2020 Roster and Fantasy GM Thread II

[VanillaCoke]

It's still pretty unlikely.

1) virtually all NHL owners are super-rich and very few actually are interested in saving money by taking extra cap. Most are trying to do the exact opposite.

2) very few teams have any cap space right now.

3) if you do have a rare team like Ottawa that might be interested in adding cap and saving money, and did have the cap space to do it … with like 20 NHL teams having cap issues, you're going to be in a competition to make a deal with that team and the cost could be very high.

4) Eriksson has a NTC and even if you jump through every other hoop to get some sort of deal done … he can veto it. As he apparently did with a trade to Edmonton for Lucic last year. And if he vetoed a trade to Edmonton, hard to think he'd accept one to Ottawa.

Yes true, all scenarios are unlikely to happen, especially the retirement one.

The flipside is how many teams have players they're trying to move that have contracts structured for less real dollars. Maybe that narrows the field.
But its also seemingly only 2-4 teams total that might be interested in that cap for real dollars swap. Not very good odds for sure.

Should be a very interesting offseason because quite a few roster transactions will have to happen league wide, and nobody really knows how its going to unfold in reality.

 

[Kryten]

I wonder what happens next year regarding players being demoted to a league that may not be playing games until the pandemic is over

like is it free money if you are in the AHL with an NHL contract?

I’m also interested in this. It would make sense for the NHL teams to go to a 50 man roster that’s whittled down for each game (salary cap would need reimagining though), or players are loaned to Europe with their cap hits disappeared

 

[Hoghandler]

I would consider trading Virtanen - or a different player - in a hockey deal at that point to help the blueline or some other position. Nobody is saying that depth charts don't factor into personnel decisions (hey, look, another straw man from you!). We're saying that trying to frame a cap dump of Virtanen for picks as a 'depth chart deal' is ludicrous.

There is absolutely zero depth chart pressure to trade him now. He was solidly in the top 9 to close the season on a team that had Toffoli.



Why are you suggesting trading Virtanen for draft picks - which are pennies on the dollar when you're talking about young established roster players - instead of making a hockey trade to improve depth somewhere else? Why aren't you pushing for the team to acquire an equivalent young defensive winger or 3rd line center?

Why wouldn't you want to trade Virtanen for, say, Radek Faksa to fix the hole at the #3 center spot?



As has been made clear multiple times, if he is bluffing that would help us in 2021. It doesn't do jack shit to help a single thing in our current mess in 2020.
go.

If there is a deal out there for a good 3rd line centre or right side dman, I would pursue those as well. The problem is, hockey trades are increasingly difficult to make under a flat cap. Which is why you need to be willing to do deals for draft picks, which you then can turn around and flip for roster players. I also don’t view draft picks as ‘pennies on the dollar’ either. They are very valuable commodities in today’s NHL - and never more so than this offseason.

The depth chart is absolutely, unequivocally, without question the number 1 reason the club should look at trade options for Jake Virtanen. Which is why I said it’s not something they should pursue if Toffoli doesn’t lock up a long term job in the top 6. That should have made it abundantly clear, and for whatever reason if it didn’t, it does now.

 

[Peter10]

I’m also interested in this. It would make sense for the NHL teams to go to a 50 man roster that’s whittled down for each game (salary cap would need reimagining though), or players are loaned to Europe with their cap hits disappeared

Cap hits won't magically disappear. The contracts are just valid and have to be paid, so they will count against the players share of HRR. If teams could hide them and fill the created cap space with other contracts it would just result in a crazy escrow which the PA won't accept.

You dont need to speculate but just use logic to see that bad contracts won't magically disappear.

 

[Hoghandler]

Cap hits won't magically disappear. The contracts are just valid and have to be paid, so they will count against the players share of HRR. If teams could hide them and fill the created cap space with other contracts it would just result in a crazy escrow which the PA won't accept.

You dont need to speculate but just use logic to see that bad contracts won't magically disappear.

Can they SPC, paragraph 17 Eriksson? Is that a possibility?

Who is HF’s resident capologist?

 

[Kryten]

Cap hits won't magically disappear. The contracts are just valid and have to be paid, so they will count against the players share of HRR. If teams could hide them and fill the created cap space with other contracts it would just result in a crazy escrow which the PA won't accept.

You dont need to speculate but just use logic to see that bad contracts won't magically disappear.

I know they need to be paid, but with the AHL/ECHL likely having no season next year who knows what’s going to happen.

 

[m9]

I wonder what happens next year regarding players being demoted to a league that may not be playing games until the pandemic is over

like is it free money if you are in the AHL with an NHL contract?

Whatever it is, it won't impact the cap at all. The easiest way to do it would just be to have the main roster stay exactly the same and have the guys who would normally be in Utica serve as black aces who work out with the team and are available to be called up as needed like a normal. Then if you need to call someone up it hits the cap like normal.

 

[m9]

Can they SPC, paragraph 17 Eriksson? Is that a possibility?

Who is HF’s resident capologist?

I've seen this posted in a couple places, but it seems like this rule is obviously referencing paying out players less of their salary in case a season is shortened or cancelled.

Don't think it has anything to do with cases like Eriksson.

 

[Hoghandler]

I've seen this posted in a couple places, but it seems like this rule is obviously referencing paying out players less of their salary in case a season is shortened or cancelled.

Don't think it has anything to do with cases like Eriksson.

I have no idea if it’s possible. Just something I was curious about if the AHL season is cancelled next year.

 

[MS]

If there is a deal out there for a good 3rd line centre or right side dman, I would pursue those as well. The problem is, hockey trades are increasingly difficult to make under a flat cap. Which is why you need to be willing to do deals for draft picks, which you then can turn around and flip for roster players. I also don’t view draft picks as ‘pennies on the dollar’ either. They are very valuable commodities in today’s NHL - and never more so than this offseason.

Why is the bolded true? If our team was well-managed, it should be easier to make a hockey trade where salaries even out than it would be to find someone to just take his cap hit. There's a reason you're pushing for draft picks and not improvements to the hockey team, and it's because you know we can't afford to take improvements to the hockey team back in a Virtanen trade.

If we got a draft pick back for Virtanen, are you actually saying you think there's a snowball's chance in hell that we would then trade that pick for a Faksa-type who addresses a team need at the same cost?

Draft picks for quality established affordable under-25 assets with years of team control are ABSOLUTELY pennies on the dollar. There is a reason trades like this basically never happen. The last time a trade like this (draft picks for a quality under-25 NHL player) happened was … maybe the Ryan Hartman to Nashville deal 3 seasons ago? There wasn't a single one like it last year, for good reason. Productive under-25 assets are the most valuable assets in the sport and trading them for lottery picks is a losing proposition.

If we got a #20 overall pick for Jake Virtanen (and that's probably unlikely - 2nd rounder is probably more reasonable especially with Jim Benning doing the negotiating), there is maybe a 30-35% chance that players is ever as good as Jake Virtanen, and it would be years from now. It's terrible value. It's not how you build asset value in your organization, it's not how you build winning teams to be trading good affordable young assets for the backward move to picks. You take draft picks back when you're dealing with assets about to be UFA you aren't keeping, or dealing older players of marginal value. Not prime young assets. The notion is ridiculous. Getting a 2nd round pick for Jake Virtanen would be an absolute garbage embarrassment of a trade.

The depth chart is absolutely, unequivocally, without question the number 1 reason the club should look at trade options for Jake Virtanen. Which is why I said it’s not something they should pursue if Toffoli doesn’t lock up a long term job in the top 6. That should have made it abundantly clear, and for whatever reason if it didn’t, it does now.

No, Jake Virtanen was playing a key role after Toffoli was acquired. There is no depth chart pressure there. If we don't make a move, we have the exact same 3 top-6 RWs we finshed the season with last year going into next year. It may be a position of strength you'd look to make a hockey deal from, but there is absolutely no reason to be dumping an asset like Virtanen for picks other than that Jim Benning has absolutely f***ed this franchise through his mismanagement.

 

[MS]

Cap hits won't magically disappear. The contracts are just valid and have to be paid, so they will count against the players share of HRR. If teams could hide them and fill the created cap space with other contracts it would just result in a crazy escrow which the PA won't accept.

You dont need to speculate but just use logic to see that bad contracts won't magically disappear.

If there's no AHL there will probably just be an 'inactive list' that works the same way that players can be assigned/recalled from. In which case, even less incentive for Eriksson to terminate his contract as he'll be living his dream of getting paid for doing nothing.

 

[Hoghandler]

And yet when the Canucks acquired JT Miller for draft picks it was considered a great move by Tampa, and an awful one by Vancouver. Or does he not count because you to set the arbitrary age at 25, while Miller was 26?

If you deal Virtanen for a pair of 2nd rd picks for example, it would likely open up even more possibilities to find a dman in trade than if you were just dangling Virtanen. And that’s because you will likely find more teams willing to move a player for picks, than move a player and have to take back cap space.

You’re not factoring in the unique situation of a flat cap and it’s implications.

 

[Hoghandler]

To Col- Virtanen
To Van- Timmins

That’s another deal I would pursue due to the clubs depth on right wing.

 

[MS]

And yet when the Canucks acquired JT Miller for draft picks it was considered a great move by Tampa, and an awful one by Vancouver. Or does he not count because you to set the arbitrary age at 25, while Miller was 26?

As has been explained multiple times to you, JT Miller was a cap casualty from a team in a completely different situation on a 120-point team over the cap with no bad contracts.

Your argument is that trading Jake Virtanen for draft picks has nothing to do with the salary cap and Jim Benning's bungling and that trading Virtanen for picks is a super-good move for the franchise to make because depth chart.

If you deal Virtanen for a pair of 2nd rd picks for example, it would likely open up even more possibilities to find a dman in trade than if you were just dangling Virtanen. And that’s because you will likely find more teams willing to move a player for picks, than move a player and have to take back cap space.

You’re not factoring in the unique situation of a flat cap and it’s implications.

Again, if we trade Virtanen for picks, do think there is a snowball's chance in hell, given the cap mess that Benning has created, that we would then trade those picks for an equivalently priced roster player to solve an issue elsewhere?

Or do you think we would just keep the picks and the cap space, because we need it to bail ourselves out of this mess?

There's a reason you were never suggesting 'trading Virtanen for picks and then trading the picks for roster players!' as your option. You've realized how BS your argument is and now you're trying to move the goalposts.

 

[Hoghandler]

As has been explained multiple times to you, JT Miller was a cap casualty from a team in a completely different situation on a 120-point team over the cap with no bad contracts.

Your argument is that trading Jake Virtanen for draft picks has nothing to do with the salary cap and Jim Benning's bungling and that trading Virtanen for picks is a super-good move for the franchise to make because depth chart.



Again, if we trade Virtanen for picks, do think there is a snowball's chance in hell, given the cap mess that Benning has created, that we would then trade those picks for an equivalently priced roster player to solve an issue elsewhere?

Or do you think we would just keep the picks and the cap space, because we need it to bail ourselves out of this mess?

There's a reason you were never suggesting 'trading Virtanen for picks and then trading the picks for roster players!' as your option. You've realized how BS your argument is and now you're trying to move the goalposts.

No bad contracts? What? Tampa has a few contracts I wouldn’t trade Baertschi or Sutter for. The problem is, you seem to think poor contracts and the flat cap is an issue that only the Canucks are up against. This is a pressing concern for the majority of clubs in the NHL.

And you didn’t say decent teams don’t trade young roster players for picks, you said no teams make those trades. Do you want to qualify your statement? I will address it then.

Show me what you want to see on the wings next season, and I will tell you why I prefer my roster. It will help highlight the obvious depth chart considerations.

 

[m9]

Putting everything else aside, I'd trade Virtanen purely because he doesn't seem to be a great fit with either EP or Horvat. I don't want to pay my 3rd line wingers who offer almost nothing on special teams 3 million+ per season, that's what got the team into this mess.

And yes he had a good season, but you get those seasons from 3rd liners sometimes and it's no guarantee he does it again. Good opportunity to sell high this off-season.

 

[MS]

No bad contracts? What? Tampa has a few contracts I wouldn’t trade Baertschi or Sutter for. The problem is, you seem to think poor contracts and the flat cap is an issue that only the Canucks are up against. This is a pressing concern for the majority of clubs in the NHL.

They have some contracts that are bad on the back end but at the time had none where the AAV was out-of-place. Which is why they were a 120-point team.

If we had $15 million in cap space, you would not be suggesting the trade of Jake Virtanen, a young affordable player you were hyping up only weeks ago, for 2nd round draft picks. You know it, I know it, everyone here knows it.

And you didn't answer my question. Again, if we trade Virtanen for picks, do think there is a snowball's chance in hell, given the cap mess that Benning has created, that we would then trade those picks for an equivalently priced roster player to solve an issue elsewhere? Or do you think we would just keep the picks and the cap space, because we need it to bail ourselves out of this mess?

And I have yet to hear an explanation for why a Jake Virtanen-Radek Faksa trade would be complicated by the flat cap.

And are you now saying that the flat cap and resulting crunch (caused by $34 million in bad contracts) is the main reason we'd trade Virtanen for picks and not the 'depth chart'?

And you didn’t say decent teams don’t trade young roster players for picks, you said no teams make those trades. Do you want to qualify your statement? I will address it then.

No, I'm not wasting my time arguing semantics. It's pretty bloody obvious what I meant and that generally these deals are very rare and why they are very rare. I even gave an example (Hartman 3 years ago) so it's pretty clearly not 'never'.

Show me what you want to see on the wings next season, and I will tell you why I prefer my roster. It will help highlight the obvious depth chart considerations.

As I've said multiple times, I would put Gaudette in Toffoli's place and save $4 million to spend on maintaining depth and trying to prevent this team from being gutted defensively.

If this roster hadn't been Benning-ed by $34 million in garbage, I would look at re-signing Toffoli. But in the position we're in, spending $5-6 million for a 45-point winger is a luxury we simply do not have.

 

[Deeds26]

Should we try and package Jake with a bad contract (Loui or Sutter) to a rebuilder for discounted return or try and just trade him for a better return?

 

[Hoghandler]

Don’t know how I can make it any more clear that picks make sense in trade talks right now because hockey deals will be difficult to make, due to so many teams being in a cap crunch. If there is a hockey deal out there for Virtanen, great. If not, and they move him for picks and look at secondary options that that would open up, also great.

I believe the Canucks can build a better team with Toffoli on the first line than what you are proposing by putting Gaudette on the 1st line. Gaudette has never taken an NHL shift at wing, nor has he taken a shift in the top 6. Not to mention this leaves you in a desperate scramble looking for a centre to replace Gaudette.

Not a fan of your ideas at all. Much prefer to move Virtanen than what you have proposed.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Virtanen would be dumped due to the clubs depth chart on RW, not because he has to be used to rid the team of Sven Baertschi. That’s the point you’re conflating.

Re-signing Toffoli closes the door for Jake to play in the top 6, while Josh Leivo can fill in on the 3rd line at around the half the salary of Virtanen. While MacEwen has shown enough to earn the 4th line RW spot, that leaves little need for Jake.

So regardless of moving a contract like Baertschi, I would still be looking to deal Virtanen for picks at the draft to recoup some of the assets lost in the Miller/Toffoli trades.

To your first paragraph: No, it's the dumping of any good asset that is the issue. Adding Baertschi as an anchor just makes it a worse use of assets. Dumping Virtanen in the pursuit of cap space is still wrong.

It's the dumping of assets to pursue cap space that keeps your original premise faulty. None of the further actions you describe justify the act of a cap dump.

 

[Hoghandler]

To your first paragraph: No, it's the dumping of any good asset that is the issue. Adding Baertschi as an anchor just makes it a worse use of assets. Dumping Virtanen in the pursuit of cap space is still wrong.

It's the dumping of assets to pursue cap space that keeps your original premise faulty. None of the further actions you describe justify the act of a cap dump.

Let’s see if your theory holds-

Is it also wrong to trade Virtanen for a prospect too then? Would that be okay?

 

[Bojack Horvatman]

It's funny that draft picks weren't valuable when they were used to acquire players Gudbranson and Sutter at a time when picks were more valuable to the team. Now draft picks are move valuable than a cheap, U25 player.

 

[Kryten]

It's funny that draft picks weren't valuable when they were used to acquire players Gudbranson and Sutter at a time when picks were more valuable to the team. Now draft picks are move valuable than a cheap, U25 player.

Look on the bright side, our failed rebuild is done, now the retool starts

 

[Bojack Horvatman]

Don’t know how I can make it any more clear that picks make sense in trade talks right now because hockey deals will be difficult to make, due to so many teams being in a cap crunch. If there is a hockey deal out there for Virtanen, great. If not, and they move him for picks and look at secondary options that that would open up, also great.

I believe the Canucks can build a better team with Toffoli on the first line than what you are proposing by putting Gaudette on the 1st line. Gaudette has never taken an NHL shift at wing, nor has he taken a shift in the top 6. Not to mention this leaves you in a desperate scramble looking for a centre to replace Gaudette.

Not a fan of your ideas at all. Much prefer to move Virtanen than what you have proposed.

If a team can't make hockey trade because of the cap, how will they acquire Virtanen without sending money back?

 

[Bleach Clean]

You would never in a million years be pushing for a young affordable 45-point roster player to be traded for draft picks because 'depth chart' if we had a well-managed team with substantial cap space.

'Depth chart' is a smokescreen to avoid saying 'Jim Benning's colossal mis-management of this team is forcing us to squander quality young assets'.

This.

He knows this; we know this.

Why dump a 40~ point young RFA? Makes absolutely no sense. You don't dump players like this unless forced to do so.

Let’s see if your theory holds-

Is it also wrong to trade Virtanen for a prospect too then? Would that be okay?

You're having so much trouble with this. It's really quite amazing to see. I think you're a smarter poster than what you are showing here, but you choose obfuscation instead of reason when corrected.

Whether it's a pick or prospect, the act of _dumping_ any player to gain cap space is likely to render lesser value than otherwise would be possible in a normal situation. Right or wrong?