Around the League Thread | Drive to the Playoffs

[xtr3m]

I guess its one way to make the fans start buying $300 road jerseys…

 

[VanJack]

Canucks Army with a thorough analysis of the Brock Boeser situation up on their site. Basically they identify four options;

Re-signing him for something north of $8m a season; trading him as rental to a contending team; keeping him around as a 'self-rental' for the rest of the season and the playoffs, knowing he walks on July 1st; or finally, trading him for 'futures' but then flipping those futures like they did with Pittsburgh via the Rangers, to improve their roster today.

The problem with trading Boeser to a contender, is that a playoff team wouldn't be willing to weaken their lineup much to acquire him. And I just don't think Allvin and the Canucks are in a position to let him walk for nothing on July 1st.

So the likely scenario is option #4. They trade Boeser for 'futures', but then flip those futures like they did with Detroit and the Pens. They then acquire the player they want from a non-contending team which is looking for more draft capital.

Would appear to me that this is Allvin's likely modus operandi.

 

[wetcoast]

Canucks Army with a thorough analysis of the Brock Boeser situation up on their site. Basically they identify four options;

Re-signing him for something north of $8m a season; trading him as rental to a contending team; keeping him around as a 'self-rental' for the rest of the season and the playoffs, knowing he walks on July 1st; or finally, trading him for 'futures' but then flipping those futures like they did with Pittsburgh via the Rangers, to improve their roster today.

The problem with trading Boeser to a contender, is that a playoff team wouldn't be willing to weaken their lineup much to acquire him. And I just don't think Allvin and the Canucks are in a position to let him walk for nothing on July 1st.

So the likely scenario is option #4. They trade Boeser for 'futures', but then flip those futures like they did with Detroit and the Pens. They then acquire the player they want from a non-contending team which is looking for more draft capital.

Would appear to me that this is Allvin's likely modus operandi.

I really wonder how much different the Canucks view would have been had we lost the last 3 games and the Quinn injury status remained iffy?

My bet is that they don't trade him but I'm not in favour or resigning him long term either.

Stuck between a rock and a hard place it seems.

But then again I'm more the type that would give up short term success and try to build a stronger deeper team for the future and the Canucks never take that route.

 

[F A N]

Canucks Army with a thorough analysis of the Brock Boeser situation up on their site. Basically they identify four options;

Re-signing him for something north of $8m a season; trading him as rental to a contending team; keeping him around as a 'self-rental' for the rest of the season and the playoffs, knowing he walks on July 1st; or finally, trading him for 'futures' but then flipping those futures like they did with Pittsburgh via the Rangers, to improve their roster today.

The problem with trading Boeser to a contender, is that a playoff team wouldn't be willing to weaken their lineup much to acquire him. And I just don't think Allvin and the Canucks are in a position to let him walk for nothing on July 1st.

So the likely scenario is option #4. They trade Boeser for 'futures', but then flip those futures like they did with Detroit and the Pens. They then acquire the player they want from a non-contending team which is looking for more draft capital.

Would appear to me that this is Allvin's likely modus operandi.

#2 and #4 is the effectively the same thing. Why distinguish it? If we are trading Boeser we should worry about getting the best return for him and not whether he is a rental for another team. But yes I assume Allvin is ultimately looking for roster players rather than a draft pick.

 

[andora]

It really is simple

Find out whats out there that is better and will impact more than boeser and cost / and then find out what boesers market is

If it matches you do it (like pettersson).. or you keep him

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

Hmm......According to Canucks Army, Vancouver will have close to $10m at the TDL. Of course acquiring Rantanen would force the Canucks to blow up their prospect pool and dump some high picks.

And even then, I'm not sure they'd ever have the assets the Hurricanes would be interested in. Probably better to wait until July 1st to do some 'big game hunting' on the UFA front.

Who’s out there as a UFA that makes you go “yeah, he improves the team with the salary he’ll sign for”? I see like maybe Marchand maybe Giroux. The rest are gonna cost way too much money.

 

[Kryten]

Bring back the white skate, cowards. And dont butcher it like you did with the black skate

 

[VanJack]

#2 and #4 is the effectively the same thing. Why distinguish it? If we are trading Boeser we should worry about getting the best return for him and not whether he is a rental for another team. But yes I assume Allvin is ultimately looking for roster players rather than a draft pick.

Canucks Army differentiates between #2 and #4.

Two, they trade Boeser to a contending team and keep the picks/prospects, which is probably all they get. Four, they acquire a first rounder and maybe a prospect, but flip those assets to a team that's below the playoff bar and looking to jettison guys for more draft picks.

This basically is what they did with the first rounder they acquired from the Islanders for Horvat; and the Rangers first rounder they got in the Miller trade.

 

[F A N]

Canucks Army differentiates between #2 and #4.

Two, they trade Boeser to a contending team and keep the picks/prospects, which is probably all they get. Four, they acquire a first rounder and maybe a prospect, but flip those assets to a team that's below the playoff bar and looking to jettison guys for more draft picks.

This basically is what they did with the first rounder they acquired from the Islanders for Horvat; and the Rangers first rounder they got in the Miller trade.

I get that but it's a pointless differentiation is what I'm saying.

 

[VanJack]

I get that but it's a pointless differentiation is what I'm saying.

I'm not sure everyone on this Board would agree with you. After all, this is a 'prospect site'. Some people would advocate trading Boeser for picks and prospects, and simply holding on to them. Given how many picks the Canucks have traded in the past five drafts, this would at least replenish the prospect pool.

But I suspect a far larger cohort on HF Boards would advocate 'flipping the assets they received for Boeser--especially the draft picks--for immediate help at the TDL.

 

[bossram]

I get that but it's a pointless differentiation is what I'm saying.

No it's not. They're completely different in terms of the club's direction.

If you sell Boeser for futures and then just sit on them, you're basically saying the club is taking a longer-term approach to building the team.

If they trade Boeser for futures, but immediately flip them for a different "prime age" payer, it's an admission the club doesn't want to retain Boeser but still wants to be as competitive as possible right now.

 

[F A N]

I'm not sure everyone on this Board would agree with you. After all, this is a 'prospect site'.

It started off as a "prospect site" but it hasn't been one for many many years.

Some people would advocate trading Boeser for picks and prospects, and simply holding on to them. Given how many picks the Canucks have traded in the past five drafts, this would at least replenish the prospect pool.

But I suspect a far larger cohort on HF Boards would advocate 'flipping the assets they received for Boeser--especially the draft picks--for immediate help at the TDL.

No it's not. They're completely different in terms of the club's direction.

If you sell Boeser for futures and then just sit on them, you're basically saying the club is taking a longer-term approach to building the team.

If they trade Boeser for futures, but immediately flip them for a different "prime age" payer, it's an admission the club doesn't want to retain Boeser but still wants to be as competitive as possible right now.

What VanJack stated the options were: trading him as rental to a contending team vs. trading him for 'futures' but then flipping those futures like they did with Pittsburgh via the Rangers, to improve their roster today.

Those are essentially the same trades because a contending team is most willing to move picks (i.e. "futures"). What the team does with the assets acquired in a potential Boeser trade is a separate discussion.

I'm just being pragmatic here. The goal of management isn't to return a 1st round pick and use that first round pick. We've made that clear in both the Horvat and Miller trade. The goal has always been to make a "hockey trade". Getting that 1st round pick to "flip" is a means to an end. Rutherford has talked about wanting to acquire players that can grow with the core group so of course he would prefer a 26 year old to a 30 year old. Boeser will be turning 28 soon. He's in the same draft class as DeBrusk. There is no practical difference between acquiring a younger to similar-aged roster player for Boeser vs getting a pick and then flipping the pick for a younger to similar-aged roster player. I think anything less than a 6-8 year offer for what management offered Lindholm is an admission that the club doesn't want to retain Boeser.

 

[StreetHawk]

I'm just being pragmatic here. The goal of management isn't to return a 1st round pick and use that first round pick. We've made that clear in both the Horvat and Miller trade. The goal has always been to make a "hockey trade". Getting that 1st round pick to "flip" is a means to an end. Rutherford has talked about wanting to acquire players that can grow with the core group so of course he would prefer a 26 year old to a 30 year old. Boeser will be turning 28 soon. He's in the same draft class as DeBrusk. There is no practical difference between acquiring a younger to similar-aged roster player for Boeser vs getting a pick and then flipping the pick for a younger to similar-aged roster player. I think anything less than a 6-8 year offer for what management offered Lindholm is an admission that the club doesn't want to retain Boeser.

I agree. Basically have to treat the transactions as a 3 way trade, except that it is 2 separate transactions.
Using the NYI and NYR as pieces of a deal to acquire Hronek and Pettersson.

Sometimes 2 clubs are not a fit in terms of what they need/have to give up. Thus, Allvin has to work 2 deals at the same time.

 

[F A N]

I agree. Basically have to treat the transactions as a 3 way trade, except that it is 2 separate transactions.
Using the NYI and NYR as pieces of a deal to acquire Hronek and Pettersson.

Sometimes 2 clubs are not a fit in terms of what they need/have to give up. Thus, Allvin has to work 2 deals at the same time.

And it's not like the Hronek and M-Petey trades were contingent the earlier deal being made (apart from cap space). We got Islanders' 1st for Horvat because that was the best offer available and Hronek wasn't available at the time. Similarly, we've been back and forth with the Rangers for a long time, most recently it was reportedly over Lindgren/Schneider/D prospect. The Miller trade had nothing to do with the M-Petey trade apart from timing really. We could have easily traded our own 1st for M-Petey which according to S&P we were reluctant to do (who knows if that is true).

 

[RobsonStreet]

I agree. Basically have to treat the transactions as a 3 way trade, except that it is 2 separate transactions.
Using the NYI and NYR as pieces of a deal to acquire Hronek and Pettersson.

Sometimes 2 clubs are not a fit in terms of what they need/have to give up. Thus, Allvin has to work 2 deals at the same time.

Hypothetically, two different trades that sent out Boeser, brought back a player like a McCann and a B level prospect, and corrected a contract mistake (Höglander) would be consistent with how this management group has navigated these sort of situations in the last few seasons. We’ll see what happens.

 

[arttk]

Petey or Demko should be LTIR'd also.

not really any benefit in using LTIR, we are nowhere close to the cap right now.

 

[arttk]

The problem with trading Boeser to a contender, is that a playoff team wouldn't be willing to weaken their lineup much to acquire him. And I just don't think Allvin and the Canucks are in a position to let him walk for nothing on July 1st.

Any Boeser trade made at the TDL, or any trade really will only bring back futures and not current roster players. I don't think pure hockey trades happen that often at the TDL.

It's almost a guarantee based on this management history that if they trade Brock, they are going to flip that return almost instantly for another player.

 

[Diablo2020]

Any Boeser trade made at the TDL, or any trade really will only bring back futures and not current roster players. I don't think pure hockey trades happen that often at the TDL.

It's almost a guarantee based on this management history that if they trade Brock, they are going to flip that return almost instantly for another player.

This is why the value of: best forward possible to Vancouver, main board thread is funny to me.

We need that forward, plus we need the one to replace Boeser, plus still replacing Miller, plus someone to pick up the Petey slack.

So value of: like 3-5 forwards to Vancouver.

Trade assets include:

The things we already have
The things we get for Brock
The things we get for the things we get for Brock

A GM can say I want these things, if you dont have em go get them

A internet armchair GM, looks like bernmeister when they make 3 trades to end up with the haul they require, which is what it will end up being.

 

[F A N]

Any Boeser trade made at the TDL, or any trade really will only bring back futures and not current roster players. I don't think pure hockey trades happen that often at the TDL.

It's almost a guarantee based on this management history that if they trade Brock, they are going to flip that return almost instantly for another player.

Generally yes but we might take a contract back to make the cap work or we might even target a player. We got Beauvillier back in the Horvat deal for example. Penguins got Bunting back in the Guentzel deal.

 

[Rotang]

 

[Vector]

 

[SeawaterOnIce]

LFG!!!!!!

 

[Hit the post]

Generally yes but we might take a contract back to make the cap work or we might even target a player. We got Beauvillier back in the Horvat deal for example. Penguins got Bunting back in the Guentzel deal.

Player we "get back" might even be a servicable/useful player (eg., Tanner Pearson). Good move by Jim Benning (heh, against some guy named "JR").

 

[4th line culture]

I didnt know the canucks medical team was also working with team usa

 

[Hansen]

Welcome to the league New Orleans Sudiques