(Proposal) Van - Pitt

[70seven]

To Pittsburgh:

2021 2nd round pick

Jake Virtanen

Jett Woo

 

 

To Vancouver:

Kasperi Kapanen

Cap is a wash. 
 

Vancouver gets a 24 year old winger with top 6 skill.  Burkey targets some “truculence”, a fresh start for Jake, and a couple piece to add to the incoming rebuild. 

 

 

 

 

[48MPHSlapShot]

Virtanen has negative value at this point, and I'd rather hold onto the 2nd anyways. If we do move a pick, I'd rather it be for a 3C or a RHD.

[Patel Bure]

8 minutes ago, 70seven said:

To Pittsburgh:

2021 2nd round pick

Jake Virtanen

Jett Woo

 

 

To Vancouver:

Kasperi Kapanen

Cap is a wash. 
 

Vancouver gets a 24 year old winger with top 6 skill.  Burkey targets some “truculence”, a fresh start for Jake, and a couple piece to add to the incoming rebuild. 

 

 

 

 

It’s a decent trade for Vancouver but why would Pittsburgh agree to this?

[Bertuzzipunch]

Honestly id rather just keep our 2nd and our only RHD prospect.

[Alflives]

Kapanen is a heck of a player, who is on a really good contract.  He’d cost more.  

[mll]

Pittsburgh gave up a 1st round pick to get him.  They are looking to maximise the final years with Crosby and Malkin.  Futures does nothing for them - they only have so few years left before they will likely have to rebuild.

[Pears]

Pittsburgh isn’t trading Kapanen for a 2nd time. 

[bigbadcanucks]

2 hours ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

Virtanen has negative value at this point, and I'd rather hold onto the 2nd anyways. If we do move a pick, I'd rather it be for a 3C or a RHD.

Totally agree...for someone to take Virtanen off the Canucks hands, additional assets would have to be offered, or the Canucks would have to take back an ugly contract.  Best thing Canucks can do is dump Virtanen on a buy out.

[IBatch]

22 minutes ago, bigbadcanucks said:

Totally agree...for someone to take Virtanen off the Canucks hands, additional assets would have to be offered, or the Canucks would have to take back an ugly contract.  Best thing Canucks can do is dump Virtanen on a buy out.

Yep.  Buy him out and close that chapter.  The "Church of V" isn't much different the the LRH stuff at this point.  A big disappointment.  

[oldnews]

2 hours ago, Patel Bure said:

It’s a decent trade for Vancouver but why would Pittsburgh agree to this?

why does Tampa agree to trading Miller?  I would have been skeptical beforehand - but it happened.

Obviously I can't speak for Pittsburgh - but what is their expansion protection list?  Where does Kapanen sit on that list?  And even if a player sits 6th, or 7th among forwards needing protection, how does Pitts perceive the value of the next tier of players - possible replacements, or players that serve other needs....Targetting a player that might be within their protection bracket is still a possibility, particularly if you're offering decent value in futures.

 

What is their cap situation moving forward?   If there's a snag, perhaps it's the Virtanen contract - otherwise would they deal Kapanen for a 2nd and good prospect?  I don't know but it's certainly not wildly off of the value they paid for him - and a lot of good teams are probably going to have to pick between losing a good player to expansion, or spending futures to avoid that, or getting into larger deals to move players and cap, etc. 

 

So I find it an interesting proposal for a few reasons....I have always liked Kapanen and wouldn't be opposed to a deal like this...The team arguably has the expansion spot to assign to a forward like Kapanen.    It may require the removal of Virtanen (or substitution and compensation for an alternative player going back).

 

Where I'd diverge from the offer is with the prospect - I wouldn't be looking to trade one of, if not the team's best RHD prospects - their position (arguably) of greatest need where imo they want to add, not take from, that part of their prospect depth/pool.   For me it would need to be a forward prospect of comparable value, one where Pitts gets a potential succession prospect that they don't have to protect and a pick (ideally one of the RW prospects where this team is deeper.  I wouldn't assume beforehand that a deal like that would necessarily not interest them.

[IBatch]

2 hours ago, mll said:

Pittsburgh gave up a 1st round pick to get him.  They are looking to maximise the final years with Crosby and Malkin.  Futures does nothing for them - they only have so few years left before they will likely have to rebuild.

Yep.   This would work for them IF they decide the time is now.   They have to consider starting soon ... 

[Sbriggs]

2 hours ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

Virtanen has negative value at this point, and I'd rather hold onto the 2nd anyways. If we do move a pick, I'd rather it be for a 3C or a RHD.

Thats the only reason we should move a pick

[oldnews]

2 hours ago, 70seven said:

To Pittsburgh:

2021 2nd round pick

Jake Virtanen

Jett Woo

 

 

To Vancouver:

Kasperi Kapanen

Cap is a wash. 
 

Vancouver gets a 24 year old winger with top 6 skill.  Burkey targets some “truculence”, a fresh start for Jake, and a couple piece to add to the incoming rebuild. 

 

 

 

 

2nd

RW prospect

 

Kapanen

 

I'd be interested in that structure.  If Van were to send cap the other way....?....is Pitts the team to be looking to send cap to?  Not sure.  So I'd be skeptical about including a Virtanen or Roussel or whomever, in a deal - but is that necessary?   Cap could be moved separately....while the 'underlying' deal may be more workable - but what additional cost - asset or buyout cap - would come with that?  I think they have the option of being aggressive in the trade market, but don't necessarily have to be - they will be expiring a lot of more contracts (Holtby, Eriksson, Roussel, Beagle, Virtanen) all expire in one year.   If the right deal is there - they can take advantage  or they can 'bank' their flexibility and remain in position to take advantage....

 

 

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, oldnews said:

2nd

RW prospect

 

Kapanen

 

I'd be interested in that structure.  If Van were to send cap the other way....?....is Pitts the team to be looking to send cap to?  Not sure.  So I'd be skeptical about including a Virtanen or Roussel or whomever, in a deal - but is that necessary?   Cap could be moved separately....while the 'underlying' deal may be more workable - but what additional cost - asset or buyout cap - would come with that?  I think they have the option of being aggressive in the trade market, but don't necessarily have to be - they will be expiring a lot of more contracts (Holtby, Eriksson, Roussel, Beagle, Virtanen) all expire in one year.   If the right deal is there - they can take advantage  or they can 'bank' their flexibility and remain in position to take advantage....

 

 

This looks like a good trade for both teams.  Pens get assets for a player they can’t protect from the ED.  We get a really good player, who is just entering his prime years, for a fair cost.  Kap isn’t Miller, but it’s a similar kind of trade.  

If we are already giving up a second, would Lockwood be too good of a prospect to include?  

[oldnews]

2 hours ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

Virtanen has negative value at this point, and I'd rather hold onto the 2nd anyways. If we do move a pick, I'd rather it be for a 3C or a RHD.

I agree with this in general - however the fact that Kapanen has another year of term and then expires an RFA - would be a reason I would not rule this out.

 

I wouldn't include both a 2nd and a RHD prospect - but this deal would not be the only deal intended or in a vacuum - the team could still go out and make a deal or deals for RHD or center(s)...(or they could elect to draft those while retaining futures).  Ie perhaps they limit what is available to futures as positions of relative depth.

If it were a 2nd next year - they might still be able to draft a pretty good RHD in the 2nd of this coming draft....

And if, for example, they moved other picks or prospects for the right young RHD - as well as a RW prospect + 2nd in a deal like this - while there are a fair number of affordable bottom six C options...The team could still go with veteran placeholders - even good ones -while looking to deepen their futures at center.

 

For me - team need might be

1) RHD partner for Hughtes

2) 'Bottom 6' centers - veteran and/or futures

with a player like Kapanen falling behind those.

 

But you don't necessarily have to address those in that order.

[JM_]

10 minutes ago, Alflives said:

This looks like a good trade for both teams.  Pens get assets for a player they can’t protect from the ED.  We get a really good player, who is just entering his prime years, for a fair cost.  Kap isn’t Miller, but it’s a similar kind of trade.  

If we are already giving up a second, would Lockwood be too good of a prospect to include?  

I think Burkie is going to have to make a big fat trade with Seattle, they are in real cap trouble, minus 1 million for next year as it stands today. They can probably get McCann and a 2nd for taking Letang. 

 

Edited June 6, 2021 by Jimmy McGill

[oldnews]

13 minutes ago, Alflives said:

This looks like a good trade for both teams.  Pens get assets for a player they can’t protect from the ED.  We get a really good player, who is just entering his prime years, for a fair cost.  Kap isn’t Miller, but it’s a similar kind of trade.  

If we are already giving up a second, would Lockwood be too good of a prospect to include?  

I like our forward prospects too much to name them lol - so I avoid specifying Lind, Lockwood, Gadjovich or whomever - but I think if they're acquiring a winger they can even moreso 'afford' to move from a position of prospect (winger) depth...

I have always liked Lind - Gadjovich just scored 15 goals in 19 AHL games, and Lockwood only had two games here this season, but he looked like someone who could also seriously challenge for a roster spot.....So I'm not necessarily in the 'get aggressive' mindset because I like the amount of emerging young talent (and expiring cap).  I think there could be uptick from within regardless.

Edited June 6, 2021 by oldnews

[IBatch]

25 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I think Burkie is going to have to make a big fat trade with Seattle, they are in real cap trouble, minus 1 million for next year as it stands today. They can probably get McCann and a 2nd for taking Letang. 

 

Tough being a good team these days.   Isn't it?   Think PIT might take this year as their breaking point  line personally.  With Malkin injured (again) its time to start dismantling.    They haven't done enough to rebuild around these guys again.   Might as well get it over with.  

Edited June 6, 2021 by IBatch

[IBatch]

25 minutes ago, oldnews said:

I like our forward prospects too much to name them lol - so I avoid specifying Lind, Lockwood, Gadjovich or whomever - but I think if they're acquiring a winger they can even moreso 'afford' to move from a position of prospect (winger) depth...

I have always liked Lind - Gadjovich just scored 15 goals in 19 AHL games, and Lockwood only had two games here this season, but he looked like someone who could also seriously challenge for a roster spot.....So I'm not necessarily in the 'get aggressive' mindset because I like the amount of emerging young talent (and expiring cap).  I think there could be uptick from within regardless.

Time to find out is how i feel.   We simply need too, not just for cap reasons but to find out how much rebuilding is still needed.  Could include a re-set as well. Or maybe we are ok.   That's what next year is all about.   Maybe the following one too, but that's it.    

[IBatch]

33 minutes ago, oldnews said:

I agree with this in general - however the fact that Kapanen has another year of term and then expires an RFA - would be a reason I would not rule this out.

 

I wouldn't include both a 2nd and a RHD prospect - but this deal would not be the only deal intended or in a vacuum - the team could still go out and make a deal or deals for RHD or center(s)...(or they could elect to draft those while retaining futures).  Ie perhaps they limit what is available to futures as positions of relative depth.

If it were a 2nd next year - they might still be able to draft a pretty good RHD in the 2nd of this coming draft....

And if, for example, they moved other picks or prospects for the right young RHD - as well as a RW prospect + 2nd in a deal like this - while there are a fair number of affordable bottom six C options...The team could still go with veteran placeholders - even good ones -while looking to deepen their futures at center.

 

For me - team need might be

1) RHD partner for Hughtes

2) 'Bottom 6' centers - veteran and/or futures

with a player like Kapanen falling behind those.

 

But you don't necessarily have to address those in that order.

Or we trade QHs.   Hate to say it but that's another option.   I'd trade QHs for Ekblad.   Would also trade him for Chychrun plus a little.   We don't have to build a D around QHs.  We could just have 6 top four D's instead. 

Edited June 6, 2021 by IBatch