(Rumour) Nux have given permission for Boeser’s agent to talk to other teams

[coryberg]

42 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

I get the idea of retaining cap on boeser's contract but that makes no sense for the Canucks.

 

A smarter idea would be taking back a comparable shorter term contract

 

IE; Lucic that expires this year or Johnson who expires next year.

 

You effectively say that you will hold the same level of/value of cap while having a contract that expires much faster.  Thus making sure the trading team can in fact manage to fit Boeser in.

 

IE something like and in example ONLY

 

Van Trades:  Boeser + 6th

Chi trades: Johnson Crevier + 3rd

 

Boesers contract washes Johnsons.  Johnson expires next year.  Crevier is a very large awkward skating RHD, the 3rd is a bonus.

 

Canucks therefore trade Boeser away for a potential RHD prospect with size and a defensive accumen gain a pick and are free of the contract at the end of next season.

 

That is just an example of swapping Boeser for another contract and gaining something better than what is suggested or owning the full weight of retention over the next 3 seasons.

That's a terrible trade. Johnson is injured 80% of the time, an awkward skating 7th round pick that's barley hanging on at the AHL level and a 3rd? Insane!

 

I would rather give him away for free.

 

[shazzam]

21 minutes ago, coryberg said:

That's a terrible trade. Johnson is injured 80% of the time, an awkward skating 7th round pick that's barley hanging on at the AHL level and a 3rd? Insane!

 

I would rather give him away for free.

 

He's just giving an example of the type of trade that could work.

 

If we put Boeser on waivers, anyone think he'll get claimed? Most teams don't have the cap space and bad teams don't want to take on the contract without giving a bad contract back

 

 

[coryberg]

2 minutes ago, shazzam said:

He's just giving an example of the type of trade that could work.

 

If we put Boeser on waivers, anyone think he'll get claimed? Most teams don't have the cap space and bad teams don't want to take on the contract without giving a bad contract back

 

 

Works for who? If that's the only kind of trade that works than you don't make a trade. It's basically like trading a 50 dollar bill for a 10 dollar bill, a gold rush and a double dip. 

 

The Lucic example works, take on an expiring deal and some gaining some futures would be fine. Johnsons contract is terrible and would have to come with massive sweeteners... not an ahl defender and a 3rd.

 

[Warhippy]

37 minutes ago, coryberg said:

That's a terrible trade. Johnson is injured 80% of the time, an awkward skating 7th round pick that's barley hanging on at the AHL level and a 3rd? Insane!

 

I would rather give him away for free.

 

Proving you don't understand the meat of the matter with the post and didn't even read it through long enough to underdstand.

[cripplereh]

Just now, coryberg said:

Works for who? If that's the only kind of trade that works than you don't make a trade. It's basically like trading a 50 dollar bill for a 10 dollar bill, a gold rush and a double dip. 

 

The Lucic example works, take on an expiring deal and some gaining some futures would be fine. Johnsons contract is terrible and would have to come with massive sweeteners... not an ahl defender and a 3rd.

 

Never know maybe get a 4th tdl for Lucic as well.

[Warhippy]

1 minute ago, coryberg said:

Works for who? If that's the only kind of trade that works than you don't make a trade. It's basically like trading a 50 dollar bill for a 10 dollar bill, a gold rush and a double dip. 

 

The Lucic example works, take on an expiring deal and some gaining some futures would be fine. Johnsons contract is terrible and would have to come with massive sweeteners... not an ahl defender and a 3rd.

 

OK.  Try to follow along

 

• Boeser is currently unable to be traded as a recent BoG and GMs meeting had statements that trades can't be made right now
• Reasons cited are injuries and cap to almost every interested team
• Boeser is the highest percentile player for cap/term that is unable to be traded due to those reasons.
• With 3 years remaining on his deal teams can not fit him under their structure with the cap increase now estimated to only be $1 million
• That means trading Boeser will need to include a sweetener on our part, a pick/prospect to get a team to take the full contract.  Paying to move him
• Alternatively it means retaining cap for the duration of his contract to get a marginal return
• To offset this.  A team with a $6 million to $7 million contract set to expire in 1-2 seasons would trade a non productive player to vancouver
• This returned contract means they CAN fit Boeser, a productive player at full value for a contract that is similar but non productive
• The reasoning behind this is without moving a $6+ million contract, most teams can not take a $6 million contract
• The example of Johnson a 3rd and Cervier for Boeser and a 6th is just an example of the potential return
• The true benefit to that ANY trade of that nature is that Vancouver can then leverage the contract in return for a higher return, IE; a Pick, Prospect 
• They also get that extra cap space that Boeser will tie up for Vancouver for 3 years, within 1-2 seasons as opposed to 3

This is why taking a contract back makes far more sense than it does to retain cap or just give Boeser away for essentially nothing or a late pick/nothing prospect.  Leveraging the necessity of teams to make cap space to obtain players is essential to maximize the value of any large contract we send out.  Myers, Boeser, Miller etc

[coryberg]

8 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

OK.  Try to follow along

 

• Boeser is currently unable to be traded as a recent BoG and GMs meeting had statements that trades can't be made right now
• Reasons cited are injuries and cap to almost every interested team
• Boeser is the highest percentile player for cap/term that is unable to be traded due to those reasons.
• With 3 years remaining on his deal teams can not fit him under their structure with the cap increase now estimated to only be $1 million
• That means trading Boeser will need to include a sweetener on our part, a pick/prospect to get a team to take the full contract.  Paying to move him
• Alternatively it means retaining cap for the duration of his contract to get a marginal return
• To offset this.  A team with a $6 million to $7 million contract set to expire in 1-2 seasons would trade a non productive player to vancouver
• This returned contract means they CAN fit Boeser, a productive player at full value for a contract that is similar but non productive
• The reasoning behind this is without moving a $6+ million contract, most teams can not take a $6 million contract
• The example of Johnson a 3rd and Cervier for Boeser and a 6th is just an example of the potential return
• The true benefit to that ANY trade of that nature is that Vancouver can then leverage the contract in return for a higher return, IE; a Pick, Prospect 
• They also get that extra cap space that Boeser will tie up for Vancouver for 3 years, within 1-2 seasons as opposed to 3

This is why taking a contract back makes far more sense than it does to retain cap or just give Boeser away for essentially nothing or a late pick/nothing prospect.  Leveraging the necessity of teams to make cap space to obtain players is essential to maximize the value of any large contract we send out.  Myers, Boeser, Miller etc

Try to follow along... You don't trade a good player for garbage unless that garbage comes with a huge sweetener. Taking back an expiring deal as part of a package is fine but there is zero reason to take back cap past this year... unless it's comes it with said sweetener (aka not a 3rd and a D grade prospect).

Edited December 16, 2022 by coryberg

[Bure_Pavel]

I might be in the minority here, but I think we should keep Boeser for now his trade value will increase back up eventually. Would rather move out Garland if he still has good value or wait until the offseason when teams have more cap flexibility.  

[IBatch]

15 minutes ago, coryberg said:

Try to follow along... You don't trade a good player for garbage unless that garbage comes with a huge sweetener. Taking back an expiring deal as part of a package is fine but there is zero reason to take back cap past this year... unless it's comes it with said sweetener (aka not a 3rd and a D grade prospect).

Yes.   Retaining on Brock is fine if it's part of a larger strategy too.   And he's got two more years after this one. 

[IBatch]

7 minutes ago, Bure_Pavel said:

I might be in the minority here, but I think we should keep Boeser for now his trade value will increase back up eventually. Would rather move out Garland if he still has good value or wait until the offseason when teams have more cap flexibility.

 

Garland or Brock is a good starting point for sore.  

[Bure_Pavel]

2 hours ago, IBatch said:

 

Garland or Brock is a good starting point for sore.  

Brock used to be a very good hockey player he justs needs to get back there, at 25 years old I cant see him being on a steady decline. Once his health and mental well being are better I think he will bounce back. He can win puck battles, just seems un-engaged lately. I think he will need a change of scenery but we should wait until he is filling the net again consistently. 

Edited December 16, 2022 by Bure_Pavel

[IBatch]

2 minutes ago, Bure_Pavel said:

Brock used to be a very good hockey player he justs needs to get back there, at 25 years old I cant see him being on a steady decline. Once his health and mental well being are better I think he will bounce back. He can win pack battles, just seems un-engaged lately. I think he will need a change of scenery but we should wait until he is filling the net again consistently. 

Not sure Bruce is going to give him a job in the top six.   And not sure he's going to score much on the third line either.    Guess we will find out either way.   On pace for 12 goals yikes.   

[Warhippy]

39 minutes ago, coryberg said:

Try to follow along... You don't trade a good player for garbage unless that garbage comes with a huge sweetener. Taking back an expiring deal as part of a package is fine but there is zero reason to take back cap past this year... unless it's comes it with said sweetener (aka not a 3rd and a D grade prospect).

Now, here's the thing.

if Boeser was a good player, as you state.  Then management wouldn't have given his agent the green light to find a team because they'd have been lining up.  He's productive for sure.  But if he's so good....

 

Something tells me you're going to be wildly upset when/if this trade happens

Edited December 16, 2022 by Warhippy

[RWJC]

3 hours ago, shazzam said:

He's just giving an example of the type of trade that could work.

 

If we put Boeser on waivers, anyone think he'll get claimed? Most teams don't have the cap space and bad teams don't want to take on the contract without giving a bad contract back

 

 

I think he gets claimed. The teams with cap can always afford the hit with hopes the market/player improves the ROI

[VegasCanuck]

4 hours ago, shazzam said:

He's just giving an example of the type of trade that could work.

 

If we put Boeser on waivers, anyone think he'll get claimed? Most teams don't have the cap space and bad teams don't want to take on the contract without giving a bad contract back

 

 

Yes, he would get claimed REALLY quickly by either Buffalo, Anaheim, Chicago or Detroit and then they would sit on him till summer and trade him at the draft for a 1st and a top prospect...which is what we should be waiting to do if we can't find a partner who can move cap space around before the trade deadline.

 

[RWJC]

14 minutes ago, VegasCanuck said:

Yes, he would get claimed REALLY quickly by either Buffalo, Anaheim, Chicago or Detroit and then they would sit on him till summer and trade him at the draft for a 1st and a top prospect...which is what we should be waiting to do if we can't find a partner who can move cap space around before the trade deadline.

 

The only caveat to that is if an extension agreement becomes closer with Bo and then you make the deal/waive BB6 to make cap space. Either way, gonna need those $$$ for other potential moves including taking on dead cap + asset from someone 

 

 

Edited December 16, 2022 by RWJC

[Spoosh]

He is on pace for 50+ points this season. I’m not all that worried if in fact he is not playing well enough and so on.

The team is outside the playoffs at this time and he’s production is ok, not great. We all know he can be better and he still manages to produce well enough all things concidered. 

 

I’d look to move Garland rather than Boeser to get some cap flexibility.

[SilentSam]

8 hours ago, Bure_Pavel said:

I might be in the minority here, but I think we should keep Boeser for now his trade value will increase back up eventually. Would rather move out Garland if he still has good value or wait until the offseason when teams have more cap flexibility.  

Boeser can’t crack this line up now,.   And once Lane Pedersen gets a few games in ,  between Kuz Mihky, Dries Aman ,  who does Brock play better than?

Hes even lost his privilege of playing on the top 2 lines.

 

I think he trades for future considerations.

[86Viking]

11 hours ago, Bure_Pavel said:

I might be in the minority here, but I think we should keep Boeser for now his trade value will increase back up eventually. Would rather move out Garland if he still has good value or wait until the offseason when teams have more cap flexibility.  

I agree, I would keep Boeser as well. Garland would be easier to move and we retain the higher potential player in Boeser. I also wouldn't trade Boeser until the Canucks have an extension done with Kuzmenko.

 

If Kuzmenko walks as a UFA then we lose a RW who can play with EP. Boeser has done that in the past and I truly believe he would mesh well again alongside EP40. 

[DownUndaCanuck]

I'm sure theres a 1 for 1 deal out there with another player who could use a fresh start who is being overpaid. Monahan and Dumba spring to mind.

 

Talk out there that we may flip Boeser for as little as a 2nd or 3rd round pick is quite sad and such a waste of years of development, not to mention another 1st round pick we haven't developed and kept.

 

All things considered, I'd do a Dumba for Boeser swap right now but only if it means we keep Bo and/or Kuz. You'd hate to lose all 3 forwards within a season but that's a real possibility. I'd ideally trade Boeser and Garland for a combined top-4 defenceman and a pick (eg. Boeser for Dumba, Garland for a 2nd or 3rd) and use the cap in the off-season to sign up Bo and Kuz and (maybe) we can re-sign Dumba to a cheaper deal.

 

We have to start looking at the bigger picture - Boeser's cap affects Bo and Kuzmenko, but he's not the only expensive winger. We have Mikheyev, Garland and Pearson taking big chunks of our cap. We need to move these pieces around to see what works best.

 

Finally, there was absolutely no need to sign another 5M winger this offseason in Mikheyev. We had Kuz as a freebie, Bo and Garland, and got stupid and greedy and kept all of them while letting our defence flounder. Terrible management of cap space and allocation to the wingers, and now we're left with too many 5M+ wingers, hardly any defencemen and now we risk to lose our captain for it.