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

[Discussion] Tampa Bay and cap space. Stamkos not on untouchable list


mll

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Junkyard Dog said:

I can't imagine they take much, if any cap, when shedding.

 

Maybe if the player was a real bargain, like Pearson 1/2 retained.

That makes some sense for them as they would have to replace the player too.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said:

I can't imagine they take much, if any cap, when shedding.

 

Maybe if the player was a real bargain, like Pearson 1/2 retained.

They may have no choice. Only so many teams able to take cap without returning any. They're likely going to have to do some whittling.

 

That saves them almost $1.5m and replaces depth.

Edited by aGENT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, mll said:

 

This is clickbait.   Stamkos is going to retire in Tampa Bay.   He’s on a sweetheart deal despite his injury woes since the last Olympics with NHLers, but is still an amazing elite top performing likely future HHOFer.    Recent news says he will be 100% before next season starts and again he will be one of TB top performers.    A full NMC in TB was earned all the way.  He’s their captain, and still one of the best C’s in the game just starting the back nine of his career.  TB is for sure the new CHI Blackhawks with one distinct advantage - they get to run with more cap then all but two other teams.   Imagine what JB could do with 94 million in space.   There is a reason why Dallas, Vegas and TB rosters look a lot nicer then any other team in the league. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, IBatch said:

That makes some sense for them as they would have to replace the player too.   

 

1 minute ago, aGENT said:

They may have no choice. Only so many teams able to take cap without returning any. They're likely going to have to do some whittling.

 

That saves them almost $1.5m and replaces depth.

They're gonna need a lot more than 1.5M. Foote's also a good prospect, one of their best ones, who they could use to dump the cap almost completely if they add a bit more. Killorn has a 16 team list and shouldn't be as hard to trade as TJ.

 

Pearson at 1/2 retained would save them almost 3M and is a similar value player as Killorn. Would give Canucks a player at a fair cap hit for the top 6 for 3 years and a good prospect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, rekker said:

No one is taking on the Stamkos contract. His injury history, not a chance.

Last three season...he’s had one year where he broke his leg, the rest he’s played most games.   57 this year, 82 the year before 78 the year before that.   He’s a goal scoring C ... at 8.5 .... yes in the back nine but he’s only 30...should have 4-5 good-great years left.  Only OVI has scored more then since he entered the league too.   410 and counting ...

Edited by IBatch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Junkyard Dog said:

 

They're gonna need a lot more than 1.5M. Foote's also a good prospect, one of their best ones, who they could use to dump the cap almost completely if they add a bit more. Killorn has a 16 team list and shouldn't be as hard to trade as TJ.

 

Pearson at 1/2 retained would save them almost 3M and is a similar value player as Killorn. Would give Canucks a player at a fair cap hit for the top 6 for 3 years and a good prospect.

Who said they didn't? They're going to have to make numerous moves like this, not one. And likely one big 'one way' cap move.

 

We can't afford to retain on Pearson and take Killorn back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Who said they didn't? They're going to have to make numerous moves like this, not one. And likely one big 'one way' cap move.

 

We can't afford to retain on Pearson and take Killorn back.

I don’t want Killorn -  but in this deal you need the other part - which is what they give us to retain on Pearson and make the deal - if it’s Foote should we do it?

Edited by IBatch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, aGENT said:

Who said they didn't? They're going to have to make numerous moves like this, not one. And likely one big 'one way' cap move.

 

We can't afford to retain on Pearson and take Killorn back.

They're pretty limited in what they can do. Killorn and Johnson by the sounds of it. Their roster in NTC/NMC galore. Roussel doesn't help them as much at 2 years at 3M as Pearson would at 1 year at 1.875. 

 

1.45M in cap gains isn't gonna cut it from a 4.45M contract in Killorn with the player you're getting back a serious downgrade.

 

Eh we could if it meant Foote and possibly an early pick. It is only 1 year you're biting on that. 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IBatch said:

I don’t want Killorn -  but in this deal you need the other part - which is what they give us to retain on Pearson and make the deal - if it’s Foote should we do it?

Pearson wasn't my idea. And I already had Foote.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, peaches5 said:

He literally has a NMC he isn't going anywhere. Sign Cernak to an offer sheet and force their hand. They are going to have a hard time dumping players unless giving up picks.

We don't have a second round pick to give to Tampa in order to offer sheet anyone...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DeNiro said:

Imagine you were a team with tons of cap space and an owner wanting to spend to the cap?

 

You could probably clean up this offseason trading with desperate teams and with all the solid free agents.

Detroit ... and OTT. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...