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

[Ilya Mikheyev]

Apparently Hjalmarsson has refused to waive his NTC. 

 

 

[rekker]

41 minutes ago, Teemu Selänne said:

Apparently Hjalmarsson has refused to waive his NTC. 

 

 

Lol. He has a cup and a swanky gig in the desert so I don't blame him. Seems players never want to leave there. I've been there a few times and it's beautiful. Gotta say if I already had my cup ring, another year contract down there, I wouldn't leave either. 

[aGENT]

6 hours ago, CanuckFan1123 said:

I think that’s a worse defense than we had this year. Tanev is so defensively responsible that he and Hughes are just perfect together. Tanev truthfully would be a massive loss if we don’t sign him. Edler is awesome but he does tend to be prone to dumb mistakes and him and an aggressive offensive dman like Hughes together could definitely be prone to some blunders. I don’t dislike Dillon however I feel like he’s incredibly overrated on here. He’s a good big physical dude and I appreciate that he can hit but I have just never been a huge fan. 

I think the best thing we can do is bring back Tanev and Stecher, try to move Benn, and let Juolevi and Fantenberg fight it out for that 3rd pair spot and have Rafferty as an injury call up. I know the defense gave up a lot of shots, especially in the playoffs but for all of that, Tanev and Edler had very high shot block numbers, in fact both were top 5 of all nhl dmen during the regular season in shot blocks. I think our offense really just lost a lot of neutral zone battles and let our opponents in the zone too much, especially vs Vegas in the playoffs. I don’t think the current defense is nearly as bad as some people make it out to be. 

 

8 hours ago, aGENT said:

Well clearly, re-signing Tanev is the preferred choice but if that can't/won't happen...

 

I'm just offering an alternative. Not suggesting it's an 'improvement' but frankly I don't think it's THAT big of a drop. Dillon would bring some added physicality and people are sleeping on how good Juolevi can be.

 

[D-Money]

8 hours ago, CanuckFan1123 said:

I think the best thing we can do is bring back Tanev and Stecher, try to move Benn, and let Juolevi and Fantenberg fight it out for that 3rd pair spot and have Rafferty as an injury call up. I know the defense gave up a lot of shots, especially in the playoffs but for all of that, Tanev and Edler had very high shot block numbers, in fact both were top 5 of all nhl dmen during the regular season in shot blocks. I think our offense really just lost a lot of neutral zone battles and let our opponents in the zone too much, especially vs Vegas in the playoffs. I don’t think the current defense is nearly as bad as some people make it out to be. 

Although I admire the willingness to sacrifice their body in the shooting lanes, don't you see the problem here? If Edler and Tanev are blocking THAT many shots, and we're still giving up above-average shot rates...that might be an indication that they lack ability to defend against the things that lead to the shot (zone entry, puck retrieval, pass interception, etc.).

 

I remember when Brodin got signed someone showed the heat map comparisons between him and Tanev, and they couldn't be more different. Tanev bleeds shot attempts from high-danger areas. Sure, he blocks a lot of them, but certainly not all of them. And when he gets the puck, he has below-average ability to transition to offense (fortunately Hughes did most of that for him this year). Maybe he's not as effective of a defensive defenseman as the eye-test would have us believe. And none of his shortcomings are going to get better as he ages.

 

[theo5789]

3 hours ago, drummerboy said:

Friedman mentioned the Canucks have had talks with Arizona about OEL........

Benning wouldn't be doing his job if he wasn't finding out the asking price here. Doesn't mean it's going to happen, but it helps sets the price on other potential trades as well.

[oldnews]

13 hours ago, aGENT said:

Agree on Stecher. Hard to let a guy like that go.

 

If we do end up walking away from Tanev, I wonder what people's thoughts would be with moving Hughes to the right and going with something like:

 

Elder, Hughes

Dillon, Stecher

Juolevi, Myers

 

Benn (or Fanta if we can move Benn), Rafferty as spares.

I would prefer Tanev with Hughes, for a number of reasons.

First and foremost - Tanev, in my opinion, has an 'elite' combination of ability to read the play, to make extremely quick decisions, anticipatory (pretty much as 'ahead' of a play - as a defensive presence - as they come) - and therefore he 'creates time' defensively - and in the process is one of the best puck retrievers, particularly when combined with his pivoting, skating, mobility (outstanding imo) that there are in the game.  Some players like Karlsson might add high end speed to that formula, but not necessarily Tanev's mental quickness (ability to 'slow' the play in his reads).  What that translates into, imo, as a partner for Hughes, is a second very high puck retriever as a partner.   What is it that you don't want Hughes subject to/vulnerable to, as a young, extremely talented, and not particularly large D?   The weight of an opposing forecheck, and to a lesser extent, in zone pressure - but those are two things Tanev alleviates at a very high level with that combination of speed read, pivot/mobility, puck retrieval, and firtst pass.  He might be considerably better, all things considered, than many or most larger, more physical presence D.   There may be a trade off in terms of Tanev's relative ability to physically impose himself, but at the same time he's very able to endure the physical challenges, win board battles, while having that high end finesse element to his shutdown game, akin to the best of the them (ie Lidstrom).

 

Having Edler then able to be the principal heavier minutes D on another pairing, while Tanev divides his minutes with Hughes - gives the Canucks that other pairing (that effectively supports/complements Tanev, perhaps lightens his workload in a sense)...Edler winds up himself divided in his minutes between Stecher (46%) and Myers (38%).  Edler, with Stecher has the more D zone puck retrieval, first pass, puck-pressure/attack, mobility element - and with Myers, another heavy two way presence like himself....it looks like it gives Green some good flexibility/versatility (when he has these three all healthy).     Hughes gets those high ozone starts - his minutes with Myers appears to tend more towards ozone starts / situationally 'offensive' opportunities/shift changes - and is otherwise supported by Tanev.   Myers minutes with Edler, as well, appear to have that tendency relative to Stecher. 

 

I'm not sure it makes more 'sense' to remove the quicker, more mobile element from that mix - ie Taneve relative to Dillon - particularly when both Tanev and Stecher seem to produce such good results weighted on the defensive side of the game....they do so playing with the heavier Edler and Myers....I believe there would be a trade off with Edler to Tanev in terms of a partner for Hughes - I'm not sure that's a 'better' pairing for the types of minutes Tanev shares with Hughes....

I think I'd sign Tanev first and foremost as that dual option, who can play with Hughes and otherwise provide shutdown....Dillon doesn't have that versatility.   If you sign him, though, is he affordable enough to then make another depth signing/addition with the cap saved?    If an 'upgrade' in physicality is made, I think it's a question of whether it's overall advisable relative to Stecher - or whether Stecher could provide a comparable dual role relative to Hughes (not sure - hard to answer - doesn't appear to have been very frequent this season (5.3% 5on5 ice time shared between the two)... My preference at this point, of the options I've heard or considered, would be to retain both and add a 4th RHD, best case scenario = a young Foote - who adds where perhaps it's most needed - RHD youth depth...Alternatively, the Fantenburg signing last offseason was excellent imo.  He outperformed Benn - ideally if they moved Benn and go into next season with Fantenburg and Juolevi in the 3/4 spots, that's an excellent 'transition' pair of options - a very solid veteran and emerging Juolevi.   I'd prefer to see the same on the right side - dual options with an experienced Stecher, and a younger, and in the case of this side, a 'heavier' two way RHD emerging prospect that can be a succession plan somewhere on the right side in the future (not necessarily 'defined' to replace Stecher, Tanev or Myers, but any of them - better flexibility and depth moving forward....I don't think they necessarily accomplish that by replacing Tanev with Dillon - less versatility and depth and greater chance of taking a step back presently and in the future, unless one of Woo, Chatfield, Rafferty force their way in.  Adding Foote to that group doesn't preclude those other RHD prospects, but it intensifies the competition for minutes, and we've also seen how deep the blueline can need to dip into it's depth at times...

[aGENT]

25 minutes ago, oldnews said:

I would prefer Tanev with Hughes, for a number of reasons.

First and foremost - Tanev, in my opinion, has an 'elite' combination of ability to read the play, to make extremely quick decisions, anticipatory (pretty much as 'ahead' of a play - as a defensive presence - as they come) - and therefore he 'creates time' defensively - and in the process is one of the best puck retrievers, particularly when combined with his pivoting, skating, mobility (outstanding imo) that there are in the game.  Some players like Karlsson might add high end speed to that formula, but not necessarily Tanev's mental quickness (ability to 'slow' the play in his reads).  What that translates into, imo, as a partner for Hughes, is a second very high puck retriever as a partner.   What is it that you don't want Hughes subject to/vulnerable to, as a young, extremely talented, and not particularly large D?   The weight of an opposing forecheck, and to a lesser extent, in zone pressure - but those are two things Tanev alleviates at a very high level with that combination of speed read, pivot/mobility, puck retrieval, and firtst pass.  He might be considerably better, all things considered, than many or most larger, more physical presence D.   There may be a trade off in terms of Tanev's relative ability to physically impose himself, but at the same time he's very able to endure the physical challenges, win board battles, while having that high end finesse element to his shutdown game, akin to the best of the them (ie Lidstrom).

 

Having Edler then able to be the principal heavier minutes D on another pairing, while Tanev divides his minutes with Hughes - gives the Canucks that other pairing (that effectively supports/complements Tanev, perhaps lightens his workload in a sense)...Edler winds up himself divided in his minutes between Stecher (46%) and Myers (38%).  Edler, with Stecher has the more D zone puck retrieval, first pass, puck-pressure/attack, mobility element - and with Myers, another heavy two way presence like himself....it looks like it gives Green some good flexibility/versatility (when he has these three all healthy).     Hughes gets those high ozone starts - his minutes with Myers appears to tend more towards ozone starts / situationally 'offensive' opportunities/shift changes - and is otherwise supported by Tanev.   Myers minutes with Edler, as well, appear to have that tendency relative to Stecher. 

 

I'm not sure it makes more 'sense' to remove the quicker, more mobile element from that mix - ie Taneve relative to Dillon - particularly when both Tanev and Stecher seem to produce such good results weighted on the defensive side of the game....they do so playing with the heavier Edler and Myers....I believe there would be a trade off with Edler to Tanev in terms of a partner for Hughes - I'm not sure that's a 'better' pairing for the types of minutes Tanev shares with Hughes....

I think I'd sign Tanev first and foremost as that dual option, who can play with Hughes and otherwise provide shutdown....Dillon doesn't have that versatility.   If you sign him, though, is he affordable enough to then make another depth signing/addition with the cap saved?    If an 'upgrade' in physicality is made, I think it's a question of whether it's overall advisable relative to Stecher - or whether Stecher could provide a comparable dual role relative to Hughes (not sure - hard to answer - doesn't appear to have been very frequent this season (5.3% 5on5 ice time shared between the two)... My preference at this point, of the options I've heard or considered, would be to retain both and add a 4th RHD, best case scenario = a young Foote - who adds where perhaps it's most needed - RHD youth depth...Alternatively, the Fantenburg signing last offseason was excellent imo.  He outperformed Benn - ideally if they moved Benn and go into next season with Fantenburg and Juolevi in the 3/4 spots, that's an excellent 'transition' pair of options - a very solid veteran and emerging Juolevi.   I'd prefer to see the same on the right side - dual options with an experienced Stecher, and a younger, and in the case of this side, a 'heavier' two way RHD emerging prospect that can be a succession plan somewhere on the right side in the future (not necessarily 'defined' to replace Stecher, Tanev or Myers, but any of them - better flexibility and depth moving forward....I don't think they necessarily accomplish that by replacing Tanev with Dillon - less versatility and depth and greater chance of taking a step back presently and in the future, unless one of Woo, Chatfield, Rafferty force their way in.  Adding Foote to that group doesn't preclude those other RHD prospects, but it intensifies the competition for minutes, and we've also seen how deep the blueline can need to dip into it's depth at times...

Agree. Again, if you read further on, my post was based on if we can't, for whatever reason, bring Tanev back. 

 

Obviously re-signing Tanev is the preferred option. If that isn't a possibility, I'm merely spit-balling about our plan B options.

 

*Also, Dillon was just used as an example. I'm not 'married' to him.

Edited September 30, 2020 by aGENT

[oldnews]

38 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Agree. Again, if you read further on, my post was based on if we can't, for whatever reason, bring Tanev back. 

 

Obviously re-signing Tanev is the preferred option. If that isn't a possibility, I'm merely spit-balling about our plan B options.

 

*Also, Dillon was just used as an example. I'm not 'married' to him.

I think the slightly 'downgrade' options in free agency - to players in Tanev's likely cap range- are better relative options (like Dillon) to the 'bigger fish' - so if Tanev can't be signed, then the next best UFA option might be a tier you're talking about - and retaining Stecher along with that signing....I'd probably do that over signing one of the 'bigger fish' in or above Tanev's (projected) price range (and then even more aggressively pursue a younger 'succession' prospect, or present depth option with room to grow.  If they can't resign Tanev, I might work harder to add two D and certainly move on from Benn (or Fantenburg if it must be him).

Edited September 30, 2020 by oldnews

[Bissurnette]

Not sure if either of these would work, but the idea seems interesting:

To FLA:

Boeser + Rafferty

 

To VAN:

Ekblad

 

OR

 

To ARZ:

Boeser + Gaudette + Stecher

 

To VAN:
OEL

 

 

[Gawdzukes]

5 hours ago, D-Money said:

Although I admire the willingness to sacrifice their body in the shooting lanes, don't you see the problem here? If Edler and Tanev are blocking THAT many shots, and we're still giving up above-average shot rates...that might be an indication that they lack ability to defend against the things that lead to the shot (zone entry, puck retrieval, pass interception, etc.).

 

I remember when Brodin got signed someone showed the heat map comparisons between him and Tanev, and they couldn't be more different. Tanev bleeds shot attempts from high-danger areas. Sure, he blocks a lot of them, but certainly not all of them. And when he gets the puck, he has below-average ability to transition to offense (fortunately Hughes did most of that for him this year). Maybe he's not as effective of a defensive defenseman as the eye-test would have us believe. And none of his shortcomings are going to get better as he ages.

 

Couldn't have said it better myself. Tanev does a lot of good things and is sneakily good. You can give whatever metrics you want though, it was hard watching him constantly give up shots against and turn it over in a variety of ways in our own end the last 10 games of the playoffs. 

[UFCanuck]

On 9/19/2020 at 2:37 PM, EP40. said:

https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article/31-thoughts-matt-dumba-next-wild-trade-block/

> Harman mentions Florida is depleted of a 2nd line with Hoffman & Dadonov heading to free agency which is where a possible Boeser move would make sense...according to Friedman, Panthers new GM will look to move out a “big ticket” blue line contract to which Harman says Ekblad is the only one with positive trade value. (other dmen/contracts are essentially unmovable)

 

> A speculative deal would have to be Boeser+ simply due to the fact top dmen are valued more than top forwards. Maybe the only hockey deal I can remember in recent memory happening regarding a top D for top F was the Seth Jones for Ryan Johansen trade. Arguable no plus was needed with the forward because Johansen is a centre. (bit more valuable)

Quote

Oilers trade Taylor Hall to Devils for Adam Larsson -June 29,2016. (A few months after the Seth Jones deal.)

 

 

[oldnews]

7 hours ago, aGENT said:

Agree. Again, if you read further on, my post was based on if we can't, for whatever reason, bring Tanev back. 

 

Obviously re-signing Tanev is the preferred option. If that isn't a possibility, I'm merely spit-balling about our plan B options.

 

*Also, Dillon was just used as an example. I'm not 'married' to him.

with the questions around whether, or how much cap 'trouble' the Canucks are in....

 

I worked out my armchair GM roster for the coming season - using the capfriendly calculator...

 

Adding no one from outside the franchise at this point, I made the cap work by making four deals.

 

Pearson and Roussel to Montreal for a 3rd and a 5th, perhaps a 4th as opposed to 5th if we perceive Pearson worth (slightly) more than a 3rd...Maybe a bit deflated for a 27 yr old, 20+ goal scorer, but the point here is not to milk any extra assets out of deals, just to spitball what possible trade offs could be made.  Probably a pretty good, cost effective option for the Habs, who could use size and scoring at that position (if anything I'm probably selling Pearson low).  Roussel imo is not a pure cap dump (in terms of requiring measurable assets spent, and is not a buyout candidate imo).

Baertschi to Detroit,  Benn anywhere, using the above picks, (and/or packaging Benn with Baer, or simply for f.c.)

 

I've signed

Markstrom 6 x 4

Tanev and Toffoli 5 x 4 each

Virtanen and Stecher *2.5 x 2 each

Motte and Leivo 1.5 x 2 each

Fantenburg 850 x 2

 

I have 900k of cap space remaining. 

Could potentially sign a UFA for just under 2 million, but won't bother for the point of illustration - or could give that cap up in the Stecher/Virtanen/Motte deals...

I've waived Eriksson for a mere million and change cap.

 

EP Miller Boeser

Ferland Horvat Toffoli

Leivo Sutter Gaudette

Motte Beagle Virtanen

         MacEwen

 

Hughes Tanev

Edler Stecher

Juolevi Myers

Fantenburg

 

Markstrom

Demko

 

Two contingencies remain to open further possibilities

Deal LE's contract - perhaps I extract Gaudette to do so - is it worth it?  What could I do with the 4.925 million + 900k?  There are also candidates to replace Gaudette as a bottom six winger - Hog, Bailey, Lind, etc, or perhaps pursue an unqualified RFA or sign another UFA.   Perhaps I do that and then bank most of that cap to flush away bonus overages.  I'm generally short term 'conservative' in that sense, so I probably don't re-spend that cap unless opportunity slaps me in the face in the market.  I plan, however, to save it for the following season when EP and Hughes are a year older...and expiring.

What becomes of Ferland - will he be healthy and able to play?  This is maybe the biggest unknown at this point. (3.5 million).

Wildcard - perhaps a player like Hoglander could force himself onto the roster - hypothetically even at 2LW...id not to replace Gaudette....

 

In any event, people might contest margins of these deals, but I don't think any of them are particularly unrealistic (people might eye the two Stecher and Virtanen contracts, but I've given projected cap hit pretty much everywhere else, and have a bit of wiggle there imo - not really expecting too much in return for Pearson/Roussel, not really expecting players to sign for too little (I'd like to offer Motte a bit more as well), nor expecting to move cap for too little - I think those picks are probably sufficient to dump one year of Baer - on that balance a few may be off, but overall, might reasonably be considered to balance out, give or take here and there.

 

So - I'm not terribly concerned about cap space - I don't think it's unrealistic in the end

I've 'spent' Pearson, in a sense, in order to move a year of Baertschi (perhaps Pearson is worth a bit more than a 3rd and/or it costs a bit more baseline value to get a year of buried contract moved - for me, it's plausible enough as a spitball, and I think the team creates the necessary flexibility.

 

Depending on Ferland's health, there may be more disposable cap, at least once the season commences if he's not healthy. 

 

Haven't wasted any existing picks, haven't spent any prospects - have sidelined the necessity of dumping LE (and foregone the termination possibility, which I don't think is as unrealistic as some people believe) - only hypothetically 'lost' Pearson and a few veteran UFA signings.....Gaudette if the LE cap can be considered capable of regaining a comparable or 'better' asset in the market.

 

Cap crisis?  I don't see it that way.  I may be more willing than some to move a player like Pearson at a lubricated price,particularly if it gets a couple other pieces moving as well....entirely prepared to let go of a few veteran (wingers in particular) without too much concern about 'losses'.  

 

If I'm then going to the market, I have a few principal targets:

1) Cal Foote in behind Stecher gives us future, young RHD depth

2) Jordan Greenway in the wake of departing Pearson, Roussel, [Ferland], and/or cap dumps of Baer/LE.

3)  Sign Brad Richardson to solidify the bottom six 'foundation'.

Edited October 1, 2020 by oldnews

[MikeBossy]

13 minutes ago, oldnews said:

with the questions around whether, or how much cap 'trouble' the Canucks are in....

 

I worked out my armchair GM roster for the coming season - using the capfriendly calculator...

 

Adding no one from outside the franchise at this point, I made the cap work by making four deals.

 

Pearson and Roussel to Montreal for a 3rd and a 5th, perhaps a 4th as opposed to 5th if we perceive Pearson worth (slightly) more than a 3rd...Maybe a bit deflated for a 27 yr old, 20+ goal scorer, but the point here is not to milk any extra assets out of deals, just to spitball what possible trade offs could be made.  Probably a pretty good, cost effective option for the Habs, who could use size and scoring at that position (if anything I'm probably selling Pearson low).  Roussel imo is not a pure cap dump (in terms of requiring measurable assets spent, and is not a buyout candidate imo).

Baertschi to Detroit,  Benn anywhere, using the above picks, (and/or packaging Benn with Baer, or simply for f.c.)

 

I've signed

Markstrom 6 x 4

Tanev and Toffoli 5 x 4 each

Virtanen and Stecher *2.5 x 2 each

Motte and Leivo 1.5 x 2 each

Fantenburg 850 x 2

 

I have 900k of cap space remaining. 

Could potentially sign a UFA for just under 2 million, but won't bother for the point of illustration - or could give that cap up in the Stecher/Virtanen/Motte deals...

I've waived Eriksson for a mere million and change cap.

 

EP Miller Boeser

Ferland Horvat Toffoli

Leivo Sutter Gaudette

Motte Beagle Virtanen

         MacEwen

 

Hughes Tanev

Edler Stecher

Juolevi Myers

Fantenburg

 

Markstrom

Demko

 

Two contingencies remain to open further possibilities

Deal LE's contract - perhaps I extract Gaudette to do so - is it worth it?  What could I do with the 4.925 million + 900k?  There are also candidates to replace Gaudette as a bottom six winger - Hog, Bailey, Lind, etc, or perhaps pursue an unqualified RFA or sign another UFA.   Perhaps I do that and then bank most of that cap to flush away bonus overages.  I'm generally short term 'conservative' in that sense, so I probably don't re-spend that cap unless opportunity slaps me in the face in the market.  I plan, however, to save it for the following season when EP and Hughes are a year older...and expiring.

What becomes of Ferland - will he be healthy and able to play?  This is maybe the biggest unknown at this point. (3.5 million).

Wildcard - perhaps a player like Hoglander could force himself onto the roster - hypothetically even at 2LW...id not to replace Gaudette....

 

In any event, people might contest margins of these deals, but I don't think any of them are particularly unrealistic (people might eye the two Stecher and Virtanen contracts, but I've given projected cap hit pretty much everywhere else, and have a bit of wiggle there imo - not really expecting too much in return for Pearson/Roussel, not really expecting players to sign for too little (I'd like to offer Motte a bit more as well), nor expecting to move cap for too little - I think those picks are probably sufficient to dump one year of Baer - on that balance a few may be off, but overall, might reasonably be considered to balance out, give or take here and there.

 

So - I'm not terribly concerned about cap space - I don't think it's unrealistic in the end

I've 'spent' Pearson, in a sense, in order to move a year of Baertschi (perhaps Pearson is worth a bit more than a 3rd and/or it costs a bit more baseline value to get a year of buried contract moved - for me, it's plausible enough as a spitball, and I think the team creates the necessary flexibility.

 

Depending on Ferland's health, there may be more disposable cap, at least once the season commences if he's not healthy. 

 

Haven't wasted any existing picks, haven't spent any prospects - have sidelined the necessity of dumping LE (and foregone the termination possibility, which I don't think is as unrealistic as some people believe) - only hypothetically 'lost' Pearson and a few veteran UFA signings.....Gaudette if the LE cap can be considered capable of regaining a comparable or 'better' asset in the market.

 

Cap crisis?  I don't see it that way.  I may be more willing than some to move a player like Pearson at a lubricated price,particularly if it gets a couple other pieces moving as well....entirely prepared to let go of a few veteran (wingers in particular) without too much concern about 'losses'.  

My only question here is on the back end having a guy making 6 million playing 3rd pairing minutes does not make sense. Jouloevi and Stecher make sense together and I love keeping Fantenberg.

 

[oldnews]

Just now, MikeBossy said:

My only question here is on the back end having a guy making 6 million playing 3rd pairing minutes does not make sense. Jouloevi and Stecher make sense together and I love keeping Fantenberg.

 

Those pairings don't really reflect a 1st, 2nd, 3rd pairing, in any conventional sense.

 

This year;

Myers wound up playing with Edler, Fantenburg and Hughes with relatively close frequency.

Tanev played with Hughes, but also a 3rd of his minutes divided off into shutdown with Edler, Fanta, Benn.

Stecher played just over half the time with Edler, but a fair amount with Benn, Fanta...

 

Green doesn't really fix these pairings or have any clear 1,2,3 - he tends to utilize varying options, and mix some pairings depending on situations, so there's nothing fixed about that group.

That's simply that's how I'd conceive a starting point, particularly if we want some time/space/'sheltering' for Juolevi, as they partnered Tanev with Hughes...Really, any of those guys could play with Juolevi.

[aGENT]

1 hour ago, oldnews said:

Cap crisis?  I don't see it that way. 

Agreed. There's certainly some tidying, fat trimming and work to do but it's hardly the Mt. Everest the media and some posters are making it out to be.

 

And if we do manage (the impossible!) to dump/terminate/retire Eriksson, we're absolutely laughing.

[MikeBossy]

10 hours ago, oldnews said:

Those pairings don't really reflect a 1st, 2nd, 3rd pairing, in any conventional sense.

 

This year;

Myers wound up playing with Edler, Fantenburg and Hughes with relatively close frequency.

Tanev played with Hughes, but also a 3rd of his minutes divided off into shutdown with Edler, Fanta, Benn.

Stecher played just over half the time with Edler, but a fair amount with Benn, Fanta...

 

Green doesn't really fix these pairings or have any clear 1,2,3 - he tends to utilize varying options, and mix some pairings depending on situations, so there's nothing fixed about that group.

That's simply that's how I'd conceive a starting point, particularly if we want some time/space/'sheltering' for Juolevi, as they partnered Tanev with Hughes...Really, any of those guys could play with Juolevi.

Gotcha - I guess the issue is do we need an upgrade on defense? I agree 100 percent when you look what's out there price wise and what we have coming down the pipe Tanev is a priority to sign ( he is a minute muncher and very sound defensively) - personally i think he might be number 1 on the list of our UFAs to sign. I think the D needs a bit of an upgrade but think we are a year or two from being able to spend the money to do that unless we go bargain bin shopping. My only suggestion is see what else is out there option wise other than Stecher - don't get me wrong - love the kid but as i said feel like we need a bit of size on the back end. Would a guy like Bogosian be an option?

[Provost]

12 hours ago, oldnews said:

 

Edited October 1, 2020 by Provost

[Provost]

42 minutes ago, MikeBossy said:

 

12 hours ago, oldnews said:

 

Cap crisis?  I don't see it that way. 

Well that doesn’t make sense.  Of course if we happen to be able to move $12 million in cap off the books (your plan) it relieves our “cap crisis”.... that doesn’t mean we aren’t in a cap crisis right now...  That is like saying I am not fat because I could potentially lose 50lbs sometime in the future.

 

No one is saying there isn’t any path out, we could make any of dozens of moves... we have made zero so far.

 

In your specific plan, we get worse on paper just to fit under the cap.  Pearson is not a throwaway player and adding in a likely injured Ferland into our top 6 doesn’t even let us tread water.

 

It also seems like it is millions over the cap once you factor in ELC bonuses.  In this case pushing $4 million into the following season when we also have to free up money to pay our superstars.

 

So unfortunately back here in reality, we still have that $12 million on the books, so you can’t sign ANY of Toffoli, Tanev, Stecher, or Virtanen.  Each of those has to be a league minimum player so their cap hits are $3 million total rather than $15 million.  Your roster looks terrible without those players.

[mll]

11 hours ago, aGENT said:

Agreed. There's certainly some tidying, fat trimming and work to do but it's hardly the Mt. Everest the media and some posters are making it out to be.

 

And if we do manage (the impossible!) to dump/terminate/retire Eriksson, we're absolutely laughing.

 

Quite a few GMs are implying that fat trimming could be challenging - Poile, Bergevin, Fletcher, Lamoriello have been doing the media rounds this week.

 

Lamoriello says there are going to be far more players available than people expect.

 

Teams were hoping to dump cap on NJD but Custance says it's not an option.  They want to improve their team and are instead looking to add good players as teams are being forced to trim.  Fits with what Fitzgerald was saying at the TDL.

 

Fletcher thinks there won't be many cap clearing trades.  Already a couple of months back he was talking of cap in / cap out trades where teams have to find a way to change their roster by making hockey trades.   

 

High-end players will always be in demand but it might be harder to move mid/bottom of the lineup players without taking equal cap back.  Their contracts were signed when there was no pandemic.  LeBrun hears that some teams are going to wait out UFAs and allow time for bargains to develop - the hope is that some players will become desperate for a contract and take a pay-cut.  Rather than give up assets for players who were signed when the cap/revenue were still increasing, teams might prefer to go the UFA route for depth players.

 

The arbitration risk could make even more players available than usual.  The walk-away limit this year is about 4.54M.  GMs were already complaining about the arbitration process before the pandemic and actually proposed changes. It wasn't addressed in this version of the CBA given the time crunch to get it approved.  An executive was saying that arbitration has become player friendly where some players are getting higher contracts than they would on the open market - it's probably more likely this year as the comparables were mostly signed pre-pandemic. 

 

Edited October 1, 2020 by mll

[aGENT]

1 hour ago, mll said:

 

Quite a few GMs are implying that fat trimming could be challenging - Poile, Bergevin, Fletcher, Lamoriello have been doing the media rounds this week.

 

Lamoriello says there are going to be far more players available than people expect.

 

Teams were hoping to dump cap on NJD but Custance says it's not an option.  They want to improve their team and are instead looking to add good players as teams are being forced to trim.  Fits with what Fitzgerald was saying at the TDL.

 

Fletcher thinks there won't be many cap clearing trades.  Already a couple of months back he was talking of cap in / cap out trades where teams have to find a way to change their roster by making hockey trades.   

 

High-end players will always be in demand but it might be harder to move mid/bottom of the lineup players without taking equal cap back.  Their contracts were signed when there was no pandemic.  LeBrun hears that some teams are going to wait out UFAs and allow time for bargains to develop - the hope is that some players will become desperate for a contract and take a pay-cut.  Rather than give up assets for players who were signed when the cap/revenue were still increasing, teams might prefer to go the UFA route for depth players.

 

The arbitration risk could make even more players available than usual.  The walk-away limit this year is about 4.54M.  GMs were already complaining about the arbitration process before the pandemic and actually proposed changes. It wasn't addressed in this version of the CBA given the time crunch to get it approved.  An executive was saying that arbitration has become player friendly where some players are getting higher contracts than they would on the open market - it's probably more likely this year as the comparables were mostly signed pre-pandemic. 

 

Did I say it was going to be a walk in the park? Nope.

 

There's clearly work to do. And yes, we might need to shuffle some cap dollars around,  convert our overpriced winger Eriksson, in to an overpriced 3RD for example. There may be buyouts, retention etc.

 

It's still not Everest. This is what GM's are paid (handsomely) to deal with. It's literally their job.

Edited October 1, 2020 by aGENT