Rumor: Canucks Exploring Tyler Myers Trade Value

[Cogburn]

My initial thought before really fleshing it out was Labanc and Simek but then I looked at Vancouver and didn't think they'd care for either much less both lol

Well, what would be included with them? Labanc isn't a flat out no, but Simek is of zero value at the moment. We're also adding a full million for equal term, so there isn't a ton of incentive for even Labanc straight across, if we're being honest. Myers can at least contribute more than Labanc has the last few years, in spite of the Chaos Giraffe's seemingly random play.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Well, what would be included with them? Labanc isn't a flat out no, but Simek is of zero value at the moment. We're also adding a full million for equal term, so there isn't a ton of incentive for even Labanc straight across, if we're being honest. Myers can at least contribute more than Labanc has the last few years, in spite of the Chaos Giraffe's seemingly random play.

I don't think there's an add that makes sense unless Vancouver is either wanting to add a dump or okay with one of the two being retained.

 

[Cogburn]

I don't think there's an add that makes sense unless Vancouver is either wanting to add a dump or okay with one of the two being retained.

Honestly neither is really a fit. Both wingers of almost any variety are something we're well stocked with, and we have a number of depth defensemen(of the 5-8 on our team), so its more trading something overpriced, but useful, for varying cap hits for pieces we don't have roster room for. Even full retention fore Labanc and Simek is 3.5ish million, so while we save 2.5 on Myers' full cap hit, it's not really worth having Schenn, Hamonic and Poolman as our starting RHD.

 

[Killer Orcas]

Surprised if not shocked Myers and a 1st rd picked mentioned in same sentence here a few times. If we could move Myers I'd be happy to take back futures as in nothing. Dealing him is about the cap space more than anything. Getting a positive asset back is a bonus anything more than a 4th rd pick would be huge. He's played better since Bruce but let's not forget he's not anywhere close to a 6 million dollar man.

 

[OgeeOgelthorpe]

Might I interest you in Filip Hronek?

I came here to say this. The swap fits both teams style.

 

[CalderSchmalder]

Myers to NYI so they can pair him with Chara

 

[OgeeOgelthorpe]

Hronek + Zadina + 2nd (or maybe swap 1sts? Vancouver could be 16th or better but Detroit will finish 9th to 13th)

for

Meyers + Boeser

Big cost savings to the Canucks. Hronek gives them an offensive weapon that fits well in Boudreau’s system.

 

[Fatass]

I understand that many people think of it that way, but I think its a bit of an odd measuring stick considering the cap situation of so many teams, and the fact that a lot of teams wouldn't want to trade their players for picks or prospects.

What better way is there to determine a player’s trade value?

 

[VancouverJagger]

The Chaos Giraffe has played quite well this year - a lot of Van fans hate him (mostly because of his contract) however he's been playing a lot closer to that value this year.

He's an RHD with size and a bit of mean ness to him............while I am certainly not opposed to dumping his cap where on earth does that leave us for rhd? Poolman as our top rhd? Yikes....

Obviously we would need to find someone else and I'm sure someone will say "but side doesn't matter" however I don't mind him really at all. For the most part he's been very playable this year and trading him would leave a MASSIVE hole on our D.

 

[Joeyjoejoe]

I give you Zaitsev.

 

[M2Beezy]

Closer up

 

[Nucklehead Supreme]

Surprised if not shocked Myers and a 1st rd picked mentioned in same sentence here a few times. If we could move Myers I'd be happy to take back futures as in nothing. Dealing him is about the cap space more than anything. Getting a positive asset back is a bonus anything more than a 4th rd pick would be huge. He's played better since Bruce but let's not forget he's not anywhere close to a 6 million dollar man.

 

[GeeoffBrown]

Maybe a swap of overpaid D to see if it's a better fit?

 

[Just A Bit Outside]

f***ing rights they should.

Myers traded. Next Halloween:

 

[canadianmagpie]

Closer up

Dreger has no insight in Vancouver since Nonis left.

 

[Cogburn]

Hronek + Zadina + 2nd (or maybe swap 1sts? Vancouver could be 16th or better but Detroit will finish 9th to 13th)

for

Meyers + Boeser

Big cost savings to the Canucks. Hronek gives them an offensive weapon that fits well in Boudreau’s system.

I'm not seeing a lot of incentive here for Vancouver.

Hronek for Myers? Myers play style is fine for us, Hronek is only 1.6 million a season cheaper. I'm happy to pay that for Myers' size and snarl over Hronek's scoring, which we don't need with Hughes and OEL.

Boeser though...Zadina doesn't hold value for us the way he seems to for you. He's 22 and is averaging 30 points a full season, both in his young career and this season. Boeser, who is 2 years older, and was averaging 30+ goals in his first 4 seasons, averaged for 82 games a season the same way. Even this year, a down year, he's pacing for 50 points and has as many goals as Zadina has points. And again, Boeser is a whopping 2 years older then Zadina.

Saving money on Boeser for this year is an awful incentive to move him. Even his QO is something we can swallow if need be, as it's only 1.7 more then his current hit. Moving him to unload another players cap hit is even worse management.

 

[PenderB]

I haven't been a fan of Myers in his time in Vancouver, makes too many bad plays with the puck. I have to give him credit though, he has been very good this season. with only two years left on his deal, I'm not sure why we would trade him now. I'd be real comfortable saying he is a 4.5-5 milli0on dollar defenseman right now, getting paid 6. Not sure you will get enough value to fill the gap in the lineup moving him would create. Myers shouldn't be looked at as a cap dump with his current play.

I get the need to open up cap, but I'd be looking to move Pearson, Dickinson, Poolman, Hamonic to get that done.

100 percent agree. No need to trade Myers or Larson . They are legit top 4 defence for us this year. But our 3 rd line is terribly overpaid

 

[FOurteenS inCisOr]

100 percent agree. No need to trade Myers or Larson . They are legit top 4 defence for us this year. But our 3 rd line is terribly overpaid

Christ, if you can move either without attaching much value you punch dance at the opportunity.

OEL’s contract is brutal and Myers is f***ing terrible.

 

[ManofSteel55]

What better way is there to determine a player’s trade value?

There isn't one. But that doesn't mean it is accurate. As soon as someone says "negative value" people start assuming a guy is an awful player and nobody will want him.

 

[PenderB]

Christ, if you can move either without attaching much value you punch dance at the opportunity.

OEL’s contract is brutal and Myers is f***ing terrible.

I never said their contracts are good but they are not the Canucks problems this year. And is you trade them then it creates a bigger hole. I just think the Canuck biggest Salary problems come from their forwards not producing plus pool man, harmonic, and luongo penalty. Plus we had a terrible coach to start

 

[oceanchild]

The retained money has no value to the buying party. It's all about the player and the remaining contract. If no team wants a player after retention, the potentially retained money has zero value.

not true at all, value is attributable to the retained money. If Miller is worth a 6th at full contract and a 1st with half money retained, that is a specific, measurable value, attributable 100% based on the amount you retained from the contract. I get what your saying, and I would say if a team couple trade cap space directly, it would have significant value, say something like a 1st gets you an additional $4m in cap space from team x for 3 years or something like that. But in the NHL they don’t do that type of trade, they can’t. But what they can do is hold salary and that does have value and it’s consistent. Yes, the amount can very due to the player, situation, contract etc. but it sure does have value.

 

[FOurteenS inCisOr]

I never said their contracts are good but they are not the Canucks problems this year. And is you trade them then it creates a bigger hole. I just think the Canuck biggest Salary problems come from their forwards not producing plus pool man, harmonic, and luongo penalty. Plus we had a terrible coach to start

Bloated contracts and a bad defense are big problems.

Just because it’s performed slightly better than expected doesn’t mean it’s not a bottom third D corps in the league.

 

[Peen]

Dreger has no insight in Vancouver since Nonis left.

Aren't dreger/rutherford pretty tight?

 

[Nona Di Giuseppe]

Surprised if not shocked Myers and a 1st rd picked mentioned in same sentence here a few times. If we could move Myers I'd be happy to take back futures as in nothing. Dealing him is about the cap space more than anything. Getting a positive asset back is a bonus anything more than a 4th rd pick would be huge. He's played better since Bruce but let's not forget he's not anywhere close to a 6 million dollar man.

thiiiiis

and i like myers

 

[TBF1972]

not true at all, value is attributable to the retained money. If Miller is worth a 6th at full contract and a 1st with half money retained, that is a specific, measurable value, attributable 100% based on the amount you retained from the contract. I get what your saying, and I would say if a team couple trade cap space directly, it would have significant value, say something like a 1st gets you an additional $4m in cap space from team x for 3 years or something like that. But in the NHL they don’t do that type of trade, they can’t. But what they can do is hold salary and that does have value and it’s consistent. Yes, the amount can very due to the player, situation, contract etc. but it sure does have value.

retention can increase value. i fully agree. but not because of the money and cap retained. it's all about how attractive the remaining contract/cap hit is on the market.

if you have player a signed for 3 years at 9m, but performing like a 4 million player and you retain 2m for the remaining term, the negative value gets smaller for sure. but only mildly because you won't find many suitors even if you are ready to compensate the taker of the cap dump.

if you have player b signed for 3 years at 4.5m, but performing like a 5 million player and you retain the same 2m, the positive values spikes. at 2.5m most teams in the league will be interested, as such a contract can be easily accommodated under nearly every teams cap structure and there will be a bidding war to acquire such a valuable piece, which increases the price.

the retention is in both cases the same. the value increase definitely not. therefore the value is not driven by the retention, it's driven by the remaining contract and the players current (and expected) ability/performance.

you still don't believe?

player c is paid 6m for 2 more years and he plays like a 6m player. the selling team is ready to retain 2m.
player d is paid 4m for 2 more years and plays like a 6m player. no retention is offered.

which player has more market value? why?

i would say, they have the same market value, as both are offering the same value for the same price. retention has zero effect for the buying party.