[article] Could that extra $3-4 million in rumoured cap space fix everything for the Canucks this offseason?

[Gurn]

17 minutes ago, Provost said:

Well you know, having the biggest committed cap of any team in the league, already being over the current projected cap with 5 roster spots still to fill, and all while having a team that can’t get a sniff at the playoffs and needs a major injection of talent… that seems like an ideal position cap wise.

Oh ya, and one of the worst prospect pools in the league so no cheap ELCs coming to play significant roles on the team.

 

Not sure what your definition of cap problems is.

People confuse the fact that we can build a cap compliant team, with us having no cap problems.

 

Of course the real issue is icing a team that can compete, for a play off spot, or better.; and have room for future growth.

 

 

 

[Timråfan]

20 minutes ago, Gurn said:

People confuse the fact that we can build a cap compliant team, with us having no cap problems.

 

This is also a false narrative.

 

If you and I have a different view of the team it isn’t confusion.

20 minutes ago, Gurn said:

Of course the real issue is icing a team that can compete, for a play off spot, or better.; and have room for future growth.

 

 

 

I believe we compete with the same team we had last season for a play off spot.

For me it’s a done deal unless Petey and Hughes get injured but that can happen to every team.

And we have room for future growth.

[stawns]

20 hours ago, Fanuck said:

Hoping the cap goes up every year isn't a replacement for wise, fiscal, long-term planning for this organization.  

 

If this happens and the cap does increase - it's just luck for Allvin.  Yes, Benning made a mess of things for sure, but Allvin didn't exactly 'penny pinch' when he took over either to this point. 

 

Allvin has some decisions to make - some hard ones that might rub some people the wrong way - but ones that need to be made to keep this franchise competitive in the long-term.   

I'd say that's a long shot scenario.  The cap going up won't change anything other than the top players getting bigger contracts

[DownUndaCanuck]

OEL is really the only bad contract we have and even then, let's see how he plays next year. 2 years ago he was playing like a 5M defenceman, last year like a 900k one so it'll be interesting how he does next year but if he's even as good as a 3-4M 5th guy, that's not too bad by any means considering how much dead cap a lot of teams have.

 

Say what you want about Myers but he's probably a 3-4M player, so again, not a horrible deal.

 

Our problem is that we have so many expensive wingers though and not many cheap ones. We added Mikheyev when we didn't really need to, overpaid Boeser but had to because of his QO, get freebie Kuzmenko on the cheap but now have to pay the price (but have done so very cheaply), then acquire another winger in Beauvillier too, and already had a slightly overpaid Garland. These contracts add up.

 

Simple solution - trade one or two wingers, +/- Myers if we can, but then we need to add a defenceman. Hoglander can play Beauvillier's role easily for a quarter of the cost. The same could be said for Podkolzin and Garland almost. That's 8M in cap savings right there.

 

We are really not that far off, just have to flip one or two guys. The OEL - Myers duo will get talked about to death but we should focus on how/why our 3rd line costs us over 10M and we don't even have a proper 3C.

[NewbieCanuckFan]

20 hours ago, Warhippy said:

Let's just be brutally clear here.  This is an issue that has plagued this club for over a decade and is in no way shape or form going to end all of a sudden.  Just because the cap goes up, does not mean teams will want our magic beans and dull toys.  Just because the cap goes up does not mean we will magically be able tor evamp a blue line.  A cap increase in fact right now is scary with petterssons new contract coming.  it also means all UFA's will want more and depending if Hronek is healthy and can produce he also will want more.  If Hronek shows up for 66 games and manages 40 ish points he'll ask for $7.8 million minimum.

 

While we are potentially well positioned now with this potential news.  NOTHING is confirmed and we are in fact in cap trouble.  We have thus far been unable to trade large contracts over the past 3-4 years at all and longer.  If I am pessimistic here it is because I have good reason to be.  At this stage of things plan for the worst and hope for the best but we have a historical basis here to rely on.  We are currrently in cap trouble.  We will still be in cap trouble until this is confirmed and if it is the maximum and then confirmed we will still be in cap trouble fighting with 13 other teams for the exact same UFAs; who will be asking for more with a cap increase

 

I do believe we are potentially well positioned to move assets and gain space with an increase.  but until such time as it is confirmed and something happens, I will not get excited.

 

That damn Gillis handing out all those long-term contracts with NTCs handcuffing Alvin.

[Ghostsof1915]

Just now, NewbieCanuckFan said:

That damn Gillis handing out all those long-term contracts with NTCs handcuffing Alvin.

Gillis had his NTC's.

Benning had his overpayment contracts.

Both are bad for a team looking to build.

[NewbieCanuckFan]

14 minutes ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

Gillis had his NTC's.

Benning had his overpayment contracts.

Both are bad for a team looking to build.

Canucks weren't "rebuilding" when those Gillis NTCs were handed out though.  You can question obviously handing out those deals in the first place at the time but the direction of the teams were vastly different.  That and Benning's long-term deals didn't really give us much of cap break in balancing out the lengthy terms.  I mean, OEL contract is hardly "cheap" (yeah Benning didn't write that contract but he traded for it).  I'd argue Gillis didn't go 'all in' enough while Benning had no business doing the things he did outside of drafting.  Canucks are better served have NEITHER guy as GM anymore.

 

But back to the subject of the thread (sorry for going offtopic folks heh, *AGAIN*).  If cap goes up, I'd imagine the players would also likely ask for more so I wonder how much in available space we'll end up really having.

Edited May 20, 2023 by NewbieCanuckFan

[Jester13]

17 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

It's amazing how people on CDC are calling Hronek a PP specialist, the guy is actually a pretty good defender and was a regular penalty killer with Detroit.  Even the beat writer for Detroit said this, he said Hronek broke out this year and was playing like a top pairing Dman.

 

I think some people on CDC are gonna be shocked when they actually see Hronek play...

Hopefully we don't get too shocked when we see his asking price after he plays great for us.

[Crabcakes]

What I think happens if the cap goes up by $4M is that there will be many more possible trade partners for players like Garland, Beauvillier, maybe even Boeser.  It will make a huge difference to the league, not just the Canucks.

 

Obviously, it's the Canucks that we're concerned about.

 

46 minutes ago, Timråfan said:

I believe we compete with the same team we had last season for a play off spot.

For me it’s a done deal unless Petey and Hughes get injured but that can happen to every team.

And we have room for future growth.

I agree with this.  The Canucks as a whole under achieved last season.  Whether is was needing to play under a more disciplined system, or players such as OEL playing through injury or Demko out for a long period of time.  

 

I think that if the cap does go up by $4M it means that the Canucks will be able to make some deals and free up some cap in order to fill holes in the line up.  I also think that Allvin has to be very careful how he manages the cap.

[Crabcakes]

1 hour ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

Gillis had his NTC's.

Benning had his overpayment contracts.

Both are bad for a team looking to build.

Benning always seemed to be scrambling.  It was always a struggle to find players to fill holes.  When he painted himself into a corner and he had a tough deal to make, he's say "if that happens, it's a good problem to have" or "we'll figure that out when we come to it".  The man rode by the seat of his pants.

 

I think the approach that you have to take is to look out 5 years in advance to manage the line up.  Teams like Carolina have always tried to keep the cap sustainable.  This summer, Allvin sure as hell better not be trusting that the cap will go up by $X when he's looking at renewing Petterson and Hronek in 2 years and in 3 years, making decisions on Boeser and Kuzmenko and in 4 years, Demko.  This is how it rolls.  You have to leave yourself open to sign these contracts and not screw yourself for the next year or the one after that.  Opportunities seem to come out of the blue.  You never know when and sometimes players unexpectedly earn higher than expected salaries.  That good fortune can't mean that you have to dump a player who you'd rather keep.

[komodo0921]

23 hours ago, Kenny Powers said:

https://canucksarmy.com/news/extra-3-4-million-rumoured-cap-space-fix-everything-canucks-offseason

 

This would buy us time to make transactions for optimal returns, open up more trade partners, and reduce the leverage of teams like Chicago. It also takes the pressure off buyout decisions.
 

As the team with the highest cap spending, we seem to benefit the most from this…

I'll start by saying, I don't believe anything can help this team until there is an ownership change.

More money only gives the current regime room to make more mistakes.

One word that I keep thinking about when it comes to the Canucks is, culture; or, should I say, our lack of it.

Think about it.

Do we have an identity?

A playing style?

Or, even a look?

Have we had a true era of competitive hockey, where we've been a true contender for a significant amount of time?

Sure we've had a couple of seasons that we can claim to have been dominant, with one culminating in our best chance we had to win a cup but, even that was fleeting and we went right back into obscurity which is where we stand to this day.

Vancouver is not a destination players want to come to unless it's a last resort or they are over-paid to do so.

Another word that has become a big part of todays culture is, branding.

Having solid culture, in conjunction with direction creates a solid brand.

We have poor culture, no direction, no winning history, and a look that leaves a lot to be desired.

I hear a lot of complaining about favoritism toward the original six teams ( which I don't believe) but, what is it that makes them so important?

Answer. They all have solid brands from which solid followings have been created. They all have storied histories and Stanley cups.

The Kraken came into the league with a solid look and have quickly established a culture in Seattle. They are looking to be a team players will want to play for.

I believe that this team needs to undergo a complete overhaul.

This includes ownership, personnel, and look.

Ownership must understand the game of hockey and identify the key aspects of it and draft with all of them in mind.

 

Character

IQ

Skill

Size

History

 

Character- the will and need to win, the want to make ones self better as a hockey player and individual. The need to protect fellow players. The ability to go beyond one's comfort zone to get a job done.

IQ- the ability to process information at a fast pace and make snap, correct decisions under pressure.

Skill- stick-handling, shooting, and skating

Size- big players are better able to throw and absorb hits. they are more capable in front of nets. Bigger players are harder to push around and intimidate.

History- I don't care what anyone says, history shows that championship teams are still 70+% Canadian. No other nation cares as much about the Stanley Cup as Canada. This goes for players. Canadian players will play harder and sacrifice more for a cup then anyone else. History also shows that the team that can walk the fine line between acceptable play and unacceptable play, will win. This is more commonly known as walking the edge.

I could go on but this post is getting too long but I believe that, until these core issues are addressed, we will always be that small team in the northwest no one outside BC and even in BC, no one cares about.

 

, 

 

 

[aGENT]

22 hours ago, Warhippy said:

Again, it won't be easy.  It may change, it may get easier but until such time as we see something actually happen I will remain pessimistic because that is a huge volume of assets to move renew or replace while still holding on to some level of cap space knowing that players will be commanding more $ than ever and that stars like Petey will hold all the advantages in renewing new contracts with a significant increase.

I hate to nit pick, as I don't disagree with your general sentiment that we clearly have work to do...but running an NHL team isn't/shouldn't be "easy". You're competing with 31 teams to get the most talent, under a fixed salary cap, while dealing with holdover contracts, injuries/diminished performance etc, etc. That excrement is HARD, and requires teams of very smart, hardworking people, who are paid accordingly, to navigate. Even the best contending teams have roster holes, cap issues, hopes and prayers on prospects etc. The Canucks aren't vastly different in those issues than most of the other teams in the league.

 

Our biggest immediate problems are shifting some winger cap to depth C and D and attempting to move Myers, and some/all of his cap (either post bonus, or at the TDL), ideally for better fitting C/D. The majority of the rest of our cap inefficiencies (Myers, Pearson, Poolman) will naturally be aging out in short order anyway.

 

Before this (potential) announcement, I figured, worst case, we could at least "Bjorkstrand" a Garland or Beau for not much return (mid round pick/picks). That should be that much easier (and possibly even a better return) if the bump actually happens. Maybe we even fill one of our other holes with a depth D (and cap) coming back as part of that trade? I mean make no mistake, this team will always be a cap team, we won't be "clearing" cap, we'll be shifting it, as possible, to positions/player types of greater need.

 

22 hours ago, Warhippy said:

1 back up goalie

1 top 2/4 RHD

1 4-6 RHD

1 4-6 LHD

1 3rd line center

6 wingers

4th line center

-We have Martin under contract still, Silovs coming up and a 3rd guy to compete with them will not be hard, or expensive to find.

 

-Unfortunately for now, we'll likely be going with some mix of Bear, Schenn or similar to fill the Hughes partner hole. I agree though that long term, a LEGIT top 4 capable Hughes partner is arguably our biggest roster need that will be needed to push this team to actually being playoff competitive. Thankfully we don't need a next to impossible to find #1, do everything guy (though I sure wouldn't complain). I'd happily take a Cernak/Pesce/Larsson etc type there. While those guys aren't growing on trees, they are easier (and cheaper) to find. (Maybe Cernak, or McAvoy become available in a couple years if/when their current teams decide to blow things up...?)

 

-The next two (depth D) are generally easier to find (we traded a measley 5th for Bear with retention, guys like Schenn are available for at/near league min, and we have numerous prospects that may compete for those spots over the next few seasons.

 

-3C is one of our bigger roster holes. There are a few decent looking guys available as UFA this year (Compher, Sundqvist, Acciari, Bjugstad...all righties even). If/when we are able to shift some of our winger cap (Garland, Beau, Boeser), I hope to hell that's where they plan on spending some of it. We also have Raty developing.

 

-6 wingers? We have too many already (both at the NHL level and prospects). I think between that, and them not being difficult to acquire, we should be ok at wing for the foreseeable future. Upgrades always welcome of course.

 

-Between free agents, Aman, Studnicka and Sasson (and prospects...though we could certainly use some added depth there), we should be ok at 4C as well/it shouldn't be THAT hard to fill.

 

The "big" problems are 3C and a long term partner for Hughes. We're not likely addressing both of those this offseason unfortunately (hopefully the 3C). The rest should be quite navigable, and I like this management's history of finding and developing quality depth/role players when in PIT. Hopefully they've they've brought that ability here. 

Edited May 20, 2023 by aGENT

[Warhippy]

On 5/19/2023 at 1:58 PM, canuck73_3 said:

Sounds like you have never seen Hronek play. 

I have seen him play.

 

I also have not seen him play since he essentially spent a month off and on the IR due to "upper body injury issues" prior to his being traded to Vancouver where he was shut down after 4 games due to "an upper body injury issue"

 

So I will again reiterate.  Come back to me when he has actually played a season in a Canucks uniform before claiming he is the best RHD to play for this team since Bieksa

[Warhippy]

On 5/19/2023 at 2:18 PM, Dr. Crossbar said:

That's where a lot of this is coming from. 

See above post

[Warhippy]

22 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

It's amazing how people on CDC are calling Hronek a PP specialist, the guy is actually a pretty good defender and was a regular penalty killer with Detroit.  Even the beat writer for Detroit said this, he said Hronek broke out this year and was playing like a top pairing Dman.

 

I think some people on CDC are gonna be shocked when they actually see Hronek play...

Well, when he PLAYS in a Canucks uniform then we will be able to put pen to paper.  Until then this trade is literally no different than this memorable 10th overall draft pick from the mid 80s.  But again, and this is important.  he is injured.  He has been injured essentially by reports for about a month ish prior to his trade with the same lingering issue.  he played 4 whole games for Vancouver recording a single point.  Averaged out his start in vancouver is/was comparable to Luke Schenn's production in vancouver for the year.

 

yes he will produce more than Schenn but you get what i am saying.

 

Until he shows up; is not injured and can prove that he is what he was labeled as he is an unknown and the team and fans HAVE to be a shade more realistic about things regarding him.

 

 

 

21 hours ago, canuck73_3 said:

Anyone complaining about the trade is bitching just to bitch.

I dunno mate.  Being worried about  trading for or drafting a player with lingering issues should always give fans a reason to pump the brakes.  See Nolan Patrick draft v trade

[Warhippy]

2 hours ago, aGENT said:

I hate to nit pick, as I don't disagree with your general sentiment that we clearly have work to do...but running an NHL team isn't/shouldn't be "easy". You're competing with 31 teams to get the most talent, under a fixed salary cap, while dealing with holdover contracts, injuries/diminished performance etc, etc. That excrement is HARD, and requires teams of very smart, hardworking people, who are paid accordingly, to navigate. Even the best contending teams have roster holes, cap issues, hopes and prayers on prospects etc. The Canucks aren't vastly different in those issues than most of the other teams in the league.

 

Our biggest immediate problems are shifting some winger cap to depth C and D and attempting to move Myers, and some/all of his cap (either post bonus, or at the TDL), ideally for better fitting C/D. The majority of the rest of our cap inefficiencies (Myers, Pearson, Poolman) will naturally be aging out in short order anyway.

 

Before this (potential) announcement, I figured, worst case, we could at least "Bjorkstrand" a Garland or Beau for not much return (mid round pick/picks). That should be that much easier (and possibly even a better return) if the bump actually happens. Maybe we even fill one of our other holes with a depth D (and cap) coming back as part of that trade? I mean make no mistake, this team will always be a cap team, we won't be "clearing" cap, we'll be shifting it, as possible, to positions/player types of greater need.

 

-We have Martin under contract still, Silovs coming up and a 3rd guy to compete with them will not be hard, or expensive to find.

 

-Unfortunately for now, we'll likely be going with some mix of Bear, Schenn or similar to fill the Hughes partner hole. I agree though that long term, a LEGIT top 4 capable Hughes partner is arguably our biggest roster need that will be needed to push this team to actually being playoff competitive. Thankfully we don't need a next to impossible to find #1, do everything guy (though I sure wouldn't complain). I'd happily take a Cernak/Pesce/Larsson etc type there. While those guys aren't growing on trees, they are easier (and cheaper) to find. (Maybe Cernak, or McAvoy become available in a couple years if/when their current teams decide to blow things up...?)

 

-The next two (depth D) are generally easier to find (we traded a measley 5th for Bear with retention, guys like Schenn are available for at/near league min, and we have numerous prospects that may compete for those spots over the next few seasons.

 

-3C is one of our bigger roster holes. There are a few decent looking guys available as UFA this year (Compher, Sundqvist, Acciari, Bjugstad...all righties even). If/when we are able to shift some of our winger cap (Garland, Beau, Boeser), I hope to hell that's where they plan on spending some of it. We also have Raty developing.

 

-6 wingers? We have too many already (both at the NHL level and prospects). I think between that, and them not being difficult to acquire, we should be ok at wing for the foreseeable future. Upgrades always welcome of course.

 

-Between free agents, Aman, Studnicka and Sasson (and prospects...though we could certainly use some added depth there), we should be ok at 4C as well/it shouldn't be THAT hard to fill.

 

The "big" problems are 3C and a long term partner for Hughes. We're not likely addressing both of those this offseason unfortunately (hopefully the 3C). The rest should be quite navigable, and I like this management's history of finding and developing quality depth/role players when in PIT. Hopefully they've they've brought that ability here. 

The question is not about finding them.  it is about the cap space.  Will we be able to maintain things while needing to either promote or replace people at those positions?  Is $3-$4 million enough?  How much more will players command with this increase?

 

The big issue isn't this off season, IMO it is next year.

[Seannnp]

23 hours ago, Fanuck said:

Imagine our cap situation (not to mention our draft capital/prospect pool) if we didn't sign Mik, and traded both Miller/Kuz at the deadline for picks/prospects?  Not only would we have the cap-room JR has said from day 1 he wanted, but we wouldn't be rated as one of the worst prospect pools/farm teams in the entire league. Or, even more realistically, imagine if Allvin were able to unload Garland/Boeser without having to actually pay someone to take those contracts?  

 

 

 

 

 

That would suggest a rebuild through the prime years of Petey, Hughes and Demko. Cap doesnt mean sh*t if Petey and Hughes no longer want to be here and play through a rebuild. 

 

So the goal here is to collect as many picks as possible to have the best prospect pool in the league? We have a bad prospect pool because our prospects have graduated. Petey, Boeser, Hughes, Demko, Podz, Hoglander will all be with the big club next year. 
 

We may not have blue chip prospects but we do have 

 

Johansson

Pettersson

Hirose 

Kudraytsev

Lekerremaki

Silovs

11th OA 

 

Not horrible in my opinion but definitley room improvement which will happen over the next 1-2 seasons. 
 

I seriously do not undertsand the logic behind trading away good young players for picks to draft younger players with the hopes that they become the players you initially traded. 

 

 

[Dr. Crossbar]

10 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

See above post

Well, imo, if you have seen him play, and are familiar with his trajectory, then you really shouldn't be fighting so hard to be pessimistic. 

 

Imo, you're leaning way too hard on the injury because, well, you can. That's your choice.

 

I'm going to remain optimistic, continue on the thought that he will heal, and maintain what he is and has been - a young Top 4 RHD that we've needed  - until the injury proves otherwise. 

 

 

[Seannnp]

On 5/19/2023 at 2:26 PM, Shekky said:

They are trying to compete now pretty evident they are bound to sign a player in free agency. Another bloated contract among the other bloated contracts on the roster.

So how do you avoid bloated contracts at free agency? How do you improve the team without free agency? Let me guess, build through the draft, correct? 
 

What in your opinion is a bloated contract? 
 

So you would not pay 5-6m per for Gavrikov? Or 3-4m for Barbashev? Or 5m for Graves? 

[Warhippy]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Crossbar said:

Well, imo, if you have seen him play, and are familiar with his trajectory, then you really shouldn't be fighting so hard to be pessimistic. 

 

Imo, you're leaning way too hard on the injury because, well, you can. That's your choice.

 

I'm going to remain optimistic, continue on the thought that he will heal, and maintain what he is and has been - a young Top 4 RHD that we've needed  - until the injury proves otherwise. 

 

 

I know what type of player he was in Detroit.

 

I also know what injuries can do to a player.

 

This team has a serious history of players and injuries causing issues with their careers.

 

I have a significant injury that cost me my career and makes me incredibly sympathetic to Pearson.

 

Until such time as hronek can come in, play a full season + and replicate what he had done or was doing in detroit consistently I will remain on the fence because I have been burned WAY to many times in the past as a hockey fan.  I advise caution for that reason, having seen people anointing him as the best RHD this team has had since Bieksa or ever makes me shake my head.

 

I am not crapping on the trade.  I am merely advising people be realistic about things