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

(Rumour) Virtanen on the trade block


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, ba;;isticsports said:

Maybe Aquaman has told JB,I have enough players on the bench ,in the minors, or not even playing at all and I am not buying anyone out after i outbid everyone you told me would help this team and if you cannot Manage this without costing me more, It will be you i will buying out. Successful Business men like Aqua do not like to see investments and returns fail

True as that may be, you're probably aware that Francesco Aquilini and his family have seen their equity in the Canucks Sports and Entertainment grow from about $150 million to $800 million (pre-pandemic).  So, I'm going to say that he isn't watching his investment/returns fail with a $5M-$7M buyout.

 

Aquilini has spent to the cap limit over the past 10 years when the Canucks have essentially stunk the joint out (except for 2011), and now as the team is positioning itself to turn the corner, I'm going to guess that he's going to try to leverage the cap to help facilitate the turnaround anyway he can.  At the very least, Francesco has demonstrated that he's been willing to let Gillis and Benning spend like drunken sailors in the past (albeit it was pre-pandemic).

 

Look at Tesla...accumulated losses of about $5 billion since 2014 and it's valued at $594 billion market cap.  Do you think Musk really cares that Tesla is losing money on each car he sells (which BTW Tesla would have if they didn't receive $1.6 billion is government kick backs in 2020)? I'm going to bet that Francesco thinks sort of the same way.

  • Like 1
  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think best case scenario for a return in a trade for Virtanen would be a deal with someone like the Bruins and we get back someone like Debrusk( who is falling out of favour with them it seems) and maybe a mid round pick or prospect in exchange for Virtanen and local kid Gaudette. Don't want to move Gaudette as he is a cheap contract but Virtanen alone won't be enough to get Debrusk, Maybe if they had interest in Pearson we could retain half his salary and make him part of the deal?

 

If the only return is a 3rd round pick or later or someone like Heinen, I would pass and hold onto him and either see what he does if we get a new coach for next year or leave him exposed and see if Seattle takes him...but that would mean we lose him for zero return just save his 2.55m cap hit.

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Canuckster86 said:

I think best case scenario for a return in a trade for Virtanen would be a deal with someone like the Bruins and we get back someone like Debrusk( who is falling out of favour with them it seems) and maybe a mid round pick or prospect in exchange for Virtanen and local kid Gaudette. Don't want to move Gaudette as he is a cheap contract but Virtanen alone won't be enough to get Debrusk, Maybe if they had interest in Pearson we could retain half his salary and make him part of the deal?

 

If the only return is a 3rd round pick or later or someone like Heinen, I would pass and hold onto him and either see what he does if we get a new coach for next year or leave him exposed and see if Seattle takes him...but that would mean we lose him for zero return just save his 2.55m cap hit.

I’d rather lose Jake to Seattle as opposed to someone who doesn’t suck..... 

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, bigbadcanucks said:

True as that may be, you're probably aware that Francesco Aquilini and his family have seen their equity in the Canucks Sports and Entertainment grow from about $150 million to $800 million (pre-pandemic).  So, I'm going to say that he isn't watching his investment/returns fail with a $5M-$7M buyout.

 

Aquilini has spent to the cap limit over the past 10 years when the Canucks have essentially stunk the joint out (except for 2011), and now as the team is positioning itself to turn the corner, I'm going to guess that he's going to try to leverage the cap to help facilitate the turnaround anyway he can.  At the very least, Francesco has demonstrated that he's been willing to let Gillis and Benning spend like drunken sailors in the past (albeit it was pre-pandemic).

 

Look at Tesla...accumulated losses of about $5 billion since 2014 and it's valued at $594 billion market cap.  Do you think Musk really cares that Tesla is losing money on each car he sells (which BTW Tesla would have if they didn't receive $1.6 billion is government kick backs in 2020)? I'm going to bet that Francesco thinks sort of the same way.

True, But Prepandemic franchise growth value was not attributed to JB

It was the Aqualini's investment in the Canucks that grew, like property has

It was a league growth as well

I am sure he will evaluate what JB returns have been, much like what he would evaluate any one of his consultants to invest in a certain stock that failed in . I don't think he will be getting a free pass always and will say something like

Look you created the problem, i put you in charge to manage , now do your job and quit expecting me to bail you out each time at my cost, when i provide the money to get you the players you say you need

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, ba;;isticsports said:

True, But Prepandemic franchise growth value was not attributed to JB

It was the Aqualini's investment in the Canucks that grew, like property has

It was a league growth as well

I am sure he will evaluate what JB returns have been, much like what he would evaluate any one of his consultants to invest in a certain stock that failed in . I don't think he will be getting a free pass always and will say something like

Look you created the problem, i put you in charge to manage , now do your job and quit expecting me to bail you out each time at my cost, when i provide the money to get you the players you say you need

I agree with what you're saying...everyone is accountable. JB shouldn't be given a free pass for the blunders he's made.  But at the same time, you can't deny the man his due for the good things he's done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

Depends on what Hamonic and Edler wants. 

Hamonic is a RHD. 

Something Edler is not. 

Hamonic struggled out of the gate, but has been better lately. 

Hamonic is also 4 years younger. 

 

 

Curious to see if Eddie has a change of heart this deadline and if they Canucks are gonna be interested in even retaining him. We got some lefty’s knocking on the door

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

Depends on what Hamonic and Edler wants. 

Hamonic is a RHD. 

Something Edler is not. 

Hamonic struggled out of the gate, but has been better lately. 

Hamonic is also 4 years younger. 

 

 

Tough call for hamonic, because he will def want more than his 1.5million or whatever he got this year

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, teepain said:

Tough call for hamonic, because he will def want more than his 1.5million or whatever he got this year

He loses quite a bit of bargaining power though because there are very few places he is willing to play.

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, DeNiro said:

Can’t ignore a players smarts though.

 

Even power forwards need to know how to beat players one on one and see opportunities developing.


Jake seemed to think he could beat guys one on one simply by blowing by them. NHL defensemen are too good of skaters for that to happen though.

Why not just make Jake drink a lot and see if it improves his game.....go old school ya!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, bigbadcanucks said:

True as that may be, you're probably aware that Francesco Aquilini and his family have seen their equity in the Canucks Sports and Entertainment grow from about $150 million to $800 million (pre-pandemic).  So, I'm going to say that he isn't watching his investment/returns fail with a $5M-$7M buyout.

 

Aquilini has spent to the cap limit over the past 10 years when the Canucks have essentially stunk the joint out (except for 2011), and now as the team is positioning itself to turn the corner, I'm going to guess that he's going to try to leverage the cap to help facilitate the turnaround anyway he can.  At the very least, Francesco has demonstrated that he's been willing to let Gillis and Benning spend like drunken sailors in the past (albeit it was pre-pandemic).

 

Look at Tesla...accumulated losses of about $5 billion since 2014 and it's valued at $594 billion market cap.  Do you think Musk really cares that Tesla is losing money on each car he sells (which BTW Tesla would have if they didn't receive $1.6 billion is government kick backs in 2020)? I'm going to bet that Francesco thinks sort of the same way.

 

Asset rich vs cash rich.  Owners are hurting for cash and unless they sell their assets they are tight to pay salaries and other operational costs.  Vancouver has laid off employees and asked staff to take a paycut.

 

Media has been speculating that it’s the reason DiPietro is on the taxi squad and not a backup goalie who would require a higher salary than the 70K he earns.  Benning was also apparently not given the green light to buy out players per Satiar Shah.  He was looking to bring back Toffoli but needed to create cap space.

 

Ahead of the off-season, when asked if the Canucks would be allowed to spend to the cap Benning answered it was something they would discuss with ownership.  They are a cap team but are 21st in actual salaries paid this season per a study done by Johnston for the Province with the help of CapFriendly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, bigbadcanucks said:

Other moves that would make me very happy: see Loui retire (or failing that, buy him out - $4M cap hit in 21-22 and $1M cap hit in 22-23); see Roussel retire (or failing that, buy him out - $1.74M cap hit in 21-22 and $634K cap hit in 22-23).  That would give the Canucks a little more flexibility than burying these two in the minors for 21-22.  Pain that would have to be accepted would be the $1.634M in dead cap in 2022-2023.  But I think that's worth it to gain $3.3M in additional cap space for 2021-2022.

If you simply bury both players....

 

Erriksson = 4.875 mil cap (instead of 5 total)

Rousell = 1.875 mil cap (instead of 2.38 total)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My prediction is that Jake will be gone by this trade deadline. 

 

Further predictions - I think Aquilini will clean house this off-season: Benning is gone, and Green won't be back - not because ownership doesn't want him back - but I don't that he will want to be back with the way he was treated this season as a lame-duck head coach. This organization needs better structure...Benning and Weisbrod are not the answers at the top of the management chain. Sorry. They've had 7 years to rebuild this franchise, and while not all is bad under their leadership, they sure aren't as far along as they should be given the amount of time they've had to right the ship. I don't know any other profession where you are given 7 years with a clear goal, and not being able to meet those goals consistently and still have a job after all of that. 

 

  • Cheers 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, teepain said:

Tough call for hamonic, because he will def want more than his 1.5million or whatever he got this year

He was paid 1.25 million this season.

 

Many fans who are trying to estimate new contracts, I don't think are taking into account that the flat cap at 81.5 million, probably won't change for at least another 2, possibly 3 seasons. Teams are going to be REALLY cautious on how much they commit to salary.

 

I think if Hamonic was offered 1.5 - 2 million range by the Canucks for another 2 seasons, he'd probably take it. That's the range he's going to see around the NHL. There will be a number of teams that impose internal caps, due to how much money they have lost this season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, N4ZZY said:

My prediction is that Jake will be gone by this trade deadline. 

 

Further predictions - I think Aquilini will clean house this off-season: Benning is gone, and Green won't be back - not because ownership doesn't want him back - but I don't that he will want to be back with the way he was treated this season as a lame-duck head coach. This organization needs better structure...Benning and Weisbrod are not the answers at the top of the management chain. Sorry. They've had 7 years to rebuild this franchise, and while not all is bad under their leadership, they sure aren't as far along as they should be given the amount of time they've had to right the ship. I don't know any other profession where you are given 7 years with a clear goal, and not being able to meet those goals consistently and still have a job after all of that. 

 

I’m gonna go as far to say JB will be the GM at minimum another 2 years while he’s still on contact. I’m 99 % certain 

  • Burr 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Westcoastcanucks777 said:

Why not just make Jake drink a lot and see if it improves his game.....go old school ya!

Give him a couple packs of cigarettes too. Worked for Guy LaFleur...seems like management has tried almost everything else...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, VegasCanuck said:

He was paid 1.25 million this season.

 

Many fans who are trying to estimate new contracts, I don't think are taking into account that the flat cap at 81.5 million, probably won't change for at least another 2, possibly 3 seasons. Teams are going to be REALLY cautious on how much they commit to salary.

 

I think if Hamonic was offered 1.5 - 2 million range by the Canucks for another 2 seasons, he'd probably take it. That's the range he's going to see around the NHL. There will be a number of teams that impose internal caps, due to how much money they have lost this season.

I honestly think even the 3 year timeframe is unlikely to see the cap rise.

 

It was already artificially high with the escalator clauses the NHLPA chose to put in each year to make sure there was money to go around for UFAs

 

When they negotiated the cap on escrow for the next few years, they also changed the way the cap was calculated.

Instead of just looking at the previous year’s revenue, they are going to average the previous two years.  Assuming there will still be revenue impacts next season... which is a safe bet...  that makes three seasons from now before those low revenue years are off the calculation for the cap.

 

Add in the escrow limits all the way through 2024-25... it means they players will likely continue to owe $1-2 billion in overpayments to the owners that most of won’t get paid back even with a new US TV deal.  100% of that remaining money will be owed from players in the 2025-26 season when the artificial escrow cap is done.  
That should all work to keeping the cap pretty steady (maybe a nominal increase for optics) until after 2025-26.

 

Hopefully the new US TV deals are just massive and that money can be paid back faster.  I wouldn’t bet on magic cap space from the ceiling increasing anytime soon though.

 

Of course, GMs will still spend more money than they should because they don’t care about 3-5 years from now.

Edited by Provost
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, VegasCanuck said:

He was paid 1.25 million this season.

 

Many fans who are trying to estimate new contracts, I don't think are taking into account that the flat cap at 81.5 million, probably won't change for at least another 2, possibly 3 seasons. Teams are going to be REALLY cautious on how much they commit to salary.

 

I think if Hamonic was offered 1.5 - 2 million range by the Canucks for another 2 seasons, he'd probably take it. That's the range he's going to see around the NHL. There will be a number of teams that impose internal caps, due to how much money they have lost this season.

They are talking of flat cap for the length of the CBA.

 

Before the season resumed the NHL tried to re-negotiate escrow.  That’s in part why the season started later.  Players categorically refused so the NHL/owners gave in.  In projecting their numbers they knew there would be new TV deals and that they would be looking to split the rights to increase revenue.  Wanting more escrow suggests that their initial projections during CBA negotiations were too optimistic.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Provost said:

I honestly think even the 3 year timeframe is unlikely to see the cap rise.

 

It was already artificially high with the escalator clauses the NHLPA chose to put in each year to make sure there was money to go around for UFAs

 

When they negotiated the cap on escrow for the next few years, they also changed the way the cap was calculated.

Instead of just looking at the previous year’s revenue, they are going to average the previous two years.  Assuming there will still be revenue impacts next season... which is a safe bet...  that makes three seasons from now before those low revenue years are off the calculation for the cap.

 

Add in the escrow limits all the way through 2024-25... it means they players will likely continue to owe $1-2 billion in overpayments to the owners that most of won’t get paid back even with a new US TV deal.  100% of that remaining money will be owed from players in the 2025-26 season when the artificial escrow cap is done.  
That should all work to keeping the cap pretty steady (maybe a nominal increase for optics) until after 2025-26.

 

Hopefully the new US TV deals are just massive and that money can be paid back faster.  I wouldn’t bet on magic cap space from the ceiling increasing anytime soon though.

 

Of course, GMs will still spend more money than they should befuddle they don’t care about 3-5 years from now.

I completely agree with you. My personal estimation is that the cap will still be 81.5 million, 3 - 4 years from now, but I take a more optimistic angle as I don't want CDC members to go NUTS and start throwing themselves into traffic!

 

You're all welcome! ;)

 

 

 

Edited by VegasCanuck
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/29/2021 at 7:52 PM, JamesBlondage said:

Give him a couple packs of cigarettes too. Worked for Guy LaFleur...seems like management has tried almost everything else...

Guy LaFleur wasn’t a drinker as much as he was a coke head. Got busted too. Ruined his career.

 

Met him at an obscure Laval, QC arena long ago after his career was over and talked about it. I was surprised how candid he was on the subject...

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...