Canucks & NHL News, Rumours, and & Fantasy GM | 4 Nations Break Edition

[tyhee]

2/3C tweener whose numbers are declining materially. PPG by season oldest first:

.94
.79
.60
.57 (ytd)

Acquiring a legit (mostly wart free) 2C mid season is unlikely to be possible unless we're willing to part with big pieces (lekkerimaki/Willander/EP25/RD1 picks/Kudryavtsev) and even then it's a long shot.

so you're looking at reclamation projects like Cozens or Mittlestadt

guys with massive injury risk like Norris

The Elderly: ROR, Schenn etc

Or you're looking at trying to find a younger guy who's role you might be able to elevate: Evans, Mcleod, Hayton (latter two not likely available IMO)

Or you can find a good 3C who won't cost a ton and pray Chytil can elevate his game to 2C production levels: Pageau (Gourde if he hadn't got hurt).

I generally agree with you, though I tend to go back to a default position that sometimes the least bad option is to avoid actively doing something that will cost more than whatever benefit is received.

 

[ManVanFan]

It really wouldn't make sense to go for something that isn't a good fit now and later. Wait till the summer when other options could arrive or wait till next TDL when the team would actually be competitive maybe.

 

[TruGr1t]

2/3C tweener whose numbers are declining materially. PPG by season oldest first:

.94
.79
.60
.57 (ytd)

Acquiring a legit (mostly wart free) 2C mid season is unlikely to be possible unless we're willing to part with big pieces (lekkerimaki/Willander/EP25/RD1 picks/Kudryavtsev) and even then it's a long shot.

so you're looking at reclamation projects like Cozens or Mittlestadt

guys with massive injury risk like Norris

The Elderly: ROR, Schenn etc

Or you're looking at trying to find a younger guy who's role you might be able to elevate: Evans, Mcleod, Hayton (latter two not likely available IMO)

Or you can find a good 3C who won't cost a ton and pray Chytil can elevate his game to 2C production levels: Pageau (Gourde if he hadn't got hurt).

Yes this is basically the list. I'd steer clear of guys like Cozens and Mittlestadt, have some interest in Norris pending cost, and then you've got the veteran C's on 2-3 year deals that can paper over the problem until you can address it via other means. Either draft or FA mainly.

The one guy I find interesting someone mentioned is Ryan Strome, but I doubt he's actually available. Chris Johnston at TSN just threw him randomly on the bottom of some trade list he made.

 

[Nick Lang]

To be fair it was for Cozens BYRAM plus.



I hear this all the time, it truth is we didn’t have the assets the kings had. We didn’t have a great prospect to send. Our top prospect was a goalie, and most teams don’t value them as high as a top centre or Dman.

While we may not of been willing, I also don’t think we had the assets to do it.

Yeah that's true but Petterson is worth a lot more than Willander or Lekkerimaki. They aren't going to give him away for less I don't think. Especially with the market being scarce and I'm sure a bit of a bidding war.

We've seen suggestions that the Canucks trade for Brayden Schenn.

The guy is 33 years old. He's on an 8 year contract. As Rutherford was quoted saying a year or so ago, when a team gives a player approaching ufa an 8 year contract, the deal is expected to be a negative in the last few seasons and the positive benefit the team gets in the first few years has to make up for it.

Schenn will have the final 3 years of his deal left after this season-the years in which a contract is expected to be a loss. He's already slowing down. People age differently but the likelihood at his age with already slowing production is that it will be all downhill from here.

He'd be worth more as a rental with an expiring contract. He might be reasonable value with just one season left, but for a team which has not demonstrated that they have an open window to contend this season, taking on the final 3 years of his deal and spending assets to do it seems like a horrible gamble to me.

Yeah I find the idea way out to lunch.

I really like him purely as a player but he's completely the wrong age and going downhill. On pace for less than 50 points and it will just get worse. His cap hit is $6.5 mil and it's not two but three years after this one.

What a absolutely horrific idea to be paying this guy $6.5 at 36 years of age right when Quinn Hughes needs a new contract. Right after just we got out from JT's contract we bring back the downside worst of it right now. Just an awful, awful, completely short-sighted plan. I would be revolted if we did that this year. Uuuuuugh!!!

Is a guy like him or O'Reilly ideal? Obviously not. But you deal with what the market has available versus your needs. Given what the Canucks want to do, I'd probably prefer some of these veteran guys on 2-3 year deals over long-term reclamation projects like Cozens, who really carry more term risk, and a lot of them aren't even established centres.

Your goal is really to make the team as good as possible heading into the Hughes negotations.

I have to strongly disagree. The goal is to make the team as good as possible moving forward when Hughes signs, not burn $6.5 mil off the cap on a bad contract spot of a 36 year old player. Hughes isn't going to care less either that we just wasted $6.5 the two years before trying to do something because we couldn't come up with a better plan. He's not signing a contract just because we tried something. He's too smart.

 

[Hodgy]

We still have him under contract for next season, lots of time to evaluate. It depends on how his body holds up from now until spring of 2026, and go from there.

Yes, things can obviously change. But even if Demko regains for this year, and plays well next year and doesn't suffer any more significant injuries, I still think his contract is going to be an extremely difficult decision. Because we already know he's injury prone and not overly reliable, and an extra year of play won't change that. And in some ways, if he plays better, it actually makes it more difficult because he will be asking for a much higher contract than if he plays at like a .900-905 svp from here on out.

Norris has 5 more seasons on his contract though. While we are very comfortable this season with cap space, we are fairly tight even for next season if we extend Boeser. Although the cap is increasing, we also have to budget about $14m for Hughes in a couple years when he is up. Not to mention we have to either extend or replace a bunch of other players (ie: Garland/Joshua/Demko/Myers/Chytil) in key positions that will cost more than their current cap hit, due to inflation/increased salary expectations from rising cap. We will also have to allocate some room for the 2nd contracts of DPetey/Willander/Lek.

And that doesn't include any significant upgrade or big UFA signings to improve the team. We would essentially be running back the same team that finish this season.

While things look great for this season, it doesn't mean we have the cap flexibility to take $8m gambles on a contract that has 5 more years in term. The only exception is if Quinn say if we get his BFF, he will guarantee extending with us in 2 seasons, then you definitely acquire Norris. Anything less than that, we should pass.

I do agree with all of this, but taking long term bets, on youngish players, whether Norris or Cozens, does have the added benefit that their cap hits will continue to, relatively speaking, decrease with raises in the cap. With that said, with the rises in the cap already confirmed, the prices of these players may already reflect that.

 

[bossram]

Yes this is basically the list. I'd steer clear of guys like Cozens and Mittlestadt, have some interest in Norris pending cost, and then you've got the veteran C's on 2-3 year deals that can paper over the problem until you can address it via other means. Either draft or FA mainly.

The one guy I find interesting someone mentioned is Ryan Strome, but I doubt he's actually available. Chris Johnston at TSN just threw him randomly on the bottom of some trade list he made.

Surprised you mentioned Ryan Strome. To me, he seems pretty cooked at this point.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Has there been anything out there credibly linking the Canucks to Norris?

For a club that worked so hard to get themselves out of LTIR hell AND that has dealt with the unavailability of Demko each season. It seems irrational to me that they would go after a player with that much term and that much salary who will have a question mark over his availability each year.

With all due respect to the Senators org — if Ottawa is running away from a "Top-6 Center" shouldn't that kind of tell us something?

Sat Shah on the one making the link to Norris.

I too think it's irrational to suggest they could just LTIR Norris as a fall back when they've done so much to get out from under LTIR. It doesn't make sense to me. It's a poison pill. (I think it was @Hodgy that mentioned this)

I wouldn't touch Norris with a 10 foot pole.

Outside of one decent year, he scores like a career 3rd liner at even strength. Plus the contract and the injuries? Way too much risk, not enough upside.

I massively favour the strategy of paying up for good targets versus trying to dig around in the bargain bin for targets with medium to high risk profiles.

That's... a very good point about his ES production. I was too caught up in his all-situations play to dig into that data.

Mittlestadt is who I prefer, but the in-conference trade cost would be higher and he doesn't PK...?

How many times have we heard that?

Twice, I think.

Once when Pettersson had recommitted to the team, and again after Miller was finally dealt.

 

[Hodgy]

Sat Shah on the one making the link to Norris.

I too think it's irrational to suggest they could just LTIR Norris as a fall back when they've done so much to get out from under LTIR. It doesn't make sense to me. It's a poison pill. (I think it was @Hodgy that mentioned this)

I don't mean to suggest that its a good situation if you have to LTIRetire Norris because he suffers multiple more shoulder injuries, but its definitely preferable to LTIRetire him in that case than to be stuck with a player that just sucks.

 

[StickShift]

We obviously differ on how bad a move trading for Schenn would be. While the degree to which the moves are awful differ somewhat, the thought of trading assets for Brayden Schenn right makes about as much sense to me as the LE signing, Sbisa extension and OEL and Gudbranson trades did at the time the Canucks made those moves.

I’ve said for a little while now that I think B.Schenn ticks a lot of boxes for this management group and I would not be shocked if they trade for him:

• Management will like his fancy stats going up against the top centers in the western conference—even if that just means neutralizing those minutes.
  
• Management will like his leadership and perceived hard nosed style. They need someone to replace the JT Miller factor in the playoffs.
  
• Management has seen his older brother Luke perform at an acceptable level through the same years that Brayden is going through.
  
• Management was already prepared to offer Lindholm $8m x 8y — so I doubt they will bat an eye at Schenn for $6.5m x 3y.

Frankly, as a personal opinion, I’d prefer Schenn at that deal over Lindholm.

I don’t think Schenn is the perfect solution, but I think he has a pathway to being an effective 2C/3C center this year with a glide path to being a dependable 3C at a $1-2m overpay over his remaining years.

That feels like a bet that this management group would feel comfortable making.

 

[Jerry the great]

I generally agree with you, though I tend to go back to a default position that sometimes the least bad option is to avoid actively doing something that will cost more than whatever benefit is received.

I don't disagree, but Rutherford is not one to sit on his hands. Hard to imagine a scenario where they don't make additional moves to set the table for the playoffs and beyond.

 

[Vector]

Surprised you mentioned Ryan Strome. To me, he seems pretty cooked at this point.

Ditto. When I was looking into some stats for my article, I had him on the bigger list but cut him pretty quick. He's been unlucky but has no footspeed and has been poor at faceoffs this year. I don't see him really filling a need.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

Yes, things can obviously change. But even if Demko regains for this year, and plays well next year and doesn't suffer any more significant injuries, I still think his contract is going to be an extremely difficult decision. Because we already know he's injury prone and not overly reliable, and an extra year of play won't change that. And in some ways, if he plays better, it actually makes it more difficult because he will be asking for a much higher contract than if he plays at like a .900-905 svp from here on out.


I do agree with all of this, but taking long term bets, on youngish players, whether Norris or Cozens, does have the added benefit that their cap hits will continue to, relatively speaking, decrease with raises in the cap. With that said, with the rises in the cap already confirmed, the prices of these players may already reflect that.

I see it as 3 possible outcomes:
1) Demko is either not able to play regularly and/or cannot consistently play at a high level - then you just walk away at the end of the contract.
2) Demko is relatively healthy and plays at a high level, but the team is bad next season and looks to be bad going forward - then you trade him at the TDL next season and get whatever you can.
3) Demko is healthy and the team looks to be competitive going forward - then you extend him depending on his ask. If he is either asking for a high cap hit or long term, or both, you let him go. If his ask is reasonable in both term and cap hit, you extend him (unless a better option present itself).

Quality goaltending isn't the hardest nor the most expensive to find, there is no need to tied ourselves to any goaltenders to potentially bad contracts if there are any concerns at all. Also, a good team with good D can shelter average goalies, we can go the route of the Avs in the worse case scenario (and I think our D core is good enough for that now).

As for your second point, I could be talked into taking a chance on Cozens if the cost is low enough (not a big fan of his). But Norris is a different scenario due to his injury history. It is also the opportunity cost of having Norris on IR/LTIR, it takes away the option to acquire better talent as we have $8m that would routinely goes on and off injury reserve. It would handcuff us in a lot of different situations and I rather just not deal with that. Again, if Hughes is banging on the table for him, then you begrudgingly acquire him, but aside from that I would rather look elsewhere. Who knows, if we trade for Norris and Rantanen becomes available again (just an example), we would be kicking ourselves for sure.

 

[StickShift]

I don't mean to suggest that its a good situation if you have to LTIRetire Norris because he suffers multiple more shoulder injuries, but its definitely preferable to LTIRetire him in that case than to be stuck with a player that just sucks.

If they are LTIRing Norris for five years, it means that this team is spending to the cap from day 1 of each season and not accumulating cap space. That makes it impossible to rent at the deadline without moving cap out.

Furthermore, with the Canadian dollar tanking—I doubt that the Canucks will be a club willing to spend up to the cap ceiling each year if they don’t have to.

The Aquilinis are f*** you rich, but they are not f*** you (and I don’t f***ing care) rich.

 

[arttk]

Acquiring a legit (mostly wart free) 2C mid season is unlikely to be possible unless we're willing to part with big pieces (lekkerimaki/Willander/EP25/RD1 picks/Kudryavtsev) and even then it's a long shot.

it’s getting harder regardless of when, too many teams now and not enough talent. That’s the biggest reason for taking a bet

 

[Jerry the great]

it’s getting harder regardless of when, too many teams now and not enough talent. That’s the biggest reason for taking a bet

that suggests to me that it's the wrong time to make a big one.

 

[Hodgy]

If they are LTIRing Norris for five years, it means that this team is spending to the cap from day 1 of each season and not accumulating cap space. That makes it impossible to rent at the deadline without moving cap out.

Furthermore, with the Canadian dollar tanking—I doubt that the Canucks will be a club willing to spend up to the cap ceiling each year if they don’t have to.

The Aquilinis are f*** you rich, but they are not f*** you (and I don’t f***ing care) rich.

Like I said, its not a situation you want to be in, but its better than paying Lindholm 8 million or whatever to score 30-40 points a year as your third line centre for 6 more years. That was the context in which I made the point.

In terms of spending to the cap, it will be interesting to see what the Acquillinis continue to spend to the cap as the cap increases. They have never not spent to the cap.

 

[Just A Bit Outside]

It's also just the plain increase in the cap. They weren't going to incur more expenses going forward without making it up somewhere.

I agree but a double digit increase is also very much to do with the exchange right now.

If it was just the cap, that yearly increase would be single digits IMO.

 

[Bleach Clean]

I don't mean to suggest that its a good situation if you have to LTIRetire Norris because he suffers multiple more shoulder injuries, but its definitely preferable to LTIRetire him in that case then to be stuck with a player that just sucks.

On a team that wants to avoid LTIR, a player that is far more likely to end up on LTIR is definitely worse.

That player that "sucks" has equaled Norris' ES production this year... Over the last 5 years, Norris has a 32 EVP average (89EVPs/230GP) and Lindholm has a 41 EVP average (176EVPs/350GP).

Per P/G rate, Lindholm beat Norris last year (0.65 to 0.60) and is losing this year (0.51 to 0.62).

If Lindholm sucks, Norris must also suck? Then add the LTIR probability...

 

[VanillaCoke]

Lindholm > Norris.

 

[rypper]

Lindholm > Norris.

What's that over there?

That's the ship and it's sailed.

 

[Hodgy]

On a team that wants to avoid LTIR, a player that is far more likely to end up on LTIR is definitely worse.

Sure, all things equal, that's obviously true. But Norris and Lindholm aren't equal. One has a long contract and is five years older, and is somehow scoring at a lower rate than the other.

That player that "sucks" has equaled Norris' ES production this year...

For the record, Lindhom absolutely does suck based on his current contract and usage. And there shouldn't be any debate there. And why are we only concerned about ES production? Lindholm has been given every opportunity to score on the powerplay, playing with one of the game's best wingers, but hasn't be able to because he sucks offensively. So Lindholm isn't a player who is scoring well at even strength but isn't getting an opportunity on the powerplay. I get targeting those players.

I get a preference for even strength production, but the Canucks actually need both even strength and powerplay production. Losing JT Miller, who was a PP driver, hurts, and we need to find away to replace that production.

Over the last 5 years, Norris has a 32 EVP average (89EVPs/230GP) and Lindholm has a 41 EVP average (176EVPs/350GP).

Looking back five years is an obviously bad comparison when one player is 25 and one player is 30. Like, how is it fair to compare Lindholm's "prime" years, to Norris "pre-prime years". Why do we care that Lindholm, at like 29 years old, outscored Norris at 21 years old?

We can actually reasonably expect Norris' production to improve while the opposite is true with Lindholm.

Per P/G rate, Lindholm beat Norris last year (0.65 to 0.60) and is losing this year (0.51 to 0.62).

Doesn't seem overly significant.

If Lindholm sucks, Norris must also suck?

Again, if you ignore contract status and age and powerplay points? Ok?

Then add the LTIR probability...

To be fair, I am not even advocating Norris, necessarily. Its a huge risk. And I don't like the idea of LTIR anyway. I just made the point that there is at least a possibility of LTIRetiring Norris , if the injuries continue and are significant, which would be a far better outcome than having Lindholm score 30-40 points as your third line centre for the next 6 years at around 8 million dollars per year.

 

[VanillaCoke]

What's that over there?

That's the ship and it's sailed.

Agreed..
I dont want him or zad back, but definitely over Josh surgery norris if we're trying to win games.

The Lindholms sucks neg value narrative is a clown take, and quite prevalent around here.

 

[Vector]

Agreed..

But the Lindholms sucks neg value narrative is a clown take, and quite prevalent around here.

He absolutely is negative value. There's really no argument or debate about it. No team would take on his contract.

 

[Just A Bit Outside]

I know he's more of a winger but I'd want to see if there is a deal to be had based on a Mercer for Boeser swap.

 

[Hodgy]

Agreed..
I dont want him or zad back, but definitely over Josh surgery norris if we're trying to win games.

The Lindholms sucks neg value narrative is a clown take, and quite prevalent around here.

A clown take is that a 30 year old Lindholm, scoring at a 40 point pace, and signed for another six years at close to 8 million, has negative value?

But a good take was that Miller was going to return Miro Heiskanen?