(Discussion) Marc Andre Fleury to the Canucks

[flickyoursedin]

Now first I’ll say I’m not big on this route but I just saw on HFBoards a post that says Marc Andre Fleury was offered with a 2nd league wide with no takers. If they attached a 1rst or top prospect like Krebs or Glass would you bite on an offer like that and trade Markstroms rights before Friday? I’m impartial to the Markstrom or Demko path because I feel like we’re in good shape either way.

[JM_]

50% retained plus a second, OK. 

[BCNate]

2 minutes ago, flickyoursedin said:

Now first I’ll say I’m not big on this route but I just saw on HFBoards a post that says Marc Andre Fleury was offered with a 2nd league wide with no takers. If they attached a 1rst or top prospect like Krebs or Glass would you bite on an offer like that and trade Markstroms rights before Friday? I’m impartial to the Markstrom or Demko path because I feel like we’re in good shape either way.

I wouldn't.  He makes 7 mil.  Let then buy him out and sign him for a team friendly deal if you really want him.  Vegas is in a tough spot with 12 mil tied to goalies now.

[theo5789]

I'd do 2 million retained + 2020 1st for Gadjovich. Or full contract + 1st for Roussel and Baertschi.

[mll]

6 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

I'd do 2 million retained + 2020 1st for Gadjovich. Or full contract + 1st for Roussel and Baertschi.

They are looking to clear cap space.  They are targeting Pietrangelo and need to find a way to clear the full cap hit without retention and taking anything back.

 

Edited October 5, 2020 by mll

[Provost]

Only at 50% retained... I think he would be a perfect fit, but there are plenty of other options even at that price.

[Dixon Ward]

I wouldn't take Fleury because we would have to protect him because of his NTC and then expose Demko.  Presuming, of course, that Markstrom would be long gone.  THis would be a disaster.  We would most likely lose both Markstrom and Demko and be left with 1 year of 37 year old Fleury.

[86Viking]

1 minute ago, Dixon Ward said:

I wouldn't take Fleury because we would have to protect him because of his NTC and then expose Demko.  Presuming, of course, that Markstrom would be long gone.  THis would be a disaster.  We would most likely lose both Markstrom and Demko and be left with 1 year of 37 year old Fleury.

Wrong, only NMC give protection to expansion drafts or player to be put on waivers. NTC just dictates the player give a list of team he might accept a trade to. 

 

Not saying this directly to you, but man people on a hockey forum sure need to know what a NMC means vs a NTC...it comes up a lot thinking we are screwed to LE till his contract expires etc

[timberz21]

So, we want to trade Erikson for a bag of pucks because his salary is financially friendly for poor teams, but if Vegas want to trade Fleury they need to add a top prospect or 1st?

[brownky]

2 minutes ago, Canuckster86 said:

Wrong, only NMC give protection to expansion drafts or player to be put on waivers. NTC just dictates the player give a list of team he might accept a trade to. 

 

Not saying this directly to you, but man people on a hockey forum sure need to know what a NMC means vs a NTC...it comes up a lot thinking we are screwed to LE till his contract expires etc

It took until like 2 years ago when EA finally changed their stupid game for "people" to understand that "two way contract" has absolutely nothing to do with waiver eligibility. You are putting far too much stock in ability to learn for "people". 

[flickyoursedin]

1 minute ago, timberz21 said:

So, we want to trade Erikson for a bag of pucks because his salary is financially friendly for poor teams, but if Vegas want to trade Fleury they need to add a top prospect or 1st?

Different circumstances. OEL gave a list of 2 teams and Arizona seems to want that contract gone. Loui would be going out because Arizona wants to shed the 8.25mill a year for OEL and it’s the only way to make it work cap wise and the dollars owed being much less than Eriksson’s cap hit actually helps a financially troubled organization. Vegas wants to shed Fleury with no cap coming back. If we are happy with Demko going forward and don’t like the term for Markstrom having MAF + a 1rst or Krebs is something I might think about. You might even get a 4th for dealing Markstroms rights.

[Nucker 67]

And then the Canucks will knock the Knights out of the playoffs next year  sweet justice 

[Chronic.Canuck]

49 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

I'd do 2 million retained + 2020 1st for Gadjovich. Or full contract + 1st for Roussel and Baertschi.

Roussel - (bag o'pucks) - Reaves would be the most hated line in the NHL by far lol.

[theo5789]

53 minutes ago, mll said:

They are looking to clear cap space.  They are targeting Pietrangelo and need to find a way to clear the full cap hit without retention and taking anything back.

 

That's their problem to sort out. The first scenario clears out 5 million from them, they can figure out the rest.

[Junkyard Dog]

If we walked from Marky I wouldn't mind mind. They'd have to take a contract back though. Vegas wants to clear cap so I doubt they want to take much if any cap back but they could live with taking 1-2M back.

 

Something like

 

Sutter/Benn(1/2 retained) and a 2020 5th

 

for Fleury

2020 3rd

Dugan/Korczak

[VegasCanuck]

1 hour ago, flickyoursedin said:

Now first I’ll say I’m not big on this route but I just saw on HFBoards a post that says Marc Andre Fleury was offered with a 2nd league wide with no takers. If they attached a 1rst or top prospect like Krebs or Glass would you bite on an offer like that and trade Markstroms rights before Friday? I’m impartial to the Markstrom or Demko path because I feel like we’re in good shape either way.

No! If he's bought out and we can sign him around 2 - 3 million, great!

 

His contract is structured where, they would save more buying him out, than they would trading him and retaining any more than about 2 - 2.5 million, which is more than we should be budgeting on a goalie if we wind up letting Markstrom walk.

 

[Junkyard Dog]

3 minutes ago, VegasCanuck said:

No! If he's bought out and we can sign him around 2 - 3 million, great!

 

His contract is structured where, they would save more buying him out, than they would trading him and retaining any more than about 2 - 2.5 million, which is more than we should be budgeting on a goalie if we wind up letting Markstrom walk.

 

There's probably a market out there for him and having 2-3M in buyout cap for 4 years isn't exactly ideal when you're aiming for Pietrangelo. Worst case you'd trade Fleury and the contract you're getting back only has preferably 1 year on it.

[khay]

1 hour ago, flickyoursedin said:

Now first I’ll say I’m not big on this route but I just saw on HFBoards a post that says Marc Andre Fleury was offered with a 2nd league wide with no takers. If they attached a 1rst or top prospect like Krebs or Glass would you bite on an offer like that and trade Markstroms rights before Friday? I’m impartial to the Markstrom or Demko path because I feel like we’re in good shape either way.

Would love to but w/o cap retention, it's nearly impossible for the Canucks to take on his contract.

[Dixon Ward]

2 hours ago, Canuckster86 said:

Wrong, only NMC give protection to expansion drafts or player to be put on waivers. NTC just dictates the player give a list of team he might accept a trade to. 

 

Not saying this directly to you, but man people on a hockey forum sure need to know what a NMC means vs a NTC...it comes up a lot thinking we are screwed to LE till his contract expires etc

Fair enough.  I misunderstood that.  I still don't want his contract though.

 

[timberz21]

21 hours ago, flickyoursedin said:

Different circumstances. OEL gave a list of 2 teams and Arizona seems to want that contract gone. Loui would be going out because Arizona wants to shed the 8.25mill a year for OEL and it’s the only way to make it work cap wise and the dollars owed being much less than Eriksson’s cap hit actually helps a financially troubled organization. Vegas wants to shed Fleury with no cap coming back. If we are happy with Demko going forward and don’t like the term for Markstrom having MAF + a 1rst or Krebs is something I might think about. You might even get a 4th for dealing Markstroms rights.

Who wouldn't.  Vegas is not going to do that when plenty of teams are looking for solid goaltending.  Edmonton, Calgary, Colorado, etc.  

 

Are they going to give everything Vegas wants?  Of course not, they will play hardball, especially when other option are on the market : Holtby, Markstrom, Crawford....but with LEhner off the market, options are starting to diminish for them, once Free agency starts and they don't like the Terms of $ from the UFA, teams will circle back to Vegas and get a deal done.

 

Vegas won't have to sell the farm to get rid of Fleury IMO, pipe dream if you ask me.