[Discussion] Tradeable Assets

[73 Percent]

1 hour ago, smithers joe said:

i loved the pearson contract but because how important he is to bo. him and bo have great chemistry, offensively but mostly defensive;y. bo plays against other teams top lines. pearson pulls his weight in that regard.  if you trade him, you'll have to go out for  another pearson that works well with bo.

I can see it that way for next year but not for long after. He's a stop gap until a true top 6 winger comes along. If we dont improve that spot we wont improve as a team. That's not to say Pearson wont be a good 3LW but if our only reasoning for not trading him is bo, then that reason wont be around for much longer. 

[NewbieCanuckFan]

9 hours ago, mll said:

Dhaliwal said his understanding at this point is that Eriksson will not retire and intends to try and earn a spot next season.

 

He also says that Beagle might not be done.  He sees a specialist in a few days.  

Yeah expecting him to retire and walk away from that three million dollar salary isn’t realistic.  Sure some players do it (eg., former Canuck Nazzy) but you can’t expect all players to be that honorable.

[Bad_BOI_pete]

3 hours ago, Provost said:

The quote was not worth anything as you could get equivalent or better UFAs for the cap hit OR they have negative value.

I don't know what tool you are using, but those Capfriendly numbers would simply be indicative of comparing contracts that already exist, and have nothing to do with the squeezed Covid UFA market that will happen this summer.  Anyone who doesn't understand that there not just being money available under the flat cap is just flat out wrong.  

Even using an invalid and wildly optimistic comparison like you are, it still shows Myers as having less value than he would be paid and MacEwan and Highmore right at what they are getting paid.  Nobody is giving us anything for those guys when there will be dozens of equivalent or better players begging for jobs in free agency, and another handful within their own organizations.

All the reporting said that Pearson got as much or more than he would have gotten on free agency this summer considering the way the market will be with a continued flat cap for years to come.

well your just wrong, if we retained a little salary you could  trade myers, or you could trade pearson probably straight up.

we traded gaudette for highmore,  we traded jordie benn, someone might  want to trade a contract that has a higher cap hit for a smaller one,  tampa bay might trade  some draft pick for some LTIR contracts to make even more of a mockery of the league.

 

what im also saying is capfriendly has a better idea than you. They predicted the vegas signing of Pietrangelo cap and term within  a few hundred thousand.

[Ballisticsports.]

15 hours ago, Provost said:

Hearing Benning speak always gives insight if you listen between the lines.

When he mentions players by name you can also pay attention to the names he didn’t say.

 

Based on his presser they think of Miller as part of the (young) core.  He also explicitly talked about Rathbone.

 

He mentioned trades, so who could we realistically trade?

 

In terms of anything of value, all I can see are:

Schmidt

Juolevi

DiPietro

Picks (aside from this year’s 1st that he indicated they would likely keep)

 

That isn’t a big list.

 

The players that aren’t likely to get moved because of their value to us:

Petterson, Hughes, Boeser, Miller, Horvat, Hoglander, Podkolzin, Demko, Motte

 

The players who aren’t likely to get traded because they aren’t worth anything as you could get equivalent or better UFAs for the cap hit, or they have negative value and would cost us to move:

Roussel, Beagle, Ferland, Myers, Eriksson, MacEwan, Pearson, Virtanen, Highmore, Holtby

 

 

It seems like Virtanen and Holtby are easy decisions for buyouts.

 

What are potential trade targets that could be had for that list of possibly available assets?  Nothing that is likely going to fill many holes in the lineup.

I agree with your question

What assets could we sell high other. than the ones you mentioned to keep  ?

I believe we held on too long to diminishing assets and won't be getting much in return for anyone else without giving away more of the future, which we have done too much of already while constantly being at the bottom, (Great teams usually do that when they push to be the best)

We are short on Dmen already so why trade Schmidt?

I don't hear much talk of any of last year draft picks, like in years past to help us?

So your question is a good one

We still have to have some players to expose as well

 

[Provost]

9 minutes ago, Petey_BOI said:

well your just wrong, if we retained a little salary you could  trade myers, or you could trade pearson probably straight up.

we traded gaudette for highmore,  we traded jordie benn, someone might  want to trade a contract that has a higher cap hit for a smaller one,  tampa bay might trade  some draft pick for some LTIR contracts to make even more of a mockery of the league.

 

what im also saying is capfriendly has a better idea than you. They predicted the vegas signing of Pietrangelo cap and term within  a few hundred thousand.

As much as you wriggle around... you keep submarining your own argument.  Sure we can trade other players, it doesn't mean they have any value though.  Can you retain a bunch of salary on Myers to make him tradeable... sure.  Then it is your cap space that you are using to create value... not Myers on his own.  If you added Podkolzin to a Myers deal you could trade Myers... it isn't Myers who has the value.  We could take money back in a Myers trade, but again... that is what creates the value and not Myers.

There is at least even money that Myers wouldn't be selected if he was left exposed during expansion.

[JM_]

3 minutes ago, Provost said:

As much as you wriggle around... you keep submarining your own argument.  Sure we can trade other players, it doesn't mean they have any value though.  Can you retain a bunch of salary on Myers to make him tradeable... sure.  Then it is your cap space that you are using to create value... not Myers on his own.  If you added Podkolzin to a Myers deal you could trade Myers... it isn't Myers who has the value.  We could take money back in a Myers trade, but again... that is what creates the value and not Myers.

There is at least even money that Myers wouldn't be selected if he was left exposed during expansion.

you nailed the short list of trade pieces that are simple to move, i.e. not adding or taking back salary, etc. 

 

But thats OK, we have a good group forming here of guys we don't want to move, but its also clear we don't really have a wealth of expendable guys either. 

 

[Provost]

5 minutes ago, ba;;isticsports said:

I agree with your question

What assets could we sell high other. than the ones you mentioned to keep  ?

I believe we held on too long to diminishing assets and won't be getting much in return for anyone else without giving away more of the future, which we have done too much of already while constantly being at the bottom, (Great teams usually do that when they push to be the best)

We are short on Dmen already so why trade Schmidt?

I don't hear much talk of any of last year draft picks, like in years past to help us?

So your question is a good one

We still have to have some players to expose as well

 

That is the other possible asset we have... cap space.

If through expansion and buyouts we end up with some cap space available, we could use that to get a player.  That is how the Schmidt deal worked.

Assuming Virtanen and Holtby get bought out and with the dream of some significant cap being taken in expansion and the perpetual dream of Eriksson hanging them up if he is told he isn't even being invited to camp... we could actually have some cap space.

I agree that we haven't done any asset management where we sold high on a player.  Partially that is because we didn't have enough good players to start with, the other part is simply just lack of creativity and forethought.  It was obvious that Virtanen should have been traded when he went on that short hot streak.  Maybe even Demko could have been traded for a relative fortune after his bubble play and we could have kept Markstrom for just slightly more cap hit.  Pearson had some value at the trade deadline.  Those moves would be real risk taking because they could backfire.

[Ballisticsports.]

1 hour ago, Provost said:

That is the other possible asset we have... cap space.

If through expansion and buyouts we end up with some cap space available, we could use that to get a player.  That is how the Schmidt deal worked.

Assuming Virtanen and Holtby get bought out and with the dream of some significant cap being taken in expansion and the perpetual dream of Eriksson hanging them up if he is told he isn't even being invited to camp... we could actually have some cap space.

I agree that we haven't done any asset management where we sold high on a player.  Partially that is because we didn't have enough good players to start with, the other part is simply just lack of creativity and forethought.  It was obvious that Virtanen should have been traded when he went on that short hot streak.  Maybe even Demko could have been traded for a relative fortune after his bubble play and we could have kept Markstrom for just slightly more cap hit.  Pearson had some value at the trade deadline.  Those moves would be real risk taking because they could backfire.

Agree they held onto Jake too long Provost, they have had years to evaluate his character and commitment

I would have liked to keep Marky and Demko, but always thought Demko was the one of the two to keep as he has been further ahead of Marky comparing where they were at the same age

 

Trades are risks, But evaluating talent and envisioning the type of player that will compliment your team you can also build outside the draft if bold enough

Trading one of our lonely skilled players in Sundstrom and getting McClean and Adams, trading Janney for Brown, Lafayette,Hedican,or  Stojanov for Naslund, or Skriko for drafting  Peca  Butcher and Quinn for Ronning, Courtnall, Momesso, Dirk were risks that improved us though instead of staying complacent and realizing these weren't the players we were going to grow with and made the bold move, rather than wait till their value was worth nothing. 

You can't always build a team with BPA (Oilers) sometimes you have to move them at high value when you realize they aren't part of the team you envision

[JustABandwagoner]

17 hours ago, 73 Percent said:

I feel like I'm the only one that likes the pearson contract. Hes a very tradable asset imo.

Trade him while u can before he goes on a cold streak 

[komodo0921]

19 hours ago, Provost said:

Hearing Benning speak always gives insight if you listen between the lines.

When he mentions players by name you can also pay attention to the names he didn’t say.

 

Based on his presser they think of Miller as part of the (young) core.  He also explicitly talked about Rathbone.

 

He mentioned trades, so who could we realistically trade?

 

In terms of anything of value, all I can see are:

Schmidt

Juolevi

DiPietro

Picks (aside from this year’s 1st that he indicated they would likely keep)

 

That isn’t a big list.

 

The players that aren’t likely to get moved because of their value to us:

Petterson, Hughes, Boeser, Miller, Horvat, Hoglander, Podkolzin, Demko, Motte

 

The players who aren’t likely to get traded because they aren’t worth anything as you could get equivalent or better UFAs for the cap hit, or they have negative value and would cost us to move:

Roussel, Beagle, Ferland, Myers, Eriksson, MacEwan, Pearson, Virtanen, Highmore, Holtby

 

 

It seems like Virtanen and Holtby are easy decisions for buyouts.

 

What are potential trade targets that could be had for that list of possibly available assets?  Nothing that is likely going to fill many holes in the lineup.

I might be inclined to explore a Hughes deal.

Especially if NJ drafts Luke.

Could get a truck load of assets for now and the future.

[lmm]

19 hours ago, 73 Percent said:

I feel like I'm the only one that likes the pearson contract. Hes a very tradable asset imo.

I feel like you are correct... you are the only one that likes the Peason contract

He was more tradable before he signed it

[Patel Bure]

On 5/22/2021 at 6:04 PM, Provost said:

Hearing Benning speak always gives insight if you listen between the lines.

When he mentions players by name you can also pay attention to the names he didn’t say.

 

Based on his presser they think of Miller as part of the (young) core.  He also explicitly talked about Rathbone.

 

He mentioned trades, so who could we realistically trade?

 

In terms of anything of value, all I can see are:

Schmidt

Juolevi

DiPietro

Picks (aside from this year’s 1st that he indicated they would likely keep)

 

That isn’t a big list.

 

The players that aren’t likely to get moved because of their value to us:

Petterson, Hughes, Boeser, Miller, Horvat, Hoglander, Podkolzin, Demko, Motte

 

The players who aren’t likely to get traded because they aren’t worth anything as you could get equivalent or better UFAs for the cap hit, or they have negative value and would cost us to move:

Roussel, Beagle, Ferland, Myers, Eriksson, MacEwan, Pearson, Virtanen, Highmore, Holtby

 

 

It seems like Virtanen and Holtby are easy decisions for buyouts.

 

What are potential trade targets that could be had for that list of possibly available assets?  Nothing that is likely going to fill many holes in the lineup.

Schmidt, like Miller, will be needed in 22-23 as part of our veteran cap friendly players.   Schmidt, when being used correctly, is good value for his money.....which is why he was brought on.

 

Moving Schmidt would be a terrible move in opinion.

 

Tradeable asset:

1) 2nd round pick.  Use a 2nd round pick to move one of Eriksson, Beagle, or Roussel.

 

2) 3rd + 7th / 3rd + mid level prospect:  Use one of these packages as a sweetener to try and move one of Eriksson, Roussel, or Beagle.

Edited May 24, 2021 by Patel Bure