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

Expansion Draft a Blessing?

Rate this topic


Nuxfanabroad
 Share

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, The Lock said:

True. There's even the notion that Benning wasn't allowed to be on the floor during that time and that he actually wanted Pastrnak

Benning announced the Virtanen and McCann pick on stage.  The Canucks released a clip on draft day where Benning was talking to another GM looking to acquire 24th.  He turned the offer down revealing that they wanted to pick McCann.  There was also a clip of Benning interviewing Tryamkin at the 2014 combine.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mll said:

Benning announced the Virtanen and McCann pick on stage.  The Canucks released a clip on draft day where Benning was talking to another GM looking to acquire 24th.  He turned the offer down revealing that they wanted to pick McCann.  There was also a clip of Benning interviewing Tryamkin at the 2014 combine.  

I mean more when it came to the decision making process. There was supposedly some agreement there since Benning had just come over from Boston. I don't know how true all of this is though, which is why I merely called it a "notion". It could have easily been just a rumour started by someone, but just because he was on the floor at that time and stating they wanted McCann, doesn't really disprove it as being merely a rumour either.

Edited by The Lock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know, I know -

- some of you don't like Drance,

- some of you can't handle the way the media in this market is operating

- some of you hold the view that Drance is throwing around only pure speculation

- some of you think that the media in VAN lacks personal integrity.

Lot's of issues with the media in VAN.... anyway I will post the following in here.

Some of you will hate this , some of you will appreciate it and some of don't care at all.

 

Does Vancouver do a side deal with the Seattle Kraken?

Thomas Drance of The Athletic:  Would Jim Benning consider this as a possibility? Benning has been in regular contact with Ron Francis, the Seattle Kraken General Manager.

 
“We’ve talked about lots of different things,” Benning said. “He’s had some ideas for me and I’ve countered with some ideas for him. Nothing specific, I can’t detail what we’ve talked about, but we’ve talked a lot about different scenarios.”

 

 

 

Again, there is the protect a player, salary shed, Godfather side deal, and goaltender side deal scenarios. All have their pros and cons. For Benning, a Braden Holtby side deal may present the highest upside if it can be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

Well you can't force anything but there are players out there that teams can't protect.

 

I imagine said teams are willing to trade a player for an asset instead of losing them for nothing to Seattle (like Graves).

 

This is where we learn what our pro scouting is worth. We have limited cap space and there are a lot of middle-of-the-roster type players floating around. Let's see if Benning can hit on some buy-low candidates.

 

(Yes, I know there are some teams with no good players to lose and there are some teams with several good players that are exposed that aren't going to scramble to trade one because then they'll be down two but that's not the case for every team).

I don't know how many of these opportunities there really are. I think a lot of teams this time are just going to let Seattle take a player and not panic sell. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I don't know how many of these opportunities there really are. I think a lot of teams this time are just going to let Seattle take a player and not panic sell. 

This is probably something we'll find out over the next couple of weeks really given that teams can't even negotiate with Seattle until after the lists come out.

  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, spur1 said:

The problem with your scenario is that Seattle has to sign them in order to have them considered as a pick. 

Nope… they don’t get to take another player if they sign someone in their special courting period pre-expansion draft… they can pick them even unsigned and don’t have to sign them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

If I remember correctly, weren't MinnyMild & FLO case-study examples of what NOT to do, with an NHL ED?

 

So let's look back at the teams that got hosed, & simply not follow that route.

What teams like ANA, FLA and MIN did was give Vegas X + Y so that Vegas wouldn't take Z. In a few cases, X & Y turned out to be more valuable than Z.

 

What we're talking about here is different.

 

If you're a team that is going to lose X, might as well get something back for X from a 3rd party and instead lose Y which is of lesser value.

 

Let's say:

 

X = 10

Y = 5

R = 8

 

If you just let Seattle take X, you lose a value of 10.

 

But if you trade X to a 3rd party gaining R back and then lose Y to Seattle, you only lose a value of 7 (10 + 5 - 8 = 7) assuming R is something that does not need to be protected, like a draft pick.

 

But it'll be different for every team. For some teams, X & Y have similar value so it won't make sense to make a trade in which you lose value for one and lose the other to Seattle.

 

And you would also have to be a team that values the pick and/or extra cap space you get from shedding both X & Y over how it weakens your main roster. This would be Colorado's case with the Graves trade.

  • Huggy Bear 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

What teams like ANA, FLA and MIN did was give Vegas X + Y so that Vegas wouldn't take Z. In a few cases, X & Y turned out to be more valuable than Z.

 

What we're talking about here is different.

 

If you're a team that is going to lose X, might as well get something back for X from a 3rd party and instead lose Y which is of lesser value.

 

Let's say:

 

X = 10

Y = 5

R = 8

 

If you just let Seattle take X, you lose a value of 10.

 

But if you trade X to a 3rd party gaining R back and then lose Y to Seattle, you only lose a value of 7 (10 + 5 - 8 = 7) assuming R is something that does not need to be protected, like a draft pick.

 

But it'll be different for every team. For some teams, X & Y have similar value so it won't make sense to make a trade in which you lose value for one and lose the other to Seattle.

 

And you would also have to be a team that values the pick and/or extra cap space you get from shedding both X & Y over how it weakens your main roster. This would be Colorado's case with the Graves trade.

Alf hates Algebra!  Stop it!  :frantic:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Provost said:

Nope… they don’t get to take another player if they sign someone in their special courting period pre-expansion draft… they can pick them even unsigned and don’t have to sign them.

To the first part…no one said they could. To the second part…what would be the point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Josepho said:

Most of the good NHL players come in and establish themselves as good AHL players immediately. It's not a particularly common for guys of Lind's track record to turn into much -- it's pretty much the same as Shinkaruk's.

 

It's not just that he couldn't score, it's that he looked completely lost in terms of skating in the league. A guy like Lockwood didn't score while he was here but I didn't feel he looked nearly as out of place as Lind did. 

 

I don't think it's "giving up on him". Giving up on Lind would be trading him for future considerations. But, at this point, we have to seriously consider acquiring an actual NHL player for that protection spot if possible instead of protecting someone based on what you hope for him to be instead of what is likely.

At every level, Lind has needed a year to acclimate himself.  His first year in Utica was not great, but he learned that he had to take his diet and training more seriously.  His second year, he was one of the best players on the team.  I don't know what game you were watching, I didn't think Lind looked out of place at all in his cup of coffee with the big club.  The shift from the A to the NHL this year was a bigger step than normal, because every team carrying a taxi squad meant there were that many fewer NHL bubble players playing in the minors.  Okay, he's not Petterson, Boesser (he's younger than Brock was when he broke in) or Hughes, but he's a good enough skater, he can throw a good hit, he has good vision, and with half a season under his belt, he'll be a serviceable third line player with second line potential in the NHL.   

Edited by canuckleheads fan
  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, canuckleheads fan said:

At every level, Lind has needed a year to acclimate himself.  His first year in Utica was not great, but he learned that he had to take his diet and training more seriously.  His second year, he was one of the best players on the team.  I don't know what game you were watching, I didn't think Lind looked out of place at all in his cup of coffee with the big club.  The shift from the A to the NHL this year was a bigger step than normal, because every team carrying a taxi squad meant there were that many fewer NHL bubble players playing in the minors.  Okay, he's not Petterson, Boesser (he's younger than Brock was when he broke in) or Hughes, but he's a good enough skater, he can throw a good hit, he has good vision, and with half a season under his belt, he'll be a serviceable third line player with second line potential in the NHL.   

I really liked Lind's first few games with us but thought that he became invisible in the last few (mind you i couldn't watch the two Calgary matinees).  

 

However, I'm big on Matthew Highmore.  He impressed me the most out of all the bottom 6 guys and he actually looked pretty good next to Bo and Pearson on the 2nd line (aka shutdown line).  

 

My favourite part of Lind's game were his takeaways.  He was very strong defensively in the neutral zone.  

  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Wolfgang Durst said:

I know, I know -

- some of you don't like Drance,

- some of you can't handle the way the media in this market is operating

- some of you hold the view that Drance is throwing around only pure speculation

- some of you think that the media in VAN lacks personal integrity.

Lot's of issues with the media in VAN.... anyway I will post the following in here.

Some of you will hate this , some of you will appreciate it and some of don't care at all.

 

Does Vancouver do a side deal with the Seattle Kraken?

Thomas Drance of The Athletic:  Would Jim Benning consider this as a possibility? Benning has been in regular contact with Ron Francis, the Seattle Kraken General Manager.

 
“We’ve talked about lots of different things,” Benning said. “He’s had some ideas for me and I’ve countered with some ideas for him. Nothing specific, I can’t detail what we’ve talked about, but we’ve talked a lot about different scenarios.”

 

 

 

Again, there is the protect a player, salary shed, Godfather side deal, and goaltender side deal scenarios. All have their pros and cons. For Benning, a Braden Holtby side deal may present the highest upside if it can be done.

We Already have to do side deals just to get rid of someone we signed last year during Covid?

It is not even my money, but tired of hearing giving up picks or prospects just to get rid of players the next year because they hold no value?

How are we going to gain depth and strength carrying on this way?

Maybe quit the dumb deals and hold on to picks until ready to push for the top spot

  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A question on the ed, for the Canucks, who's exempt and who needs protection?

 

Edit - Just doing some googling, it doesn't seem like we are at high risk of losing someone big.

Edited by Monteeun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, The Lock said:

I mean more when it came to the decision making process. There was supposedly some agreement there since Benning had just come over from Boston. I don't know how true all of this is though, which is why I merely called it a "notion". It could have easily been just a rumour started by someone, but just because he was on the floor at that time and stating they wanted McCann, doesn't really disprove it as being merely a rumour either.

 

He was part of the scouting meetings - see the draft meeting on Virtanen below with him giving his scouting opinion to the room.

 

11 hours ago, Fred65 said:

Jim Benning was certainly in a unique situation that first draft. He was primed by not just one scouting department but two. Not many GM's have that opportunity .... knowing what the opposition has going for it. He certainly seems "enthralled and knowledgable about Virtanen" which turned out to be completely wrong, but hey who's checking :lol: 

 

Canucks draft meeting: Jake Virtanen - All Access - YouTube

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like the Kraken are busy right now having discussions with teams about who to pick.

 

There are some rumblings that Holtby might be a nice pickup not only by Seattle but other teams too. 

 

I would be all for a Holtby trade/cap dump for a pick provided we don't retain cap and then Seattle can take one of our many useless bottom 6 forwards but think that'd be unlikely; any trade with Holtby is probably going to end up with us retaining 1-2M in which case I hope JB sets up an agreenent for Seattle to pick him.

 

We'll still need a backup though who can be cheap and play 30 games next season...maybe Holtby is better suited to stay? 9M in goalie cap isn't completely rediculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You take Lind from this hot mess, and move on.  Leaving Vancouver with their salary cap mess.  All I can say, is at least after next season the likes of:  Beagle, Roussel, Baertschi, Eriksson and Holtby are off the books.  With salary off the books this year of: Sutter.   If there are deals to be had for Schmidt and Myers, have at it.  Virtanen, can move on.   Take things realistically, and move on from long time Canuck Edler, and go in a completely different direction.  

Edited by TheCerebral1
  • RoughGame 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

Still shaping up as not much of a loss. Hopefully Dickinson will exceed whatever asset we gift...

Dickinson handling the tough defensive C assignment frees up Horvat to handle more offensive minutes.  We gain far more than what that 3rd round pick will likely turn out.

  • Hydration 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

Dickinson handling the tough defensive C assignment frees up Horvat to handle more offensive minutes.  We gain far more than what that 3rd round pick will likely turn out.

Yeah, agreed. S'pose we'll have to tally whomever(the Krack-heads) pluck, + that 3rd..but prob nothing to get in a tizzy over.

 

As we stumbled thru the 2014-present phase, seems the best(GM-era, that is) to waltz through 2 generous expansion-heists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...