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

The Defense of JB and co

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Colorado is pretty much in the same situation as Tampa. But they are in better cap shape.

 

Neither Tampa or Colorado is likely looking at drafting higher in this crap shoot draft as a high enough priority to trade a good young asset to move up plus lose a good one to Seattle.

 

It makes far more sense to give up their late 1sts to Seattle to have them take an overpaid player they want to get rid of. Cutting out the middle man is cheaper.

They wouldn't lose a good player to Seattle if they made the trade that I am proposing.

Why does Seattle want over paid players.

Seattle might do one of those trades but there is multiple team with the same issue and Seattle isn't going to be full of over payed players

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

First, the Canucks don't have protection problems because outside of a handful of players they have no one worth protecting. Hardly a YAY JB moment there.

 

Having said that, the Canucks are also not the only team who can try to take advantage of the protection issues of other teams.

 

Seattle will absolutely be willing to take on cap dump contracts if the right other assets are involved. I could see them make many deals like that if other GM's are wanting to do so.

It is because guys like Hughes Rathbone Hogs and Pods are not able to be picked. 

And because JB didn't sign Edler more then 2 years and give him NMC.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

First, the Canucks don't have protection problems because outside of a handful of players they have no one worth protecting. Hardly a YAY JB moment there.

 

Having said that, the Canucks are also not the only team who can try to take advantage of the protection issues of other teams.

 

Seattle will absolutely be willing to take on cap dump contracts if the right other assets are involved. I could see them make many deals like that if other GM's are wanting to do so.

But of the 8 teams drafting before Van who is willing to give up their pick.

 

The 9th pick is the most valuable on the market if the other 8 aren't on the market

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

First, the Canucks don't have protection problems because outside of a handful of players they have no one worth protecting. Hardly a YAY JB moment there.

 

Having said that, the Canucks are also not the only team who can try to take advantage of the protection issues of other teams.

 

Seattle will absolutely be willing to take on cap dump contracts if the right other assets are involved. I could see them make many deals like that if other GM's are wanting to do so.

I can see Canucks dumping Ericksson and 2nd pick this year to Seattle or one of the rebuilding teams to gain cap space while also trading their 1st pick and a prospect for an impact D with similar or less caphit as Eriksson. Then add a 3rd line C through FA. Sutter and Edler should not be signed if Benning is serious unless Edler signs for 1 or 2 million per year.

 

 

I want to see a defense like this:

 

Hughes-Seth Jones/Cernak

Schmidt-Myers

Rathbone-Edler

Hamonic

 

Addition of Seth Jones or Cernak and Rathbone will significantly improve the defense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said:

It is because guys like Hughes Rathbone Hogs and Pods are not able to be picked. 

And because JB didn't sign Edler more then 2 years and give him NMC.

 

 

If you look at most other teams, they have some good young players who can't be picked. And they also have more good players that can be than the Canucks do.

 

I wouldn't count your chickens before they hatch on Edler. Or Sutter for that matter. Benning could still re-sign either prior to the expansion draft. And Edler will undoubtedly have to be protected if he does because he will almost certainly have a NMC.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Chris12345 said:

Shawn Matthias

Markus Granlund

Sven Baertschi (first time)

Brad Richardson

Dan Hamhuis (no trade to your point)

Ben Hutton (probably no return)

Josh Levio

Brandon Sutter (nmc? but who gave him that?)

Oscar Fantenberg

Tanner Pearson

 

 

please read this

 

Vancouver Canucks misplayed their best asset, Dan Hamhuis, in NHL trade deadline's biggest blunder | National Post

 

you are wrong Hamhuis had a NTC

  • RoughGame 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also Ericksson has one year left with 3 million dollar in real money owed since Canucks have paid his bonuses so a rebuilding team could use his cap hit for one year to hit cap floor while spending less. He is now a lot more tradeable than last year.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, wallstreetamigo said:

If you look at most other teams, they have some good young players who can't be picked. And they also have more good players that can be than the Canucks do.

 

I wouldn't count your chickens before they hatch on Edler. Or Sutter for that matter. Benning could still re-sign either prior to the expansion draft. And Edler will undoubtedly have to be protected if he does because he will almost certainly have a NMC.

Why would Benning do that never mind 

 

Why would Sutter or Edler do that when they know they could be picked by Seattle. why not just sign with Seattle

 

Come on think it through

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DefCon1 said:

I can see Canucks dumping Ericksson and 2nd pick this year to Seattle or one of the rebuilding teams to gain cap space while also trading their 1st pick and a prospect for an impact D with similar or less caphit as Eriksson. Then add a 3rd line C through FA. Sutter and Edler should not be signed if Benning is serious unless Edler signs for 1 or 2 million per year.

 

 

I want to see a defense like this:

 

Hughes-Seth Jones/Cernak

Schmidt-Myers

Rathbone-Edler

Hamonic

 

Addition of Seth Jones or Cernak and Rathbone will significantly improve the defense.

I highly doubt Seattle would take Eriksson for a 2nd round pick. Probably not even our 9th OA. Not even sure I would do it if I was Benning. He only has one year left. I expect Seattle will be looking to take on cap players who can actually play on their team next season.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DefCon1 said:

Also Ericksson has one year left with 3 million dollar in real money owed since Canucks have paid his bonuses so a rebuilding team could use his cap hit for one year to hit cap floor while spending less. He is now a lot more tradeable than last year.

Come on really have you seen the list available to Seattle. Seattle is going to have no problem with getting to the Cap floor

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Arrow 1983 said:

Why would Benning do that never mind 

 

Why would Sutter or Edler do that when they know they could be picked by Seattle. why not just sign with Seattle

 

Come on think it through

Like Pearson, neither would re-sign without an assurance from Benning they won't be exposed in the expansion draft. Or they were getting a far better contract offer from the Canucks than they could have expected as UFA players from Seattle or anyone else.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Alflives said:

It would be great to get Luke Hughes, but I think he’s gone top five.  Plus, Jake likely has no value, and we will buy him out.  If your scenario does occur (would be cool, of course) then OJ might be the cost of switching picks.  

A small price to pay.

 

TEAM

9OA21

Juolevi

 

VAN

L. Hughes

 

I do feel like Juolevi has the potential to get to Ohlund level. He does have some nasty.

 

Edited by Me_
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

If you look at most other teams, they have some good young players who can't be picked. And they also have more good players that can be than the Canucks do.

 

I wouldn't count your chickens before they hatch on Edler. Or Sutter for that matter. Benning could still re-sign either prior to the expansion draft. And Edler will undoubtedly have to be protected if he does because he will almost certainly have a NMC.

That would be really dumb to sign both again. Might as well just call next year a write off. I dont think Benning will sign the same players that missed the playoffs again when he clearly said he will be more aggressive this season after letting key players walk last off season. I mean it wont make sense to let better players walk last off season while re-signing mediocre players this season. Thats going backwards. I dont mind Edler if its for 1 million/year and 1 year contract without NMC or NTC.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DefCon1 said:

Also Ericksson has one year left with 3 million dollar in real money owed since Canucks have paid his bonuses so a rebuilding team could use his cap hit for one year to hit cap floor while spending less. He is now a lot more tradeable than last year.

0 x 0 still equals 0.

 

There are so many teams willing to trade actual decent players to relieve cap that Seattle probably just takes a prospect from the Canucks and calls it a day. Or a guy like Motte, Highmore, etc. I dont see them taking a cap dump from Van

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

I highly doubt Seattle would take Eriksson for a 2nd round pick. Probably not even our 9th OA. Not even sure I would do it if I was Benning. He only has one year left. I expect Seattle will be looking to take on cap players who can actually play on their team next season.

So they dont take 3 million for 1 year Ericksson who has a 6 million cap even with our 9th pick? Then the Seattle GM would be too dumb. Lots of teams will get Ericksson for 1 year with a 2nd and it has been done before. Plus he is owed only 3 million in real money, he is definitely tradeable and Canucks are also desperate for more cap.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Like Pearson, neither would re-sign without an assurance from Benning they won't be exposed in the expansion draft. Or they were getting a far better contract offer from the Canucks than they could have expected as UFA players from Seattle or anyone else.

So why would Benning do that. That would mean having to leave some one far better than Edler and Sutter un protected.

 

Seriously do you not think before you write. You must really believe JB is stupid. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, wallstreetamigo said:

0 x 0 still equals 0.

 

There are so many teams willing to trade actual decent players to relieve cap that Seattle probably just takes a prospect from the Canucks and calls it a day. Or a guy like Motte, Highmore, etc. I dont see them taking a cap dump from Van

Well am saying this is a separate deal and not due to expansion draft. They can get whoever is exposed on our roster. Am saying this deal is done after expansion draft.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said:

So why would Benning do that. That would mean having to leave some one far better than Edler and Sutter un protected.

 

Seriously do you not think before you write. You must really believe JB is stupid. 

Not stupid. I think you underestimate just how much he values guys like Edler and Sutter though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DefCon1 said:

So they dont take 3 million for 1 year Ericksson who has a 6 million cap even with our 9th pick? Then the Seattle GM would be too dumb. Lots of teams will get Ericksson for 1 year with a 2nd and it has been done before. Plus he is owed only 3 million in real money, he is definitely tradeable and Canucks are also desperate for more cap.

Eriksson is trade able I agree with you their but no to Seattle

 

and JB would have to consider the cost of doing it. I would do it for a 2nd but not the 9th over all pick. I don't know how many teams would do it for 2nd there would have to be a kicker and that would make me reconsider depending on who it was Lind or Lockwood even Virtanen all day lon OJ or better never 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said:

So why would Benning do that. That would mean having to leave some one far better than Edler and Sutter un protected.

 

Seriously do you not think before you write. You must really believe JB is stupid. 

Yeah the poster clearly thinks Benning is completely retarded and cant think. 

Link to post
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...