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

[Speculation] Boston has offer on the table for Canucks backup Braden Holtby


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, tas said:

because $4.3m cap/$5.7m cash is a lot of quiche for a backup.

Not when you have a rookie starter.

And not for a number of teams who are losing goaltenders to FA or the e.d....

We have a solid use for Holtby if he's not moved.

He can be bought out for a 500k and 1.9m cap hit - an option I do not advocate.

 

It's really simple imo - if a team doesn't want to take him on as is - move on to your next option - we will keep him.

  • Thanks 1
  • Hydration 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Devron44 said:

Yes 2019-2020 he was a rookie.

 

Sophmore 2021

 

Check my edit 

He's been a dressed member of the Canucks since 2017-2018 - how is he a rookie when he's been in the league for 4 years? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, oldnews said:

Not when you have a rookie starter.

And not for a number of teams who are losing goaltenders to FA or the e.d....

We have a solid use for Holtby if he's not moved.

He can be bought out for a 500k and 1.9m cap hit - an option I do not advocate.

 

It's really simple imo - if a team doesn't want to take him on as is - move on to your next option - we will keep him.

only really works if you have a taker for schmidt though. I agree that I'd rather keep holtby than take back salary, retain any more than $1 mil, or buy him out, but I'd be willing to throw in a gadjovich or brisebois or 5th round pick to move him out if that's what it takes (at full salary). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CJ44 said:

He's been a dressed member of the Canucks since 2017-2018 - how is he a rookie when he's been in the league for 4 years? 

go look up the league rules, that will make it clear how. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CJ44 said:

He's been a dressed member of the Canucks since 2017-2018 - how is he a rookie when he's been in the league for 4 years? 

You’re a rookie till you play 25 games in the nhl 26 and under. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BPA said:

Other teams probably thinking Canucks are still in a cap crunch and willing to part with a draft pick for no retention on Holtby 

 

If that is the case, I'd rather just keep Holtby for one more year.  He'd provide a solid backup to Demko.

When you have the Leafs rumoured to be involved in anything, you can count on their media arm to do their pointless public bidding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, tas said:

only really works if you have a taker for schmidt though. I agree that I'd rather keep holtby than take back salary, retain any more than $1 mil, or buy him out, but I'd be willing to throw in a gadjovich or brisebois or 5th round pick to move him out if that's what it takes (at full salary). 

I couldn't care less if there is a taker for Schmidt.   We are the taker for Schmidt.  We have a lot of use for Schmidt - he's about as versatile as defensemen come - and with three young D, you need versatile veterans.

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

1 minute ago, Devron44 said:

You’re a rookie till you play 25 games in the nhl 26 and under. 

Yeah I understand that definition, just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me I guess haha. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CJ44 said:

Yeah I understand that definition, just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me I guess haha. 

Rookie Qualifications

To be considered a rookie, a player must not have played in more than 25 NHL games in any preceding seasons, nor in six or more NHL games in each of any two preceding seasons. Any player at least 26 years of age (by September 15th of that season) is not considered a rookie.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Devron44 said:

You’re a rookie till you play 25 games in the nhl 26 and under. 

Fair point, I guess the main point is our D has played terrible in our own end, and he has faced a ton of shots. He's only going to get better I believe. 

  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, tas said:

only really works if you have a taker for schmidt though. I agree that I'd rather keep holtby than take back salary, retain any more than $1 mil, or buy him out, but I'd be willing to throw in a gadjovich or brisebois or 5th round pick to move him out if that's what it takes (at full salary). 

"Throwing in" a Gadjovich is - (or equating him to a mere 5th round pick) - makes absolutely no sense to me - nor would I value moving Holtby anywhere near that highly.

 

buying out Holtby and offsetting 1.9 million of cap into two seasons from now is also a bad idea imo.

That is when this team's young core starts getting closer to approaching their primes...

 

My approach going into this summer would have been to prioritize that season - and let the contracts we had - LE, Roussel, Beagle, Holtby (Sutter) - expire in the meantime.

 

I'm ok with what they did - because of the sheer value that Benning got in the process of dealing that 9thOA pick.

 

I would have focused on dealing that pick for the right RHD - and if that didn't pan out - keep it, and possibly trade down.

 

But getting Garland in that deal - and OEL - and moving 12 million of cap - and getting 7.2 retention - I'm ok with the 'aggressiveness' and a bit less patience than I wanted them to exercise.   The price the Coyotes were expecting last summer - with no leverage and a list of two - was unrealistic imo.  This time around they were evidently prepared to 'get real' - and if anything, I was surprised that we got additions like Roussel thrown into that deal....

 

The one year of Holtby remaining is very easy to palate in that context - this team already accomplished a massive haul that took care of a whole range of issues in one fell swoop - and did so at what I'd consider well below market value to move that much cap in the present climate. 

 

Which makes me even less likely to cave to anyone expecting us to turn around and overpay to move an asset that a lot of teams actually need in the present.

 

Just keep Holtby if teams aren't prepared to meet our terms.  We have no lack of leverage here - we don't really need to move him.  If it means not getting into what looks like a typical free agent frenzy over RHD - so be it - it's not looking like the best opportunity to be a buyer of free agents in any event.  Target the more reasonable placeholders if need be - and continue to look for that future partner for Hughes (which doesn't need to be completed by opening night).

 

 

  • Hydration 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, oldnews said:

"Throwing in" a Gadjovich is - (or equating him to a mere 5th round pick) - makes absolutely no sense to me - nor would I value moving Holtby anywhere near that highly.

 

buying out Holtby and offsetting 1.9 million of cap into two seasons from now is also a bad idea imo.

That is when this team's young core starts getting closer to approaching their primes...

 

My approach going into this summer would have been to prioritize that season - and let the contracts we had - LE, Roussel, Beagle, Holtby (Sutter) - expire in the meantime.

 

I'm ok with what they did - because of the sheer value that Benning got in the process of dealing that 9thOA pick.

 

I would have focused on dealing that pick for the right RHD - and if that didn't pan out - keep it, and possibly trade down.

 

But getting Garland in that deal - and OEL - and moving 12 million of cap - and getting 7.2 retention - I'm ok with the 'aggressiveness' and a bit less patience than I wanted them to exercise.   The price the Coyotes were expecting last summer - with no leverage and a list of two - was unrealistic imo.  This time around they were evidently prepared to 'get real' - and if anything, I was surprised that we got additions like Roussel thrown into that deal....

 

The one year of Holtby remaining is very easy to palate in that context - this team already accomplished a massive haul that took care of a whole range of issues in one fell swoop - and did so at what I'd consider well below market value to move that much cap in the present climate. 

 

Which makes me even less likely to cave to anyone expecting us to turn around and overpay to move an asset that a lot of teams actually need in the present.

 

Just keep Holtby if teams aren't prepared to meet our terms.  We have no lack of leverage here - we don't really need to move him.  If it means not getting into what looks like a typical free agent frenzy over RHD - so be it - it's not looking like the best opportunity to be a buyer of free agents in any event.  Target the more reasonable placeholders if need be - and continue to look for that future partner for Hughes (which doesn't need to be completed by opening night).

 

 


I would let teams know that we aren’t buying him out and that we’re quite prepared to go into the season with him. Give us something for him with no, or very little retention or we’re not interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If TO is wanting Holtby I'd try to do something like this...

 

 

Schmidt + Holtby + 2nd 2023 + Rathbone for Nylander + Holl.

 

TO gets better on the D, 1B goalie, budding prospect, and a pick.

 

VAN gets a 1st line winger and a solid big RHD.

 

:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, oldnews said:

"Throwing in" a Gadjovich is - (or equating him to a mere 5th round pick) - makes absolutely no sense to me - nor would I value moving Holtby anywhere near that highly.

 

buying out Holtby and offsetting 1.9 million of cap into two seasons from now is also a bad idea imo.

That is when this team's young core starts getting closer to approaching their primes...

 

My approach going into this summer would have been to prioritize that season - and let the contracts we had - LE, Roussel, Beagle, Holtby (Sutter) - expire in the meantime.

 

I'm ok with what they did - because of the sheer value that Benning got in the process of dealing that 9thOA pick.

 

I would have focused on dealing that pick for the right RHD - and if that didn't pan out - keep it, and possibly trade down.

 

But getting Garland in that deal - and OEL - and moving 12 million of cap - and getting 7.2 retention - I'm ok with the 'aggressiveness' and a bit less patience than I wanted them to exercise.   The price the Coyotes were expecting last summer - with no leverage and a list of two - was unrealistic imo.  This time around they were evidently prepared to 'get real' - and if anything, I was surprised that we got additions like Roussel thrown into that deal....

 

The one year of Holtby remaining is very easy to palate in that context - this team already accomplished a massive haul that took care of a whole range of issues in one fell swoop - and did so at what I'd consider well below market value to move that much cap in the present climate. 

 

Which makes me even less likely to cave to anyone expecting us to turn around and overpay to move an asset that a lot of teams actually need in the present.

 

Just keep Holtby if teams aren't prepared to meet our terms.  We have no lack of leverage here - we don't really need to move him.  If it means not getting into what looks like a typical free agent frenzy over RHD - so be it - it's not looking like the best opportunity to be a buyer of free agents in any event.  Target the more reasonable placeholders if need be - and continue to look for that future partner for Hughes (which doesn't need to be completed by opening night).

 

 

it just looks challenging financially to fill the remaining holes on the roster if both schmidt and holtby return. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, BPA said:

If TO is wanting Holtby I'd try to do something like this...

 

 

Schmidt + Holtby + 2nd 2023 + Rathbone for Nylander + Holl.

 

TO gets better on the D, 1B goalie, budding prospect, and a pick.

 

VAN gets a 1st line winger and a solid big RHD.

 

:P

nylander's hairdo alone would make this team unacceptably soft, let alone his actual play. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Toronto wants Holtby it’s because they’re losing Andersen and need a 1B in case Campbell was a flash in the pan.

 

They can go to the market and try and get that player but they’re probably going to pay just as much for a player of Holtbys level.
 

They absolutely need a legit backup otherwise their season could go sideways real quick.

 

Toronto media will try to paint it as if we’re the desperate ones but it’s quite the opposite.

  • Like 1
  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • b3. locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...