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

[Trade] Canucks trade Adam Gaudette to Blackhawks for Matthew Highmore


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Bad contracts are traded all the time. Sometimes you have to add an asset to get another team to take them, especially when they are paid too much for too long.

 

Would it have cost Benning a prospect or pick to move out some salary? Probably. But thats the price of signing a whole bunch of terrible contracts. 

Yes I am well aware of that. It is the cost of doing so and that you think would be "easy" that I have issue with.

 

Firstly I do not think there were enough teams with the cap space and willingness to take on salary during the 2020 off season to clear all of those contracts at that time.

 

Secondly, Edler has a full NMC and reportedly is not interested in waiving it, so you aren't going to move his $6m.

 

Here is what I think it would have cost us to clear the other contracts without taking salary back:

Eriksson traded along with a 1st pick + 3rd pick + A prospect such as Rathbone

Baertschi traded along with a 2nd pick

Roussel traded along with 2nd pick

Beagle traded along with 2nd pick

 

So if you think Benning should have done that, then good on you. I am much happier with the approach of waiting out those contracts than spending futures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, BigTramFan said:

Yes I am well aware of that. It is the cost of doing so and that you think would be "easy" that I have issue with.

 

Firstly I do not think there were enough teams with the cap space and willingness to take on salary during the 2020 off season to clear all of those contracts at that time.

 

Secondly, Edler has a full NMC and reportedly is not interested in waiving it, so you aren't going to move his $6m.

 

Here is what I think it would have cost us to clear the other contracts without taking salary back:

Eriksson traded along with a 1st pick + 3rd pick + A prospect such as Rathbone

Baertschi traded along with a 2nd pick

Roussel traded along with 2nd pick

Beagle traded along with 2nd pick

 

So if you think Benning should have done that, then good on you. I am much happier with the approach of waiting out those contracts than spending futures.

Waiting for them to clear off has already wasted a few years where the team could have been improving though. And it assumes Benning wont just burn up that cap space with more $&!#ty contracts. Hardly a sure thing with his track record.

 

It probably would not have taken a 2nd to get rid of Roussel, Beagle, or Baertschi. And it would not take a 1st, 3rd, and Rathbone to get rid of Eriksson. They would probably have to retain some cap though.

 

Literally no one should be happy he signed them in the first place then try to claim he is a great manager for not getting rid of them.

 

Look at the list of bust tweeners he has traded 2nd and 3rd round pucks and good prospects for. He traded a 2nd and a good prospect for a rental he then let walk last year.

 

There would be no better reason to trade a pick then to get cap space. Because its not just about what he gets rid of, its also what (if he wasnt a terrible pro evaluator) that cap space could allow him to replace that player with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was such a bad trade. Gaudette had offensive potential, but we never played him with skilled players. Now, he has 4 points in 5 games with Chicago, and is getting a look in the top 6. Instead of thinking, "Oh we can just replace him with Lind," we should have been thinking, "How would he play with Lind?"

The fact we didn't even get a pick back is just unbelievable. 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Waiting for them to clear off has already wasted a few years where the team could have been improving though. And it assumes Benning wont just burn up that cap space with more $&!#ty contracts. Hardly a sure thing with his track record.

 

It probably would not have taken a 2nd to get rid of Roussel, Beagle, or Baertschi. And it would not take a 1st, 3rd, and Rathbone to get rid of Eriksson. They would probably have to retain some cap though.

 

Literally no one should be happy he signed them in the first place then try to claim he is a great manager for not getting rid of them.

 

Look at the list of bust tweeners he has traded 2nd and 3rd round pucks and good prospects for. He traded a 2nd and a good prospect for a rental he then let walk last year.

 

There would be no better reason to trade a pick then to get cap space. Because its not just about what he gets rid of, its also what (if he wasnt a terrible pro evaluator) that cap space could allow him to replace that player with.

It 100% would've cost you that level of sweeteners to move serious cap during covid times.

 

I have never claimed JB is a great GM, nor did I say that he should have signed those players to those contracts, just that moving them last off season was not easy and would have been cost prohibitive. I also think that trading futures for those contracts would have done more damage to our future and team development than letting them lapse.

 

Our core (namely EP, QH, TD ages 22, 21, 25) is not yet ready to contend. Look at our 2011 Stanley Cup Final team with Sedins (age 30), Burrows (30), Kesler (26), Bieksa (29), Luongo (32).  Realistically it is going to take a couple more years of development for the Canucks to be serious contenders. The players on bad contracts that you mention will be well gone by then.

 

It is then that we need a supporting cast of role players that are not overpaid and can contribute. JB is not the GM to do that, nor should he still be here then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BigTramFan said:

It 100% would've cost you that level of sweeteners to move serious cap during covid times.

 

I have never claimed JB is a great GM, nor did I say that he should have signed those players to those contracts, just that moving them last off season was not easy and would have been cost prohibitive. I also think that trading futures for those contracts would have done more damage to our future and team development than letting them lapse.

 

Our core (namely EP, QH, TD ages 22, 21, 25) is not yet ready to contend. Look at our 2011 Stanley Cup Final team with Sedins (age 30), Burrows (30), Kesler (26), Bieksa (29), Luongo (32).  Realistically it is going to take a couple more years of development for the Canucks to be serious contenders. The players on bad contracts that you mention will be well gone by then.

 

It is then that we need a supporting cast of role players that are not overpaid and can contribute. JB is not the GM to do that, nor should he still be here then.

So what if Benning signs more of them? Because I guarantee he will.

Edited by wallstreetamigo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, BigTramFan said:

It 100% would've cost you that level of sweeteners to move serious cap during covid times.

 

I have never claimed JB is a great GM, nor did I say that he should have signed those players to those contracts, just that moving them last off season was not easy and would have been cost prohibitive. I also think that trading futures for those contracts would have done more damage to our future and team development than letting them lapse.

 

Our core (namely EP, QH, TD ages 22, 21, 25) is not yet ready to contend. Look at our 2011 Stanley Cup Final team with Sedins (age 30), Burrows (30), Kesler (26), Bieksa (29), Luongo (32).  Realistically it is going to take a couple more years of development for the Canucks to be serious contenders. The players on bad contracts that you mention will be well gone by then.

 

It is then that we need a supporting cast of role players that are not overpaid and can contribute. JB is not the GM to do that, nor should he still be here then.

The Canucks would probably already be contenders if they had a competent GM. Lots of money has been available over the years that he has squandered.

 

There is likely no other team in the league with this many supposedly untradable contracts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NaveJoseph said:

This was such a bad trade. Gaudette had offensive potential, but we never played him with skilled players. Now, he has 4 points in 5 games with Chicago, and is getting a look in the top 6. Instead of thinking, "Oh we can just replace him with Lind," we should have been thinking, "How would he play with Lind?"

The fact we didn't even get a pick back is just unbelievable. 

I suspect that this trade (likely) had more to do with Gaudette no longer being welcome in the room than it had to do with hockey (see Covid issues and Gaudette). Getting him clear of the team was perhaps the best for both the team and for Gaudette.

 

As to not getting a pick for Gaudette, have you considered that other teams don't share the opinion of some here, and they don't hold Gaudette in high regard? For curiosity sake, what level of pick in return would anyone consider to be appropriate?

 

                             regards,  G.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

The Canucks would probably already be contenders if they had a competent GM. Lots of money has been available over the years that he has squandered.

 

There is likely no other team in the league with this many supposedly untradable contracts.

San Jose?

 

The Canucks have two or three contracts that could be considered to be "bad"or untradeable for cap hit reasons (Eriksson, Myers?, and ????). But with the Sharks between player age, cap hit, term and/or NTC and NMC clauses they are kinda' screwed with maybe as many as six. And we aren't talking about Roussel or Beagel at $3 million type of contract (or even Sutter, but I believe he is worth his contract).

 

There are some guys attached to those SJ contracts who are still pretty good players, but moving them for a reasonable return will be kinda' tough.

 

                                                regards,  G.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Gollumpus said:

San Jose?

 

The Canucks have two or three contracts that could be considered to be "bad"or untradeable for cap hit reasons (Eriksson, Myers?, and ????). But with the Sharks between player age, cap hit, term and/or NTC and NMC clauses they are kinda' screwed with maybe as many as six. And we aren't talking about Roussel or Beagel at $3 million type of contract (or even Sutter, but I believe he is worth his contract).

 

There are some guys attached to those SJ contracts who are still pretty good players, but moving them for a reasonable return will be kinda' tough.

 

                                                regards,  G.

I think a team would trade for Myers. He’s nowhere near as bad as folks make him out to be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PhillipBlunt said:

I think a team would trade for Myers. He’s nowhere near as bad as folks make him out to be. 

Agree. I'm just going by the grumbles one may find on this site.  :)

 

                                          regards,  G.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

The Canucks would probably already be contenders if they had a competent GM. Lots of money has been available over the years that he has squandered.

 

There is likely no other team in the league with this many supposedly untradable contracts.

Skinner contract is pretty god damn awful. I’d rather have who we have than that contract. 
 

Myers has 3 years left after this season at 6M and Skinner has 6 years left after this season at 9M with a full NMC. 
 

Myers’s play is worth like 4.5 and this season Skinner’s play is worth like 1.5M. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Gollumpus said:

San Jose?

 

The Canucks have two or three contracts that could be considered to be "bad"or untradeable for cap hit reasons (Eriksson, Myers?, and ????). But with the Sharks between player age, cap hit, term and/or NTC and NMC clauses they are kinda' screwed with maybe as many as six. And we aren't talking about Roussel or Beagel at $3 million type of contract (or even Sutter, but I believe he is worth his contract).

 

There are some guys attached to those SJ contracts who are still pretty good players, but moving them for a reasonable return will be kinda' tough.

 

                                                regards,  G.

I just got told that Eriksson, Beagle, Roussel, Baertschi, and Sutter were untradeable without adding 2nd or 1st round picks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Gollumpus said:

I suspect that this trade (likely) had more to do with Gaudette no longer being welcome in the room than it had to do with hockey (see Covid issues and Gaudette). Getting him clear of the team was perhaps the best for both the team and for Gaudette.

 

As to not getting a pick for Gaudette, have you considered that other teams don't share the opinion of some here, and they don't hold Gaudette in high regard? For curiosity sake, what level of pick in return would anyone consider to be appropriate?

 

                             regards,  G.

I get the same feeling. It seems as though the team was upset with Gaudette and his girlfriend not following Covid-19 regulations.

I think we should have got at least a 4th for him, as he was a 5th rounder that outperformed his draft slot and is further along in development.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said:

Skinner contract is pretty god damn awful. I’d rather have who we have than that contract. 
 

Myers has 3 years left after this season at 6M and Skinner has 6 years left after this season at 9M with a full NMC. 
 

Myers’s play is worth like 4.5 and this season Skinner’s play is worth like 1.5M. 

Thats one contract though. And as far as I know I never mentioned Myers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

I just got told that Eriksson, Beagle, Roussel, Baertschi, and Sutter were untradeable without adding 2nd or 1st round picks.

I’m late to this conversation so maybe I missed something but why would someone want to trade Baertchi and Sutter’s contracts? Don’t they only have 9 games left in their contracts?

  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, wallstreetamigo said:

I just got told that Eriksson, Beagle, Roussel, Baertschi, and Sutter were untradeable without adding 2nd or 1st round picks.

Well don't you believe them!  :P

 

 I guess it's a good thing that Eriksson and Roussel have only one more year left on their deals, Beagle is quite possibly going to be on LITR for next season, and Sutter and Baertschi's contracts are over at the end of the season. I would suggest that Sutter (assuming the Canucks were willing to sell at a significant loss) could have traded him without any sort of sweetner. Some of those guys on SJ it would take, just to start the conversation, salary retention which would (in some cases) be equal to or greater than Sutter's full cap hit... yikes.

 

Didn't injuries during their time here impact on the ability of making trades for Sutter, Beagle, Baertschi and Roussel (hip thing?). Gosh darn those other GMs not wanting to give the Canucks multiple high draft picks for injured players. 

 

                                            regards,  G.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Gollumpus said:

Well don't you believe them!  :P

 

 I guess it's a good thing that Eriksson and Roussel have only one more year left on their deals, Beagle is quite possibly going to be on LITR for next season, and Sutter and Baertschi's contracts are over at the end of the season. I would suggest that Sutter (assuming the Canucks were willing to sell at a significant loss) could have traded him without any sort of sweetner. Some of those guys on SJ it would take, just to start the conversation, salary retention which would (in some cases) be equal to or greater than Sutter's full cap hit... yikes.

 

Didn't injuries during their time here impact on the ability of making trades for Sutter, Beagle, Baertschi and Roussel (hip thing?). Gosh darn those other GMs not wanting to give the Canucks multiple high draft picks for injured players. 

 

                                            regards,  G.

When did I say any of them would get a return of high draft picks, injured or not? The cap space and spot for a younger player alone would have been a huge win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, 4petesake said:

I’m late to this conversation so maybe I missed something but why would someone want to trade Baertchi and Sutter’s contracts? Don’t they only have 9 games left in their contracts?

They had a year left last offseason and even more the entire year before. Thats the time frame I was talking about.

  • Cheers 1
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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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