SalarySwishSalarySwish
Forums/Armchair-GM

Upgraded top 4 bottom 6 backup means playoffs

Created by: Reason
Team: 2023-24 Vancouver Canucks
Initial Creation Date: May 30, 2023
Published: May 31, 2023
Salary Cap Mode: Basic
Description
I posted a similar Chicago trade yesterday and had overall positive feedback on value (at least for a Capfriendly trade) . Decided to add a few additional pieces going to Chicago to see how it's received.
Free Agent Signings
RFAYEARSCAP HIT
3$3,000,000
1$800,000
UFAYEARSCAP HIT
2$2,000,000
2$1,500,000
3$2,500,000
1$2,000,000
3$3,000,000
Trades
1.
VAN
ANA
  1. Myers, Tyler
Additional Details:
After signing bonus is paid.
2.
VAN
  1. Murphy, Connor
  2. 2023 1st round pick (TBL)
CHI
  1. Boeser, Brock
  2. Rathbone, Jack
  3. 2023 1st round pick (VAN)
  4. 2023 3rd round pick (TOR)
DraftRound 1Round 2Round 3Round 4Round 5Round 6Round 7
2023
Logo of the TBL
Logo of the VAN
Logo of the VAN
Logo of the DET
Logo of the NYR
Logo of the VAN
2024
Logo of the VAN
Logo of the VAN
Logo of the VAN
Logo of the NJD
Logo of the VAN
Logo of the VAN
Logo of the VAN
2025
Logo of the VAN
Logo of the VAN
Logo of the VAN
Logo of the VAN
Logo of the VAN
Logo of the VAN
Logo of the VAN
ROSTER SIZESALARY CAPCAP HITOVERAGES TooltipBONUSESCAP SPACE
23$83,500,000$78,433,750$850,000$850,000$5,066,250
Left WingCentreRight Wing
Logo of the Vancouver Canucks
$5,500,000$5,500,000
LW, RW
M-NTC
UFA - 2
Logo of the Vancouver Canucks
$7,350,000$7,350,000
C, LW
UFA - 1
Logo of the Vancouver Canucks
$4,150,000$4,150,000
RW, LW
UFA - 1
Logo of the Vancouver Canucks
$4,750,000$4,750,000
LW, RW
M-NTC
UFA - 3
Logo of the Vancouver Canucks
$8,000,000$8,000,000
C, LW, RW
NMC
UFA - 7
Logo of the Vancouver Canucks
$4,950,000$4,950,000
RW, LW
UFA - 3
$2,500,000$2,500,000
LW, C
UFA - 4
$2,000,000$2,000,000
C
UFA - 2
Logo of the Vancouver Canucks
$925,000$925,000 (Performance Bonus$850,000$850K)
RW, LW
RFA - 1
Logo of the Vancouver Canucks
$825,000$825,000
LW
UFA - 1
Logo of the Vancouver Canucks
$883,750$883,750
C
RFA - 1
$1,500,000$1,500,000
LW, C
UFA - 1
Left DefenseRight DefenseGoaltender
Logo of the Vancouver Canucks
$7,850,000$7,850,000
LD
UFA - 4
Logo of the Chicago Blackhawks
$4,400,000$4,400,000
RD
M-NTC
UFA - 3
Logo of the Vancouver Canucks
$5,000,000$5,000,000
G
UFA - 3
$3,000,000$3,000,000
LD/RD
UFA - 3
Logo of the Vancouver Canucks
$4,400,000$4,400,000
RD
RFA - 1
$2,000,000$2,000,000
G
UFA - 1
Logo of the Vancouver Canucks
$2,250,000$2,250,000
LD
UFA - 1
Logo of the Vancouver Canucks
$3,000,000$3,000,000
RD
UFA - 2
ScratchesInjured Reserve (IR)Long Term IR (LTIR)
Logo of the Vancouver Canucks
$775,000$775,000
LD
UFA - 2
Logo of the Vancouver Canucks
$3,250,000$3,250,000
LW
UFA - 1
Logo of the Vancouver Canucks
$775,000$775,000
LD
UFA - 2
Logo of the Vancouver Canucks
$2,500,000$2,500,000
RD
UFA - 2
Logo of the Vancouver Canucks
$800,000$800,000
LW, RW
RFA - 2

Embed Code

  • To display this team on another website or blog, add this iFrame to the appropriate page
  • Customize the height attribute in the iFrame code below to fit your website appropriately. Minimum recommended: 400px.

Text-Embed

Click to Highlight
Jun. 1, 2023 at 12:23 a.m.
#1
Blackhawks Faithful
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jan. 2018
Posts: 646
Likes: 411
Sorry Hawks don't need another small LD.
Hawksguy81 liked this.
Jun. 1, 2023 at 12:46 a.m.
#2
Thread Starter
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2020
Posts: 1,576
Likes: 732
Quoting: RicXX
Sorry Hawks don't need another small LD.


Rathbone is the least desirable piece in the package, he's not a make of break piece in the deal.
Garak liked this.
Jun. 1, 2023 at 12:51 a.m.
#3
Big Shoots
Avatar of the user
Joined: Sep. 2020
Posts: 3,570
Likes: 1,087
Interesting trade idea. I do really hate the idea of trading down when at 11 you almost guarantee yourself a good solid player. After 15 its a guessing game.
Reason liked this.
Jun. 1, 2023 at 12:59 a.m.
#4
Thread Starter
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2020
Posts: 1,576
Likes: 732
Quoting: BigShoots
Interesting trade idea. I do really hate the idea of trading down when at 11 you almost guarantee yourself a good solid player. After 15 its a guessing game.


I agree, I usually put way more weight into draft importance than most, but I would be ok with it this year for a couple reasons:

- Deep draft.
- Moving cap from a position of relative strength to a position of weakness.
- Team has committed to being competitive next season.
- Murphy could be a good partner for Hughes and would add another top 4 to a blueline that desperately needs improvement.

If they made a trade like this, RD goes from their biggest weakness last season to one of their biggest strengths after the Hronek trade and another top 4 addition.
Garak liked this.
Jun. 1, 2023 at 8:57 a.m.
#5
Avatar of the user
Joined: Nov. 2022
Posts: 8,060
Likes: 9,628
Hawks decline. Adding the 3rd and Rathbone isn't enough for the Hawks to part w/ Murphy. See my comments from your previous post. Rathbone doesn't move the needle at all for Hawks (which you basically said above). Adding a late 3rd doesn't make this an overpay to me.
RicXX liked this.
Jun. 1, 2023 at 11:38 a.m.
#6
Avatar of the user
Joined: Dec. 2021
Posts: 402
Likes: 119
Quoting: BigShoots
Interesting trade idea. I do really hate the idea of trading down when at 11 you almost guarantee yourself a good solid player. After 15 its a guessing game.


Not with this draft though!

In terms of ability, there's a very clear top 5:

Bedard, Fantilli, Carlsson, Michkov, & Smith.

Then another 4 consensus top 10 players:

Reinbacher, Danielson, Dvorsky, Leonard.

After that it's a crap shoot, teams will 100% have one of the below ranked in the top 10, whereas other teams don't even have them in their top 20!

Samuel Honzek
Colby Barlow
Danil But
Tom Willander
Dmitry Simashev
Gabe Perreault
Matthew Wood
Brayden Yager
Zach Benson
David Edstrom
Oliver Moore
Axel Sandin-Pelikka

The Canucks trading down to 19th would guarantee a choice of one of the above, with there being a very good chance we had that player close to 11th in our list anyway!
Jun. 1, 2023 at 1:06 p.m.
#7
Big Shoots
Avatar of the user
Joined: Sep. 2020
Posts: 3,570
Likes: 1,087
Quoting: Turkish_Canuck
Not with this draft though!

In terms of ability, there's a very clear top 5:

Bedard, Fantilli, Carlsson, Michkov, & Smith.

Then another 4 consensus top 10 players:

Reinbacher, Danielson, Dvorsky, Leonard.

After that it's a crap shoot, teams will 100% have one of the below ranked in the top 10, whereas other teams don't even have them in their top 20!

Samuel Honzek
Colby Barlow
Danil But
Tom Willander
Dmitry Simashev
Gabe Perreault
Matthew Wood
Brayden Yager
Zach Benson
David Edstrom
Oliver Moore
Axel Sandin-Pelikka

The Canucks trading down to 19th would guarantee a choice of one of the above, with there being a very good chance we had that player close to 11th in our list anyway!


I don't see it like that at all. Even your "other 4" group is just odd. And the rest is way too big of a group. Simashev is a 2nd rounder on many board. ASP is an undersized pp qb which Canucks don't need. A ton of wingers there too. Canucks do not need a winger.
Jun. 1, 2023 at 1:12 p.m.
#8
Big Shoots
Avatar of the user
Joined: Sep. 2020
Posts: 3,570
Likes: 1,087
Quoting: Reason
I agree, I usually put way more weight into draft importance than most, but I would be ok with it this year for a couple reasons:

- Deep draft.
- Moving cap from a position of relative strength to a position of weakness.
- Team has committed to being competitive next season.
- Murphy could be a good partner for Hughes and would add another top 4 to a blueline that desperately needs improvement.

If they made a trade like this, RD goes from their biggest weakness last season to one of their biggest strengths after the Hronek trade and another top 4 addition.


I think the depth is in tiers though, and 11 is different than 19.

I wouldn't be opposed to trading down for the right move but Murphy I just don't see him as that good. Im not an expert on him but ive never been overly impressed. Advanced numbers don't look too great.

Agree we need another top 4 dman though.

It's not a terrible option. But I'd be looking to improve in different ways first.
Jun. 1, 2023 at 9:55 p.m.
#9
Thread Starter
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2020
Posts: 1,576
Likes: 732
Quoting: Turkish_Canuck
Not with this draft though!

In terms of ability, there's a very clear top 5:

Bedard, Fantilli, Carlsson, Michkov, & Smith.

Then another 4 consensus top 10 players:

Reinbacher, Danielson, Dvorsky, Leonard.

After that it's a crap shoot, teams will 100% have one of the below ranked in the top 10, whereas other teams don't even have them in their top 20!

Samuel Honzek
Colby Barlow
Danil But
Tom Willander
Dmitry Simashev
Gabe Perreault
Matthew Wood
Brayden Yager
Zach Benson
David Edstrom
Oliver Moore
Axel Sandin-Pelikka

The Canucks trading down to 19th would guarantee a choice of one of the above, with there being a very good chance we had that player close to 11th in our list anyway!




Quoting: BigShoots
I don't see it like that at all. Even your "other 4" group is just odd. And the rest is way too big of a group. Simashev is a 2nd rounder on many board. ASP is an undersized pp qb which Canucks don't need. A ton of wingers there too. Canucks do not need a winger.


Apparently PA is very high on ASP. I personally hope he isn't on the board when it's Vancouver's turn.

The team has committed to being competitive now, and that needs to be taken into consideration during the draft. If they want to be competitive now they are going to have to wager or at least risk the future. Normally I would be completely against that, I have been saying they need to rebuild for years, but I think they have committed to much already. They cant keep trying to "retool on the fly", they need to commit to a single vision, rebuild or compete; they have chosen to compete.
Jun. 1, 2023 at 10:16 p.m.
#10
Big Shoots
Avatar of the user
Joined: Sep. 2020
Posts: 3,570
Likes: 1,087
Quoting: Reason
Apparently PA is very high on ASP. I personally hope he isn't on the board when it's Vancouver's turn.

The team has committed to being competitive now, and that needs to be taken into consideration during the draft. If they want to be competitive now they are going to have to wager or at least risk the future. Normally I would be completely against that, I have been saying they need to rebuild for years, but I think they have committed to much already. They cant keep trying to "retool on the fly", they need to commit to a single vision, rebuild or compete; they have chosen to compete.


For sure but Boeser wouldn't be my cap dump player if I am moving down. I prefer to trade him for a similar level project. And Murphy probably wouldn't be my guy either if the cost is trading down that many picks.
Reason liked this.
Jun. 1, 2023 at 10:19 p.m.
#11
Thread Starter
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2020
Posts: 1,576
Likes: 732
Quoting: Hawksguy81
Hawks decline. Adding the 3rd and Rathbone isn't enough for the Hawks to part w/ Murphy. See my comments from your previous post. Rathbone doesn't move the needle at all for Hawks (which you basically said above). Adding a late 3rd doesn't make this an overpay to me.


I read your previous post and respect your opinion. I agree Rathbone isn't much of a needle mover, however he was a top 50 prospect last year and had some injuries this season, so I figured he would be a C+-B- prospect a team may have interest in.

I think the value is fair. I don't think Vancouver would be willing to significantly overpay for a second pair D that has only been healthy once in the last five seasons, especially with the amount of middle pair D available in this years UFA class. The argument I have seen from Chicago fans is that he is a good locker room guy, if the team wants to rebuild and accumulate as many picks/prospects as possible there are plenty of good veteran locker room guys they can acquire as UFA's. If it's a no go I am just as happy to have the trade to be what many are predicting: swapping firsts Chicago adding a second and taking back a player, Vancouver can then go spend the 4.4M Murphy makes on a solid top 4.
Hawksguy81 liked this.
Jun. 1, 2023 at 10:22 p.m.
#12
Thread Starter
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jul. 2020
Posts: 1,576
Likes: 732
Quoting: BigShoots
For sure but Boeser wouldn't be my cap dump player if I am moving down. I prefer to trade him for a similar level project. And Murphy probably wouldn't be my guy either if the cost is trading down that many picks.


I agree, Boeser wouldn't be my top choice either, but I figure he would likely be easier to move because most other teams are probably thinking the same thing. I think Boeser could be a decent with with Bedard, much better than any other current option Chicago has.
Jun. 2, 2023 at 12:33 a.m.
#13
Big Shoots
Avatar of the user
Joined: Sep. 2020
Posts: 3,570
Likes: 1,087
Quoting: Reason
I agree, Boeser wouldn't be my top choice either, but I figure he would likely be easier to move because most other teams are probably thinking the same thing. I think Boeser could be a decent with with Bedard, much better than any other current option Chicago has.


For sure. From their POV they can just look around the whole league and take cap dump players like Boeser whilst adding picks. If you actually go all in on a rebuild you can do it so quickly. As for Boeser if someone gave us a 2nd Id be ok moving him. Seems pitiful from what he was but he just doesn't seem mobile enough. That said because of his family stuff im happy to give him a chance if we are just gonna get stiffed in a trade.
Reason liked this.
Jun. 2, 2023 at 3:41 a.m.
#14
Avatar of the user
Joined: Dec. 2021
Posts: 402
Likes: 119
Quoting: BigShoots
I don't see it like that at all. Even your "other 4" group is just odd. And the rest is way too big of a group. Simashev is a 2nd rounder on many board. ASP is an undersized pp qb which Canucks don't need. A ton of wingers there too. Canucks do not need a winger.


This isn't my opinion, this is a consensus mainly from the Athletic and TSN. The 'odd' other 4 group is 4 players who will categorically go in the top 10, watch this space.
Jun. 2, 2023 at 2:13 p.m.
#15
Big Shoots
Avatar of the user
Joined: Sep. 2020
Posts: 3,570
Likes: 1,087
Quoting: Turkish_Canuck
This isn't my opinion, this is a consensus mainly from the Athletic and TSN. The 'odd' other 4 group is 4 players who will categorically go in the top 10, watch this space.


So you have a top 5 + 4 and categorically none of them will be available at 11. Have you watched recent NHL drafts? There will be 2 off that board quite likely in 10 picks.

And when your final group includes players ranked in the 2nd round and outside the top 10 of european skaters in Simashev you have to say the trade down for 11 to 19 is a huge deal.

Which part do you think is consensus? 4 you rate after top 5? or the 12 after that or both? Elite prospects aggregates about 15 lists and they're all quite different after 5.
 
Reply
To create a post please Login or Register
Question:
Options:
Add Option
Submit Poll