2020 Roster and Fantasy GM Thread II

[MS]

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.

This doesn't make any sense.

If the flat cap is such an issue and no teams have cap space, it should be HARDER to trade Virtanen for picks because the other team would be taking the full hit with no cap going back the other way. A hockey trade for a comparable player on a comparable salary (my Faksa example) should be much easier to swing.

Unless, you know, it's us not being able to take salary back that's the problem. And Virtanen is a cap dump.

Given your refusal multiple times to answer my question about the possibility of trading picks acquired for Virtanen for actual roster players, I'm guessing your initial claim to that effect was just a BS attempt at distraction.

If this team had been well-managed in terms of cap space, the two options for Virtanen would be 1) keep him or 2) hockey trade for a comparable player at a different position. We wouldn't for a second, on a team trying to improve and turn a corner as a franchise, be saying 'LET'S TRADE CHEAP YOUNG CONTRIBUTING PLAYERS FOR DRAFT PICKS!' There isn't a chance in the world of that. Again, you know it, I know it, and everyone else here knows it.

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.

This is a capped league. If it's 1998, sure, sign Toffoli. Sign everyone!

But in a capped league you have to look at your strengths and weaknesses and when you're a laughably bad defensive team that can score a lot of goals, prioritizing spending most of your available money on a 45-point winger when you have a young player that can slide into that spot, and gutting further depth and defensive players in the process … that's terrible management.

Gaudette scored at a 47-point pace from 12 garbage minutes/game next to bottom-6 wingers. The notion that he wouldn't be able to duplicate that (or substantially exceed it) from 15 minutes/game next to far better players while having less defensive responsibility doesn't hold water.

 

[MS]

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.

It's preposterous. I went back a couple years and couldn't find a comparable trade. They don't happen, because they're stupid. Your affordable, quality under-25 players are the bread-and-butter of your organization. You don't give them away for magic beans unless you're absolutely forced to.

Like, the Buffalo Sabres aren't sitting around saying, 'Man, we really want to keep improving and make the playoffs next year. You know what would really help? Let's trade Viktor Olofsson for a 2nd round pick!'

 

[Hoghandler]

If the flat cap is such an issue and no teams have cap space, it should be HARDER to trade Virtanen for picks because the other team would be taking the full hit with no cap going back the other way. A hockey trade for a comparable player on a comparable salary (my Faksa example) should be much easier to swing.


Given your refusal multiple times to answer my question about the possibility of trading picks acquired for Virtanen for actual roster players, I'm guessing your initial claim to that effect was just a BS attempt at distraction.

You’re assuming it’s easier to find the perfect fit with Virtanen and a roster player coming back, while I’m saying it would open up more opportunities if you’re willing to take back picks. I don’t agree with your assertion. Finding that perfect fit for both clubs is tough under the current circumstances. What happens when Dallas says no? What’s your next option?

As I said, if you can get a Connor Timmins type deal for Virtanen, great. I just know how tough it’s going to be to find that perfect fit.

If you can flip the draft capital gained in a Virtanen deal for a right shot dman, absolutely you look at it. Is that clear?

 

[Hoghandler]

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?

To Col- Virtanen
To Van- Timmins

Can you explain to me why the Canucks can’t pursue a deal like this? Take from a position of strength, and add a prospect at a position of weakness.

 

[Hoghandler]

It's preposterous. I went back a couple years and couldn't find a comparable trade. They don't happen, because they're stupid. Your affordable, quality under-25 players are the bread-and-butter of your organization. You don't give them away for magic beans unless you're absolutely forced to.

Like, the Buffalo Sabres aren't sitting around saying, 'Man, we really want to keep improving and make the playoffs next year. You know what would really help? Let's trade Viktor Olofsson for a 2nd round pick!'

Well when you use an awful comparison, the comparison will look awful. Olafsson is their Boeser. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if they dealt Brandon Montour for a draft pick.

Amd how hard are you looking? I haven’t looked at any trades and remember the Ducks dumped a 24 year old Brandon Montour to Buffalo for a draft pick...

 

[Bleach Clean]

To Col- Virtanen
To Van- Timmins

Can you explain to me why the Canucks can’t pursue a deal like this? Take from a position of strength, and add a prospect at a position of weakness.

So you're saying that COL would offer up a Timmins level prospect for Virtanen whether he's dumped for cap relief or in a normal trade?

 

[Hoghandler]

So you're saying that COL would offer up a Timmins level prospect for Virtanen whether he's dumped for cap relief or in a normal trade?

I have no idea what that question means.

Is that type of deal the Canucks would be smart to pursue?

 

[Bleach Clean]

I have no idea what that question means.

Is that type of deal the Canucks would be smart to pursue?

Let me rephrase: Do you know the difference between a cap dump and a normal trade?

 

[Hoghandler]

Let me rephrase: Do you know the difference between a cap dump and a normal trade?

I know what my definition would be. Can’t say whether you would have the same definition.

So is that the type of trade the Canucks would be smart to pursue?

 

[Bleach Clean]

I know what my definition would be. Can’t say whether you would have the same definition.

So is that the type of trade the Canucks would be smart to pursue?

What is your definition? I have asked you a question first and you have chosen to dance around it. Answer it, and I will answer yours.

 

[Hoghandler]

What is your definition? I have asked you a question first and you have chosen to dance around it. Answer it, and I will answer yours.

A cap dump is a player you want to get rid of because he has a bad contract.

There was no dancing around anything. That question didn’t make any sense to me. Obviously I’m not one to hold back from giving my opinion.

 

[Bleach Clean]

This doesn't make any sense.

If the flat cap is such an issue and no teams have cap space, it should be HARDER to trade Virtanen for picks because the other team would be taking the full hit with no cap going back the other way. A hockey trade for a comparable player on a comparable salary (my Faksa example) should be much easier to swing.

Unless, you know, it's us not being able to take salary back that's the problem. And Virtanen is a cap dump.

Given your refusal multiple times to answer my question about the possibility of trading picks acquired for Virtanen for actual roster players, I'm guessing your initial claim to that effect was just a BS attempt at distraction.

If this team had been well-managed in terms of cap space, the two options for Virtanen would be 1) keep him or 2) hockey trade for a comparable player at a different position. We wouldn't for a second, on a team trying to improve and turn a corner as a franchise, be saying 'LET'S TRADE CHEAP YOUNG CONTRIBUTING PLAYERS FOR DRAFT PICKS!' There isn't a chance in the world of that. Again, you know it, I know it, and everyone else here knows it.

I think I'm going to bow out here.

There is a real sense that Hoggy does not want to debate in good faith, and he's held strong to his faulty premise here. He probably thinks it's helping his case to do so. Whatever.

If Virtanen is dumped for cap space or a magic bean, it's a trade made under a poor motivation. It will be considered a cap dump. Beyond that, you have to hope that the risk Benning willingly assumes by making the deal pays off. What else can you do?

 

[Bojack Horvatman]

Well when you use an awful comparison, the comparison will look awful. Olafsson is their Boeser. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if they dealt Brandon Montour for a draft pick.

Amd how hard are you looking? I haven’t looked at any trades and remember the Ducks dumped a 24 year old Brandon Montour to Buffalo for a draft pick...

Anaheim was a team just beginning its rebuild. Trading a 24 yo that won't be around when the team will compete for a pick made sense for where Anaheim was at as a team. They also happen when a team is competing and can't afford a player like the Burakovsky trade.

Up and coming teams do not trade U25 players like Virtanen for picks.

 

[Bleach Clean]

A cap dump is a player you want to get rid of because he has a bad contract.

There was no dancing around anything. That question didn’t make any sense to me. Obviously I’m not one to hold back from giving my opinion.

Hoggy, I'm going to bow out here. You can continue on with MS.

Miller didn't have a bad contract but he was dumped for cap relief. How that fits for you here is up to you.

 

[MS]

You’re assuming it’s easier to find the perfect fit with Virtanen and a roster player coming back, while I’m saying it would open up more opportunities if you’re willing to take back picks. I don’t agree with your assertion. Finding that perfect fit for both clubs is tough under the current circumstances. What happens when Dallas says no? What’s your next option?

As I said, if you can get a Connor Timmins type deal for Virtanen, great. I just know how tough it’s going to be to find that perfect fit.

If you can flip the draft capital gained in a Virtanen deal for a right shot dman, absolutely you look at it. Is that clear?

I'm actually laughing as I'm reading the mental gymnastics you're going through to try and justify the trade of Virtanen for draft picks as something that would totally be happening if the team had lots of cap space and isn't related to the team's bungled finances at all.

Now we've moved from draft picks to ELC prospects who will probably cost the team nothing in the AHL.

There have always been tons of teams up against the cap. Half the league has less than $1 million in cap space this year. The notion that it's super easy despite the flat cap to move Virtanen elsewhere with no salary coming back but nearly impossible to do so in a hockey deal is laughable.

And are you actually saying you think there is a chance, on this hockey team this summer with a signed Toffoli, that we would be trading draft picks acquired for Virtanen for comparable roster players making a comparable amount to Virtanen? You're seriously going to make that claim with a straight face?

 

[MS]

Well when you use an awful comparison, the comparison will look awful. Olafsson is their Boeser. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if they dealt Brandon Montour for a draft pick.

Amd how hard are you looking? I haven’t looked at any trades and remember the Ducks dumped a 24 year old Brandon Montour to Buffalo for a draft pick...

My bad, I thought Montour was a year older than he was. He was barely 25, so yes, this is 1 comparable deal in the last two years. Well, sort of comparable as Anaheim was a team blowing things up and rebuilding, not a team trying to take a step toward becoming a playoff team/contender.

Olofsson is a decent little player who had his numbers hugely inflated by being glued to Jack Eichel.

 

[MS]

I think I'm going to bow out here.

There is a real sense that Hoggy does not want to debate in good faith, and he's held strong to his faulty premise here. He probably thinks it's helping his case to do so. Whatever.

If Virtanen is dumped for cap space or a magic bean, it's a trade made under a poor motivation. It will be considered a cap dump. Beyond that, you have to hope that the risk Benning willingly assumes by making the deal pays off. What else can you do?

I don't need to go a lot further with this either, as it's like a flat-earther drill.

Our situation is obvious. A young team trying to improve on the ice … who also has a brutally managed cap situation. If we're trading away young affordable players who would continue to help us on the ice next year for draft picks, those trades have happened that way solely because of the team's financial situation. Period. End of story.

 

[Hoghandler]

Hoggy, I'm going to bow out here. You can continue on with MS.

Miller didn't have a bad contract but he was dumped for cap relief. How that fits for you here is up to you.

This is the right time to bow out, but before you do, be a man of your word and respond to the question, as you said you would.

Would the Canucks be smart to pursue a Timmins for Virtanen trade? Simple yes or no is fine.

This will tell us all we need to know.

 

[Hoghandler]

I don't need to go a lot further with this either, as it's like a flat-earther drill.

Our situation is obvious. A young team trying to improve on the ice … who also has a brutally managed cap situation. If we're trading away young affordable players who would continue to help us on the ice next year for draft picks, those trades have happened that way solely because of the team's financial situation. Period. End of story.

Okay, if the situation is obvious, would the Canucks be smart to make a Virtanen for Timmins trade? Yes or no?

Pretty sure Brandon Montour was 24.

 

[Hoghandler]

Anaheim was a team just beginning its rebuild. Trading a 24 yo that won't be around when the team will compete for a pick made sense for where Anaheim was at as a team. They also happen when a team is competing and can't afford a player like the Burakovsky trade.

Up and coming teams do not trade U25 players like Virtanen for picks.

Bob Murray wants to compete for a playoff spot. He was furious when his team wasn’t competitive, and went down to the bench because of it. Brandon Montour is still only 26 right now. He is the perfect age for that Duck squad.

Also keep in mind there were conversations here last summer about the Ducks being further ahead in their re-build than the Canucks.

Montour was dealt because the Ducks were deep on defense, he was down the depth chart behind better players, and Murray felt the draft pick would be more useful than Montour.

 

[bandwagonesque]

It's preposterous. I went back a couple years and couldn't find a comparable trade. They don't happen, because they're stupid. Your affordable, quality under-25 players are the bread-and-butter of your organization. You don't give them away for magic beans unless you're absolutely forced to.

Last summer the Capitals traded Andre Burakovsky, a 24-year-old forward with a similar play style and nearly identical statistical profile as Virtanen, for 2nd and 3rd round picks. The trade was made because Burakovsky was an RFA and the Capitals were tight to the cap and needed to resign other players.

Like, the Buffalo Sabres aren't sitting around saying, 'Man, we really want to keep improving and make the playoffs next year. You know what would really help? Let's trade Viktor Olofsson for a 2nd round pick!'

No one is suggesting anything comparable to this.

 

[Bleach Clean]

This is the right time to bow out, but before you do, be a man of your word and respond to the question, as you said you would.

Would the Canucks be smart to pursue a Timmins for Virtanen trade? Simple yes or no is fine.

This will tell us all we need to know.

Smart to pursue a Timmins trade? I would hold off on such a deal until we see more of Timmins in the NHL. He has an injury history and only 2 games in the show. That's a risk to take on for a young middle6 NHLer.

Last word is yours.

 

[Hoghandler]

And are you actually saying you think there is a chance, on this hockey team this summer with a signed Toffoli, that we would be trading draft picks acquired for Virtanen for comparable roster players making a comparable amount to Virtanen? You're seriously going to make that claim with a straight face?

Well that would depend on who’s available and what holes the Canucks had, wouldn’t it?

If Tanev wants too much term and the Canucks walk away, you’re damn right I think Benning would offer up those picks to bolster the defense.

Oh, and just for the record, If you can’t tell, I’m saying it with a straight face.

 

[604]

Anaheim was a team just beginning its rebuild. Trading a 24 yo that won't be around when the team will compete for a pick made sense for where Anaheim was at as a team. They also happen when a team is competing and can't afford a player like the Burakovsky trade.

Up and coming teams do not trade U25 players like Virtanen for picks.

I more or less agree with your idea but Shane O'Brien says hi.

Shane was 24, playing top 4 minutes (with Pronger), when ANA traded him to TB for a 1st rounder in 2006-07. ANA won the Cup the year they traded Shane O'Brien.

 

[MS]

Last summer the Capitals traded Andre Burakovsky, a 24-year-old forward with a similar play style and nearly identical statistical profile as Virtanen, for 2nd and 3rd round picks. The trade was made because Burakovsky was an RFA and the Capitals were tight to the cap and needed to resign other players.

Burakovsky was a guy getting $3 million to be a healthy scratch several times the previous year and score 25 points from 11 minutes/game of icetime. That isn't 'nearly identical' to a guy scoring 45 points from 13 minutes/game and never being a healthy scratch, who should be signable for less than $3 million.

Also, that was very clearly a move predicated by cap issues. This poster is arguing that trading Virtanen for draft picks is totally not a cap-related move at all, but a totally logical hockey move dictated by the team's depth chart. Which is obviously BS.

No one is suggesting anything comparable to this.

It's literally exactly what he's suggesting. He's saying that trading a quality affordable young player who had an excellent season last year for draft picks is a totally sensible move for a team trying to improve and turn a corner, and that that move has nothing to do with the team's bungled cap situation.