SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

Mitch_in_Vic

Member Since
Mar. 3, 2017
Favourite Team
Vancouver Canucks
2nd Favourite Team
Vancouver Canucks
Forum Posts
190
Posts per Day
0.1
Forum: Armchair-GMMar. 12, 2019 at 7:38 p.m.
Thread: Offersheet thoughts
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Juice</b></div><div>The threshold will move in the offseason. The compensation categories are dependent on average league salary...so it's likely that a 2nd round pick would be the compensation up around the $4.5m mark.

In any event...if a GM wants him they'll almost certainly need to trade for him.</div></div>
The dollar-value compensation point is really irrelevant considering the leafs aren't likely to be able to afford 4mil, let alone 4.5mil, for Kapanen with all the things they will need to address in the offseason.

And I agree, the "SMART" moves for the leafs is to trade him at the draft if they can. If they cannot, then all bets are off and I fully expect any team willing to burn the leafs future trade potnetial will make that move... So basically EVERY Canadian team (except Edmonton) and just about everyone in the Atlantic Div. If Toronto is asking a lot for Kap, and they certainly should, do you really think a GM will willingly overpay to get him when most know that an offer sheet and a 2nd will steal him from the leafs?

JP, on the other hand, is really down on value so Edmonton is probably going to get a pretty skint return on any trade offers. And, well, Edmonton has proven they lack the ability to make the smart moves. So, they might be complacent and wait on getting him locked up enough to expose him to an offer sheet. He is also certainly not worth 4-4.5mil x 1-2yrs in Edmonton, or anywhere... but there are far worse signings (usually by the Canucks or Edmonton) on July 1, so why not?
Forum: Armchair-GMMar. 12, 2019 at 12:52 p.m.
Thread: Offersheet thoughts
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Linlan</b></div><div>learn how offer sheets works then try again</div></div>
Enlighten me, oh wise one! :rolleyes:

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>palhal</b></div><div>It would be very foolish for the Leafs not to sign their RFAs. Now if they are over the cap they can trade one, maybe two of their players and they are cap compliant. Certainly they don't have to trade Kapanen off their Leaf roster. Could be one of about 20 players.</div></div>
The leafs have to lock up and address other major pieces and holes as well. A trade would certainly be the smarter move for the leafs because they won't have enough to sign Marner and either sign or replace Gardiner AND sign Kapanen to a fair value contract unless he takes a very favourable deal.

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>ItWasIn</b></div><div>Puljujarvi is in the neighbourhood of Curtis Lazar in terms of production at the end of his ELC and you want to pay him 4 mill?</div></div>
The Canucks are willing to pay older players with far less potential $3-4mil on longer terms, so why not waste similar money on a former 4th overall just 3 years ago. The point is to force the other team to choise between matching the offer and letting him walk for a 2nd rounder because they cannot or do not want to match the offer. An offer of 1-2.5mil would probably get matched and would still be possible to fit in under the cap for the oil.

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Juice</b></div><div>If the leafs don't have Kapanen signed leading up to July 1st you don't think there will be 15 GM's thinking about an offer sheet and getting him for a 2nd? Any GM that actually wants him will be orchestrating a trade prior to July 1st instead of risking waiting and losing him to another team.

Also...you couldn't offer sheet 2 players that require the same compensation as the draft pick HAS to be your own</div></div>
Actually, I fully expect that and I also half expect there might be a team that would give him more than the 4.059mil threshold and return a 1st and 3rd.
Yes, it has to be your own pick, I just used the other pick to show compensation, should have been more explicitly clear about that. BUT, it doesn't have to be BOTH, one or other is more what I'm suggesting.
Forum: Armchair-GMMar. 7, 2019 at 4:12 p.m.
Thread: anybody know how to get rid of Lucic Russell Manning - serious comments only
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>ricochetii</b></div><div>Vancouver might have worked, but I think he burned his hometown bridge in a number of ways. Buffalo is the next best thing if you can get them to bite for Okposo.
Anything else and you're probably giving up hefty assets.</div></div>

There are plenty of idiots that wanted him in Van for 6x6 when he signed in Ed... I was in the building when Lucic hoisted the Memorial cup and even have a signed Giants Jersey by him. BUT.... I don't want to see him in a Vancouver uniform, even if it meant the Canucks could be rid of Eriksson and Beagle...
Eriksson's NMC expires July 1, so they can bury him in the minors or just bench him for a 1/2 season to force him to return to Sweden, something he is rumoured to be thinking about doing already without the embarrassment of getting benched or buried. They can then trade his cap hit to get him off the books.
Beagle has value, but it would require the Canucks retaining probably 1/3-1/2 his salary to make a hockey traded out of it. Beagle at 1.5-2mil/yr has value, Beagle at 3mil is almost as worthless as Lucic/Eriksson @ 6...
Forum: Armchair-GMMar. 6, 2019 at 7:29 p.m.
Thread: anybody know how to get rid of Lucic Russell Manning - serious comments only
Straight up. I think it would cost JP and either a 2019 2nd or 2020 1st to take Lucic outright.
That contract is a massive boat anchor around their neck.

Vancouver is in the same sorts with Eriksson, but one less year on the deal. I think those 2 contract signings have scared off every GM in the NHL from signing one of those stupid Signing bonus-loaded contracts with UFAs or anyone ever again. too much risk and no outs.


One option I could see as the best way of giving up little and even getting something back is if Edmonton bought out Lucic and traded his "buyout against the cap" to another team... if that is even possible? A team Like the Yotes or Canes might be interesting in absorbing that buyout hit on the cap if Edmonton foots the monetary value of the deal. Such a thing would probably return an asset or 2 vs costing an asset or 2. The actual cost to buy him out is only like $5mil, it's the caphit that is terrible.

If Edmonton doesn't figure something out, I'd really like to see Vancouver offersheet JP @ $4mil*2yrs and something similar to Kapanen on TO. No way either team can match and make the moves they need to stay relevant. Only costs the Canucks a 2nd round in compensation for either, and both are much less risky moves than giving Beagle or Roussel 3x4
Forum: Armchair-GMMar. 1, 2019 at 7:28 p.m.
Thread: Interesting option on Edler and offseason moves
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Watty1</b></div><div>I think that is an interesting point on Boeser.
For everything else here is what I would do.
For Edler...
Hughes...
Demko...
Pearson/Baertschi/Leivo...
Sutter...
Eriksson...

Dobson...</div></div>
So we are basically on the same page with everything. the idea on Brock was Just that, he hasn't plaid a full season yet and has hit slumps in the latter parts of both seasons, so it's hard to tell if it is him jumping out ahead of the other team's inability to get a read on and contain him, or if he is getting into his own head. the fact that EP has sort of hit the same wall, even though he's still quietly putting up points, suggests it could be the former and not the latter for both.

Hughes will get a start this year if he decides to do it, and the Canucks will happily burn a year of his ELC if it means they have a real puck-mover on the back end. I think with the emergence of Hutty and Stetcher this year, coupled with Hughes being able to transition right away, will take a LOT of pressure off Edler to be "THE guy." I think all 3-4 players factor into the Edler contract situation. Honestly, at 2.5*6yr, I'd be happy with Edler in the 5-6-7th man slots as he winds down his career and in the 3-4 slot over the next couple of seasons. As we have seen recently, there are a lot worse defensemen out there making more than even an Edler at 60% of what he is now. He's great in the room by all accounts, is a leader and mentor to the younger players. Insulating him with sheltered minutes like they are/were giving Pouliot/Guddy, I think the Canucks could do a lot worse in the final 4 years of a 6yr deal at 2.5. And at 2.5, the Canucks will probably be able to eat half a season of him as a healthy scratch to force him into retirement or buy him out.
As far as Hutty goes, he's improved a lot, but it's still only one season since he was almost dropped from the NHL. While he has Arb rights, he might also be willing to take a 1yr contract if he can prove he's a 6+mil over 4-6yrs sort of guy vs a 4-year @3-5mil guy. How management approaches/spins the situation could dictate reality.

Goldy deserves a 1yr to prove himself after a serious summer of training and reflection.
I like that deal for Demko.

Pearson/Baertschi/Leivo are all the same player basically at this point, i'd even lump Motte, Granny, Schaller and Spooner in that group. Leivo probably has the most upside, is the youngest next to Motte and isn't going to command more than 1.5 over the next 3-4seasons if we lock him up now. Baer has the highest trade value, while Spooner and Pearson probably have the least. I think we could get a decent retrun on Baer at the draft, maybe a 3rd or 4th. I'm not sure what Motte, Granny and Schaller would even return, maybe a 6-7th? I think we could sit on Pearson for another year, maybe get his value up by parking him with Bo and hope they can get some chemistry going. I'd keep Pearson and Leivo and trade the rest for some fresh jockstraps or whatever they return and make space for some younger players.

Sutter has to go, but he's worth nothing. he is always broken and he has all the offensive upside of a potatoe in a tomb. When he's not broken, he is still good on the draw and defensively, but he'd need a team or a dedicated line that plays a grind-you-down style to be effective in today's NHL. Yotes?

Eriksson... At this point, I'm happy to keep him. I hate his contract, but so does everyone else. Until he submits his NTC lists in 20/21, there is nothing we can do. However, I think he will have decent trade value in 20/21+ on a 30-50% retained salary deal. Maybe they could even get him to waive his NTC next year at the deadline if there is an offer from a contender. I'm sure he knows he's getting dealt the moment he submits that NTC list in 20/21.

Dobson, hey you can hope. ;)
My point was we need to package up some players and aggressively go after a high-quality defensive prospect on a team that is looking to make a push and has cap space.

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Booyah</b></div><div>I would prefer shorter term for Edler. he's going to be bottom pairing in a couple years</div></div>
Sure but at 2.5. would you take 60% Edler over Pouliot at 1.1? or a Guddy at 4? or a Sbisa at 3.25? or MDZ at 3?
As i said before, at 2.5*6yr, I'd be happy with Edler in the 5-6-7th man slots as he winds down his career and in the 3-4 slot over the next couple of seasons. Do you really think he is above Hutty or Stetcher in the depth chart for next year? As we have seen recently, there are a lot worse defensemen out therethan even an Edler at 60% of what he is now, making more than what I'm suggesting. He's great in the room by all accounts, is a leader and mentor to the younger players. Insulating him with a sheltered 12-15 minutes/game like they are/were giving Pouliot/Guddy, I think the Canucks could do a lot worse in the final 4 years of a 6yr deal at 2.5. And at 2.5, the Canucks will probably be able to eat half a season of him as a healthy scratch to force him into retirement oreven just buy him out.
Forum: Armchair-GMFeb. 27, 2019 at 1:37 a.m.
Forum: Armchair-GMJul. 11, 2018 at 5:05 a.m.
Thread: Moves to make room for younger players
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>palhal</b></div><div>.
Since you do not seem to recognize any of the other teams in the NHL besides the Leafs and Canucks, it would be rather futile to try to instruct you about 29 other squads. Also, you don't seem to even appreciate what the Leafs needs are, that makes you knowledgable of just one team in the NHL at most. Your best option would be a Vancouver to Vancouver trade</div></div>

WTF are you even talking about?
You really struggle with reading comprehension, don't you?
First and repeatedly you were too dense/ignorant to notice 50% retained on the original trade, and yet kept banging away on a "4.4 caphit" like some cantankerous old ******* repeating the same tire "back in my day..." story over and over again. And now you are unable to see that I completely removed the Leafs from my trade list.
So you are right, I am unable to see beyond two teams despite having multiple trading partners listed. Funny how you are the only one in here who doesn't get it.
I will continue to enjoy watching the Leafs get bounced in the first round. Always fun watching Boston trounce the compost just to piss off insipid Leafs fans like yourself. :awesome
Forum: Armchair-GMJul. 10, 2018 at 12:06 a.m.
Thread: Moves to make room for younger players
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>palhal</b></div><div>Laughable? Don't think you understand the cap. </div></div> I understand the cap just fine. Yes having tradable assets is never a bad thing, but having to trade key assets to make room for contracts of other key assets does not always generate positive results.
My point was trades are not always instantaneous improvements for either team, especially if they are moving out key younger pieces. Yeah, you might get a great return for one of those key younger players, but those returns might be 1-3years away from having a big impact, or the key roster players do not add value on the ice like hoped. Trades do not always work out, and not every team gets better as a result of a trade is all I was staying.



<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quote:</div>Let's imagine the Leafs have cap issues, because they have signed to some players to big by deserved contracts and then more players like Grundstrom, Dermot and Liljegren deserve raises that but the Leafs over the cap. Yes it is very possible the Leafs would have to make a trade. But as I wrote, having too many good players that are tradable is not a problem.</div>
See above.

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quote:</div>Admitting if Marner, Nylander or Matthews are not living up to their contracts then that is a problem getting rid of cap of overpriced players. But that's the nature of cap league. Leafs couldn't afford JVR and Bozak so they left as UFAs, but the Leafs took that 11.75m that two players received and spent on one player the 11m Tavares.</div> No kidding? Wow. The leafs got Tavares? When did this happen? :sarcasm

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quote:</div>Maybe that's a good reason to keep Liljegren and his 900,000 salary instead of the 4.4, Tanev it helps the Leafs cap. At least Leafs would get cap relief when Tanev is on IR</div>
RTFD I posted, 50% retained, not a 4.4 cap hit. But you are right, 900k&lt;2.2mil... But Liljegren might be a miss, or a shadow of expectations considering he hasn't played a NHL game yet. How did Tyler Biggs work out for the Leafs, considering they moved up in the draft to specifically take him.

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quote:</div>Fact is that Leafs are still in development mode with their roster this year. Johnston and Kapanen, Dermot, Borgman maybe Ozhignov and Sparks are rookies or near rookies. To think the Leafs have to win in all now when their two of best players Matthews and Marner are entering a third year, is just false. </div>

If they do not start winning soon, they will have a lot of expensive young talent locked up and not a lot of room to make the moves needed to put them over the top. If you look at the true dynasties, Both Kane and Toews were in their 3rd year and Keith and Seabrook were in their 5th years when they won the cup for the first time; Sid, Letang, Malkin and Fleury were in their 3rd years and lost in the finals and won in their 4th. Doughty and Quick were basically both in their 4th years and 5th years respectively. There are lots of teams who build great rosters year after year and fail to win or take almost 12 years to win *cough*CAPS*cough* or even never do.

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quote:</div>I just wish Canucks fans could have the ingenuity to trade Tanev to another team to show his value, but again it seems to the Leafs or nothing. If that's the case (in the real NHL), the Leafs have all the leverage in making a deal. It's similar to the Karlsson of Ottawa. If EK only want to sign with Tampa, so Sens don't have much trade leverage in getting a sign and trade done with Tampa</div>
Maybe they do, maybe Canucks fans have Tunnel-vision and are fixated on Liljegren. I think a Liljegren-Juolevi pairing would make an amazing potential #1a pairing in a few years, with Hughes-Woo #1b pairing for the Canucks.

Are there other prospects on other teams that could fit the same bill, sure. But virtually no other team has as good of a fit for Tanev in terms of organizational need, now, and a high-end prospect that is not already a major part of the team and future. Most other options would see MORE pieces of lower quality coming back because of lack of depth with that trading partner. But by all means, show me where you think Taneve would work and there would net a quality return?

As much as you are tired of that trade scenario, suggest a better one rather than ***** about it. :P