Sign in to follow this  
EP40.

[Rumour] Canucks have not offered C.Tanev a contract extension

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, aGENT said:

Looks an awful lot like what I'd like to see.

 

Barring a Cernak, Foote et al trade not happening... I'd happily see us target Stralman for Erriksson + swap as a solid stop gap to play with Edler in that lineup. Despite their ages, they could eat a lot of tough 5v5 minutes. Or conversely swap Stralman and Myers as well.

 

Hopefully we can move on from Benn and re-sign a slightly cheaper Fanta too. He'd be an excellent tag team with Juolevi, then let Rafferty do fill in duty on the right.

I wouldn't be opposed to adding reasonably to LE to swap out for Stralman.

The problem as I see it, however is that I wonder why Florida would entertain that?  They dumped Matheson already.

Stralman imo is not 'unmoveable' - might have relatively 'neutral' value in this market context, but to a competing team like Florida ( they had 78 pts this year, like this team, and 4 pts less than the SCFinalist Stars....) Stralman provides on ice performance that imo exceeds LE's value by a fair margin.  Just my opinion, but I doubt they're looking to move a contract as intently as they were, and I have to wonder if Stralman were someone they'd want to downgrade on in exchange for young forwards or futures as compensation...  That might come down to finances that I have no idea about (their ownership's will to spend or not) - but I'd be surprised - and I do wonder why people are still entertaining the Ekblad pipe-dream - I don't think the intent to move a big contract every reasonably translated into Ekblad - and even moreso now that they've moved Matheson.  They're 'competitive' - they're not rethinging - 'retool' perhaps - but to me it's akin to someone hearing the Canucks are looking to move a big forward contract, and instead of the obvious (LE) - we wind up talking about Horvat...(and then after LE were moved...?) 

Edited by oldnews

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Herberts Vasiljevs said:

Scoring - especially because Hoffman and Dadonov are going to free agency. Ekblad is one of the very few guys I'd actually trade Boeser for, but even so, I don't see how Florida could possibly justify trading Ekblad.

depends, maybe he's under valued there like Edler has been here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Robert Long said:

depends, maybe he's under valued there like Edler has been here. 

Elder has only been undervalued by the fan base. The organization has seemed fit to resign him.

  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DeNiro said:

I wouldn’t be so sure about that.

 

Benning had interest in Barrie before going to Toronto. And I think the interest is mutual.

 

If you can get a 50-60 point d man for the same cost as Myers on a shorter deal it’s a no brainer.

 

People go on and on about how bad he is in his own end but seems to me we were plenty bad with the D men we had. At least Barrie can move the puck, which is something this team was very poor at.
 

Also the same criticisms were made about Myers before he came here, yet he became the key to us winning in the playoffs in fans minds all of a sudden.

 

There are worse upgrades we could make than Barrie. Especially if he really wants to come home and prove that his time in Toronto was just an anomaly.

$6 million for Barrie - short term or not - is a not a no-brainer.

 

'It seems we were plenty bad with the D we had" = a horrible argument to sell this player, based on some mangled logic.

 

Myers is also a horrible comparable for Barrie - nowhere near similar kinds of players - regardless of what you read some CDCers post about Myers - the relevency of those opinions are not the kinds of things you make team-building decisions based upon.  If Barrie is a good defensive D, you're welcome to evidence it - using phantom opinions re: Myers is pointless.

 

3 hours ago, DeNiro said:

We need a two way defenseman not a defensive defenseman.

 

That was painfully obvious in the playoffs.

 

Sitting back and blocking shots is not a recipe for success. Moving the puck is. It’s why Dallas is having so much success.

 

If we’re targeting a D man it needs to be one that can contribute a both ends of the ice. Guys like Krug, Pietrangelo, and Hamonic to a lesser extent are guys we need to target.

I find it ironic that you attempt to sell this logic in the context of arguing that they should move on from Tanev.

 

First - Tanev is an excellent puck mover - particularly in his own zone - his first pass is excellent - and he's highly intelligent with his puck movement wadr.

 

Second - what was obvious in the playoffs - was Quinn Hughes scoring 16 points in 17 games - of playoff hockey.     Tanev's inadequacy was allegedly evident - er 'we need a two way, not a defensive D....

Hughes success can't be separated from Tanev, who played a huge role, and throughout the regular season as well.

 

What was obvious in the playoffs - was that the team was not going to advance with Horvat's line producing nothing, Miller forced to the wing due to injury, and likewise, Gaudette centering a line - in over his head in the playoffs - a line they couldn't effectively shelter with both Sutter and Miller on the wing - Toffoli limping and a liability, Pearson drying up to no production....none of their top 3 lines were near the effectiveness they were capable of when healthy and performing as they did vs St Louis.  Wadr I think your take on Tanev is off - your take on why they were in harm-reduction mode in the playoffs is off and your proposal to spend 6 million on Barrie - is off.

 

And then on the other....Ekblad! as well! as a partner for Hughes (that's 13.5 million of cap, btw) - with Gaudette, Virtanen as proposed pipe dream principals...

 

 

 

Edited by oldnews
  • Like 1
  • Hydration 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure Benning does much with free agency, other than try to sign the guys they already have. But I do think he'll make a trade (at least one) for a right-shot D-man with size.

 

Possibly?

- Pesce (CAR)

- Severson (NJ)

- Carlo (BOS)

- Mayfield (NYI)

- Manson (ANA)

 

 

Edited by NUCKER67

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DeNiro said:

A D that has two rookies in it is not likely one that makes the playoffs.

 

Hughes won't be a rookie next year, any more than EP was this year.  

By that logic, the team had two rookie centers this year, and a rookie D when they made it to the final 8 - and btw they also had two rookie D in the lineup when they closed out Minnesota.

I think most people that feel Juolevi might be ready next year, nevertheless plan to have a Fantenburg around as one of the 3/4 LHD.

Are you also proposing to pre-empt Juolevi from making the team next year - (or be dealt) - because the blueline would be too young?  He and Hughes are both LHD - so regardless of what you're proposing on the right side - Barrie and Ekblad - the possibility remains that Juolevi earns a spot and the team is young on the left in any event.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by oldnews
  • Hydration 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Robert Long said:

depends, maybe he's under valued there like Edler has been here. 

Edler was under-valued by the fanbase - something I doubt was shared by the management and coaching staffs.

Ekblad -  seen by Florida's management the way this fanbase perceived Edler?   Don't place that bet.

  • Hydration 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, oldnews said:

I wouldn't be opposed to adding reasonably to LE to swap out for Stralman.

The problem as I see it, however is that I wonder why Florida would entertain that?  They dumped Matheson already.

Stralman imo is not 'unmoveable' - might have relatively 'neutral' value in this market context, but to a competing team like Florida ( they had 78 pts this year, like this team, and 4 pts less than the SCFinalist Stars....) Stralman provides on ice performance that imo exceeds LE's value by a fair margin.  Just my opinion, but I doubt they're looking to move a contract as intently as they were, and I have to wonder if Stralman were someone they'd want to downgrade on in exchange for young forwards or futures as compensation...  That might come down to finances that I have no idea about (their ownership's will to spend or not) - but I'd be surprised - and I do wonder why people are still entertaining the Ekblad pipe-dream - I don't think the intent to move a big contract every reasonably translated into Ekblad - and even moreso now that they've moved Matheson.  They're 'competitive' - they're not rethinging - 'retool' perhaps - but to me it's akin to someone hearing the Canucks are looking to move a big forward contract, and instead of the obvious (LE) - we wind up talking about Horvat...(and then after LE were moved...?) 

Saves them $5m actual cash over 2 years ($3.5m this season). I'd send them Stecher's rights. They save cash and get a younger D.

 

Agree on Ekblad.

Edited by aGENT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, oldnews said:

Hughes won't be a rookie next year, any more than EP was this year.  

By that logic, the team had two rookie centers this year, and a rookie D when they made it to the final 8 - and btw they also had two rookie D in the lineup when they closed out Minnesota.

I think most people that feel Juolevi might be ready next year, nevertheless plan to have a Fantenburg around as one of the 3/4 LHD.

Are you also proposing to pre-empt Juolevi from making the team next year - (or be dealt) - because the blueline would be too young?  He and Hughes are both LHD - so regardless of what you're proposing on the right side - Barrie and Ekblad - the possibility remains that Juolevi earns a spot and the team is young on the left in any event.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who were the rookie centers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are the chances the Canucks get caught waiting and sign no one and all the big boys walk?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/26/2020 at 11:27 AM, Alienhuggyflow said:

Nucks have 15 million including bonuses. Burying LE and Baer opens 3 million, possible Ferland LTIR, trade Rousell or buy him out opens 2-3 mill, Stech replaced by Rafferty opens up 1.5 mill. Trade Benn replace with Joulevi, another mill. That's an extra 12-13 mill without making a major trade. There are numerous other things like LE walking away, moving Sutter, moving on from Marky etc. But go ahead and believe we have 5 million for those 3 while also having 5 million in bonus overages.  

Some corrections and clarifications to your comments:

1. Nucks have $14.3m in cap space

2. This includes the $1.7m in performance bonus overages from last season (which must be paid in 2020/21) but does not include the estimated $4.55m of performance bonuses during the 2020/21 season. If we choose not to accrue the $4.55m this year, by maintaining our roster $4.55m below the cap limit, then we MUST pay it next year. This would create a $4.55m cap hit next season, right when we are squeezed by Pettersson and Hughes' new contracts.

3. Burying LE and Baer saves $1.075m each (total $2.15m) but that saving will be eaten up by the cap hit of whoever replaces them on the roster. Even an ELC player costs in the vicinity of $0.9m, so you might save about $400k total by waiving both LE and Baer.

4. Putting Ferland on LTIR will not help in regards to the $4.55m in bonuses. We need to keep him on IR (not LTIR) and be $4.55m under the cap in order to pay for those bonuses during this season.

5. Stecher is NOT under contract for next season, so he can't be "replaced" by Rafferty. If we call Rafferty up to the NHL then that takes up a further $700k of cap space. There are no "savings" with this move.

6. Same goes for Marky. He is not under contract, so moving on from him does not save us anything. Instead we will have to pay $2.5-3.5m for a decent backup goalie.

7. Replacing Benn with Juolevi saves about $1.1m in cap space, but remember Juolevi has a performance bonus of $0.85m so we may have to accoutn for that too as our $4.55m bonus total goes up to $5.4m. It's only a potential saving of $0.25m.  

8. Loui is very unlikely to walk away IMO. I would love that to happen, but it is wishful thinking and we are talking about the real world.

 

Caveat: Note not all players hit their performance bonuses every year, but we have some seriously good ELC players and they are likely to hit theirs IMO

 

Edited by BigTramFan
  • Hydration 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Squamfan said:

are the rumours true that Barrie wants to be a canuck

Are the rumours true that Barrie would not be a fit for the Canucks? My opinion of course.

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Chris12345 said:

What are the chances the Canucks get caught waiting and sign no one and all the big boys walk?

Slim

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if he’s not in the plan why not try to trade his rights.( and maybe Jim has tried) 

even if all you get is a condition pick on him signing it’s something. 
seem like some other teams (Boston) are going to start moving ufa rights.

same for marky Detroit really wants him maybe we could get something back conditionally. 
somethings better than nothing 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/27/2020 at 7:43 PM, Chris12345 said:

What are the chances the Canucks get caught waiting and sign no one and all the big boys walk?

Story of the Canucks life lol

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/27/2020 at 5:47 PM, Squamfan said:

are the rumours true that Barrie wants to be a canuck

I think Barrie has long been on JB's radar like Toffoli was before him.  Of all the UFAs I see him as the most likely Canucks acquisition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/27/2020 at 10:07 PM, BigTramFan said:

Some corrections and clarifications to your comments:

1. Nucks have $14.3m in cap space

2. This includes the $1.7m in performance bonus overages from last season (which must be paid in 2020/21) but does not include the estimated $4.55m of performance bonuses during the 2020/21 season. If we choose not to accrue the $4.55m this year, by maintaining our roster $4.55m below the cap limit, then we MUST pay it next year. This would create a $4.55m cap hit next season, right when we are squeezed by Pettersson and Hughes' new contracts.

3. Burying LE and Baer saves $1.075m each (total $2.15m) but that saving will be eaten up by the cap hit of whoever replaces them on the roster. Even an ELC player costs in the vicinity of $0.9m, so you might save about $400k total by waiving both LE and Baer.

4. Putting Ferland on LTIR will not help in regards to the $4.55m in bonuses. We need to keep him on IR (not LTIR) and be $4.55m under the cap in order to pay for those bonuses during this season.

5. Stecher is NOT under contract for next season, so he can't be "replaced" by Rafferty. If we call Rafferty up to the NHL then that takes up a further $700k of cap space. There are no "savings" with this move.

6. Same goes for Marky. He is not under contract, so moving on from him does not save us anything. Instead we will have to pay $2.5-3.5m for a decent backup goalie.

7. Replacing Benn with Juolevi saves about $1.1m in cap space, but remember Juolevi has a performance bonus of $0.85m so we may have to accoutn for that too as our $4.55m bonus total goes up to $5.4m. It's only a potential saving of $0.25m.  

8. Loui is very unlikely to walk away IMO. I would love that to happen, but it is wishful thinking and we are talking about the real world.

 

Caveat: Note not all players hit their performance bonuses every year, but we have some seriously good ELC players and they are likely to hit theirs IMO

 

Yep, I think the two of us have been trying to beat this into folks who are in the “we don’t really have a cap problem” camp.  We currently can afford just one of our big UFAs... not two or three.  We also lose a ton of depth as we can’t re-sign efficient players like Stecher.

 

The buyout options basically don’t help us at all since, as you say, we then have to replace those bodies.  Most of the buyouts don’t save us any more than what it would cost to replace them PLUS we incur a cap penalty in years where we are still going to be in a cap crunch.

Retained salary transactions are similar although a little more helpful cap-wise (especially Eriksson).

 

If we end up just not being willing to pay the price to make moves, it is likely we take a step backwards for a couple of years at least and not be able to re-sign guys.

 

About $10 million to spend for 5-6 remaining roster spots.  Assume $5 million for one of Markstrom, Toffoli, or Tanev.  That leaves $5 million for 4-5 players.  Let Stecher walk,

move Virtanen because we can’t afford them either?  Sign Motte and Leivo for $1.2-1.5 each and that leaves you $2-2.5 million to get replacements for the two of Markstrom/Toffoli/Tanev who aren’t back?

 

Miller-Petterson-Boeser

Pearson-Horvat-Leivo

Roussel-Gaudette-Sutter

Motte-Beagle-MacEwan 

Eriksson

 

Hughes-Myers
Edler- Tanev (or similar money to a UFA)

Juolevi-Rafferty

Benn

 

Demko

Back up for under $2 million

 

That is a cap team, and is worse on paper than the team we had this past year.


 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Provost said:

"we don’t really have a cap problem” camp.  

I think it's fair to say most of "those people" think more along the lines of "we don't have a major cap problem".

 

Benning needs to make a few moves to shed some redundant (or in the case of Eriksson, bad) cap.

 

Everyone gets it

 

It seems as though some people are making a mountain out of that particular molehill however...

Edited by aGENT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This smoke around OEL is interesting. Love Tanev but I'm guessing he wants 6 million at least, plus some term. OEL at 8.5 is a better option. He's a left shot but I wonder if he plays the right side. Hughes and OEL would make a great pairing if OEL can play RS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.