Yes can easily see Descharnais sitting. Myers is a third pair dman. You just listed out a dcore that clearly needs a puck mover on the right side lol.
It’s not. It just seems likely, given Willander will probably play the full college season. Injuries tend to pile up more as the season wears on and if we are locked into a playoff spot, I could see them resting players, which would open up a spot for Willander to get a handful of games in.
While I think the team should probably just bite the bullet to move Poolman, trading him and a sweetener for Kulak seems like a good option too - get a big upgrade on Forbort/Juulsen while still likely banking a similar amount of money for the deadline.
Could the Canucks help the Oilers out of their offer-sheet pickle?
Might ex-Vancouver Giant Brett Kulak be a Vancouver Canucks target, now that the Edmonton Oilers are apparently resigned to trading him?theprovince.com
Yeah, I get why they’d lean that way, and it ultimately depends on what the ask is from other teams, but I think teams are often too conservative when it comes to those things. Sure, if you’re dealing your star player don’t send him to your competitor, but if you’re willing to give up a first/second and not get a sweetener from the Canucks just so the Canucks don’t get Brett Kulak you’ve lost the plot.
Ceci and Kulak are decent bottom-pairing defenders with 1 and 2 years left on reasonable contracts respectively. I frankly don't understand why they are thought to have negative value. Why wouldn't Chicago or Anaheim take one and see where the season goes/move them with retention for an asset later?
I think we are about to learn quickly how much of a help or hindrance that Stan Bowman will be.
Time crunch, sure. But they've been working on this 24/7 since they learned of the signings and plenty of teams need defence. The leverage thing only seems to be all that relevant when the player to be traded can't really play. At the very least, I think they'll find someone to take these players for far less than 1st/2nd round picks.
Not trying to be a jerk, but this is a few hard facts and a whole lot of sweeping, vague assumptions and porous logic, in my opinion. Do you think the Bruins would refuse to take a physical bottom-pairing defenceman capable of playing spot top-4 minutes who isn't under contract next season because it would push them close to the cap, when their forwards are set? Or the Senators, who could bury Hamonic if they needed? Chabot hasn't played a full season is years. It seems like you're looking for reasons to cross teams off the list rather then making a dispassionate assessment of whether they have a motive to acquire Kulak or Ceci.
Almost all of these players are worse and/or paid more. The imagined add-ons for Kulak and Ceci would be the least favourable of all of these moves were they to happen. Radek Faska was basically moved straight across and he's a 4th liner making 3.25M.
It’s August 16 and almost a month away from training camp. Most teams have their roster set and constructed to fit with the current cap space they have and would prefer to use that space combined with accrual to acquire a needle mover, both of which Ceci and Kulak aren’t. Other teams like Montreal, Anaheim etc already have a lot of depth and youth looking to make the push. Also, a lot of these teams already have Ceci/Kulak types. There’s also other teams that still need to sign their RFA’s like Detroit with Raymond and Seider.
To repeat myself, a lot of teams don't have these conditions and have a clear use for Ceci/Kulak types. And Montreal has 2-3 defencemen who have ever played a full season in the NHL.
Can you give examples going the other way then?
Who’s the “a lot” of teams? Vector put out a list of teams that have at minimum $2.75M of cap space.
