Jeff Skinner for Loui Eriksson (Proposal)

[J.I.A.H.N]

17 minutes ago, D-Money said:

I think there are teams that would be open to taking Skinner on with 50% retained without Buffalo having to include, not just one, but TWO lottery picks. 

 

I'd do it for just Skinner and the BUF 2021 1st. Imagine being able to add 2 of the stud D prospects in this draft? (Power, Lambos, Hughes, Brandt...) Our perennially shallow D prospect pool would be a thing of the past. But I wouldn't buy out Skinner, not for a couple of years at least. I'd expect he'd still be an upgrade on Pearson.

 

 

Imagine if Skinner stays on this same story line.............you are ready to swallow 9 million a year for 6 years.............

 

How did Eriksson taste?...........................that was only 2/3 of Skinners costs, and look what it did to our cap budget.............

 

I would love that 1st, but it is in no way enough.............not cap wise, or historically, when looking at similar scenario's

[J.I.A.H.N]

So in the end.................Eriksson's contract cost us, Markstrom and Tanev, because we did not have that money, and Eriksson was useless............

 

Is Markstrom and Tanev worth Cozens and a 1st.......................well, 9.0 million is going to cost you more in terms of players that can help you compete.

 

Skinner is useless, and they will not be able to get rid of him for a bucket of beans

[CaptKirk888]

20 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

Partially.............as I am presenting an idea, that is not totally complete, and am looking for imput

Maybe we add Roussel and ask for another 1st or 2nd or prospect

 

I am fully aware that it is a huge deal, that probably will not fly, but I am looking at Buffalo having Skinner there at 9 Million per ad totally useless, and I am sure they would love to move him out, even if they had to take 50% of the hit, so what does it take? What are they willing to pay? What are we willing accept?

 

So, basically Buffalo is on the hook for a lot for a long time...................9 million cap for 6 more years (54 Million) or 40 million on a buy out, or 20 Million, if they can find someone to share it with.

 

So is Eriksson (6 Million) and Roussel (3 Million) plus Cozens and 2021-1st, plus maybe another 1st?

 

I am not sure of any of it....only an idea

Why do I feel like @RU SERIOUS should be responding...

Sorry Jan, but it's a dumb idea.

Are you Jim Benning? Cuz people on this site are pretty pissed about JB locking us up with the cap. Just thinking about your safety...

[J.I.A.H.N]

1 hour ago, CaptKirk888 said:

Why do I feel like @RU SERIOUS should be responding...

Sorry Jan, but it's a dumb idea.

Are you Jim Benning? Cuz people on this site are pretty pissed about JB locking us up with the cap. Just thinking about your safety...

Not admitting it's a good idea

Go look at my opening presentation

I will say this though

You can not look at any deal in it's singular form

Example............

 

We add Cozens...................................fills a spot at ELC for 2 more years

and a 2021 1st (top 10)........................stays in juniors for 1 more year, then 3 years of ELC

never mind the possible 3rd piece

So how much is saved by those 2 players playing on the team, instead of 2 UFA veterans?

2 ELC's = 2 Million

2 UFA's = Minimum 2 X 2 million = 4 Million

 

So, I am not saying, let's do it

But I am saying, it is important to look at all options

and consider all aspects

 

So, please go back and take a look at the costs, I put down

then consider the savings and possibly the increase in skill of the 2 high 1st rounders

 

I suggest, it takes more than just a casual look

 

Thanks Kirk, I appreciate your delivery

 

 

 

Edited March 4, 2021 by janisahockeynut

[CaptKirk888]

23 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

Not admitting it's a good idea

Go look at my opening presentation

I will say this though

You can not look at any deal in it's singular form

Example............

 

We add Cozens...................................fills a spot at ELC for 2 more years

and a 2021 1st (top 10)........................stays in juniors for 1 more year, then 3 years of ELC

never mind the possible 3rd piece

So how much is saved by those 2 players playing on the team, instead of 2 UFA veterans?

2 ELC's = 2 Million

2 UFA's = Minimum 2 X 2 million = 4 Million

 

So, I am not saying, let's do it

But I am saying, it is important to look at all options

and consider all aspects

 

So, please go back and take a look at the costs, I put down

then consider the savings and possibly the increase in skill of the 2 high 1st rounders

 

I suggest, it takes more than just a casual look

 

Thanks Kirk, I appreciate your delivery

 

 

 

Hey Jan, I wasn't trying to be rude if that's how I came across. But, no, I still don't like it. 

[J.I.A.H.N]

26 minutes ago, CaptKirk888 said:

Hey Jan, I wasn't trying to be rude if that's how I came across. But, no, I still don't like it. 

No, did not take it as rude....all is good!

LOL....I was expecting a beating anyways

I am going to rethink this and get back to you!

Cheers!

[D-Money]

3 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

Imagine if Skinner stays on this same story line.............you are ready to swallow 9 million a year for 6 years.............

 

How did Eriksson taste?...........................that was only 2/3 of Skinners costs, and look what it did to our cap budget.............

 

I would love that 1st, but it is in no way enough.............not cap wise, or historically, when looking at similar scenario's

I meant Skinner with 50% retained. No way I'd do it for the full $9M.

[J.I.A.H.N]

39 minutes ago, D-Money said:

I meant Skinner with 50% retained. No way I'd do it for the full $9M.

No I understood that......

 

But it starts at 19.5 Million that is costs you........

 

Toronto paid a 1st for trading 1 year of Marleau's salary

 

Certainly, 19.5 Million costs more................Skinner has very little if any value

 

Remember 1 point this year in 17 games, 23 points last year in 59 games

 

Maybe he has value, but he is getting older and that does not bode well

 

Skinner is 28, and even 6 years @ 4.5 is a huge risk, when his last 2 years are in question

 

It could be Buffalo, It could be Skinner, or a little of both.

 

I mean, I get it if he improves to his past performances

 

It then becomes a good trade...........

 

But it has a lot of risk ...............6 years at 4.5

 

it is a good point and makes me pause for consideration

Edited March 4, 2021 by janisahockeynut

[D-Money]

A mid-to-late 1st round pick is worth considerably less than where Buffalo's pick will be, who currently sitting last in the league. Like multiple times.

 

Also the value of taking Eriksson, which is worth a late 1st in itself.

 

Maybe I'm not as aware of Skinner's struggles. But I've heard his underlying numbers were decent this year.

[J.I.A.H.N]

1 hour ago, D-Money said:

A mid-to-late 1st round pick is worth considerably less than where Buffalo's pick will be, who currently sitting last in the league. Like multiple times.

 

Also the value of taking Eriksson, which is worth a late 1st in itself.

 

Maybe I'm not as aware of Skinner's struggles. But I've heard his underlying numbers were decent this year.

Funny, but I was listening to a discussion about Skinner on the radio today...........they thought it might the worst contract in history........Over taking Eriksson's

 

(Last part was mine, but true)

 

Thanks for the discussion on this..............IMO, its a bad contract if he scores 50 points, terrible contract at 40 points, and the worst contract in history at 20 to 30 points

 

LOL.......imagine Jake last year, who was 18 and 18 over a shortened season, getting 9 million dollars, and then getting his 1 point in 17 (which he did and still does have)

 

And that is on 2.5 million dollars................

 

I think your point about Eriksson costing a late 1st is fair...........so, his last season will be 4 million real dollars and 6 million cap hit

So Skinner at 50% is 54 divided by 2 = 27 million....the buyout on that is 19 million ish

So a difference of between 27 and 19 million dollars.....................

If Eriksson is a mid to late 1st, then my question to everyone is how much is eating Skinner's?

Certainly its 3x, maybe 2x if higher picks, certainly more than 1X

I do not know the answer which is why I started this thread, but I find it interesting

[D-Money]

It's a moot point anyways. Doubt that Skinner chooses to come here, and doubt that ownership is willing to "buy" picks in the current economic climate.

 

The moment Buffalo signed him to that I knew it was a mistake. But didn't expect it to get this bad, this fast. Not sure where he ends up, but the current situation in Buffalo leads me to believe at least one team has expressed interest in some sort of deal. (Rumours are Buffalo is trying to convince him to waive his clause for more teams...seems to indicate they have at least one team in mind, my guess is Detroit.)

Edited March 4, 2021 by D-Money

[oldnews]

19 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

So in the end.................Eriksson's contract cost us, Markstrom and Tanev, because we did not have that money, and Eriksson was useless............

 

not sure how that logic adds up.

1st - Markstrom's cap hit alone is LE's equivalent (LE doesn't carry a 10.5 million cap hit).

2nd - it was Markstrom or Demko - period - there's an expansion draft approaching.

 

And if people here are honest with themselves - the vast majority of posters here preferred to retain Demko at the time the decision was made.

 

The only real hope of bringing back Markstrom involved him not commanding a NMC as part of his deal - which was borderline 'hopeless' given how great he had been here - he would have had to be willing to take the risk of winding up in Seattle after one season....evidently he preferred the NMC he got and the ability to control his future.

[McBackup]

I don't think some people appreciate just how bad of a contract he has. 9 mil for 1 assist. For 6 years beyond now. It makes Loui look like a steal. 

 

The only way Skinner gets out of Buffalo is if he either 

A ) Drastically improves his play to the point where he could actually be moved with a significant sweetener from Buffalo

B ) Is included in the inevitable Eichel trade, in which some significant cap shenanigans would have to take place and would massively decrease Buffalo's return.

 

Not interested. 

[J.I.A.H.N]

2 hours ago, oldnews said:

not sure how that logic adds up.

1st - Markstrom's cap hit alone is LE's equivalent (LE doesn't carry a 10.5 million cap hit).

2nd - it was Markstrom or Demko - period - there's an expansion draft approaching.

 

And if people here are honest with themselves - the vast majority of posters here preferred to retain Demko at the time the decision was made.

 

The only real hope of bringing back Markstrom involved him not commanding a NMC as part of his deal - which was borderline 'hopeless' given how great he had been here - he would have had to be willing to take the risk of winding up in Seattle after one season....evidently he preferred the NMC he got and the ability to control his future.

You are looking at both Tanev and Markstrom whole contracts

 

Consider Eriksson's contract totally off the books........that is 6 million

 

Top up Holtby's contract by 1.7 Million of Eriksson's contract and you have Markstrom's

 

then top up Harmonic;s contract by 3.25 Million and you have paid for Tanev

 

and you still have 1.05 left to put on Toffoli's deal, if interested

 

So, that is what I mean....................

[oldnews]

19 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

You are looking at both Tanev and Markstrom whole contracts

 

Consider Eriksson's contract totally off the books........that is 6 million

 

Top up Holtby's contract by 1.7 Million of Eriksson's contract and you have Markstrom's

 

then top up Harmonic;s contract by 3.25 Million and you have paid for Tanev

 

and you still have 1.05 left to put on Toffoli's deal, if interested

 

So, that is what I mean....................

I see - however, you have to top down for Eriksson's replacement - so your 1 million is spent.

And Holtby expires next year - whereas Markstrom has a 6 million deal and NMC that carries for another half decade.

 

And the point remains - that whether you or anyone likes it or not, you have to choose between Markstrom and Demko.

Are you saying you'd have chosen Markstrom?

 

Likewise with Toffoli / Hoglander.  If you propose to put Toffoli in the top 6, you've roadblocked Hoglander's path.  Or you just sent a Gaudette type to the taxi squad....

Or you 'lost' a Pearson in order to retain Toffoli....

I don't like the logic of attempting to blame a particular contract on other decisions that don't necessarily boil down anywhere near that simply.  And further, there are so many decline contracts in the NHL - and teams that don't simply populate their bottom 6 forwards with 'plugs' and replacement players - that the constant attempts to blame Eriksson - or Beagle - or whomever whatever whipping boy's contract - on the 'loss' of veterans that went elsewhere...isn't worth continuing to beat to death.  It's the equivalent / a pretense that there is a single NHL franchise that has not signed 'bad' contracts, and the expectation that this should be the one.  Can you think of any?

I can think of lots of contracts that I would not trade Eriksson's for.....

 

[J.I.A.H.N]

@oldnews

 

I am not belaboring Eriksson, it is just an example for the Skinner discussion

 

However, of course Eriksson's contract has influence on other contracts, it would be silly not to agree

 

Eriksson's contract takes 6 million out of the Canuck cap space, how you choose to spend it is your choice.

 

In Skinner's instance, it is 9 million in cap space.......

 

He either, get's worse, get's slightly better, or returns to past form

 

Which one are you betting on? how would you handle Skinner and his contract.

 

Just remember you have Eichel who is getting upset at always loosing, and I am sure there are other players as well

 

9 million is not 2 million...............you can not hide the loss

 

So, pretend you are the Buffalo GM, what do you do?

 

 

Edited March 4, 2021 by janisahockeynut

[J.I.A.H.N]

On 3/2/2021 at 7:14 PM, goalie13 said:

So if I am understanding this correct, you want to trade paying Loui for one more year in exchange for getting hit by Skinner's cap hit for 12 more years?

 

I don't believe that would be worth Cozens and a 1st.  But maybe that's just me.

Hi Goalie

 

Can you clarify what you mean, please

 

Is it too long of a commitment?

Is it not enough return?

Is it too much expected?

 

Here is my point. IMO, a small, and I mean small cap hit, is something we can accept, if the return is enough. And although the table shows the 3rdyear being 8.9 Million, we only pay half......albeit a large half (4.5 m). But is getting Cozens and a 2021 1st, not enough to swallow that poison pill.  Consider, the Canucks basically coming out of this years draft with 2 high 1st, and Cozens..............3 potential core pieces, in 1 year.................so a Center, LW and a RHD, all of which are more than likely top 10, and all more than likely to turn out as above average hockey players.

 

To me the prospect of having that much infused into your hockey team in one year, is incredible. Will it happen? No! But consider the talent that would be placed on the team. Consider that the 2 high picks could be dealt for immediate high end players, ones that if having long term contracts would be cap controlled and would put us pretty much into a top 10 position. wouldn't that be something! 

 

Please keep in mind, that I really do not believe this would happen, but was merely a proposal for discussion purposes........

 

But would be interested in in why you made your comments, and the thoughts behind them.

[goalie13]

2 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

Hi Goalie

 

Can you clarify what you mean, please

 

Is it too long of a commitment?

Is it not enough return?

Is it too much expected?

 

Here is my point. IMO, a small, and I mean small cap hit, is something we can accept, if the return is enough. And although the table shows the 3rdyear being 8.9 Million, we only pay half......albeit a large half (4.5 m). But is getting Cozens and a 2021 1st, not enough to swallow that poison pill.  Consider, the Canucks basically coming out of this years draft with 2 high 1st, and Cozens..............3 potential core pieces, in 1 year.................so a Center, LW and a RHD, all of which are more than likely top 10, and all more than likely to turn out as above average hockey players.

 

To me the prospect of having that much infused into your hockey team in one year, is incredible. Will it happen? No! But consider the talent that would be placed on the team. Consider that the 2 high picks could be dealt for immediate high end players, ones that if having long term contracts would be cap controlled and would put us pretty much into a top 10 position. wouldn't that be something! 

 

Please keep in mind, that I really do not believe this would happen, but was merely a proposal for discussion purposes........

 

But would be interested in in why you made your comments, and the thoughts behind them.

Due to Covid, we are facing what could be a flat cap for a very long time.  I don't feel Skinner's buyout cap hit to be small, other than a couple of seasons (1, 3 & 4).  You're essentially proposing to absorb $20M in cap hit over 12 years instead of $6M in cap hit for one year.  I just don't feel that the return of a pick and a prospect is worth it to take on all that cap hit.  It's just too big of a risk.

 

I feel like the Canucks have enough talent in the pipeline to not have to take on a deal like this.

[J.I.A.H.N]

10 hours ago, goalie13 said:

Due to Covid, we are facing what could be a flat cap for a very long time.  I don't feel Skinner's buyout cap hit to be small, other than a couple of seasons (1, 3 & 4).  You're essentially proposing to absorb $20M in cap hit over 12 years instead of $6M in cap hit for one year.  I just don't feel that the return of a pick and a prospect is worth it to take on all that cap hit.  It's just too big of a risk.

 

I feel like the Canucks have enough talent in the pipeline to not have to take on a deal like this.

I do not think we should do it either G13

I was just putting it out as a discussion piece

But if you go over to HFB, and they are tar and feathering me

as being totally out to lunch for demanding that

Which is funny because they think 11 million Cap space has really no value

Not saying it is a great proposal

But they don't see it at all, and think Skinner and his 24 points in 2 years has value

And that is if they get rid of him...if they keep him its 54 million

Edited March 6, 2021 by janisahockeynut