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, oldnews said:

I don't agree whatsoever - but that doesn't matter.

 

Let's get to brass tacks - let's see your proposal to "upgrade" over Schmidt using the cap you gain.

which parts don't you agree with?

 

I don't even have a proposal. I'm not going to pretend to know what's possible and what isn't because we just don't have enough information about what players are looking for, where they're willing to go, etc. 

 

my stance is also predicated on the rumours of schmidt being unhappy being true. if he's genuinely happy to stay in vancouver and fits in with the group and coaches, then I would only move him if it enabled the acquisition of an equivalent right side guy or if the team had a deal to bring in an adequate replacement for him on a better deal. that said, if he would prefer to go elsewhere (whether or not he's willing to grit his teeth and power through anyway), the added cap savings alone would be an upgrade as far as I'm concerned. this group can't afford any dressing room discontent. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DeNiro said:

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.

Toronto media can paint a Mona Lisa...I don't think anyone here gives a rats @$$ what the Toronto media has to say.

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, tas said:

which parts don't you agree with?

 

I don't even have a proposal. I'm not going to pretend to know what's possible and what isn't because we just don't have enough information about what players are looking for, where they're willing to go, etc. 

 

my stance is also predicated on the rumours of schmidt being unhappy being true. if he's genuinely happy to stay in vancouver and fits in with the group and coaches, then I would only move him if it enabled the acquisition of an equivalent right side guy or if the team had a deal to bring in an adequate replacement for him on a better deal. that said, if he would prefer to go elsewhere (whether or not he's willing to grit his teeth and power through anyway), the added cap savings alone would be an upgrade as far as I'm concerned. this group can't afford any dressing room discontent. 

I don't agree with any of it.  The time, imperative to be aggressive - stories/assumptions about 'employment'.

 

They've already been highly aggressive - when the opportunity to do so was right.

 

Wanting to be aggressive -anticipating certain market conditions - doesn't mean you categorically should be - particularly if/when the market doesn't play out as hoped/anticipated.  The Arizona deal was particularly opportune imo - against the grain of the market imo - for particular reasons (Zona leaking as a franchise, OEL's list of 2, etc) - they were ripe for the kind of deal this team cut with them.  Realistically to move a pair of contracts like LE and Roussel's alone, under 'normal'/present circumstances - could/would take the bulk of what was sent out, alone.

 

Anyhow - without actual proposals - ideas of who to actually target in this market - the whole idea of 'upgrading' is a sandcastle - and getting the cart ahead of the horse.  A shrewd buyer is not going to chase the shiny, big fish assets in frenzy conditions (this market is not looking like last year's) - they'll target the relative value outside the margins - which is what I'd propose regardless, unless some player really wants to come here. 

 

Actually - what I'd probably do - is get out ahead of it and sign Edler if he wants to come back at reasonable terms - having him in your back pocket beforehand, if you actually intend to move Schmidt, would not be the worst idea - taking yet another option out of free agency before the gates even open.   I suspect a guy like McCabe will cost more.   And I don't believe Edler is done - for a number of reasons - I think last season was a gruelling outlier outbreak season - I'd gamble on Edler still having on ice effectiveness left in him (and a boost of energy getting OEL to further complement the group).

 

If you have no proposals though, then we're wasting our time on 'philosophy'/hypotheticals - with no context - and I've had my fill of that for this thread.

The point is to scope it beforehand, not simply sell - and then look at the options/conditions - if you're 'needing' to improve rapidly.  I don't buy that - so I'd be open to selling Schmidt and being patient - that cap doesn't necessarily have to be re-spent immediately (but where I do agree with you is I'd only be leaning one way or the other if in fact he does want out - which I don't necessarily buy either).

Edited by oldnews
Link to post
Share on other sites

When we moved out Eriksson, we gained a full 6 million in cap relief, 4 million more than we would have in buying him out.

 

Although I think Canucks are still interested in moving Holtby, I'm not sure if their look at it as a major priority any longer.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, VegasCanuck said:

When we moved out Eriksson, we gained a full 6 million in cap relief, 4 million more than we would have in buying him out.

 

Although I think Canucks are still interested in moving Holtby, I'm not sure if their look at it as a major priority any longer.

 

Yeah. I have to admit. Benning did good there. But I hope that’s not the end. There is still a ton of work that needs to be done before the start of training camp. 

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, VegasCanuck said:

When we moved out Eriksson, we gained a full 6 million in cap relief, 4 million more than we would have in buying him out.

 

Although I think Canucks are still interested in moving Holtby, I'm not sure if their look at it as a major priority any longer.

 

That $4m is however already spent on Garland's pending extension.

 

While it's not a necessity, moving out Holtby and replacing him with a cheaper backup would continue the good work Benning has already done this summer.

  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, N4ZZY said:

Yeah. I have to admit. Benning did good there. But I hope that’s not the end. There is still a ton of work that needs to be done before the start of training camp. 

I think we're a long way from what this roster will look like in training camp, but I think that they are also content to let Holtby ride out the season for now, and possibly look for options to move him if needed, once the season starts. See which teams wind up with injury problems in net and that might be the time to move Holtby for maximum gain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, aGENT said:

That $4m is however already spent on Garland's pending extension.

 

While it's not a necessity, moving out Holtby and replacing him with a cheaper backup would continue the good work Benning has already done this summer.

Agree completely that it would still be ideal to move Holtby out, but probably not the end of the world if we start camp with him.

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely no to retaining any of Holtby's salary. 

By the time we replace him, we would have saved very little cap space. 

 

In that case, I would rather keep him in case Demko gets injured as missing playoffs after the summer moves is not an option. 

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

Crazy another bad contract of bennings that teams wont take, this one only a year old, honestly wonder if benning can plan more than a year ahead. 

By signing Holtby he did actually exactly that. We needed a goalie under contract in 2021/22 to expose in the expansion draft.

Otherwise we would have lost Demko. We traded for Bowey for the same reason (to not expose Myers,Schmidt or OJ)

Link to post
Share on other sites

No one taking Hootby at 5.7 mill salary. 

 

Sweetener, retained salary a bad contract coming back or buy out will be required to move him. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Nathancanuck said:

By signing Holtby he did actually exactly that. We needed a goalie under contract in 2021/22 to expose in the expansion draft.

Otherwise we would have lost Demko. We traded for Bowey for the same reason (to not expose Myers,Schmidt or OJ)

Oh didn't know the goalie to expose had to be a back up making more than 4 million a year

  • RoughGame 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Conscience said:

Oh didn't know the goalie to expose had to be a back up making more than 4 million a year

Now you know! But seriously tell me who you would have signed for 2 years and how much per year?

I'm sure you're a great GM on EA sports though

  • RoughGame 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • b3. locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...