(Proposal) Van-Tampa

[J.I.A.H.N]

Ok, just another little though about Tampa Bay

 

Their second best prospect is 23 year old Alex Barre-Boulet, who is stuck behind all those talented forwards in Tampa. He is slight, so he has to play top 2 lines, but he has had 3 really great seasons in Syracuse hitting almost a point per game level the 1st 2 years, and then slightly more than a point a game, in a shortened Covid season.

 

So, if I am Seattle, fully knowing that Tampa is in a bind, I take Barre-Boulet, which fills a prospect need, and I wait until Brisebois calls and I take him to the cleaners......so they get a prospect and maybe 2 roster players, at least. I would not do it any other way.

[J.I.A.H.N]

Although I am trying to sell you on Barre-Boulet....you guys said "WHO", which is exactly my point....................

 

Tampa has no prospects.........no picks to speak of..........and no players that will move

 

What are you going to do?

[Bertuzzipunch]

To be able 2 fill both those needs(RHD,3C)that can help the team immediately is a no brainer for me. It would change everything. We still have 8 picks this draft to fill the cupboard with  and a bunch of money to fill out the rest of the team next offseason. This is a very aggressive approach and one i hope JB looks at doing. 
 

edit: This is by far my favorite proposal ive read here

Edited June 7, 2021 by Bertuzzipunch

[BPA]

Tampa is in a win now mode.  So I don't think they care much about losing a prospect.  Guessing they would rather keep the core and make roster improvements where possible. 

[86Viking]

9 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

 

 

Note*4

Eriksson will be buried if Benning has extra cap, as it only save $1million, as compared to a buyout, and ends 1 year early. My guess is Erksson retired after his bonus is paid.

Who in their right mind would just walk away and retire from 3m in salary if all he has to do is sit in the press box, or loaf around the ice in abbotsford. I actually think trading LE wont be that hard, we may have to retain 50% but if we took back a similar player back or someone with salary we may only have to add a mid round pick to make the deal. That would net us a 2-3m savings against the cap depending who we got back in return

[Phil_314]

I'd like Cirelli and Cernak too but BriseBois seems to have those two as part of his 4-4-1 protection scheme per many predictions.
I'd be happy poaching Gourde for cheaper (in terms of pick being traded out) and then shop for an RD elsewhere.

[86Viking]

Cernak would be a dream add for the Canucks. I would give up a prime asset for him, Podkolzin...Ya it would sting to lose him before ever seeing what he could do for us. But getting a top pair RHD to protect and play with Hughes for a decade is always like me winning the 70m lotto max on tuesday...and you all laughing but then me coming on Wednesday morning to say that it actually happened!!

 

A top pair RHD who is young and is playing like Cernak is at his age is worth way more to us or any team than a solid hard nosed 2 way power forward winger who can put up 50-70 pts a year with maybe 1 or 2 ppg years in his prime in a prospect like Podkolzin

[86Viking]

1 minute ago, Phil_314 said:

I'd like Cirelli and Cernak too but BriseBois seems to have those two as part of his 4-4-1 protection scheme per many predictions.
I'd be happy poaching Gourde for cheaper (in terms of pick being traded out) and then shop for an RD elsewhere.

I like Gourde, I kind of see him like a Matthieu Perreault but maybe slightly better. So in saying that as a comparison I am wondering if his contract is going to age well for a player like Gourde. He has a long term deal at over 5m per which may hinder us down the road with Bo, Miller, Boeser, Hog, Pod all needing new deals during Gourde's remaining contract

[J.I.A.H.N]

23 minutes ago, Phil_314 said:

I'd like Cirelli and Cernak too but BriseBois seems to have those two as part of his 4-4-1 protection scheme per many predictions.
I'd be happy poaching Gourde for cheaper (in terms of pick being traded out) and then shop for an RD elsewhere.

I get what you mean Phil, but I am wonder what happens if Seattle does the dirty and picks a prospect instead, so then Tampa is still sitting with 10 Million above cap?

 

There is hardly any teams with that type of space, so in the end, it comes back to the same result....Tampa goes 4-4-1 and still is that 10 million over

 

What do they do next? One less prospect, and still the same bill to pay to get under......Vancouver is a very good spot to be in......we have alot of options

 

Tampa does not. They will not lose their top 5, but the next 5 are up in the air, and the ones with NTC and NMC, will just say no, like last time........

 

I mean, who wants to go to Winnipeg?

 

 

Edited June 7, 2021 by janisahockeynut

[Phil_314]

11 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

I get what you mean Phil, but I am wonder what happens if Seattle does the dirty and picks a prospect instead, so then Tampa is still sitting with 10 Million above cap?

 

There is hardly any teams with that type of space, so in the end, it comes back to the same result....Tampa goes 4-4-1 and still is that 10 million over

What do they do next? One less prospect, and still the same bill to pay to get under......Vancouver is a very good spot to be in......we have alot of options

Tampa does not. They will not lose their top 5, but the next 5 are up in the air, and the ones with NTC and NMC, will just say no, like last time........

I mean, who wants to go to Winnipeg?

The bolded point I agree with for sure, Seattle could screw Tampa over by outright taking a prospect and then have TB pay them to take another big contract.
Problem is, Cirelli's value for the Lightning is probably just behind Kucherov, Point and Stamkos as another of their shutdown centers, and while Killorn/ Palat also have value, I doubt it's enough to unseat Cirelli in their pecking order, so TB doing them dirty doesn't change who they'll protect (in the 4 I mentioned).  They're not going to sell on Cirelli when they're already planning to protect him from Seattle and they could (and will have to) ship out more expensive depth in the other guys.  It also doesn't mean that Vancouver can't sweep in to steal Killorn or Gourde (the two that I'd want) but again I doubt Cirelli becomes available when he's younger than both and cheaper than Gourde, while also playing a more important position in center.

[Phil_314]

38 minutes ago, Canuckster86 said:

I like Gourde, I kind of see him like a Matthieu Perreault but maybe slightly better. So in saying that as a comparison I am wondering if his contract is going to age well for a player like Gourde. He has a long term deal at over 5m per which may hinder us down the road with Bo, Miller, Boeser, Hog, Pod all needing new deals during Gourde's remaining contract

Fair point.  My opinion though is that, after the top-6 F and top-4 D are signed, 3rd C is also an important depth piece to acquire, and having the right guy is important (so it'll come at a price).  As mentioned in my other reply, I doubt Cirelli becomes available so in the context of this discussion Gourde became (and is) the suitable candidate since he's their incumbent 3rd C.  Not saying that he's affordable at north of $5 million, but once our cap situation is optimized (and hopefully as our ELC's need re-signing the cap has gone up by then), Gourde's cap percentage probably becomes palatable.  

[J.I.A.H.N]

1 hour ago, Phil_314 said:

The bolded point I agree with for sure, Seattle could screw Tampa over by outright taking a prospect and then have TB pay them to take another big contract.
Problem is, Cirelli's value for the Lightning is probably just behind Kucherov, Point and Stamkos as another of their shutdown centers, and while Killorn/ Palat also have value, I doubt it's enough to unseat Cirelli in their pecking order, so TB doing them dirty doesn't change who they'll protect (in the 4 I mentioned).  They're not going to sell on Cirelli when they're already planning to protect him from Seattle and they could (and will have to) ship out more expensive depth in the other guys.  It also doesn't mean that Vancouver can't sweep in to steal Killorn or Gourde (the two that I'd want) but again I doubt Cirelli becomes available when he's younger than both and cheaper than Gourde, while also playing a more important position in center.

Ok.......I am going to have to lay it out for you......maybe I am missing something here

 

Kucherov and Stamkos has NMC's, Palat, Gourde, Johnson and Maroon have NTC's, Killorn has a M-NTC.............that is $34,000,000

Hedman and McDonagh  have NMC and NTC's.....that is $14,500,000

They are not trading Point, Sergachev, Vasilevskiy, which is another $21,500,000

 

That totals.............$70,000,000 for 10 skaters that they can't or won't get rid of

 

That leaves $11,500,000 for 12 to 13 more men..............of which Cernak and Cirelli make $7,750,000 of that

 

Which then leaves approx. $4,000,000 for 10 to 11 skaters, which averages out at approx. $375,000 per skater, which they absolutely can not do, so they now have to convince one or two of these NMC's or NTC to retire, or wave their clauses, and then after all that, they have to find a team with Cap space that wants to spend it on aging veterans.....for years to come, as none of them expire in anything less than 3 years, except Palat, Point and Cirelli, unless you want to count Maroons 900,000

 

The league did them a solid, and never called BS, but the truth is, they were screwed until Kucherov faked his prolonged injury..............which was all BS

 

So, no one will go, and you have to clear $10,000,000 off the books, and remember Cernak and Cirelli  account for 7,750,000 of their problem, so if Seattle takes a prospect, then Tampa still has to clear that $10 million, with no one wanting to leave, and the players association would be all over any harassment, so.........

 

I do not know how they do it? Would you take a broken down Stamkos? and then another? without any return............because no one is doing them any favors...........

 

This Stamkos, Cernak and a 2022 1st, which then means for the next 2 years the highest pick they have is 1-3rd rounder, and 1-4th rounder.

 

I am sure they find a evil way to get out of it, but the alternative is a trade like what I suggest, where they actually get a return, instead of just giving it away

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 7, 2021 by janisahockeynut

[BPA]

Simple solution at cap circumvention.  Stamkos gets "injured" during the summer and goes on LTIR for year and miraculously is fine for the start of the playoffs. 

 

[mll]

19 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

Well the first thing that crosses my mind, is who do they protect.?

I agree, they protect Cirelli, but who do they protect on defense? I mean if they want to stay competitive.

 

Second thing that crosses my mind is, we are offering solid pieces, those assets could certainly come close to getting equal valued players, from other sources, so its not like we are offering chump change.

 

Thirdly, their window is starting to close, and no picks to use to shore it up. 

 

The other thing is teams are starting to say no to Tampa, in  term of taking aging players, Johnson is the example of that, so as part of that, they gave up Miller, hoping to fix their problem, which did not happen. Miller was not the fix.......someone was suppose to take Johnson.......now they are 10 million over and no one is injured. No way they will be allowed to pull that one again.

 

Sergachev and Point are core, Headman and Kucherov are core, Vasilevskyi is core, Stamkos is core.........Cerelli and Cernak are not as important albeit solid. there is also alot of NTC's on that team, which they can not move, and have big expensive contracts. 

 

None of these guys will wave, because all love it there. The Gm will have to work it out. we are offering a way to get out, and build, while competing......

You should also consider that any player that does wave their NTC is actually reducing their own salary in most cases.......when was the last time you voted for a drop in take home pay?

 

Just for the record, I would even put in our 2023-1st, for 2 studs like that......IMO, this is close to putting us over the top.......all of a sudden, we are not needing the 2 pieces we absolutely needed, it takes pressure off of every line, and helps Hughes exponentially. Im am not even sure he goes with Hughes as Rathbone and Cernak may become your #1 pairing and Hughes and Harmonic becomes your #2 pairing, and Hughes is your PP Dman.

 

Does Tampa's GM jump up and say wow, thanks! Probably not, but we are offering a good package

 

 

 

Lind could well end up on waivers next season - if they believed in him not sure he would have been healthy scratched with waivers next season rather than give him more experience.  Woo is an unknown at the NHL level and several years away (which doesn't help Tampa given their core).  Adding Cirelli and Cernak could well help Vancouver get into the playoffs so they might end up with only a late 1st.

 

How is their window closing.  Kucherov is only in the 2nd year of an 8 year deal.  Vasilevskiy in the 1st year of an 8 year deal.  Sergachev is just as young as Juolevi who has yet to become a full time NHLer.  Cernak was drafted the same year as Boeser.  Point is 1 year younger than Horvat.  Hedman is younger than Myers.

 

Tampa is competitive.  Players seem to want to go there to try and win even if it means a pay cut.  They'll likely always be able to fill their roster as long as their core is that strong.  They probably won't need to be overpaying to attract UFAs.  

 

Last off-season Brisebois made it clear that Cernak, Cirelli and Sergachev were essential and guys they needed to win more Cups.  He says they are still so young and just scratching the surface.  It's in french but these tweets by McKenzie below should do.  

 

Tampa can protect their core whether 4 + 4 or 7 + 3.  Stamkos and his NMC, Cirelli, Point and Kucherov - that's 4 forwards.   Sergachev, Hedman and Cernak on D - that's 3 Ds. 

The expansion draft voids the NTC - Tampa has every reason to try and move one of their NTC players to Seattle.

 

 

Edited June 7, 2021 by mll

[J.I.A.H.N]

23 minutes ago, mll said:

 

Lind could well end up on waivers next season - if they believed in him not sure he would have been healthy scratched with waivers next season rather than give him more experience.  Woo is an unknown at the NHL level and several years away (which doesn't help Tampa given their core).  Adding Cirelli and Cernak could well help Vancouver get into the playoffs so they might end up with only a late 1st.

 

How is their window closing.  Kucherov is only in the 2nd year of an 8 year deal.  Vasilevskiy in the 1st year of an 8 year deal.  Sergachev is just as young as Juolevi who has yet to become a full time NHLer.  Cernak was drafted the same year as Boeser.  Point is 1 year younger than Horvat.  Hedman is younger than Myers.

 

Tampa is competitive.  Players seem to want to go there to try and win even if it means a pay cut.  They'll likely always be able to fill their roster as long as their core is that strong.  They probably won't need to be overpaying to attract UFAs.  

 

Last off-season Brisebois made it clear that Cernak, Cirelli and Sergachev were essential and guys they needed to win more Cups.  He says they are still so young and just scratching the surface.  It's in french but these tweets by McKenzie below should do.  

 

Tampa can protect their core whether 4 + 4 or 7 + 3.  Stamkos and his NMC, Cirelli, Point and Kucherov - that's 4 forwards.   Sergachev, Hedman and Cernak on D - that's 3 Ds. 

The expansion draft voids the NTC - Tampa has every reason to try and move one of their NTC players to Seattle.

 

 

The Tampa GM can say what ever he wants. His players that have NTC's and NMC's have all, as recently as last year, declined to waive their clauses.

 

A Gm that goes past asking them politely, runs the risk of pissing off the Players Ass. Players sign these clauses at a reduced Cap, to give Tampa that break.

 

So, I do not see things changing. Who wants to blink first? The players in this case hold all the cards.

 

The other thing that Brisebois has absolutely no control over, is other teams Cap space. When you look at the teams that do have space, not many can take on a large contract, 

 

and what is not answered is the age. Do you honestly think these players Brisebois wants to move and who are already 30ish, are long for playing their entire career at a high

 

level? IMO, team will look long and hard at taking on term on a 30 year old. So I do not think it is as easy as Brisebois said, if it was Johnson would have been gone, and

 

last time I checked, he was still there.

 

As for my comment and your response about the team declining......what I mean by that is they are at the top, much like we were in 2011, but just like the Canucks started to

 

decline, so will Tampa. It is a matter of time, whether it is next year or the year after that.

 

In the end, your are probably right short term, but they are really thin in their prospects base, and with not much in the way of picks for the next 2 years, so their prospects will 

 

not being making much of an impact for the next 3 to 5 years.......

 

It will be interesting to watch them squirm out of this, and with the league basically helping them, and their tax relief, I can see it happen......so we will see.

 

I do not think just because Brisebois says it is so, it is so. What would you expect him to say......."Yeah, no one wants to leave, and I screwed up", "we are hooped!"

 

It is all smoke and mirrors............

[mll]

3 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

The Tampa GM can say what ever he wants. His players that have NTC's and NMC's have all, as recently as last year, declined to waive their clauses.

 

A Gm that goes past asking them politely, runs the risk of pissing off the Players Ass. Players sign these clauses at a reduced Cap, to give Tampa that break.

 

So, I do not see things changing. Who wants to blink first? The players in this case hold all the cards.

 

The other thing that Brisebois has absolutely no control over, is other teams Cap space. When you look at the teams that do have space, not many can take on a large contract, 

 

and what is not answered is the age. Do you honestly think these players Brisebois wants to move and who are already 30ish, are long for playing their entire career at a high

 

level? IMO, team will look long and hard at taking on term on a 30 year old. So I do not think it is as easy as Brisebois said, if it was Johnson would have been gone, and

 

last time I checked, he was still there.

 

As for my comment and your response about the team declining......what I mean by that is they are at the top, much like we were in 2011, but just like the Canucks started to

 

decline, so will Tampa. It is a matter of time, whether it is next year or the year after that.

 

In the end, your are probably right short term, but they are really thin in their prospects base, and with not much in the way of picks for the next 2 years, so their prospects will 

 

not being making much of an impact for the next 3 to 5 years.......

 

It will be interesting to watch them squirm out of this, and with the league basically helping them, and their tax relief, I can see it happen......so we will see.

 

I do not think just because Brisebois says it is so, it is so. What would you expect him to say......."Yeah, no one wants to leave, and I screwed up", "we are hooped!"

 

It is all smoke and mirrors............

 

The NTC doesn't apply for expansion.  Tampa will need to add a sweetener but it's a unique opportunity to move cap.

 

Tampa can also threaten to waive a player and who knows where he could end up, so they are better off working with Brisebois on a trade.  NTCs can be put on waivers unlike NMCs.  They can also retain in a trade.   They can also buy out players - Johnson is now a 1M cap hit. 

 

Once Kucherov went on LTIR it was no longer pressing to move Johnson or anyone else.  There was no reason to move anyone in season and they are now in the playoffs.  They will need to make the moves this off-season though.

 

It's going to cost them to clear cap but I don't think it's a reason they will trade their core.  Vancouver could use some cap space - I can't imagine Benning would trade Höglander or Podkolzin let alone a core player to make that happen.  If a team needs cap space - they typically look to clear players that aren't seen as essential to the future.

 

Edited June 7, 2021 by mll

[khay]

23 hours ago, Fanuck said:

A real quick no from TB, I assume?

 

No way they trade a couple of 23 year old core players in Cirelli and Cernak for that package.

 

All their core players are still in their prime age (Kucherov, Stamkos, Hedman, Vasilevsky, Point, Cirelli, Cernak, Sergachev) with Hedman and Stamkos being a bit older but super stars usually play well into mid 30's so they still have about 5 years to win as many cups as possible before some of that core ages out.

 

I fully expect Tampa to win a few more cups in their current window as long as they can keep their core intact.

 

Gosh as I write this post, I just realized how deep that team is. Even players like Johnson, Killorn, Palat, and Miller are good players but they are considered cap dumps by the Bolts.

 

It's just depressing to know that it's just dang hard it is to win a cup. How the heck can anyone beat that team?

 

I think the NHL needs to impose cap based on tax rates. It's like Tampa is getting a boost to their salary cap because of low taxes. Seattle also doesn't have a state tax so about 10% lower that the players have to pay compared to players in Canada.

 

 

[86Viking]

52 minutes ago, khay said:

I think the NHL needs to impose cap based on tax rates. It's like Tampa is getting a boost to their salary cap because of low taxes. Seattle also doesn't have a state tax so about 10% lower that the players have to pay compared to players in Canada.

 

 

This 100% should happen...but will it, I doubt it but fingers crossed something gets done. Same goes for the silly burning an entire year of your contract signing late in the year out of college and only playing a handful of games. It is exciting for the fans, but it hurts the team, look at the Canucks...Boeser would have needed a deal regardless, but when we are talking about Hughes...he would still be on his ELC next year, meaning our cap issues this summer would be far less of an issue than they are now with both Petey AND Hughes needing contracts all because Quinton played a cup of tea's worth of games.

 

It has always boggled me as to why this occured...cause a player can play 8 or 9 nhl games to start a season before being sent down and it NOT affecting his contract and it would just slide to the next year if the player went back to junior or a lower league.

[Bertuzzipunch]

1 minute ago, Canuckster86 said:

This 100% should happen...but will it, I doubt it but fingers crossed something gets done. Same goes for the silly burning an entire year of your contract signing late in the year out of college and only playing a handful of games. It is exciting for the fans, but it hurts the team, look at the Canucks...Boeser would have needed a deal regardless, but when we are talking about Hughes...he would still be on his ELC next year, meaning our cap issues this summer would be far less of an issue than they are now with both Petey AND Hughes needing contracts all because Quinton played a cup of tea's worth of games.

 

It has always boggled me as to why this occured...cause a player can play 8 or 9 nhl games to start a season before being sent down and it NOT affecting his contract and it would just slide to the next year if the player went back to junior or a lower league.

I agree burning a year of QH ELC was pretty dumb. Da hell were they thinking there  smh.

[mll]

8 minutes ago, Canuckster86 said:

This 100% should happen...but will it, I doubt it but fingers crossed something gets done. Same goes for the silly burning an entire year of your contract signing late in the year out of college and only playing a handful of games. It is exciting for the fans, but it hurts the team, look at the Canucks...Boeser would have needed a deal regardless, but when we are talking about Hughes...he would still be on his ELC next year, meaning our cap issues this summer would be far less of an issue than they are now with both Petey AND Hughes needing contracts all because Quinton played a cup of tea's worth of games.

 

It has always boggled me as to why this occured...cause a player can play 8 or 9 nhl games to start a season before being sent down and it NOT affecting his contract and it would just slide to the next year if the player went back to junior or a lower league.

Signing age.  Only contracts for teenagers can slide but he was considered to be 20 when he signed so no slide.  For college players burning a year is an incentive to get them to sign.

 

Boldy never played for the Wild this season but played in Iowa once his college season was over.  They still burned a year rather than send him on a tryout to Iowa and have his contract start only next season.