Rumor: Canucks Exploring Tyler Myers Trade Value

[Fatass]

Schmidt had a NTC, retention wasn't really the problem there was it? But I'm incapable of understanding..........

Also Schmidt is a much better player then the Chaos Giraffe, it's amazing how one partial season completely negates every shitty one before it.

Totally agree. Schmidt is definitely worth his contract, so he returned a pick. Myers has negative value. The Canucks would be adding picks to move him. IMO.

 

[Nucklehead Supreme]

The opposite is true for Horvat, Boeser and Pettersson, so I have no trouble with fresh starts under the new guy.

 

[McVespa99]

If a small guy is physical are we allowed to say he's small?



Thank you for clarifying.

I think you can figure it out...

 

[Siludin]

Schmidt had a NTC, retention wasn't really the problem there was it? But I'm incapable of understanding..........

Also Schmidt is a much better player then the Chaos Giraffe, it's amazing how one partial season completely negates every shitty one before it.

Retaining on Schmidt would have increased the amount of teams who were capable of acquiring him and increased his impact/$ for the acquiring team (since the team is purchasing cap space for themselves on top of acquiring Schmidt, rather than only acquiring Schmidt), and the Canucks would have sought and received a larger return dealing Schmidt with retention.

Hope this helps you understand the pretense with Myers.
Retained roster players (ANY retained roster player) is worth more in a trade than he would be if he was not retained.
And yes, $3m in saved cap space is absolutely worth a jump to a 1st - plenty of teams have dealt 1sts to get out of bad contracts with no roster player coming back in return.

 

[Bevans]

I think you can figure it out...

You'd think so but no.

 

[oceanchild]

so you have not understood my post ... hard stop

no, I totally understand. Let me put it this easy, you have a first line forward paid under market value and therefore has a ton of value in a trade. Everyone totally agrees that it is an amazing contract. But then you decided to eat Half the cap space in that player in a trade on the request of the team trading for him. Does that team offer you value to retain ? Is that value measurable? Is it a semi constant market value that is predictable?

 

[TBF1972]

no, I totally understand. Let me put it this easy, you have a first line forward paid under market value and therefore has a ton of value in a trade. Everyone totally agrees that it is an amazing contract. But then you decided to eat Half the cap space in that player in a trade on the request of the team trading for him. Does that team offer you value to retain ? Is that value measurable? Is it a semi constant market value that is predictable?

you totallly don't understand.

i am not arguing, that retention adds value in a trade. definitely the offer increases after retention. but the added value is not based on the amount retained. the offer increases for the contract with lesser cap hit and less salary amount after the retention. the retained money was used to lower the contract number. but the amount retained has no fix value for the buying party. it is just the tool to increase the value of the remaining contract.

here a theoretical example to illustrate my thoughts:

assume player A with a 6 million contract, who performs like a 6 million player. let's say he is worth a first round pick.
now we retain 2 million to make him a 4 million contract. his assumed value is now two first round picks. so the added value for retaining 2 million seems to be a first round pick in this example.

assume now player B with an 8 million contract, who performs like a 6 million player. his theoretical worth is a second round pick.
now we retain 2 million to make him a 6 million contract with the ability of a 6 million player. so his worth went up from a second round pick to a first round pick. the two million retention is in this case worth less than a first round pick.

assume now player C with a 4 million contract, who performs like a 6 million player and has a market value of 2 first round pick like player A after retention.

the buying party looks at the player and his contract (after retention, if there was one) and offers the market value (or a little bit more with competition), it sets for such an asset. whether the seller retained money on the contract is not of interest for the buying party. they wouldn't offer more for player B (after retention) than player A (before retention). the value is a first round pick, regardless if the seller retained money. same for player A (after retention) and player C.

the selling party, tough consider the value of their player before retention and retained amount, which remains on their cap and payroll and weighs it against the offer.

 

[oceanchild]

you totallly don't understand.

i am not arguing, that retention adds value in a trade. definitely the offer increases after retention. but the added value is not based on the amount retained. the offer increases for the contract with lesser cap hit and less salary amount after the retention. the retained money was used to lower the contract number. but the amount retained has no fix value for the buying party. it is just the tool to increase the value of the remaining contract.

here a theoretical example to illustrate my thoughts:

assume player A with a 6 million contract, who performs like a 6 million player. let's say he is worth a first round pick.
now we retain 2 million to make him a 4 million contract. his assumed value is now two first round picks. so the added value for retaining 2 million seems to be a first round pick in this example.

assume now player B with an 8 million contract, who performs like a 6 million player. his theoretical worth is a second round pick.
now we retain 2 million to make him a 6 million contract with the ability of a 6 million player. so his worth went up from a second round pick to a first round pick. the two million retention is in this case worth less than a first round pick.

assume now player C with a 4 million contract, who performs like a 6 million player and has a market value of 2 first round pick like player A after retention.

the buying party looks at the player and his contract (after retention, if there was one) and offers the market value (or a little bit more with competition), it sets for such an asset. whether the seller retained money on the contract is not of interest for the buying party. they wouldn't offer more for player B (after retention) than player A (before retention). the value is a first round pick, regardless if the seller retained money. same for player A (after retention) and player C.

the selling party, tough consider the value of their player before retention and retained amount, which remains on their cap and payroll and weighs it against the offer.

your spending a ton of time explaining how the use of retention adds value to trades, henceforth the value is in retention, meaning retention has value.

 

[biturbo19]

Yes. Absolutely explore any and all trade value, or even trade opportunities they might have for Myers.

I'm a huge Myers hater, but he isn't a completely useless player. In the short term, it'd definitely make an already poor Canucks blueline worse. But just getting rid of his $6M salary would be the best way to create a little bit of flexibility to actually address the composition and mix of player types on the Canucks blueline right now. It's currently pretty much gridlocked due to cap, and as much as Myers could be a serviceable second pairing giraffe, they're pretty well locked in on OEL and Hughes as the top two LHD, and Myers doesn't really mesh with either of them particularly well. They need someone cheaper, and a lot less...erratic. Less adventure, more buttoned down and simple.

Moving Myers is really the only avenue i can see to free up the cap space to do that.

The return seems pretty secondary to just creating the cap flexibility to reconfigure the blueline. Sell Sell Sell imo.

 

[48MPHSlapShot]

I understand the cap implications, but our right side is in absolute shambles without Myers. Unless we land a top 4 right D in a move for Boeser or Miller, Myers is staying put for the time being. He might be overpaid by 2 million, but if we want to remain somewhat competitive we need him until we can find someone better.

 

[Bettman Returnz]

I understand the cap implications, but our right side is in absolute shambles without Myers. Unless we land a top 4 right D in a move for Boeser or Miller, Myers is staying put for the time being. He might be overpaid by 2 million, but if we want to remain somewhat competitive we need him until we can find someone better.

I could see a move in the offseason for Myers. Trade deadline doesn’t seem feasible. But hey if they were able to I’d be game… even if it means our D core is worse. That $6M is more valuable than a #5 D (forced into top 4 roll).

 

[48MPHSlapShot]

I could see a move in the offseason for Myers. Trade deadline doesn’t seem feasible. But hey if they were able to I’d be game… even if it means our D core is worse. That $6M is more valuable than a #5 D (forced into top 4 roll).

I don't agree that Myers is a bottom pairing defenseman. He's certainly played up to the caliber of a mid pairing defenseman this season.

With that said, Myers is in a unique situation where he becomes a more valuable trade target the more time that goes by. Two years ago he was a straight cap dump. Now that he only has two years and change left and his game hasn't regressed, he could potentially have some tangible worth now. At next year's deadline, assuming he has a similar year, he could have even more value.

Ideally, I'd like to try and net a youngish top 4 RD or good RD prospect for Boeser before the deadline, which should help solve the short term cap issues, and ride with Myers until next year's deadline, where we can maximize the return.

 

[Vitto79]

I’m sure they would dump the contract if they could

 

[Bettman Returnz]

I don't agree that Myers is a bottom pairing defenseman. He's certainly played up to the caliber of a mid pairing defenseman this season.

With that said, Myers is in a unique situation where he becomes a more valuable trade target the more time that goes by. Two years ago he was a straight cap dump. Now that he only has two years and change left and his game hasn't regressed, he could potentially have some tangible worth now. At next year's deadline, assuming he has a similar year, he could have even more value.

Ideally, I'd like to try and net a youngish top 4 RD or good RD prospect for Boeser before the deadline, which should help solve the short term cap issues, and ride with Myers until next year's deadline, where we can maximize the return.

He’s played up as our D depth and skill level isn’t great. I mean I will say he’s played the best since being a Canuck but I’d still move him if the right situation played out.

 

[Nona Di Giuseppe]

you totallly don't understand.

i am not arguing, that retention adds value in a trade. definitely the offer increases after retention. but the added value is not based on the amount retained. the offer increases for the contract with lesser cap hit and less salary amount after the retention. the retained money was used to lower the contract number. but the amount retained has no fix value for the buying party. it is just the tool to increase the value of the remaining contract.

here a theoretical example to illustrate my thoughts:

assume player A with a 6 million contract, who performs like a 6 million player. let's say he is worth a first round pick.
now we retain 2 million to make him a 4 million contract. his assumed value is now two first round picks. so the added value for retaining 2 million seems to be a first round pick in this example.

assume now player B with an 8 million contract, who performs like a 6 million player. his theoretical worth is a second round pick.
now we retain 2 million to make him a 6 million contract with the ability of a 6 million player. so his worth went up from a second round pick to a first round pick. the two million retention is in this case worth less than a first round pick.

assume now player C with a 4 million contract, who performs like a 6 million player and has a market value of 2 first round pick like player A after retention.

the buying party looks at the player and his contract (after retention, if there was one) and offers the market value (or a little bit more with competition), it sets for such an asset. whether the seller retained money on the contract is not of interest for the buying party. they wouldn't offer more for player B (after retention) than player A (before retention). the value is a first round pick, regardless if the seller retained money. same for player A (after retention) and player C.

the selling party, tough consider the value of their player before retention and retained amount, which remains on their cap and payroll and weighs it against the offer.

This reads as “I agree BUT, BUT hear me out, you don’t understand” : <<<explains the same point>>>

like, yes, this is why retaining adds value

 

[Nona Di Giuseppe]

I understand the cap implications, but our right side is in absolute shambles without Myers. Unless we land a top 4 right D in a move for Boeser or Miller, Myers is staying put for the time being. He might be overpaid by 2 million, but if we want to remain somewhat competitive we need him until we can find someone better.

this.

not much value, fills a need, playing decently.

 

[48MPHSlapShot]

He’s played up as our D depth and skill level isn’t great. I mean I will say he’s played the best since being a Canuck but I’d still move him if the right situation played out.

If we could somehow move Boeser (packaged with Rathbone) for a big, youngish top 4 RD that can play well defensively, and then move Miller to the Rags for a package including Lundqvist (or better yet pry Schneider away from the Rags), then I'd be all aboard the trade Myers bandwagon, but I'd like to see how Boeser and/or Miller deals play out first.

 

[JesusNPucks]

Ja. Benn + Klingberg

for

Meyers + ???

 

[Canadian Canuck]

Ja. Benn + Klingberg

for

Meyers + ???

Pending UFA Klinberg?
So Jaime Benn and his worse contract for Myers? No thanks.

 

[Derks797979]

Boeser for klingberg straight up, then move myers for what ever you can.

 

[Ita]

Ja. Benn + Klingberg

for

Meyers + ???

Hilarious that you think the Canucks will do this, let alone add. A 29 year old UFA Klingberg is not useful for the Canucks because they are nowhere close to competing.
Benn's albatross of a contract an is extra 3.5M over Meyer's and also a year longer. Why the hell would Canucks want him if they are already in cap hell?

Myers is probably overpaid by 2M, but if you trade him away you probably need to spend at least 4M to get a second pairing RHD.

 

[DEANYOUNGBLOOD17]

Poolman @ 2.5 mill a season for the next 3 years should be able to handle Myers work load….

Double up Retain on Myers deal (2.5 mill per season) it will be like you are paying 5 mill a season for The Poolman!

 

[Canadian Canuck]

Poolman @ 2.5 mill a season for the next 3 years should be able to handle Myers work load….

Double up Retain on Myers deal (2.5 mill per season) it will be like you are paying 5 mill a season for The Poolman!

Poolman is a #6 dman that can be replaced by a minimum guy like Schenn

 

[Bertuzzzi44]

Good player, just slightly overpaid which diminishes his value. Great size and reach, good both offensively and defensively, good skater for his size, RHD, feisty, can play PK & PP. He would have much more value if his salary was 4.5-5M, at 6M it makes things a little challenging and the Canucks might not get much in return.

 

[DingDongCharlie]

Make that Barrie, a B prospect and a 1st. No one is willingly taking on Barrie, the guy is a pure cap dump

Delusional. The difference between Myers and Barrie isn’t a 1st especially when Myers has the higher cap hit.