad is a dream RHD but I think Canucks need to be smart and not spend the LARGE price it would take to acquire him and go after Cernak from TB. Cernak won;t cost you anything like Boeser plus which is what it would take to get Ekblad.

 

Cernak should be JB's #1 RHD target imo. TB is in tough with the cap unless they move someone like Killorn, they also have Cal Foote as a RHD prospect who could probably make the jump next year. All depends what they also choose to do with UFA's Bogosian and Shattenkirk. Do they want to try and get term  and $ after a cup finals win/appearance or do they want to sign a a warn tax free state and stay on a good team?

 

I like Ekblad I just don't think we can part with the pieces needed to acquire him

[Ilya Mikheyev]

1 minute ago, Canuckster86 said:

Ekblad is a dream RHD but I think Canucks need to be smart and not spend the LARGE price it would take to acquire him and go after Cernak from TB. Cernak won;t cost you anything like Boeser plus which is what it would take to get Ekblad.

 

Cernak should be JB's #1 RHD target imo. TB is in tough with the cap unless they move someone like Killorn, they also have Cal Foote as a RHD prospect who could probably make the jump next year. All depends what they also choose to do with UFA's Bogosian and Shattenkirk. Do they want to try and get term  and $ after a cup finals win/appearance or do they want to sign a a warn tax free state and stay on a good team?

 

I like Ekblad I just don't think we can part with the pieces needed to acquire him

Ekblad is one of the few RHDs in the league I would break the bank for as GM. He's 24 and locked up on a reasonable contract. If the asking price was Boeser, Virt's rights & a 1st + one more mid-level pick/prospect I definitely hope Benning would consider it

[Provost]

20 minutes ago, Teemu Selänne said:

For sure. I do agree with some of the critique's of Harman's logic, including @oldnews', I don't really see Yandle as being 'unmoveable' but certainly Ekblad's value is higher and his lack of NMC makes things more straightforward for a newbie GM. I doubt he moves Ekblad realistically but I'm sure he's listening harder than Tallon would have only a few months ago 

It is clearly a remote chance, and all the discussions seem to reflect that I think.  Any offer has to blow them away.

 

I genuinely think they can move one of the other guys, they just aren’t getting any value back.

 

They always have an internal cap, even if they aren’t planning on shedding dollars, so how could they free up dollars to add to their offence?

 

I would trade Eriksson, Baertschi, and the rights to Virtanen and Stecher if we got Stralman back for example.

 

The Remaining dollars owed for both Eriksson and Baertschi is just $3.4 million next year.  They drop $4.5 million owing to Stralman... and put some of it towards Signing Stecher.
 

Lots of options kind of like that to move one of their other three big ticket  older players (if they are amenable with their trade protections).

 

 

Edited September 20, 2020 by Provost

[EP40.]

1 hour ago, oldnews said:

And this is where you are being oblivious to the fact that you haven't really spent much time looking at other actual builds/lineups around the NHL.

Too much fishbowling in this market, where armchairs form #proper-rebuild concepts of how it's 'supposed' to be done - and in the process are blind to the facts of 'mistakes' made right accross the league, mistakes that in fact are not necessarily as 'fatal' as you perceive, and that are the cost of doing business when literally every team has to make as many decisions as they do.

 

@Mike Vanderhoek, on the other hand, is a boss - who knows what he's talking about.

 

I've posted this elsewhere, but I'm going to bother to repeat this - so those of you with this provincial concept - that Benning has sunk this team moving forward by virtue of a contract or two that you don't like, that you over-state - will prevent the team from improving....

 

FYI. 

Sammy Blais Tyler Bozak Oskar Sundqvist

Alex Steen Jacob DeLaRose MacEachern/Kyrou

 

That is/was the bottom six of the Stanley Cup Champions - that this team defeated.

 

Alex Steen - a 35 yr old 4th liner with a 5.75 million cap hit.

Tyler Bozak - a 33 yr old 3rd line center with a 5.0 million cap hit.

Oskar Sundqvist - a bottom six winger with a 2.75 million cap hit.

Blais and Barbashev combine for another 2.95 million. MacEachern/DeLaRose/Kyrou are two of six that made between 700-900k.

 

So - to 'do the math' - that is a $17+ million bottom six.

I’ll say this: not every teams situation is the same. For the Canucks, they’d be looking for that all scenarios #1 dman in Ekblad. That’s what they lack. Blues had a #1C #1D #W #1G, all of the things which are hardest to gather. 
 

And you kind of make my point for me, they weren’t in cap trouble then but are now as they’ve had to continue to pay their key players. It’s at a point where they can’t afford Pietrenagelo now and are letting him go for nothing in FA. 

[Ilya Mikheyev]

2 minutes ago, Provost said:

It is clearly a remote chance, and all the discussions seem to reflect that I think.  Any offer has to blow them away.

 

I genuinely think they can move one of the other guys, they just aren’t getting any value back.

 

They always have an internal cap, even if they aren’t planning on shedding dollars, so how could they free up dollars to add to their offence?

 

I would trade Eriksson, Baertschi, and the rights to Virtanen and Stecher if we got Stralman back for example.

 

The Remaining dollars owed for both Eriksson and Baertschi is just $3.4 million next year.  They drop $4.5 million owing to Stralman... and put some of it towards Signing Stecher.
 

Lots of options kind of like that to move one of their other three big screen older players (if they are amenable with their trade protections).

 

 

For sure, I agree that it is remote but could be a good trading partner. Would happily take on Stralman if he was the Lukowich-type in the Ehrhoff trade.

[Ilya Mikheyev]

If Canucks managed to package Boeser for Ekblad they would have an elite 1C, 2C, 1LW, 1D, 2D, and 1G under contract or at least own their rights for 3-5 years. Next year's draft would then matter a lot less in that case

[Wayne Glensky]

21 minutes ago, DefCon1 said:

wow Boeser, Virtanen, 1st, 2nd...you forgot to add Petersson and Hughes. Ekblad isnt an elite superstar D to give up a young 1st line sniper, a young powerforward that scored 18 goals last season and has potential  a 1st and 2nd round picks which are now really valuable in the flat cap world. I would give Boeser plus maybe a low pick for Ekblad but nothing more than that. Boeser still has a lot of value as a 1st line 30 goal scorer which Canucks fans seem to have a short memory of. In fact the only reason why we would even trade Boeser is to get a top pairing D. Any less than that, Benning would just hang up the phone.

In today’s market GMs will be paying a lot 

[oldnews]

To suggest a bit of a 'correction' or perhaps more realistic course for the discussion:

 

Keith Yandle is a far better bet to be shopped/in trade talks - than Ekblad is.

So is Stralman.

 

The problem with young canucksarmy types - is that they tend to youth-gaze -and consider virtually every veteran contract in the NHL to be 'unmoveable'.

In the real world of the NHL - lots of GMs see value in players like this - and further, they could be acquired for reasonable hockey trades, whereas a player like Ekblad is not only the type of player that any team ought to think twice before dealing, but would also command a return that not a lot of teams would be in a position to part with.  Perhaps a team like Tampa might be a trade partner for an Ekblad - Tampa has the wealth of assets, and the incentive pre-expansion draft - to further concentrate their protection assets - but otherwise, I think the general idea that Ekblad is who we should be talking about - is borderline fantasy wishlisting.

 

Keith Yandle - as I've mentioned earlier in this thread - was 11th in NHL D scoring last year. He has 3 years at 6.35 million remaining.

Florida has considerably more work to do in their forward group - many expiring contracts - than they do on their blueline.

 

Yandle would be nowhere near as easy a sell as Ekblad - and would not bring the return Ekblad would, but at the same time, he is multiples more likely to be one of the big fish that Florida is referring to, intending to move, as opposed to their young #1D.  Ekblad is not only an all situations RHD - he also scored 10 more even strength pts than Yandle this season.  Yandle had 19 powerplay assists.

 

But people here  might want to ask themselves - if you had an Ekblad, would you be looking to move him, for salary purposes?  Get real.  The moment you do so you remove one of the most difficult to draft, acquire, sign - players - if not the most difficult - asset that your franchise has.  The moment you do, you wind up looking for a replacement, and realizing that is one of the primary, most difficult tasks of any franchise.

 

I'm going to jump to a 'conclusion/assumption' - something I really don't like to do, but sometimes 'common sense' dictates....

 

Ekblad is not being shopped - Yandle is likely the player they are referring to - and if not, perhaps they're hoping to test any potential interest in Stralman or Matheson.

Stralman is one helluva solid defenseman himself - with two years of term remaining - who'd make a whole lot of teams better.

Stralman would instantly and considerably improve the Toronto Maple Leafs, for example.

Yandle would bring a lot of scoring punch to a team that needs a powerplay specialist/puck mover.

 

These guys are not 'unmoveable' - not in the least - they simply would be a different form of return - not as significant, and in the current context, Florida would likely have take some cap/salary back in return.  Wouldn't surprise me at all if Florida managed to move Yandle or Stralman.  Perhaps not to Toronto - who seem hell bent on the absolute biggest fish possible that leave them next to no depth or flexibility (while also having an uninspiring prospect pool).   If I were them though, I might not be so fixed on Pietrangelo, and perhaps a bit more interested in a deal structured around Kerfoot / Stralman, or Johnsson/Yandle, or vice versa - if they're so intent on dumping the few remaining forwards that make over 2 million, while retaining Nylander.  But forgetting Toronto - I imagine there are teams that would have to consider a Yandle or Stralman - those guys are legit top 4 - still very effective - that have reasonable enough 2 or 3 years of term remaining.  Maybe not big ticket returns, but not unmoveable.

[logic]

A lot of people need to put some respect on Ekblads name, 6'4 215 24 year old RHD with a career 0.46ppg. Hughes and Ekblad would be a top 5 pairing in the league maybe even top 3, this is the type of guy you move assets for if you can make it work.

If Boeser + OJ + 2021 Second + 2021 third gets it done I pull the trigger. Ekblad is basically Weber lite and we have not had a Dman like him since Jovo

[CanadianRugby]

Boeser for Ekblad?  I'll drive him to the airport.