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

[Trade] Canucks trade Jay Beagle, Loui Eriksson, Antoine Roussel, 2021 1st-round pick, 2022 2nd-round pick, 2023 7th-round pick to Coyotes for Oliver Ekman-Larsson, Conor Garland


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Master Mind said:

Personally I don't think it's right to pin hate on the player directly. Whether it's OEL, Myers, etc. They're doing the best they can out there, and can't blame them for taking the money.

 

However, when a player is paid higher than what he's providing on the ice, more scrutiny follows. That's why you don't see it with Schenn, as he has a smaller contract.

 

Any hate towards a player should be directed at management. That's who acquired the player after all. In OEL's case, we overpaid for an overpaid player, so fans are frustrated.

 

We do need dmen. The best way to build a defense is through drafting. Yet we keep trading picks away...

And this is also where I dont think BPA is always the best way to go when drafting. Idk how many young up and coming star dmen get traded… its rare. Forwards there is an abundancy and are likely more acquirable

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AnthonyG said:

And this is also where I dont think BPA is always the best way to go when drafting. Idk how many young up and coming star dmen get traded… its rare. Forwards there is an abundancy and are likely more acquirable

Then you trade down if you don't want the BPA. No good trade options available? Then take BPA.

 

This applies to the 1st round. We should be using our 2nds, 3rds, 4ths, etc on more dmen. But we need to acquire more picks, or at the very least hang onto our own.

 

This is why it's frustrating to see us continuously trade picks/prospects away.

  • Like 1
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AnthonyG said:

The more I watch this team play the more I’m in agreement that maybe its not systems, maybe its just the lack of complementary players that deepen the on ice chemistry.

Oh, I think that's very much a large part of it. We have an ill fitting collection of good players, with mis-aligned primes/ages and skill sets, and a few major holes.

 

1 hour ago, AnthonyG said:

I think if we found a Top pairing Dman for Hughes that complements his game, we could keep Myers and OEL together and maybe Schenn and Bear could be a 3rd pair with Burroughs as a #7. 

While I think both OEL and Myers are unjustly crapped on. I in no way want to keep Myers long term. He's like an "OEL-light" and the two of them are too similar to form a competent/complementary pair. That said, we're likely stuck with him until the '24 TDL when we can move him for some actual value, as a rental. People posting that we can just get rid of Myers (or any other "dead weight") this year and use that money to sign Bo....don't get what's happening here. We're in no position to give up the assets required to clear his cap entirely, to do that. At best, we'd be able to do a cap in/cap out hockey trade for a similar player at a different position. And we're not exactly in position to be giving up RHD for other positions either.

 

And OEL (despite my defense of him), isn't going anywhere either. Between his NMC and that this poop-show team isn't exactly putting him (or much of anyone else) in position to succeed/get the most out of him (and actually have trade value), we'd likely have to pay to move him and/or bring in a similar player/cap back anyway. We're far better off IMO just letting him play top 4 D (where we massively lack depth anyway), and ideally actually building a more complementary, competent D core around him and Hughes as time passes here.

 

This is why I REALLY didn't get some of their moves this summer. Simply trading Miller for the rumoured Chytil, Lundkvist and 1st would have freed most of the cap to acquire Marino for Rathbone +. There's a complementary partner for OEL. And without Miller's raise, there's the money to give Bo a raise this summer before he started challenging for the bloody Rocket Richard. We'd still need to eventually get a long term Hughes partner but Schenn could have still been the band-aid there in the interim. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Vintage 1
  • There it is 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, aGENT said:

Oh, I think that's very much a large part of it. We have an ill fitting collection of good players, with mis-aligned primes/ages and skill sets, and a few major holes.

 

While I think both OEL and Myers are unjustly crapped on. I in no way want to keep Myers long term. He's like an "OEL-light" and the two of them are too similar to form a competent/complementary pair. That said, we're likely stuck with him until the '24 TDL when we can move him for some actual value, as a rental. People posting that we can just get rid of Myers (or any other "dead weight") this year and use that money to sign Bo....don't get what's happening here. We're in no position to give up the assets required to clear his cap entirely, to do that. At best, we'd be able to do a cap in/cap out hockey trade for a similar player at a different position. And we're not exactly in position to be giving up RHD for other positions either.

 

And OEL (despite my defense of him), isn't going anywhere either. Between his NMC and that this poop-show team isn't exactly putting him (or much of anyone else) in position to succeed/get the most out of him (and actually have trade value), we'd likely have to pay to move him and/or bring in a similar player/cap back anyway. We're far better off IMO just letting him play top 4 D (where we massively lack depth anyway), and ideally actually building a more complementary, competent D core around him and Hughes as time passes here.

 

This is why I REALLY didn't get some of their moves this summer. Simply trading Miller for the rumoured Chytil, Lundkvist and 1st would have freed most of the cap to acquire Marino for Rathbone +. There's a complementary partner for OEL. And without Miller's raise, there's the money to give Bo a raise this summer before he started challenging for the bloody Rocket Richard. We'd still need to eventually get a long term Hughes partner but Schenn could have still been the band-aid there in the interim. 

 

You nailed it dude. 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, AnthonyG said:

Good CORSI is anything >53%

anything between 47%-53% is okay

bad CORSI is anything below 47%
 

CORSI is a measure of possession, who controls the play. Its measured by shots for vs shots against.

 

For example if you have 6 shots for and I have 6 shots against, for a total of 10 shots, you control 60% of the shots.

 

However when looking at CORSI there are things to consider. Such as what the players primary deployment is. How I view CORSI is I weigh it against their zone start %
 

Typically you’ll see a fluctuation in either direction of anywhere between .1-10% plus or minus. Any fluctation of 3% I find to be reasonable because it can be due to bounces, lost faceoffs, shot blocks and other things that may lead to small changes in possession that are normal in a game. Its not all on that player. But when I start to see 6-9% fluctuations its clear that there is either an issue on the ice or they are driving possession.

 

For example

 

60% offensive zone starts with a 60% CORSI is a player that maintains possession, doesnt drive it or lose it.

 

50% offensive zone start with 58% CORSI is a player who drives possession - 50/50 zone distribution and almost 60% of the play is in the oppositions end.

 

60% offensive zone start with a 50% CORSI is a player who is losing possession - you are starting in their zone “60%” of the time, yet the shots are 50/50. 
 

That is how CORSI is measured, I just tend to look at more than CORSI to get a better understanding of what is really going on. You could look solely at CORSI and see 57% CORSI and think holy crap thats solid! But then look at their zone start and see a 70% offensive zone start and then CORSI doesnt look to good.

 

Zone start and CORSI are always very close in % and as much as some people want to bash zone start % they are completely relatable and parallel stats which if measured against one another tells you if they drive possession, maintain possession or lose possession
 

 

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/18/2022 at 2:36 AM, AnthonyG said:

No offence but everyone that already dislikes OEL because he isnt the saviour and his cap hit is 7.2mil… There is going to be a bias agreement on any negative outlook on OEL. But they’ll turn a blind eye to Schenn and Hughes. Its the same with Poolman, he’ll make 2-3 subtle plays that are very smart plays, but no one notices and then the moment he does something slightly wrong everyone just blows up

I'm pretty sure this "OEL is a legit top-4 D and more or less earning his paycheck" take is going to age really poorly over the course of this season, not to mention over the remainder of his contract. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Thomas Drance in The Athletic:

 

"Oliver Ekman-Larsson was useful in his first Canucks season, but his play has regressed significantly through the first quarter of his second campaign. With nearly $35 million in salary-cap liabilities remaining on his contract, which also carries full no-move protection, Ekman-Larsson has one of the most immovable contracts in the league."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, dougieL said:

From Thomas Drance in The Athletic:

 

"Oliver Ekman-Larsson was useful in his first Canucks season, but his play has regressed significantly through the first quarter of his second campaign. With nearly $35 million in salary-cap liabilities remaining on his contract, which also carries full no-move protection, Ekman-Larsson has one of the most immovable contracts in the league."

Every no move clause is immovable if a player doesn't want to move.... In other news water is wet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, dougieL said:

From Thomas Drance in The Athletic:

 

"Oliver Ekman-Larsson was useful in his first Canucks season, but his play has regressed significantly through the first quarter of his second campaign. With nearly $35 million in salary-cap liabilities remaining on his contract, which also carries full no-move protection, Ekman-Larsson has one of the most immovable contracts in the league."

That guys a nerd! 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 5/23/2021 at 3:15 AM, Bad_BOI_pete said:

RE: the OEL trade.

 

Capfriendly suggests OEL  value is worth 5.4m*4 so im guessing those 2 extra years are very risky.

Capfriendly suggests Schmidts  value is worth 4.7m*4

Capfriendly suggests roussels  value is worth 1m*1

Capfriendly suggests LE  value is worth 785k*1 (likely political reasons why we are not playing him)

 

so OEL adds 8.3m*6 AAV  - 5.4*6 =17.4m in negative value(plus the last 2 years may add even more)

so schmidt adds 5.9m*4 AAV  - 4.7*4 =4.8m in negative value

so Roussel adds 3m*1 AAV  - 1*1 =2m in negative value

so LE adds 6m*a AAV  785k*1 =5.215m in negative value

 

so 17.4  - 4.8  -  2- 5.215 = 5.4m in negative value for the nucks

on top of that the canucks will pay 21.3 million dollars more in salary

 

the only way I do this trade is if arizona pays something in return for all the added risk and expected negative value. the 1 year handicap does not make up the difference.

I would only do this trade if arizona retained 30% on OEL and we retained  20% on schmidt.

 

it evens out the aav and decreases the salary difference to 9 million. I would add a condition of if we buyout OEL before the 5th year of his contract starts we add a 3rd rounder.

a 5.8M aav and 3.85m salary for OEL is much more palpable for years 5 and 6 and could be traded even if his production fell to a  3rd pairing

 

Interesting old suggestion i made if we were going to trade for oel, way back in the day. although there is not much difference in actual savings in cap there was some in the last year. and before you hate on me I was not encouraging this trade just trying to find a fair deal.

 

we gain 300k in cap space for 4 years and 1.485 million in cap space for the 5th year of OELS contract instead of a 3rd round pick.

 

another funny thing is i predicted the value of the retention as exactly a 3rd rounder by adding the OEL buyout condition.

 

I'm sure the Shayne Gostibehere trade screwed up bennings negotiations, he panicked and folded to arizona's gm. imagine if Jim was smart and did the Shayne Gostibehere trade instead of arizona and then made the above trade to arizona and let them keep Garland.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/23/2022 at 2:55 PM, dougieL said:

From Thomas Drance in The Athletic:

 

"Oliver Ekman-Larsson was useful in his first Canucks season, but his play has regressed significantly through the first quarter of his second campaign. With nearly $35 million in salary-cap liabilities remaining on his contract, which also carries full no-move protection, Ekman-Larsson has one of the most immovable contracts in the league."

Maybe. But get OEL a steady, stay at home partner like a Schenn is for Hughes, and see how goes. OEL must just cringe at some of his partners. 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

For some reason, wearing the jersey their whole careers, at that point, wasn't a selling point. 

Ownership and Benning liked new shiny toys, PR and hype. 
Maybe sell some merch. 

Big spender in the UFA market didn’t do us any favours either. 



 

 

  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Junkyard Dog said:

Could have Edler and Tanev at OEL’s cap hit alone. 

Tanev wouldn’t have been able to save this team.

 

The way they play Tanev would have already been injured from being forced to block too many shots.

 

The issues with this team runs way deeper than replacing OEL. It’s a team wide problem,

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DeNiro said:

Tanev wouldn’t have been able to save this team.

 

The way they play Tanev would have already been injured from being forced to block too many shots.

 

The issues with this team runs way deeper than replacing OEL. It’s a team wide problem,

Likely not but we’d be better off in the long run with the picks and cap we would have kept. Just pointing out the fact we mishandled how we spent our cap and the poor timing of the moves we have made. 
 

This trade never fit this team’s timeline. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My bet is that before the end of the weekend we are going to see a tweet about "XX Canucks Player, pack your bags... you are heading to YY!"

My hope is Miller can be moved to a team like Buffalo or Columbus.  My guess would be Columbus who need a centre for their top line pretty badly and have contracts signed meaning they aren't in a rebuild phase and need to improve now.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, rekker said:

Maybe. But get OEL a steady, stay at home partner like a Schenn is for Hughes, and see how goes. OEL must just cringe at some of his partners. 

That's not really the point. Just look at how often OEL gets burned or beat to pucks. It doesn't matter who you pair him with - he's simply not worth anything close to 7.26m. At that price point, he's supposed to be the one to prop up whichever pair he's on. As mentioned by others, we could do so much more with that cap space. 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, dougieL said:

That's not really the point. Just look at how often OEL gets burned or beat to pucks. It doesn't matter who you pair him with - he's simply not worth anything close to 7.26m. At that price point, he's supposed to be the one to prop up whichever pair he's on. As mentioned by others, we could do so much more with that cap space. 

 

I believe he can be better, with the right partner. But absolutely, overpaid for what he brings. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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