Tyler Motte, do we really need him??

[canucklehead44]

15 minutes ago, Goal:thecup said:

The Motte ship has sailed.

We cannot invest in any new contracts.

 

We did not have to invest in Motte for this year either; when we traded him; we could have kept him with Lammikko and Highmore.

Just because we kept him last year, does not mean we had to sign him for this year.

 

It just meant we wouldn't have this 3rd or 4th round pick next year or some year after that.

To me, that is the only 'mistake' I see our new management made.

And it was their first move, and I think they're great, and I forgive them.

 

But we did not have to trade Motte and it ripped up the guts of the checking lines.

In the middle of a great run.

Now, as then, we cannot really afford Tyler Motte, and unfortunately for him, other teams are finding out they cannot either.

 

It really is immaterial to me, and this point, what happens with that pick.

It might have meant we make the playoffs.

Players like Tyler Motte are built for the playoffs and who knows what would have been built/learned on that.

The difference between Motte and Richardson would not have been the 6 points we needed for the playoffs. Management did the right thing 

[Goal:thecup]

1 minute ago, canucklehead44 said:

The difference between Motte and Richardson would not have been the 6 points we needed for the playoffs. Management did the right thing 

Richardson was a good add; rhc, experienced, etc

We could have added him without losing Motter.

 

I do agree with your conclusion though; mngt probably did the right thing, and I say that out of respect for them.

I have my own conclusions on the events, and am probably wrong, only a fan.

 

[Provost]

3 hours ago, Rindiculous said:

Why do people always put Pearson in the same sentence as Dickenson.  Completely disrespecting Pearson.  He's one of the most efficient contracts on the team while Dickenson is a complete black hole where offense goes to die.

I am not denigrating Pearson… but you certainly are trashing Dickenson.  Dickenson had a bad year but has a good long decent resume of being an excellent defensive player and PKer.

 

They are both pushed down the lineup with our added depth so are big cap hits to carry.  That is where the comparison comes in.  

 

Hoglander would be the one I push out (as noted in my lineup that had Pearson in it),  but if I could drop the cap hits for Pearson and Dickenson without giving up assets, I do that in a minute.  There is an opportunity cost to not having that cap space as it could be utilized in other holes.

 

If we had traded Pearson at the deadline for example, maybe we could have gotten Marino for basically nothing.  We would be far better off if that had have happened..

 

 

[iinatcc]

3 hours ago, Provost said:

I am not denigrating Pearson… but you certainly are trashing Dickenson.  Dickenson had a bad year but has a good long decent resume of being an excellent defensive player and PKer.

Some folks in Sportsnet 650 mentioned. Dickenson is a good player but his effectiveness was the product of the Dallas' defensive system. Vancouver needs to change to be a more defensive minded team to maximize Dickenson's effectiveness. 

[DefCon1]

16 hours ago, BC_Hawk said:

Actually fitting lines to players proper sides and shown chemistry, I go with the following:

 

mikheyev-Petterson-Beoser

Podz-Miller-Garland

Pearson-Horvat-Kuzmenko

Motte-Lazar-Joshua

Lockwood

 

Id use Hoglander to move Dickinson or upgrade the defense. I really like Hogs, but Bruce doesn’t, and we have a log jammed at wing this year. Then, in 2023 when Kuz is probably gone, we insert 

Lekkerimaki.

 

 

 

 

You got rid of 2 players who are already signed to get motte? my point still stands, there is no room and using Hoglander to get rid of Dickenson makes zero sense.

[CanucksJay]

11 hours ago, iinatcc said:

Some folks in Sportsnet 650 mentioned. Dickenson is a good player but his effectiveness was the product of the Dallas' defensive system. Vancouver needs to change to be a more defensive minded team to maximize Dickenson's effectiveness. 

If we need a defensive system to accomodate Dickinson, I'd rather trade him.

We have throughbreds on our top 9, why would we turn our prize horses into mules so tha the one mule looks better?

 

Personally, I think Dickinson will bounce back. Canucks need to play high octane hockey with our personnel. If Dicky doesnt fit, we'll need to find a way to trade him but I'm hoping he finds his groove this year.

[BC_Hawk]

6 hours ago, DefCon1 said:

You got rid of 2 players who are already signed to get motte? my point still stands, there is no room and using Hoglander to get rid of Dickenson makes zero sense.

Dickenson is the contract that is hamstringing this team right now. He is 2.65m that should be your 13th player. Moving him and signing Motte (assuming he will take 1m) saves 1.65m that could be used to upgrade the defense (god I wish we had the 1.5m they have Dermott now; that would mean 3.15m to upgrade Defense).

 

Hogs is a great young player, but is redundant to the canucks at this point; cap room to improve the D is more important right now.

 

At the end of the day, I'd love to keep Hogs, but Dickenson HAS to go period.

 

In terms of Motte...very simple question; is he worth the 175k more than Lockwood or Dowling; YES. You are NOT freeing up cap for Motte; you freeing up cap for Horvat OR to for a RHD better than the 7th level guys we have now.

[BC_Hawk]

1 hour ago, CanucksJay said:

If we need a defensive system to accomodate Dickinson, I'd rather trade him.

We have throughbreds on our top 9, why would we turn our prize horses into mules so tha the one mule looks better?

 

Personally, I think Dickinson will bounce back. Canucks need to play high octane hockey with our personnel. If Dicky doesnt fit, we'll need to find a way to trade him but I'm hoping he finds his groove this year.

The problem is, how does he earn his 2.65m on the 4th line in 2022? He is thereotically holding down a sopt that should be <1m. In addition, if an injury occurs in top 9, i'd rather see Hogs bumped up the line than Dickenson. Once again, not 100% on him, just on what his cap hit is. At 1m, he could ride the pine or be on the 4th. 

Edited September 6, 2022 by BC_Hawk

[CanucksJay]

4 hours ago, BC_Hawk said:

The problem is, how does he earn his 2.65m on the 4th line in 2022? He is thereotically holding down a sopt that should be <1m. In addition, if an injury occurs in top 9, i'd rather see Hogs bumped up the line than Dickenson. Once again, not 100% on him, just on what his cap hit is. At 1m, he could ride the pine or be on the 4th. 

That's a good point. 

We have a 3rd/4th line tweener making 2.65. If third line, he needs to outperform 2 guys ahead of him. For 4th line duties, that's a lot of money. If rather have someone like Motte at 1.5ish rather than Dickinson if it's for a 4th line role. Wow, what a log jam in the top 9

[86Viking]

22 hours ago, Goal:thecup said:

Richardson was a good add; rhc, experienced, etc

We could have added him without losing Motter.

 

I do agree with your conclusion though; mngt probably did the right thing, and I say that out of respect for them.

I have my own conclusions on the events, and am probably wrong, only a fan.

 

Richardson was a good add, liked him the 1st time around with the Canucks. He is a lefty though not a righty, thought I saw something mentioning Sutter was feeling a bit better and is going to try to play again...may not be this year, would this management team have interest in him?? They should if its for 1m or less and 1 yr deal, worst case they can burying his contract in the A or LTIR

[BC_Hawk]

13 hours ago, Canuckster86 said:

Richardson was a good add, liked him the 1st time around with the Canucks. He is a lefty though not a righty, thought I saw something mentioning Sutter was feeling a bit better and is going to try to play again...may not be this year, would this management team have interest in him?? They should if its for 1m or less and 1 yr deal, worst case they can burying his contract in the A or LTIR

Problem is the cap again. At 1m, I'd rather have Motte over Richardson or Sutter. I get the whole FO argument, but (unless an icing scenario) you can put Bo out there with Lazar in critical situations.

 

Assuming Hogs doesn't get traded, I like a 4th line of Motte-Lazar-Joshua/Lockwood; Hogs as the spare to move through the Top 9...maybe even go to Abbottsford for stints.

[NHL97OneTimer]

On 9/7/2022 at 8:28 AM, BC_Hawk said:

 

Assuming Hogs doesn't get traded, I like a 4th line of Motte-Lazar-Joshua/Lockwood; Hogs as the spare to move through the Top 9...maybe even go to Abbottsford for stints.

I have faith that Hogs will have a better year and hold a top 9 spot this year if he's not traded.  If he's traded, I'm expecting it's because he's redundant vs another off-year.

 

My biggest question for Hogs is if he can be versatile enough to play a role player who can move up the line-up.  

[DefCon1]

On 9/6/2022 at 1:58 PM, BC_Hawk said:

Dickenson is the contract that is hamstringing this team right now. He is 2.65m that should be your 13th player. Moving him and signing Motte (assuming he will take 1m) saves 1.65m that could be used to upgrade the defense (god I wish we had the 1.5m they have Dermott now; that would mean 3.15m to upgrade Defense).

 

Hogs is a great young player, but is redundant to the canucks at this point; cap room to improve the D is more important right now.

 

At the end of the day, I'd love to keep Hogs, but Dickenson HAS to go period.

 

In terms of Motte...very simple question; is he worth the 175k more than Lockwood or Dowling; YES. You are NOT freeing up cap for Motte; you freeing up cap for Horvat OR to for a RHD better than the 7th level guys we have now.

This is such a bad asset management and very similar to way Benning ran the team. So lets get rid of a promising young player who is on ELC with still good potential as a sweetner to get rid of another player who we got last year and had a poor season and only makes 2.65 million per year just to make room for superstar motte. 

[grandmaster]

35 minutes ago, DefCon1 said:

This is such a bad asset management and very similar to way Benning ran the team. So lets get rid of a promising young player who is on ELC with still good potential as a sweetner to get rid of another player who we got last year and had a poor season and only makes 2.65 million per year just to make room for superstar motte. 

Dickenson was one of the worst Canuck players throughout the entire season. This guy was absolutely terrible and he is locked in for 2 more years. 
 

Motte > Dickenson 

 

I agree with this move. Hogs is not going to make this team, I don’t consider him to be much of an asset like you say. The extra 1M or so goes to upgrading the defence.

[Mustard Tiger]

Hopefully someone has crazy injuries and they need Dickinson for free off of us 

 

1x1 motter after that!

[Bure_Pavel]

If im not mistaken we have 1.667 million left to sign a player. If Motte takes 1.5 million on a 1 year deal sign him immediately.   

[Gurn]

18 minutes ago, Bure_Pavel said:

If im not mistaken we have 1.667 million left to sign a player. If Motte takes 1.5 million on a 1 year deal sign him immediately.   

Cap Friendly currently showing the team as $2,751,667 OVER the cap with 20 players on the roster.

https://www.capfriendly.com/teams/canucks

 

 

[Bure_Pavel]

45 minutes ago, gurn said:

Cap Friendly currently showing the team as $2,751,667 OVER the cap with 20 players on the roster.

https://www.capfriendly.com/teams/canucks

 

 

I made that mistake too at first, it doesnt count the three injured reserve players towards the players on roster but does count their cap. So its actually $2,751,667 OVER with 23 man roster and we can go $3,500,000 over due to Ferland. If we substitute Dowling with a player making 1.667 million they we should be right at the cap. Can even go higher with a 22 man roster but I dont think they will go that route.  

Edited September 12, 2022 by Bure_Pavel

[Gurn]

2 minutes ago, Bure_Pavel said:

I made that mistake too at first, it doesnt count the three injured reserve players towards the players on roster but does count their cap. So its actually $2,751,667 OVER with 23 man roster and we can go $3,500,000 over due to Ferland. If we substitute Dowling with a player making 1.667 million they we should be right at the cap.  

I've done up a couple of rosters, and can get to about $175,000 under, roster of 23; but it will all depend on who actually makes the team.

I include Joshua and Rathbone, as JR has said they will make the team

Dowling gets sent down.

Team seems hampered by the unpaid bonus, and 'dead cap'.

[Elias Pettersson]

3 hours ago, Bure_Pavel said:

I made that mistake too at first, it doesnt count the three injured reserve players towards the players on roster but does count their cap. So its actually $2,751,667 OVER with 23 man roster and we can go $3,500,000 over due to Ferland. If we substitute Dowling with a player making 1.667 million they we should be right at the cap. Can even go higher with a 22 man roster but I dont think they will go that route.  

I don't think Dowling makes the team so Joshua would take his place which actually increases our cap by $75,000.  And I'm pretty sure that Keeper doesn't make the team either and Rathbone would take his place, so that increases the cap by another $87,500.  So adding $75,000 + $87,500 + $2,751,667 = $2,914,167.  With Ferland on LTIR we would have around $585,000 in cap space left.  

 

Only way to free up enough cap space to sign someone is if we sent Dickinson down to Abby, which would free up $1,175,000 in cap space for a total of $1,760,000.  That would be enough to sign one player.