Management On Trades, TDL and Team Revision Fast "Build" if They (Will) Retain

[combover]

Desperate times 
 

 

[Googlie]

5 hours ago, Strawbone said:

I think it would benefit the team even if Boeser was traded for literally nothing. Is that even possible? Does at least a bag of pucks have to come back the other way?

Put him on waivers .... he'd be claimed

[Westcoasting]

5 hours ago, CanucksJay said:

That sounds great but Horvat will not re-sign in colombus so I can't see them paying that for a rental. 

On the other hand, Miller is locked for 7 years under a fair contract (doesn't have the extra premium colombus pays (i. E. Gaudreau) to get talent. As vilified as management may become , Columbus would be a perfect destination for Miller. 

I never thought about Columbus before but Horvat and Johnny Hockey are good buddies so you never know.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, VegasCanuck said:

You're being extremely over generous on what you think it means that we would retain on trades. It means that we would retain on guys like Horvat who has an expiring contract, making it easier for him to be fit in under a teams cap.

 

There is ZERO way that we retain 50% of Boeser, they would just sit on him till summer when teams have more flexibility in their current cap.

Agreed, fans go overboard when dreaming up trade scenarios and I'm as guilty as anyone.  No team likes retaining money on a player that's no longer playing for them.  It was like squeezing water out of a rock when it was time for Benning to try and negotiate retention on OEL.  We ended up paying through the nose to make the cheapest team in the league fork out a million over 6 years.  

 

7 hours ago, VegasCanuck said:

 

OEL would have to agree to waive his NMC, and if he's willing to, I think we would probably consider retaining about 1.5 - 2 million. More than that and your effectiveness in retaining diminishes greatly. Although I agree that OEL is not worth what we are paying him right now, you wouldn't find someone who can do what he IS capable of at 3.65 million, so why do the trade, you're moving into negative return by doing it, you'd actually wind up with less space by default.

OEL at 6 mil/year would be very attractive around the league, especially to teams that have trouble attracting big free agents.  Canuck fans are hyper-sensitive to cap hits and let it cloud their judgment on how a player is performing.  OEL has been our number 1 d-man last year and this year.  Hughes is our offensive dynamo who is given opportune assignments and PP1 minutes.  OEL is the one that plays the hard minutes, and does both PK and PP2. 

As you said, no need to retain more then a 1.5 mil/year.  

 

 

7 hours ago, VegasCanuck said:

Garland was signed for about 1.5 million more than he should have been, I think if you retained roughly what you would save by parking him in Abbotsford, 1.25 million, you probably have takers.

 

Myers would be a guy during summer, once his 5 million signing bonus is paid, I could see the Canucks trading him with 1 million retained to a team like Arizona who has no interest in being above the cap floor right now and want to get TO the cap floor as cheaply as possible. Being able to take up 5 or 6 million of cap floor space while only spending 1 million would be extremely attractive to them.

 

Trading Boeser isn't really a problem of overall value, if he was making 2.5 million, there's still only 5 or 6 teams who could take him without first figuring out who they are removing from their lineup to make space, and that player might not be someone we want back. That means finding another trading partner in the 5 or 6 teams who have ANY cap space at all and making a deal to move a contract.

 

There's a reason why any trades happening in the last few months (like Colorado and San Jose yesterday), are for players making less than 1 million per year, it's because teams are literally counting every dollar of cap space that they are moving and in some cases, $1.00 could break a deal.

On Myers, I have a tough time deciding if it's reasonable to expect an asset back in such a deal.  I think that you can sweeten the pot there by still retaining 25% of the salary, so that the acquiring team gets a big RD on a 4.5 mil cap hit, with only 750k owed.  Anaheim, Arizona, Ottawa, Columbus, and Detroit would all make sense to me as good destinations for Myers.  Those teams will be looking to make the playoffs next year, and all need help scoring goals. 

[Nuxfanabroad]

Miller & Myers(retain a couple mill?)

 

Nash: Johansen & Fabbro

 

Wonder if something could work with this basis?

[ilduce39]

I mean, if you’re considering buyout you’re likely considering retention. 
 

Can management Houdini their way out of some contracts this deadline / summer?
 

I hope they don’t give up too much focusing on next season alone.

[The King of Kings]

In hindsight, I really hope that the management just let Boeser go for free last summer, or simply matched the qualifying offer at 7.5M for one season.

 

 

Edited January 27, 2023 by The King of Kings

[Provost]

Where are these comments saying they would do this?

 

Retaining on an expiring contract like Horvat or Schenn makes sense.  Retaining on a long term contract seems just like a non starter.

 

It would be nice to retain on the last half season of Miller if that is possible, but not on his extension.

 

The ones you suggest make us worse.  We have to also replace those players so even if they are overpaid by a couple million we are ahead of the game cap wise vs retaining half their salary and then having to replace them.

[IBatch]

15 hours ago, Provost said:

Where are these comments saying they would do this?

 

Retaining on an expiring contract like Horvat or Schenn makes sense.  Retaining on a long term contract seems just like a non starter.

 

It would be nice to retain on the last half season of Miller if that is possible, but not on his extension.

 

The ones you suggest make us worse.  We have to also replace those players so even if they are overpaid by a couple million we are ahead of the game cap wise vs retaining half their salary and then having to replace them.

Buyouts?   Seems like a ridiculous way to do business if instead you can retain a little on a couple guys that are about to be put to pasture anyways.   That's Pearson and Myers next year, probably Brock the following one if not sooner.   Hey I get what you're saying too.    The idea would have to be about opportunity costs with the picks and younger talent coming our way.   Not easy to score in this league, however 6.6 is a lot to spend on a 50 point guy and a ton to spend on a 20/20 guy who doesn't do much else.    Brock at 3.3 we aren't going to recover.   Same with Myers at 3.   Or Pearson at 1.6.   It's about a strategy as much as anything thing else, and doing what MIN did is awful.   Rather we pay the piper, have a down year or two, have an internal cap of sorts while doing that and plan for a better future.   Sure we could just wait for the cap to shed as well or go up.   But those returns ... might come in handy. 

[CanucksJay]

52 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Buyouts?   Seems like a ridiculous way to do business if instead you can retain a little on a couple guys that are about to be put to pasture anyways.   That's Pearson and Myers next year, probably Brock the following one if not sooner.   Hey I get what you're saying too.    The idea would have to be about opportunity costs with the picks and younger talent coming our way.   Not easy to score in this league, however 6.6 is a lot to spend on a 50 point guy and a ton to spend on a 20/20 guy who doesn't do much else.    Brock at 3.3 we aren't going to recover.   Same with Myers at 3.   Or Pearson at 1.6.   It's about a strategy as much as anything thing else, and doing what MIN did is awful.   Rather we pay the piper, have a down year or two, have an internal cap of sorts while doing that and plan for a better future.   Sure we could just wait for the cap to shed as well or go up.   But those returns ... might come in handy. 

This is where I have major problems with how sports teams are run. 

These guys are supposed to be the best but we have an ex nhl goalie from wayyyy back in the day as a president of a company making multimillion dollar decisions. 

Its a common theme.... Benning ex defensemen. 

Most are all ex players. 

Why? 

No disrespect but athletes aren't exactly at the top of the intelligence tree so why are they making decisions with 80m budgets? 

fine, we have the top 1% of ex players in intelligence who made it into the executive team of an NHL club but why the hell is the pool of applicants selected from ex players? 

The amount of buyouts and "sweeteners" needed in trades to get rid of mistakes is staggering. But this happens with every team 

 

Imagine I told my boss "oops" on wasting 6m, 7.3m, 6.75m and 8m for multiple years? 

Thats on top of all the other oops... On an 80m budget no less... 

 

Not only would I lose my job but I probably wouldn't be working in the industry as I would be the laughing stock and no other firm will hire me. 

 

Yet we take these guys and recycle them. It's absolutely stupid. 

 

I make fun of Dubas but I would take my chances on 5 Kyle Dubas run teams over 5 random NHL teams run by an ex player

 

We celebrate guys like Yzerman and Sakic but they are literally beating up on idiots... 

They look great because the rest of the talent pool is unqualified. 

 

Like how did Milbury last so many years? 

 

I dont think you need an ex nhl player to run a team. 

 

You need a genius who eats breaths and sleeps hockey, is innovative in how they look at advanced stats (to back up the eye test) and is first and foremost a smart guy rather than a guy who played in the NHL. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, CanucksJay said:

This is where I have major problems with how sports teams are run. 

These guys are supposed to be the best but we have an ex nhl goalie from wayyyy back in the day as a president of a company making multimillion dollar decisions. 

Its a common theme.... Benning ex defensemen. 

Most are all ex players. 

Why? 

No disrespect but athletes aren't exactly at the top of the intelligence tree so why are they making decisions with 80m budgets? 

fine, we have the top 1% of ex players in intelligence who made it into the executive team of an NHL club but why the hell is the pool of applicants selected from ex players? 

The amount of buyouts and "sweeteners" needed in trades to get rid of mistakes is staggering. But this happens with every team 

 

Imagine I told my boss "oops" on wasting 6m, 7.3m, 6.75m and 8m for multiple years? 

Thats on top of all the other oops... On an 80m budget no less... 

 

Not only would I lose my job but I probably wouldn't be working in the industry as I would be the laughing stock and no other firm will hire me. 

 

Yet we take these guys and recycle them. It's absolutely stupid. 

 

I make fun of Dubas but I would take my chances on 5 Kyle Dubas run teams over 5 random NHL teams run by an ex player

 

We celebrate guys like Yzerman and Sakic but they are literally beating up on idiots... 

They look great because the rest of the talent pool is unqualified. 

 

Like how did Milbury last so many years? 

 

I dont think you need an ex nhl player to run a team. 

 

You need a genius who eats breaths and sleeps hockey, is innovative in how they look at advanced stats (to back up the eye test) and is first and foremost a smart guy rather than a guy who played in the NHL. 

 

 

 

 

 

Yup.  Is Allvin an ex NHL player?  

[CanucksJay]

7 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Yup.  Is Allvin an ex NHL player?  

He's an ex hockey player that couldn't make it to the NHL... Topped out at ECHL 

He looks fricking smart... But that's in comparison to the rest of the meat heads running clubs. 

 

Im talking, I want a guy who is passionate about hockey, maybe even played NCAA but went to Harvard Business  first and foremost for education purposes and used hockey as a vehicle to get there but rather than hockey, he scored 1580 on his SAT to get to Princeton or Harvard because he is first and foremost a smart guy. Maybe he specialized in statistics or data analytics while he was there.... 

 

Like where the hell is that kind of talent? 

Is that a unicorn? 

 

I'm looking for the Mike Ross of hockey ops

 

Edited January 28, 2023 by CanucksJay

[Biff Tannen]

40 minutes ago, CanucksJay said:

This is where I have major problems with how sports teams are run. 

These guys are supposed to be the best but we have an ex nhl goalie from wayyyy back in the day as a president of a company making multimillion dollar decisions. 

Its a common theme.... Benning ex defensemen. 

Most are all ex players. 

Why? 

No disrespect but athletes aren't exactly at the top of the intelligence tree so why are they making decisions with 80m budgets? 

fine, we have the top 1% of ex players in intelligence who made it into the executive team of an NHL club but why the hell is the pool of applicants selected from ex players? 

The amount of buyouts and "sweeteners" needed in trades to get rid of mistakes is staggering. But this happens with every team 

 

Imagine I told my boss "oops" on wasting 6m, 7.3m, 6.75m and 8m for multiple years? 

Thats on top of all the other oops... On an 80m budget no less... 

 

Not only would I lose my job but I probably wouldn't be working in the industry as I would be the laughing stock and no other firm will hire me. 

 

Yet we take these guys and recycle them. It's absolutely stupid. 

 

I make fun of Dubas but I would take my chances on 5 Kyle Dubas run teams over 5 random NHL teams run by an ex player

 

We celebrate guys like Yzerman and Sakic but they are literally beating up on idiots... 

They look great because the rest of the talent pool is unqualified. 

 

Like how did Milbury last so many years? 

 

I dont think you need an ex nhl player to run a team. 

 

You need a genius who eats breaths and sleeps hockey, is innovative in how they look at advanced stats (to back up the eye test) and is first and foremost a smart guy rather than a guy who played in the NHL.

I think you've stumbled across a deeper truth. The people at the top aren't actually any better than you, me or Rutherford. Just a cabal of privileged, lucky, and/or obsequious douches. Ultimately we're relying on the 'wisdom' of Aquilani to pick the right person so might as well lean towards people with professional hockey experience.

[Alflives]

32 minutes ago, CanucksJay said:

He's an ex hockey player that couldn't make it to the NHL... Topped out at ECHL 

He looks fricking smart... But that's in comparison to the rest of the meat heads running clubs. 

 

Im talking, I want a guy who is passionate about hockey, maybe even played NCAA but went to Harvard Business  first and foremost for education purposes and used hockey as a vehicle to get there but rather than hockey, he scored 1580 on his SAT to get to Princeton or Harvard because he is first and foremost a smart guy. Maybe he specialized in statistics or data analytics while he was there.... 

 

Like where the hell is that kind of talent? 

Is that a unicorn? 

 

I'm looking for the Mike Ross of hockey ops

 

Didn’t both Nonis and Burke go to Harvard?  Maybe there’s a place where both smart and a good hockey mind meet?  I like it when the GM accepts he’s not a snout and allows those people to do their jobs.  Benning. 

[*Buzzsaw*]

Good... because they need to dump CAP.

 

Preferably enough to keep Horvat.

[ToTellTheTruth]

19 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

I think you've stumbled across a deeper truth. The people at the top aren't actually any better than you, me or Rutherford. Just a cabal of privileged, lucky, and/or obsequious douches. Ultimately we're relying on the 'wisdom' of Aquilani to pick the right person so might as well lean towards people with professional hockey experience.

The old boys club.

 

Higher education doesn't mean more intelligent but it certainly does mean knowing more.

 

But in the NHL there are dozens of people to run the intricate parts of the team.

 

The school of hard knocks has value and is real but Linden exposed a problem with having an ex-player running the show. The parts became worth more than the whole.

Linden and Benning made no trades of players they themselves signed except at the end, they would not even make TDL trades off the team. 

 

I like the Sedins, they were great players but not using their asset value destroyed this team's future for more than a decade. 

IF they were traded at the TDL, which would mean they would have been on the road an additional 6 games because the team was already on the road for their games, essentially 4 to 6 weeks with retention of half their salaries, which could have been done easily, the team could have got a very high return, exceptionally high, likely enough to prevent a dismal decade or longer.

 

The Sedins became more important than the team, more important than the future and most harmful, more important than the fans.

"They never asked" because somehow the fan owed the Sedins for being paid over 65 million dollars to live in one of the worlds best places

 

Right now there are a couple of markets going through the same thing, Washington with Ovy and Pittsburgh with Crosby and Malkin. Chicago just blew it up around it's two super stars but now might trading them at the TDL for future assets. That won'tmake Toews and Kane less Hawks in the future.

 

This is a marketing thing, to sell the love for a part of the whole for ticket sales instead of what the entire purpose of competition is about.  

 

Now all a GM really has to do is assign responsibilities' and provide a path to follow, there is so much information out there that most folks with an IQ of 70 or higher could sit in that seat if all it was to run the team.

 

But it is the old boys network that dictates who sits where and what can be accomplished. Remember the Lowe Burke feud? Or Burke declaring the Luongo contract should be punished because Gillis scooped him for the Sedins. How after Gillis signed the offer sheet for Bernier the threats came out and trades became harder.

 

Rookie GMs out of the old boys network get taken advantage of, see Benning but there are exceptions, Dubas was endorsed by Lammorello and Shanahan, Bowman in Chicago by the mentor Bowman

 

It isn't what you know, it is who you know.

 

And the NHL too.

 

Balsillie stated over and over again that if he got a franchise it would win a cup within 5 years, the NHL blocked him through 3 attempted team purchases often granting ownership to people that had no money or paid them to be the face to even introducing one fellow as an owner that never paid a dime towards it.

 

Turns out he may have been right both Vegas and now Seattle seem to be well on their way to cup finals within 5 years, Not a good look for the NHL's flagging teams.

Edited January 28, 2023 by ToTellTheTruth

[cripplereh]

I just don't see us doing that for anyone but BB.

[aGENT]

On 1/26/2023 at 12:30 PM, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

No, sorry. I see that wasn’t very clear in my part. My understanding is the same as yours. I believe that teams are on the hook for whatever contracts they have on their books so for Miller they must retain an equal percentage of both deals (the current one and the extension).

 

On 1/26/2023 at 12:58 PM, ToTellTheTruth said:

Ya, mostly it was just going off last years rumours but that might make Schneider more available.

Lamorello likes vets and cap certainty. That could be used as an reason for signing a contract that early.

It is time and the player coming back and time, they already have loads of top dmen for the next 8 years. Sure maybe it is just hope of a dream but quality for quality. They call Rutherford a big trader well Kekalainen makes him look cautious. Big deals don't scare him. But if not them there are other 20 yrs or so studs that team in the hunt would be willing to look at.

It was just going on past rumours that he might be available, there was Schneider as well and a media consensus that they want more scoring as well as NYI.

But retention could get a return, something, anything at all.

When teams trade a player, they can retain, or keep, some of the players' salary and cap hit.  The team keeps a % of both the cap hit and salary for the remainder of the contract. Miller only has one contract right now, the one he is playing under, his next contract isn't in effect until September. So they can retain 50% of the current contract without any of the contract not "legal" or in effect yet.

 

Essentially it isn't about any one particular trade just that trades can happen using retention. Retention adds value to trades. Retention doesn't require having empty cap space just not taking back more than retained.

 

It can be done for 3 trades until those contracts expire.

Canucks can retain up to $12.3 million

 

IF they retained 12.3 million that would mean they opened up 12.3 million in empty cap space to be used for new players. 

This is my understanding as well. The rules only refer to individual contracts and his current, individual contract expires this July. IMO we should be able to retain on just the current contract.

 

Maybe we'll find out future sure, one way or another, in a few weeks here...?

 

If so, it allows us to retain on 3 of Miller, Horvat, Boeser, Schenn (maybe a Dermott, Myers or Bear?) this TDL.

 

Then when any of the expiring deals (Miller, Horvat, Schenn, Bear or Dermott) expire, we can also retain on Meyers and/or Pearson after July 1 (and after Myers bonus is paid).

 

Only buyouts I see it's doing are on the likes of Poolman, Stillman etc.

 

[DeepThoughts]

On 1/26/2023 at 12:13 PM, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

An individual contract can have a maximum of two teams retaining salary on it. 
 

So we could retain salary on OEL.

 

It’s obviously not ideal, but still far preferable to a buyout:

 

 

 

 

Suck it up and keep OEL for three more seasons. It's not like we have a replacement ready anyway. Buy him out in Summer 2026 when he will truly suck. One year of 4.1 million penalty and one year of 1.5. Not so bad. 

[mll]

44 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

This is my understanding as well. The rules only refer to individual contracts and his current, individual contract expires this July. IMO we should be able to retain on just the current contract.

 

Maybe we'll find out future sure, one way or another, in a few weeks here...?

 

If so, it allows us to retain on 3 of Miller, Horvat, Boeser, Schenn (maybe a Dermott, Myers or Bear?) this TDL.

 

Then when any of the expiring deals (Miller, Horvat, Schenn, Bear or Dermott) expire, we can also retain on Meyers and/or Pearson after July 1 (and after Myers bonus is paid).

 

Only buyouts I see it's doing are on the likes of Poolman, Stillman etc.

 

 

Who knows how they would rule but I would expect them to stay as close as possible to the initial intent vs being focused on wording where they forgot that a player could be traded before his extension kicks in.  Retaining the same rate over both contracts seems more in the spirit of the initial article where teams can't adjust the rates.  It just happens that it's over 2 contracts rather than 1.