Tyler Myers and the Expansion Draft

[Patel Bure]

23 minutes ago, EddieVedder said:

Wheres Hamonic?  Hes rusty not having played in a year, but an in-game shape Hamonic is exactly what this teams needs.   Would love to see us get Tryamkin back and work Woo into the lineup next year. 

 

 

I’d forgotten about him to be honest.

Edited February 9, 2021 by DarkIndianRises

[The Lock]

First of all, it's always been a good idea to get rid of Eriksson's contract. If it was a good idea for other teams to take Eriksson's contract, we probably would have known by now. Also note that there's a difference between it being a good idea for a team to take on Eriksson's contract and a team to take on cap. Just because a team wants to take on cap, it doesn't mean they're going to jump on Eriksson. So yes, it would be nice to get rid of Eriksson. However, the OP saying it's "realistic".... it's not realistic since no one wants him. Otherwise, it would have already happened. I know some people think this job of GM is as easy as a Little Ceaser's signboard, but it's not. lol

 

As far as Myers goes. I say if we can expose Myers then we should do it. Either Seattle isn't going to want to take on his cap or they will and we are free of 6mil and don't lose another player. Simple.

Edited February 9, 2021 by The Lock

[kanucks25]

54 minutes ago, GhostsOf1994 said:

Yes, a top UFA who signed with the canucks to be closer to his family in Kelowna will willingly waive his M-NTC to goto an expansion team.

His NTC has no power at the expansion draft. I doubt there were many (if any) teams offering him an NMC in the expansion draft year when he was weighing his UFA offers. He and his agent likely saw this coming.

 

28 minutes ago, higgyfan said:

Not really.  He has a 10 team no trade contract that may or may not have Seattle on it.

Irrelevant, in this case.

Edited February 10, 2021 by kanucks25

[Junkyard Dog]

1 hour ago, BigTramFan said:

Agree that $6m is expensive for a fringe 2nd pairing Dman and we could use that $ elsewhere. But I can't see Seattle selecting Myers assuming he is exposed. Holtby seems the more obvious target. I think it would take a big carrot to incentivize Seattle to take Myers contract.

Maybe. 
 

If teams aren’t as willing to make side deals and we are one of the only teams that do maybe they jump on it. 
 

We’d maybe could get away with early round picks(2nds/3rds), prospects and players on the cusp(Hawryluk/Gaud/Mac/etc). 
 

3 years of Myers might be worth and extra pick, a decent prospect and another guy that can compete for a roster spot.  
 

Just depends on the circumstances and whether teams are gonna be as willing to make side deals. If they are not then maybe Seattle is more willing to pull the trigger on the few teams that want to make deals. 

[CanucksForever2]

Expose Myers and protect Chatfield.

[Patel Bure]

13 minutes ago, The Lock said:

First of all, it's always been a good idea to get rid of Eriksson's contract. If it was a good idea for other teams to take Eriksson's contract, we probably would have known by now. Also note that there's a difference between it being a good idea for a team to take on Eriksson's contract and a team to take on cap. Just because a team wants to take on cap, it doesn't mean they're going to jump on Eriksson. So yes, it would be nice to get rid of Eriksson. However, the OP saying it's "realistic".... it's not realistic since no one wants him. Otherwise, it would have already happened. I know some people think this job of GM is as easy as a Little Ceaser's signboard, but it's not. lol

 

As far as Myers goes. I say if we can expose Myers then we should do it. Either Seattle isn't going to want to take on his cap or they will and we are free of 6mil and don't lose another player. Simple.

1) With only one year left on his contract after July 1st, along with only 2 million in real dollars being owed, the Marc Staal trade becomes an extremely valid comparison (ie Staal, 5.7 million cap hit with one year left, got moved to Detroit with a 2nd round sweetener).

 

2) As @kanucks25 pointed out above, Myers can definitely be exposed on ED day.  
 

If the Canucks can incentivize Seattle to take select Myers, and if the Canucks can move Eriksson using Marc Staal as a comparable (2nd as a sweetener), then that’s 12 million off our books.  We could not only re-up Petey and Hughes, but could possibly go after a legit top dman such as Dougie Hamilton.

[The Lock]

1 minute ago, DarkIndianRises said:

1) With only one year left on his contract after July 1st, along with only 2 million in real dollars being owed, the Marc Staal trade becomes an extremely valid comparison (ie Staal, 5.7 million cap hit with one year left, got moved to Detroit with a 2nd round sweetener).

 

2) As @kanucks25 pointed out above, Myers can definitely be exposed on ED day.  
 

If the Canucks can incentivize Seattle to take select Myers, and if the Canucks can move Eriksson using Marc Staal as a comparable (2nd as a sweetener), then that’s 12 million off our books.  We could not only re-up Petey and Hughes, but could possibly go after a legit top dman such as Dougie Hamilton.

Staal only has one more year left. Meaning if he was bought out, he'd give far more cap relief than Eriksson. The overall cap hit, while similar, isn't really comparable. Staal also was in the lineup more with the Rangers than Eriksson's been with us. Staal has more value just for the sheer fact that he's still a reasonable defenseman. Staal is only comparable if you look at the cap hit. Beyond that, he isn't comparable really.

 

That being said, Eriksson NEXT YEAR could be considered a little more comparable with Staal this year, but not at this point in time. But it would have to be next year if it's going to happen at all.

[Toyotasfan]

Tryamkin is never going to play for the Canucks again.

 

just my opinion.

[Rick Blight]

As it stands today, we would have to expose one of Myers or Scmidt as they are the only 2 d-men we have that meet the minimum criteria for exposure to Seatlle. The rule is as follows:

* One defenseman who is a) under contract in 2021-22 and b) played in at least 40 NHL games the prior season or played in at least 70 NHL games in the prior two seasons.

 

We have other d-men that may meet this criteria depending on the numer of games they play from now to the end of the season. These players and the number of games they still need to play to meet our exposure requirements are:

 

1. Juolevi - 19 games

2. Chatfield - 18 games

 

Others like Brisebois, Teves, Rafferty or Sautner will not play enough games to qualify.

https://www.capfriendly.com/expansion-draft/seattle

https://www.nhl.com/news/seattle-kraken-2021-nhl-expansion-draft-rules-same-as-vegas-golden-knights-followed/c-302586918

[NewbieCanuckFan]

30 minutes ago, The Lock said:

First of all, it's always been a good idea to get rid of Eriksson's contract. If it was a good idea for other teams to take Eriksson's contract, we probably would have known by now. Also note that there's a difference between it being a good idea for a team to take on Eriksson's contract and a team to take on cap. Just because a team wants to take on cap, it doesn't mean they're going to jump on Eriksson. So yes, it would be nice to get rid of Eriksson. However, the OP saying it's "realistic".... it's not realistic since no one wants him. Otherwise, it would have already happened. I know some people think this job of GM is as easy as a Little Ceaser's signboard, but it's not. lol

Granted the environment *may* change in the near future (as this is still a gate driven league & some of the poorer teams might be feeling the pain already) but there really hasn't been *any* team that has remotely struggled to reach the cap floor.  Unfortunately there are a number of awful contracts likely still floating out there where said player is on perpetual LITR (where insurance is essentially covering their salary); that such a team might always acquire if need be.

[The Lock]

3 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

Granted the environment *may* change in the near future (as this is still a gate driven league & some of the poorer teams might be feeling the pain already) but there really hasn't been *any* team that has remotely struggled to reach the cap floor.  Unfortunately there are a number of awful contracts likely still floating out there where said player is on perpetual LITR (where insurance is essentially covering their salary); that such a team might always acquire if need be.

In my opinion, if the poorer teams are feeling the pain, that'll just make it harder to get rid of someone like Eriksson, given that these teams  are currently not struggling the reach the cap floor as it is as you've mentioned. If anything, I could see it lead to cheaper free agent signings given the supply would likely stay the same (if not get higher due to more and more younger prospects being in the league) but the demand would be less.

Edited February 10, 2021 by The Lock

[EternalCanuckFan]

The ability for the Canucks to expose Myers' in the Expansion Draft was talked about at length when he was signed, notwithstanding the NMC.  It seems that there was a specific carve out for expansion exposure.

 

I think there's a reasonable chance that Myers gets exposed.  No way Schmidt gets exposed IMHO.

 

I wouldn't mind if Myers is claimed by Seattle and as others have pointed out, there's a reasonable chance that he would be claimed.  Not sure if anyone else has pointed this out but since Seattle will have to meet the cap floor, they might not mind claiming a guy like Myers to play in their bottom-4 D.  As much as Myers has been frustrating to watch in his time with the Canucks, he can have good stretches of play and it's hard to judge anyone this season since the whole team has had long stretches of suck.

 

If Myers is in fact claimed, then that will obviously help the Canucks from a cap perspective.  It would also free up the Kraken to select a more talented young Dman from another team who has to be exposed (e.g. I believe Carolina may have to expose Jake Bean) and who might be on a much cheaper contract.

 

The one thing I'm not sure about with management is if they feel they might need to protect Myers to retain a veteran presence in the locker room given how the team seems to be playing this year.  Assuming Benning & Co. (or whoever replaces them if there are firings) might not be confident in handing the leadership reigns to the young core, I could see them consider protecting Myers which, IMHO, would be a mistake.  I think the young core will eventually get things going even if this season might overall be a failure due to this early stretch of play.

[NewbieCanuckFan]

Seattle Kraken are backed by some financial muscle/$$$.  I seriously doubt reaching the cap floor will be an issue.  We ain't talking about the owner of the Sens.

Edited February 10, 2021 by NewbieCanuckFan

[Devron]

19 minutes ago, Toyotasfan said:

Tryamkin is never going to play for the Canucks again.

 

just my opinion.

I agree.

When do we lose his rights? This summer. I just get tired of seeing us talk about a guy that clearly likes playing in Russia over NA

[The Lock]

Just now, Devron44 said:

I agree.

When do we lose his rights? This summer. I just get tired of seeing us talk about a guy that clearly likes playing in Russia over NA

Some people even think he'd be some savior over here still. Sure, his numbers in the KHL are encouraging, but when has that ever been a guarantee?

[Devron]

Just now, The Lock said:

Some people even think he'd be some savior over here still. Sure, his numbers in the KHL are encouraging, but when has that ever been a guarantee?

There never was. People just see ‘Big Tall Man’ and get all excited about that. Same people that knock on Myers and Gudbranson when he was here probably haha.

Sure I wouldn’t mind seeing him again but the huge expectations people will have lol my god can you imagine. People would expect him to fix everything 

[The Lock]

Just now, Devron44 said:

There never was. People just see ‘Big Tall Man’ and get all excited about that. Same people that knock on Myers and Gudbranson when he was here probably haha.

Sure I wouldn’t mind seeing him again but the huge expectations people will have lol my god can you imagine. People would expect him to fix everything 

I remember a time when people really REALLY wanted Myers here instead of Hodgson. I guess they got their wish in the end.

[Patel Bure]

40 minutes ago, The Lock said:

Staal only has one more year left. Meaning if he was bought out, he'd give far more cap relief than Eriksson. The overall cap hit, while similar, isn't really comparable. Staal also was in the lineup more with the Rangers than Eriksson's been with us. Staal has more value just for the sheer fact that he's still a reasonable defenseman. Staal is only comparable if you look at the cap hit. Beyond that, he isn't comparable really.

 

That being said, Eriksson NEXT YEAR could be considered a little more comparable with Staal this year, but not at this point in time. But it would have to be next year if it's going to happen at all.

That’s the point I was getting at:

Eriksson, after July 1st, will only have one year left on his contract.   Similar to when the Rangers moved Marc Staal to Detroit.

[Patel Bure]

38 minutes ago, Toyotasfan said:

Tryamkin is never going to play for the Canucks again.

 

just my opinion.

He was going to sign with us this year but didn’t due to the lack of cap space.  

[NewbieCanuckFan]

20 minutes ago, Devron44 said:

There never was. People just see ‘Big Tall Man’ and get all excited about that. Same people that knock on Myers and Gudbranson when he was here probably haha.

Sure I wouldn’t mind seeing him again but the huge expectations people will have lol my god can you imagine. People would expect him to fix everything 

Myers cost us nothing in terms of assets to sign unlike Gudbranson.  Pretty significant difference imho.