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

(Proposal) 1 Trade to fix everything


Recommended Posts

To San Jose: 

Brock Boeser 600K retained

Conor Garland

= 11M cap

Jack Rathbone (minors) OR 2024 3rd, they choose

 

To Vancouver:

Erik Karlsson 2,5M retained

Nick Bonino

= 11M cap

Aaron Dell (minors)

 

Sharks do it to get worse this and next year (get higher draft picks) and get some pieces back that could

either be flipped for picks or be part or their new core while getting rid of Karlsson's contract. Also they

get a sweetener with the 3rd or Rathbone.

 

Canucks do it to finally fix the RD and get a veteran 3rd line center for the rest of the season. And a backup

goalie in case Delia fails. Because Bonino is UFA at the end of the year it frees up 2 million in cap to extend Bo.

After this season try to trade Myers for the lost 3rd and use the cap to sign Kuzmenko and depth Dmen.

 

Lineup would look like this:

 

Miller - Horvat - Hogz/Podz

Mikheyev - Pettersson - Kuzmenko

Pearson - Bonino - Studnicka

Joshua - Aman - Lazar

 

Hughes - Karlsson    or    Hughes - Schenn

OEL - Schenn                  OEL - Karlsson

Dermott - Myers              

Stillman - Baer

Burr

 

Very Deep Defense and more balanced Offense

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

Why do the Sharks do this, instead of selling Karlsson for a bunch of assets, now that he's shown himself to still be an offensive stalwart?  Instead of 1st's and other good assets, who knows what they could really even get for Boeser/ Garland.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Nathancanuck said:

To San Jose: 

Brock Boeser 600K retained

Conor Garland

= 11M cap

Jack Rathbone (minors) OR 2024 3rd, they choose

 

To Vancouver:

Erik Karlsson 2,5M retained

Nick Bonino

= 11M cap

Aaron Dell (minors)

 

Sharks do it to get worse this and next year (get higher draft picks) and get some pieces back that could

either be flipped for picks or be part or their new core while getting rid of Karlsson's contract. Also they

get a sweetener with the 3rd or Rathbone.

 

Canucks do it to finally fix the RD and get a veteran 3rd line center for the rest of the season. And a backup

goalie in case Delia fails. Because Bonino is UFA at the end of the year it frees up 2 million in cap to extend Bo.

After this season try to trade Myers for the lost 3rd and use the cap to sign Kuzmenko and depth Dmen.

 

Lineup would look like this:

 

Miller - Horvat - Hogz/Podz

Mikheyev - Pettersson - Kuzmenko

Pearson - Bonino - Studnicka

Joshua - Aman - Lazar

 

Hughes - Karlsson    or    Hughes - Schenn

OEL - Schenn                  OEL - Karlsson

Dermott - Myers              

Stillman - Baer

Burr

 

Very Deep Defense and more balanced Offense

OMG Never make this trade !! Canucks want to get younger and free up cap so they can make good deals in the future..

Karlsson 32 - RD -- 5yr X 11.5 million averaging -- previous 4 yrs playing 52 games so lots of injuries and salary will kill any team..

Vancouver will never make this trade .. Free up cap space and this doesn't free up cap space and you have a old player..

 

Better ways trading One of Boeser 25 or Garland 25 separate.. Sharks would love this trade...Unless they retain 4--5 million they will have troubles trading injury prone Karlsson 32 years old..

Canucks want to get younger and free up cap...

Myers easy to trade this summer after his 5 million signing bonus is paid in July..

 

Karlsson 32 ---11.5 million   X 5 yrs --no no -- scary thought..

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Phil_314 said:

Why do the Sharks do this, instead of selling Karlsson for a bunch of assets, now that he's shown himself to still be an offensive stalwart?  Instead of 1st's and other good assets, who knows what they could really even get for Boeser/ Garland.  

Well that's exactly what they would do.. sell him for a bunch of assets.. Boeser/Garland/Rathbone or 3rd

Which other team has cap to take him for a first? And would he waive his clause? I think with

Pettersson, OEL, Hughes, Aman, Hogz, Sedins  there is a chance he would waive to come here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Nathancanuck said:

Well that's exactly what they would do.. sell him for a bunch of assets.. Boeser/Garland/Rathbone or 3rd

Which other team has cap to take him for a first? And would he waive his clause? I think with

Pettersson, OEL, Hughes, Aman, Hogz, Sedins  there is a chance he would waive to come here

I think we view "assets" differently... Boeser's market value is currently in cap dump territory, Garland is fine, but Rathbone isn't making our shoddy defense core so his future's not really looking that promising.  It's true that other teams may not have the cap to take him, but why would he waive for us?  We're in no better shape than his Sharks are (also as much as the Swedish connection does seem to be a thing in the room, I hope that doesn't cause Vancouver to pick up another big contract for another area that we don't really need -- he's not the defensive partner for Hughes, and OEL - Karlsson looks both risky and expensive).  

For Vancouver, I hope we'd sell the 3 players we're moving separately, clear the deck, get some assets and cap space and re-jig the roster instead of locking into another long-term contract for a Swedish defenseman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Phil_314 said:

I think we view "assets" differently... Boeser's market value is currently in cap dump territory, Garland is fine, but Rathbone isn't making our shoddy defense core so his future's not really looking that promising.  It's true that other teams may not have the cap to take him, but why would he waive for us?  We're in no better shape than his Sharks are (also as much as the Swedish connection does seem to be a thing in the room, I hope that doesn't cause Vancouver to pick up another big contract for another area that we don't really need -- he's not the defensive partner for Hughes, and OEL - Karlsson looks both risky and expensive).  

For Vancouver, I hope we'd sell the 3 players we're moving separately, clear the deck, get some assets and cap space and re-jig the roster instead of locking into another long-term contract for a Swedish defenseman.

I think we view assets the same ;) I agree on your valuation of Boeser, Garland, Rathbone but there is some upside in all of those players. Sure they most likely won't get a first out of these players but what if Boeser starts to score 30+ goals next year? Boeser's value right now is all time low but he isn't as bad as he looks right now. And if they don't like Rathbone they get a 3rd round pick instead and clear 1 contract spot (they are 49/50). 

I know it's risky but we won't fix the D without risk anytime soon.. In my opinion it should fix our D for the next 3 years (including this) and then we see..

 

The fact you don't value our assets high but still don't want to make that trade tells me it's fair value then haha 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Nathancanuck said:

Well that's exactly what they would do.. sell him for a bunch of assets.. Boeser/Garland/Rathbone or 3rd

Which other team has cap to take him for a first? And would he waive his clause? I think with

Pettersson, OEL, Hughes, Aman, Hogz, Sedins  there is a chance he would waive to come here

hahahah 

Did Huhges just become an honorary Swede?

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

4 hours ago, Nathancanuck said:

I think we view assets the same ;) I agree on your valuation of Boeser, Garland, Rathbone but there is some upside in all of those players. Sure they most likely won't get a first out of these players but what if Boeser starts to score 30+ goals next year? Boeser's value right now is all time low but he isn't as bad as he looks right now. And if they don't like Rathbone they get a 3rd round pick instead and clear 1 contract spot (they are 49/50). 

I know it's risky but we won't fix the D without risk anytime soon.. In my opinion it should fix our D for the next 3 years (including this) and then we see..

 

The fact you don't value our assets high but still don't want to make that trade tells me it's fair value then haha 

The last bold tells me that you are confused and don't even understand what I said in my last post, so let me clarify.
The reason the Sharks won't do it is Karlsson is their best trade asset, and they're clearly a rebuilding team, a.k.a. they'll tear down their roster to trade established stars like Karlsson to contenders (Vancouver is not one of them) for high-end draft picks to help them win in the future.
 
Second, I don't value our assets high because the market doesn't value them high due to their poor performance.  Boeser was going to be a healthy scratch (benched) and Rathbone is in the minors (not good enough to be at the highest level, even though he already played well in the minors before).  Say what you want about there being "some upside in all of those players", NHL GM's of rebuilding teams don't trade stars with high-value (like Karlsson) for mediocre prospects (Rathbone), underachieving players on big contracts (like Boeser, whose value is worth pennies to the original dollar at this point) and then expect to flip said expensive contract on the belief that "he isn't as bad as he looks right now"; since the rest of the league likely doesn't see his value now, if they trade for Boeser they lose future potential of a high-end prospect that they could draft, and are instead stuck with a player who may never end up becoming worth the $6 million+ contract that he signed.  That is bad business for the Sharks part, selling high to buy really, really low.  

In short, it's not that I "don't want to make that trade", it's just that there's such an imbalance in both the on-ice and trade value between these two players that it's unrealistic to expect Vancouver to be able to pull it off, and the Sharks know that they're better off selling Karlsson at high value to a team with championship aspirations (also, keeping it short, Karlsson just isn't the "fix" for the defense that you're wrongly hoping he will be).     

Edited by Phil_314
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, hammertime said:

If we take Karlsson I want a 1st ++ and they take Myers + Brock

Karlsson 32, with 5 years X 11.5 million are you kidding? 

OEL 31 -- 4 yrs X 7.2 million??

We already made one bad trade adding another old D man that averages 52 game over the previous 4 seasons

GP -- 53 -- 56 -- 52-- 50 ??? Big Big No and team will not be better??

Put this rumour to bed????????

Management want to get young younger and free up cap ???? Adding 32 year old with 5 years @ 11.5 million just crazy...

Sharks will have to retain 5 million and send 1st rounder to other team..

Maybe top 5 team might but doesn't make sense to teams that are not a contender..

Canucks are not a top 12 team .. If they get younger and make smart decisions they can turn this offensive machine around...

1. Trade Boeser or Garland

2, Trade Myers in summer after his 5 million bonus is paid in July..

3. Horvat decision must come fast? Trade or sign before February ..

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Karlsson having a career resurgence that's for sure, but not worth the risk.  There are still 4 more years after this one and it just scream OEL 2.0.  If we were a cup contender maybe, but were not even a playoff team, so it helps short term, but screw us big time long term.

 

Just another panicking move IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Phil_314 said:

Why do the Sharks do this, instead of selling Karlsson for a bunch of assets, now that he's shown himself to still be an offensive stalwart?  Instead of 1st's and other good assets, who knows what they could really even get for Boeser/ Garland.  

Karlsson has a FULL NMC, he completely controls where he goes. It was rumored when Ottawa was trading him and again before he resigned with the Sharks, that Vancouver was one of his preferred landing spots due to his connection to the Sedins etc. 

 

The question is, does he still see Vancouver as a desirable enough destination to control the narrative and use his ability to dictate his destination.

 

Personally, I would make this trade in a heartbeat.  We might need to add minorly on this, maybe also send them the 4th rounder this year that we got from the Rangers for Motte?

 

The size of contract limits teams and return that San Jose can expect to receive on this trade. I think what has been proposed is pretty close to what it would take to make the deal fly for both teams.

 

Don't be surprised if this is the type of deal that is engineered partially by the agent for Boeser selling Karlsson's camp on pushing for the Canucks as a destination.

 

Again, Yes I would do this and I believe that this is the type of deal that could happen. It's the type of deal, IMO, that Rutherford would engineer as a major shakeup.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as a note, I believe I read that the NHL has floated an idea to the players about increasing the cap by as much as 3 million for next season and approximately the same again for the following. That would put us close to 90 million 2 seasons from now.

 

You don't win the cup without swinging for the fences and this is something that Rutherford is known for. He's been quiet on the trade front for far too long for a guy who averaged a trade a month in Pittsburgh, don't be surprised if he's ready to show Hughes and Pettersson his commitment to chasing a cup by telling Allvin to swing away!

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...