Canucks LB
My Favourite, Gone too soon, RIP Luc, We miss you
- Oct 12, 2008
- 77,861
- 32,112
Canucks News, Rumours, and & Fantasy GM | The Final Countdown
- Thread starter Canucks LB
- Start date
- Status
Killer Orcas
Registered User
Actually watched the opening segment of Donnie and Dhali today.
-was surprised that Tocchet said "we can lose 7 guys" over the weekend
-still quiet on Zadorov and Joshua
-talks continue with Tyler Myers agent but there is work to do there
-do not want to lose Joshua but aren't getting to his cap number
-was surprised that Tocchet said "we can lose 7 guys" over the weekend
-still quiet on Zadorov and Joshua
-talks continue with Tyler Myers agent but there is work to do there
-do not want to lose Joshua but aren't getting to his cap number
Not enough puck movers is the worry and 2 Lefties on 2nd pair.
Mr. Canucklehead
Kitimat Canuck
Wonder if the Canucks might have interest in UFAs like Justin Schultz or Shayne Gostisbehere if they want puck movers?
Worst Case Ontario:
It is hard to believe that they didn't get a better idea they could resign the guys they traded for.
Maybe this management group is just average.
It is hard to believe that they didn't get a better idea they could resign the guys they traded for.
Maybe this management group is just average.
They are kind of standing on two different sides of the cap hit spectrum.
SelltheTeamFrancesco
Registered User
- Aug 11, 2015
- 4,072
- 4,222
Lindholm not resigning is then best case scenario for the Canucks. I could care less at this point what they gave up. Lindholm looks like he is on the decline and wants $7+ million over 7 years.
Lol if they didnt make that trade we would have Kuzmenko eating up 5.5mil in cap space this year and being healthy scratched.
Were already trying to get rid of Mikhayev's 4.75m AAV, imagine how deep doo doo we would be if we also had Kuzy's 5.5mil.
This is how rentals work. One team wins the Cup and the other 12 teams who paid for rentals 'lose' those trades. But it doesn't mean you don't have to make them to try and win.
krutovsdonut
eeyore
- Sep 25, 2016
- 17,110
- 9,848
i think the demko idea is more a symptom of how deadlocked we are by cap and near success than a realistic option. we are flailing about trying to think of a way to not only maintain the momentum we have but build on it when we don't even have the cap room to bring back the team from last season, and we don't have a lot of prospects and draft picks.
our situation is also that we can't afford to go far backwards. we have to make every effort to keep this train rolling. our core is in its window and has had too many bad times to tolerate another season of shit. the band will split up if we do that.
so we are in denial.
and so we are discussing huge gambles. trading core pieces or adding something like laine at a relative discount to their best case scenario. that's crazy. if move our core goalie it is 2021 all over again and we'll hardly save any cap after we sign another goalie who won't be as good in the brutal goalie market out there. if we spend real treasure in terms of cap and assets or both on gambles, then it is 2022 all over again. laine has to be healthy ppg laine or our season will be hugely impacted by what we give up to get laine and the cap we allocate to laine.
we have no margin for error for gambles. we also have a recent history of taking the oel gamble. i think the core blows up if we gamble on a big piece and don't hit a home run.
realistiscally, the way we do this is go back to what worked last offseason. we need to identify soucys and coles and give ourselves momentum to add zadorov's and lindholms during the season. there's a big crop of interesting rhd and lhd ufa candidates out there. there's quite a few middling centres. target the best value pieces that we think can sustain our play.
and maybe we move hronek to give ourselves some assets and cap breathing room if we can get a good deal on two rhds.
bottom line, out of zadorov, hronek, and joshua, i see only joshua maybe getting better than last season. bringing them back for more cap than last year does not make us better unless they are better.
our situation is also that we can't afford to go far backwards. we have to make every effort to keep this train rolling. our core is in its window and has had too many bad times to tolerate another season of shit. the band will split up if we do that.
so we are in denial.
and so we are discussing huge gambles. trading core pieces or adding something like laine at a relative discount to their best case scenario. that's crazy. if move our core goalie it is 2021 all over again and we'll hardly save any cap after we sign another goalie who won't be as good in the brutal goalie market out there. if we spend real treasure in terms of cap and assets or both on gambles, then it is 2022 all over again. laine has to be healthy ppg laine or our season will be hugely impacted by what we give up to get laine and the cap we allocate to laine.
we have no margin for error for gambles. we also have a recent history of taking the oel gamble. i think the core blows up if we gamble on a big piece and don't hit a home run.
realistiscally, the way we do this is go back to what worked last offseason. we need to identify soucys and coles and give ourselves momentum to add zadorov's and lindholms during the season. there's a big crop of interesting rhd and lhd ufa candidates out there. there's quite a few middling centres. target the best value pieces that we think can sustain our play.
and maybe we move hronek to give ourselves some assets and cap breathing room if we can get a good deal on two rhds.
bottom line, out of zadorov, hronek, and joshua, i see only joshua maybe getting better than last season. bringing them back for more cap than last year does not make us better unless they are better.
TruGr1t
Proper Villain
- Jun 26, 2003
- 23,852
- 8,051
This was always sort of the plan. Demko injury threw a wrench into things, obviously, but Lindholm was a top-3 point producer in the playoffs, averaged more ice-time than Pettersson, and played in all situations. It was a good pickup as far as rentals go, but obviously you deal with the regular reality of rentals when you do that. If you want to argue they shouldn't have been moving futures for rentals, that's a different discussion.
It does suck he won't be coming back, as he was actually a really valuable member of the team once healthy and gave them a nice 1-3 punch down the middle. The issue is not so much the trade, but the cap situation they now find themselves in because they will not be able to replace him with a guy nearly as capable in those minutes (based on late season / playoffs).
The route they committed to even before this, however, was always going to generate this type of situation. With the OEL penalty and most of the core hitting peak earnings they were always going to be scrambling to make the cap work. They've papered it over by going with guys on short-term deals and players in their late-20s close to UFA. That creates these types of situations. As I've always said, they will be under the gun every summer trying to make "money puck" acquisitions and scrambling to make the cap work. Unfortunately, that may mean they lose all of Lindholm, Zadorov and Joshua this summer. But that's the road they've chosen. They will have to rely on pro-scouting and cap management to address the issues.
Nucker101
Foundational Poster
- Apr 2, 2013
- 21,476
- 17,339
The 2 teams in the SCF right now have both traded for rentals in recent seasons, failed to win the cup and then let the rentals walk for nothing. Yet both teams are in the SCF right now. It's going to happen to one of them again, likely Edmonton with 1 or both of Henrique/Carrick.
You do understand that it's okay for that to happen, right?
thecupismine
Registered User
- Apr 1, 2007
- 2,417
- 1,375
People don't seem to understand that a rental who shows your group what they're capable of, and helps get you decently deep into the playoffs, has more value beyond raw assets.
Showing your core you believe in them, getting them used to having major pieces come in mid-season for when rentals happen again, and getting that experience, has a ton of LT value.
This has major "why are we playing Quinn Hughes 25+ minutes a night and Petey/Miller 20+ when we should be tanking for draft picks?" vibes. Those minutes at the end of 2023 set us up for this 2023/2024 season, much like going to game 7 in round 2 will set this team up to deal with playoff adversity moving forward - this likely doesn't happen without Lindholm.
This management group isn't average, its fans who are too dense to think beyond tangible assets on the board that are.
I'm as nostalgic as the next guy, but the idea of Tanev in the #1RHD spot is terrifying. he's still got 3 step quickness and is a solid d zone defender because of his ability to read the play and stickwork, but he has absolutely lost more than a step and when he loses the next one.....it won't be pretty. You hear some of the numbers ($4.5-5MMx3 years) being tossed around for him and it's just really risky IMO.
No problem with a 1 year deal at ~$4MM (or $3.5MM x 2) IF we are also either retaining Hronek ($7MM +/- 500k depending on term) or finding a legit replacement somewhere else (Roy out of the UFA pool).
Hughes Hronek 15.35
Soucy Tanev 7.25
Zadorov Myers 7.75
Juulsen .775
$31.13
leaves ~$48.53MM for forwards
No problem with a 1 year deal at ~$4MM (or $3.5MM x 2) IF we are also either retaining Hronek ($7MM +/- 500k depending on term) or finding a legit replacement somewhere else (Roy out of the UFA pool).
Hughes Hronek 15.35
Soucy Tanev 7.25
Zadorov Myers 7.75
Juulsen .775
$31.13
leaves ~$48.53MM for forwards
VanillaCoke
Registered User
- Oct 30, 2013
- 25,619
- 12,162
The idea of trading demko sounds good in a fantasy sense, the reality is prohibitive.
They're simply not trading such an integral, core part of the team. The rest would revolt.
JT, hughes, ep, boeser, demko all here for the ride. Can probably add myers and Soucy, we'll soon find out if add Hronek and Zadz too.
They're simply not trading such an integral, core part of the team. The rest would revolt.
JT, hughes, ep, boeser, demko all here for the ride. Can probably add myers and Soucy, we'll soon find out if add Hronek and Zadz too.
there's no reason why we can't rent someone again next year. Lindholm worked out fine in the end, but buying him for another 7 years for more than $50 million would be overkill.
Friedman on Donnie and Dhali:
Zadorov:
-most likely that they won't be able to keep him
-in a perfect world, he would like to stay in Vancouver
-is willing to take a little bit less to stay but there is a limit
-was expecting the two sides to talk
Joshua:
-has heard that players like Joshua have a really good market
-market has gone further than the Canucks are willing to go
-someone said that if you're a player like Joshua, little bit undervalued, would be comfortable coming to Vancouver because of Tocchet and the Canucks are looking at this
-agents have said that the Canucks have shown that if you are a Tocchet player you will do well
Hronek:
-knows what the required cap hit is for next year, at least
-not been as easy negotiations as everyone thought
-difference of opinion of where the final number should be
Tanev:
-Dallas hoping to try and keep him
-market for him is very high
-doesn't know if the Canucks can do it
-knows Maple Leafs and Senators are interested
lol, trading kuzmenko freed up $5m of cap space for an important offseason. Raised the profile of the team.
Izzy has been grinding this axe all offseason but he's inhaled so much dust it's given him metal poisoning.
Izzy has been grinding this axe all offseason but he's inhaled so much dust it's given him metal poisoning.
Nick Lang
Registered User
- May 14, 2015
- 2,150
- 617
We did have problems with how slow our large but sometimes immobile D played. Especially Edmonton, they took advantage of us in our own zone all series and just dominated possession as a result. Tanev is pretty good at getting around but you have Soucy playing on the wrong side. Too many LD's in this configuration, missing a RD. Pretty poor planning to have one guy playing the wrong side all year.
I’d bet management is closer to like $4.5x6 and Zadorov is closer to $5.5m. Interesting
People seem to be thinking the Elmer way.: Letting key players leave while retaining lesser players.
The way I look at it is the Canucks have a chance to make positive moves by shedding their lesser players in order to sign their Top UFAs.
Think of it this way, would you trade:
Sutter for Joshua
Mikheyev and second for Lindholm.
Hronek for Zadorov
I would think the Canucks win these trades.
They could go further and trade Garland if they need more cap space or want to retain Hronek who was nearly invisible in the last 40 games and in the playoffs..
So why not shed these players for assets and cap space to sign their own Key UFAs and maybe some new ones.
This was the mistake Elmer made with Tanev etc.
The idea they can take a step back and recover and move forward next year has a greater risk than trading their other "assets" now to maintain their competitiveness by signing 3 Unicorns: Lindholm, Joshua and Zadorov.
.
The way I look at it is the Canucks have a chance to make positive moves by shedding their lesser players in order to sign their Top UFAs.
Think of it this way, would you trade:
Sutter for Joshua
Mikheyev and second for Lindholm.
Hronek for Zadorov
I would think the Canucks win these trades.
They could go further and trade Garland if they need more cap space or want to retain Hronek who was nearly invisible in the last 40 games and in the playoffs..
So why not shed these players for assets and cap space to sign their own Key UFAs and maybe some new ones.
This was the mistake Elmer made with Tanev etc.
The idea they can take a step back and recover and move forward next year has a greater risk than trading their other "assets" now to maintain their competitiveness by signing 3 Unicorns: Lindholm, Joshua and Zadorov.
.
Last edited:
TruGr1t
Proper Villain
- Jun 26, 2003
- 23,852
- 8,051
The Zadorov thing kinda bugs me more than anything else, as they had an opportunity to effectively sign him right after the trade at a much lower than current rate, and decided to wait. I can understand why with a new player, but that decision looks like it could result in him leaving.
I don't know why people don't get this. And they have the cap space that they can spend on a player that the coach will actually deploy.
Jovofan
Registered User
A few little tidbits from Dhaliwal after the Friedman interview:
-Canucks have thought about Brenden Dillon as a Zadorov replacement
-a lot of work to do with Myers before that deal gets done
-Joshua number starts with a 3m but Canucks are not getting to his number
-is a little bit surprised they have not signed anyone
-trying to make trades, free up capspace, & trade Mikheyev
-need to include a sweetener with Mikheyev
-thinks Guentzel is on the Canucks' radar; Guentzel had the Canucks on his list of places he wanted to go at the trade deadline
-Canucks have thought about Brenden Dillon as a Zadorov replacement
-a lot of work to do with Myers before that deal gets done
-Joshua number starts with a 3m but Canucks are not getting to his number
-is a little bit surprised they have not signed anyone
-trying to make trades, free up capspace, & trade Mikheyev
-need to include a sweetener with Mikheyev
-thinks Guentzel is on the Canucks' radar; Guentzel had the Canucks on his list of places he wanted to go at the trade deadline
- Status
