2020 Roster and Fantasy GM Thread II

[Hoghandler]

What does the loss of Boeser look like 10 years from now?

Your spurious rationale can justify any non-Pettersson or non-Hughes move. That's the mark of poor logic. Any player can move, for whatever reason, so long as the centre pieces stay intact. Is that the gist of it?

Well, that would depend on the return, wouldn’t you say?

How does the Cory Schneider trade look?

 

[Bleach Clean]

Well, that would depend on the return, wouldn’t you say?

How does the Cory Schneider trade look?

You're rationale disregards return. It says 'I don't care if secondary youth is lost because that doesn't matter much in the long-term'. That's how your posts read.

 

[Hoghandler]

You're rationale disregards return. It says 'I don't care if secondary youth is lost because that doesn't matter much in the long-term'. That's how your posts read.

No, I’ve never said you disregard a return in trade. If that’s what you thought, I am setting the record straight now.

To answer your question of how a Boeser trade looks in 10 years - it depends on the return.

 

[Hoghandler]

Downplaying that pick who is already considered kinda disappointing is a lot better than admitting that Benning's bungling is forcing the team to give away young top-6 forwards to get rid of his bad contracts, yes.





I have never made any sort of 3-for-2 comparison. I said that losing Stecher and Virtanen would be comparable to Chicago losing players of the ilk of Byfuglien and Versteeg in 2009. And it is.

What are you on about? I have stated countless times that the cap management was poor, or as you say here, bungled. Wanting to deal Virtanen and re-sign Toffoli in no way changes that. The whole premise of moving Virtanen is the depth on RW.

Fair enough. If you think us losing Stecher and Virtanen is akin to the Hawks losing Byfuglien, Ladd and Versteeg, everyone is entitled to an opinion. Strongly disagree.

 

[Bleach Clean]

No, I’ve never said you disregard a return in trade. If that’s what you thought, I am setting the record straight now.

To answer your question of how a Boeser trade looks in 10 years - it depends on the return.

Ok, so if return matters, why do you justify dealing Virtanen as a sweetener in a cap dump by saying 'it's not going to matter long-term'?

That return and justification seems pretty foolish unless only considering the now.

 

[Hoghandler]

Ok, so if return matters, why do you justify dealing Virtanen as a sweetener in a cap dump by saying 'it's not going to matter long-term'?

That return and justification seems pretty foolish unless only considering the now.

If Toffoli is re-signed, I would have looked to move Virtanen for a pick at the draft. Would help recoup some of the futures capital lost in the Miller/Toffoli deals. Taking from a position of strength.

I would still look for a pick coming back in the trade if Virtanen is packaged with Baertschi.

 

[Bleach Clean]

If Toffoli is re-signed, I would have looked to move Virtanen for a pick at the draft. Would help recoup some of the futures capital lost in the Miller/Toffoli deals. Taking from a position of strength.

I would still look for a pick coming back in the trade if Virtanen is packaged with Baertschi.

That pick doesn't change anything because the premise is a cap dump. Realistically, you're not getting a 1st there, or maybe even a 2nd. Which means, you just dumped a cost controlled middle6 RFA for cap space = junk return.

Your argument is faulty. You cannot at the same time advocate for a cap dump move and say the trade depends upon the return.

 

[Hoghandler]

That pick doesn't change anything because the premise is a cap dump. Realistically, you're not getting a 1st there, or maybe even a 2nd. Which means, you just dumped a cost controlled middle6 RFA for cap space = junk return.

Your argument is faulty. You cannot at the same time advocate for a cap dump move and say the trade depends upon the return.

You’re assuming cap space doesn’t matter. I’m saying it does. The entire premise of what you’re saying is built on faulty logic.

If the Canucks can gain cap space and a draft pick for a player they can replace internally, they should look at it.

 

[Bleach Clean]

You’re assuming cap space doesn’t matter. I’m saying it does. The entire premise of what you’re saying is built on faulty logic.

If the Canucks can gain cap space and a draft pick for a player they can replace internally, they should look at it.

With all things being equal, a cap dump transaction is never seen as the equivalent of a normal transaction of assets.

It is only in this specific context, where there is a cap space concern, that you have chosen to skew the value of cap space to be the equivalent of, or greater to, a normal transaction of assets. It's clearly faulty logic.

"Cap space matters" is not the same as valuing cap space above a normal exchange of assets. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth here.

 

[Hoghandler]

With all things being equal, a cap dump transaction is never seen as the equivalent of a normal transaction of assets.

It is only in this specific context, where there is a cap space concern, that you have chosen to skew the value of cap space to be the equivalent of, or greater to, a normal transaction of assets. It's clearly faulty logic.

"Cap space matters" is not the same as valuing cap space above a normal exchange of assets. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth here.

None of what you have said here makes any sense.

Cap space matters. To claim otherwise is too shaky a ground to build your argument on. You need to find more firm footing to build from.

A Virtanen and Baertschi deal for a pick buys cap space, roster flexibility and a futures based asset to help replenish the pipeline. You can absolutely accomplish more than a single objective in a trade. And this type of move does just that.

 

[vanuck]

To me, in an ideal fantasy world - which would never happen - VAN is better off giving up assets in the meantime to clear up space so we actually have room to make additions while this core of EP, Horvat, Boeser and Hughes are in their primes.

Trade Pearson for maybe a mid-round pick, force Baertschi and Sutter in the top 6 to try and pump up their numbers. Since they both have a year left they may be movable with salary retention. Benn could probably be moved at the deadline for a late pick.

From earlier in this thread it was mentioned that the Wings might be looking at taking Demko + Eriksson for SJS's 3rd rounder. Considering it took a 1st round pick to move 1 year of Marleau, that would actually be somewhat palatable...

Sign a goalie in UFA to back up Marky, perhaps Domingue?

Re-sign:
Markstrom - 6.25M x 4 years
Domingue - 1.2M
Stecher - 2.5M
Virtanen - 2.5M
Gaudette - 2M
Leivo - 1.75M
MacEwen - 975k

This scenario for 2020-21 already acknowledges that there'll be some short-term pain given our cap situation, but aims to improve our situation for the future. So yeah it'll be ugly, but necessary. One step back, two steps forward...

2020-21:
Miller - Pettersson - Sutter
Baertschi - Horvat - Boeser
Leivo - Gaudette - Virtanen
Roussel - Beagle - MacEwen

Edler - Stecher
Hughes - Myers
Benn - Rafferty

Markstrom
Domingue

Bear in mind there's just over 10M left which could be used on Toffoli or Tanev depending on how you view those 2 in terms of asset management.

 

[604]

Would you rather take Holtby or Markstrom?

I wonder if you could get either for $4.5m in this market.

 

[VanillaCoke]

Markstrom ainec.

Neither is signing for 4.5, the bottom of the roster players should see the hit from the flat cap more than the top end.

Markstrom easily gets atleast 5.5, current climate may prevent any team willing to do a bigtime 7m+ deal however.

 

[Bleach Clean]

None of what you have said here makes any sense.

Cap space matters. To claim otherwise is too shaky a ground to build your argument on. You need to find more firm footing to build from.

A Virtanen and Baertschi deal for a pick buys cap space, roster flexibility and a futures based asset to help replenish the pipeline. You can absolutely accomplish more than a single objective in a trade. And this type of move does just that.

Follow along, you seem to be struggling with this: With all things being equal, roster flexibility is not greater in value than the asset Virtanen now represents. Make sense? If that were the case, teams would be dumping Virtanen-like assets alone in order to gain cap space. They don't do that because it's stupid to do so.

This disproves your premise that cap space itself matters more (disingenuously hidden within "cap space matters") than the asset that occupies it. The flexibility isn't worth the value of the asset.

After you wrap your head around that, next, understand that anchoring Virtanen to Baertschi in order to gain a greater amount of cap space just pushes your illogical premise to a greater degree. You are still not likely to replace the efficiency of a middle6 RFA with the incoming asset. In fact, on top of the slim chance of replacement, you also squander value of the asset. And so, that's why teams don't cap dump their young RFAs. Or, attach valuable RFAs to cap dumps unless otherwise forced to do so. It's a negative proposition.

Do you follow?

 

[Bettman Returnz]

Would you do an eriksson for Alzner deal? Same term but saves us approximately $1.4M/ yr.

 

[bandwagonesque]

Would you do an eriksson for Alzner deal? Same term but saves us approximately $1.4M/ yr.

If there were no better options, maybe. Alzner's salary would be buried and Eriksson would need to be replaced in the lineup, probably by MacEwan. There's hardly any savings there. There are better targets out there on non-cap teams who might be interested in paying less real salary, but it's hard to gauge value and there will be some competition for those contracts.

 

[Hoghandler]

Follow along, you seem to be struggling with this: With all things being equal, roster flexibility is not greater in value than the asset Virtanen now represents. Make sense? If that were the case, teams would be dumping Virtanen-like assets alone in order to gain cap space. They don't do that because it's stupid to do so.

Arguably the top run organisation just dumped a Virtanen-like asset alone in order to gain cap space when they dumped J.T. Miller to the Canucks.

As I said, your entire premise is built on a myth. You cannot build your argument on such shaky ground, it won’t hold up, and it didn’t, as you can see clearly here.

 

[Bettman Returnz]

If there were no better options, maybe. Alzner's salary would be buried and Eriksson would need to be replaced in the lineup, probably by MacEwan. There's hardly any savings there. There are better targets out there on non-cap teams who might be interested in paying less real salary, but it's hard to gauge value and there will be some competition for those contracts.

I mean $1.4M savings is better than nothing... I just can’t see Benning pulling off any miracle (nor do I trust him with that feat either). I see him (if anything) moving bad contract for bad contract (with a small savings and/or cheaper buyout option).

 

[Diamonddog01]

To me, in an ideal fantasy world - which would never happen - VAN is better off giving up assets in the meantime to clear up space so we actually have room to make additions while this core of EP, Horvat, Boeser and Hughes are in their primes.

Trade Pearson for maybe a mid-round pick, force Baertschi and Sutter in the top 6 to try and pump up their numbers. Since they both have a year left they may be movable with salary retention. Benn could probably be moved at the deadline for a late pick.

From earlier in this thread it was mentioned that the Wings might be looking at taking Demko + Eriksson for SJS's 3rd rounder. Considering it took a 1st round pick to move 1 year of Marleau, that would actually be somewhat palatable...

Sign a goalie in UFA to back up Marky, perhaps Domingue?

Re-sign:
Markstrom - 6.25M x 4 years
Domingue - 1.2M
Stecher - 2.5M
Virtanen - 2.5M
Gaudette - 2M
Leivo - 1.75M
MacEwen - 975k

This scenario for 2020-21 already acknowledges that there'll be some short-term pain given our cap situation, but aims to improve our situation for the future. So yeah it'll be ugly, but necessary. One step back, two steps forward...

2020-21:
Miller - Pettersson - Sutter
Baertschi - Horvat - Boeser
Leivo - Gaudette - Virtanen
Roussel - Beagle - MacEwen

Edler - Stecher
Hughes - Myers
Benn - Rafferty

Markstrom
Domingue

Bear in mind there's just over 10M left which could be used on Toffoli or Tanev depending on how you view those 2 in terms of asset management.

While I like the idea of using Demko to rid ourselves of Eriksson why in the world would we put Sutter and Baertschi in the top 6? Highly doubt we'd be getting much for them even if we were to gift them such an opportunity to inflate their numbers...and that roster would definitely sink our playoff chances next season. I don't see any value to doing that to get an 4th round pick or whatever. Bury Sven and Sutter can ride it out on the 4th line (at least until he gets injured again). If we move Eriksson (which I highly doubt we will, I expect him to be buried at a 4.925M cap hit next year) then the only other move we'd need to make would revolve around Ferland and Roussel. If Ferland can actually play again and is not going on LITR, and if Roussel looks as though he's returned to form, Roussel is one player the team should explore moving. Not sure how challenging that would be but if the team could get rid of 2 contracts that both have 2 years remaining it would be tremendously helpful for the following year.

Miller - Petterson - Boeser
Pearson - Horvat - Toffoli
Ferland / Roussel - Gaudette - Virtanen
Motte - Beagle - Sutter

 

[Peter10]

Arguably the top run organisation just dumped a Virtanen-like asset alone in order to gain cap space when they dumped J.T. Miller to the Canucks.

As I said, your entire premise is built on a myth. You cannot build your argument on such shaky ground, it won’t hold up, and it didn’t, as you can see clearly here.

Tampa traded Miller because they couldnt get him under the cap, they did not trade him to get rid of a another player on the team.

 

[MS]

Tampa traded Miller because they couldnt get him under the cap, they did not trade him to get rid of a another player on the team.

They made a mistake in retrospect keeping Gourde over Miller, but yeah.

If the Vancouver Canucks were a 120-point team with so many good players that they were over the salary cap despite not really having any bad contracts, and had to trade a Virtanen for a draft pick as a result, I think everyone would understand. That is not the situation here.

 

[Hoghandler]

Tampa traded Miller because they couldnt get him under the cap, they did not trade him to get rid of a another player on the team.

That’s completely irrelevant to what Bleach said. He said “teams don’t trade Virtanen like assets alone for cap space”.

Tampa did exactly that.

 

[m9]

Follow along, you seem to be struggling with this: With all things being equal, roster flexibility is not greater in value than the asset Virtanen now represents. Make sense? If that were the case, teams would be dumping Virtanen-like assets alone in order to gain cap space. They don't do that because it's stupid to do so.

This disproves your premise that cap space itself matters more (disingenuously hidden within "cap space matters") than the asset that occupies it. The flexibility isn't worth the value of the asset.

After you wrap your head around that, next, understand that anchoring Virtanen to Baertschi in order to gain a greater amount of cap space just pushes your illogical premise to a greater degree. You are still not likely to replace the efficiency of a middle6 RFA with the incoming asset. In fact, on top of the slim chance of replacement, you also squander value of the asset. And so, that's why teams don't cap dump their young RFAs. Or, attach valuable RFAs to cap dumps unless otherwise forced to do so. It's a negative proposition.

Do you follow?

What would your thoughts be if a new GM came in and said:

"I think this team is ready to win now and I want to sign our key players like Markstrom, Tanev, Stecher, and Toffoli to achieve that goal. I think some mistakes were made in the past and we may need to give up some positive assets to fix those mistakes and give us cap flexibility to sign our key guys".

I think most fans would be excited to hear that assuming it meant Virtanen & Demko, or picks/prospects. And if you wouldn't be excited, that's fair but I think you would be in the minority. It would be a well-reasoned statement that gives a clear directive for the team.

Point being, I don't think the value with these "Virtanen + cap dump for a lesser return" is what people have an issue with. The problem is the lack of faith in the guy making those moves and also that it appears to let the GM off the hook for his bad moves. And I to totally get that, because he's an awful GM and it's hard to get away from looking at the whole picture.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Arguably the top run organisation just dumped a Virtanen-like asset alone in order to gain cap space when they dumped J.T. Miller to the Canucks.

As I said, your entire premise is built on a myth. You cannot build your argument on such shaky ground, it won’t hold up, and it didn’t, as you can see clearly here.

Your logic is so bad, but I’m glad that you are doubling down. So let’s follow it through: Was Tampa in the optimum cap position, as in all things being equal, when they had to dump Miller? Yes or no?

I’ll hang up and listen.

 

[Hoghandler]

Your logic is so bad, but I’m glad that you are doubling down. So let’s follow it through: Was Tampa in the optimum cap position, as in all things being equal, when they had to dump Miller? Yes or no?

I’ll hang up and listen.

Nice try. First acknowledge your statement was wrong, that in fact teams do trade ‘players like Virtanen for cap space’.

That needs to be admitted before we proceed.