HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Notices

Cap Permutations for Next Season's D Corps

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-15-2011, 07:52 AM
  #51
Jay Cee
P4G
 
Jay Cee's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,692
vCash: 500
This is the dilemma of a acquiring an elite player. You have to "overpay" in the sense of overall assets. Sometimes it works out that the assets you trade don't turn out making you the easy winner, sometimes it is even and sometimes you end up losing.

If Nashville made weber available you can be sure there would be lots of teams lining up to take that risk. I don't see how our potential package is sexy any other way without Edler as we do not have a key forward available that Nashville would probably also like quite a bit in such a deal.

Jay Cee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2011, 10:03 AM
  #52
LeftCoast
Registered User
 
LeftCoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,164
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waveburner View Post
Agreed. I just don't get it. I do agree with LeftCoast's sentiment that Samuelsson can be extremely frustrating to watch for some stretches during the season, but what do you expect for $2.5 million UFA? UFA's are almost always on bad contracts but somehow Samuelsson is on one of the biggest steal UFA contracts in the league and it's still not good enough.

Plus being 34 with one year left on his deal he won't be bringing much back in a trade. Way more valuable to the Canucks IMO.

Canucks will have to replace Torres up front this offseason anyways so I don't think opening a new hole is a good idea when we are trying to win a Cup. Hopefully Higgins plays well and wants to stay to replace Torres-fits perfectly in the age group with the core.
I don't make the suggestion to trade Samuelsson lightly. He's a proven playoff performer, and an experienced veteran who fits very well on the team (and a refreshingly honest interview to boot).

However, when I look at the cap decisions in the off-season, it will be very difficult to re-sign both Ehrhoff and Bieksa with Hansen also being due an RFA raise (also keep in mind, we likely won't be starting the year with $3.5M on LTIR, so we are going to need some cap space for injuries). In the grand scheme of things, I think it would be preferable to keep our veteran depth on defense and try to replace Samuelsson's production internally.

When I look at replacing a player or role, I see a number of forwards who can replace Samuelsson's productions. Hansen, Higgins or even Tambellini could slide up onto the 2nd line. One of Hodgson, Sweatt, Schroeder or Shirokov (if re-signed) is likely to make the team next year on the 3rd line. I also expect Raymond to have a bounce back season. I also expect a full year out of Burrows, so his production will likely increase.

But on defense, only Keith Ballard is really in a position to take a much bigger role than he has this year. I'm impressed with what I have seen from Chris Tanev, and Yann Sauve and Ryan Parent are probably close to NHL ready. But none of our young defenders are ready to play the tough minutes that Bieksa does and none are able to move the puck the way Ehrhoff does.

LeftCoast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2011, 10:22 AM
  #53
Kagee*
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,094
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftCoast View Post
But none of our young defenders are ready to play the tough minutes and none are able to move the puck the way Ehrhoff does.
Wholeheartedly agree! there is a fan page to re-sign Ehrhoff.

Too much offensive wizardry to let him go, Gillis must re-sign him.

And to balance it out, a big, tough defensive Dman has to be acquired as well.

Kagee* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2011, 11:00 AM
  #54
kanuck87
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,199
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftCoast View Post
When I look at replacing a player or role, I see a number of forwards who can replace Samuelsson's productions. Hansen, Higgins or even Tambellini could slide up onto the 2nd line. One of Hodgson, Sweatt, Schroeder or Shirokov (if re-signed) is likely to make the team next year on the 3rd line. I also expect Raymond to have a bounce back season. I also expect a full year out of Burrows, so his production will likely increase.

But on defense, only Keith Ballard is really in a position to take a much bigger role than he has this year. I'm impressed with what I have seen from Chris Tanev, and Yann Sauve and Ryan Parent are probably close to NHL ready. But none of our young defenders are ready to play the tough minutes that Bieksa does and none are able to move the puck the way Ehrhoff does.
only Higgins has ever had a 50-point season, and that was a long time ago. If we're going to discuss 2nd line options, those options have to have a reasonably good chance of hitting the 50-point mark, and none of the ones you brought up inspire enough confidence in me to part with Samuelsson.

What's wrong with keeping Samuelsson and Ehrhoff, letting go of Bieksa and signing a cheaper option like Montador? You're way over-prioritizing the need for a 5th d-man that you're willing to play a bottom-6 forward as one of our top-6.

If you want to talk about roles, a 50-point second line winger is much more important than a 13-16 minute 3rd pairing defenseman in general terms.

kanuck87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2011, 12:26 PM
  #55
mikeymike79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 108
vCash: 500
Is trading Ballard then signing the Hoff and Bieksa an option?

mikeymike79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2011, 12:30 PM
  #56
VanEric
Registered User
 
VanEric's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeymike79 View Post
Is trading Ballard then signing the Hoff and Bieksa an option?
Sure but getting both signed to reasonable contracts seems like wishful thinking.

VanEric is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2011, 04:46 PM
  #57
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 16,677
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyatt4God View Post
This is the dilemma of a acquiring an elite player. You have to "overpay" in the sense of overall assets. Sometimes it works out that the assets you trade don't turn out making you the easy winner, sometimes it is even and sometimes you end up losing.

If Nashville made weber available you can be sure there would be lots of teams lining up to take that risk. I don't see how our potential package is sexy any other way without Edler as we do not have a key forward available that Nashville would probably also like quite a bit in such a deal.

I'm sure Nashville want Edler but at $3m+ more (ie Weber at $6.5m+), take this example using this years numbers, which package would you rather have

Edler, Coho, 1st, Malhotra, Torres, Lapierre, Higgins

Weber, Blizznak, Bolduc, Oreskovich, Rypien

me2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2011, 05:45 PM
  #58
monster_bertuzzi
registered user
 
monster_bertuzzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,574
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2 View Post
I'm sure Nashville want Edler but at $3m+ more (ie Weber at $6.5m+), take this example using this years numbers, which package would you rather have

Edler, Coho, 1st, Malhotra, Torres, Lapierre, Higgins

Weber, Blizznak, Bolduc, Oreskovich, Rypien
Option #1 quite obviously.

monster_bertuzzi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2011, 06:39 PM
  #59
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,203
vCash: 500
I think we are very likely to see a D corps of Hamhuis, Edler, Bieksa, Ehrhoff, Salo, Albets and Rome next season. I say that because Gillis has shown that he keeps the players he wants. First, he only wants players that are about winning and the team and second he has created the culture that he originally talked about. Players want to play here even if it means talking the 10-20% shave that he demands.

I think if Ehrhoff decides he doesn't want to tow the party line Gillis will drive him to the airport and keep Ballard. Otherwise I think Ballard is on his way out. AV has earned enough rope to have some input on the roster and he obviously isn`t a Ballard fan.

I don`t see the Bieksa signing being a problem based on him wanting to be here, his standing with his teammates and coaches and his being the kind of player Gillis wants as far as character etc.

Salo is an interesting one. I`m guessing that he`ll take a discount and the Canucks would love to have him at the right price. He would no longer be a core player plus the team has the depth in young players to plan for the inevitible injurie(s).

I love that core going forward and imo they`re all still going to improve.

Scurr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2011, 07:46 PM
  #60
Waveburner
RIP Luc
 
Waveburner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In Morrison's house.
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,488
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftCoast View Post
I don't make the suggestion to trade Samuelsson lightly. He's a proven playoff performer, and an experienced veteran who fits very well on the team (and a refreshingly honest interview to boot).

However, when I look at the cap decisions in the off-season, it will be very difficult to re-sign both Ehrhoff and Bieksa with Hansen also being due an RFA raise (also keep in mind, we likely won't be starting the year with $3.5M on LTIR, so we are going to need some cap space for injuries). In the grand scheme of things, I think it would be preferable to keep our veteran depth on defense and try to replace Samuelsson's production internally.

When I look at replacing a player or role, I see a number of forwards who can replace Samuelsson's productions. Hansen, Higgins or even Tambellini could slide up onto the 2nd line. One of Hodgson, Sweatt, Schroeder or Shirokov (if re-signed) is likely to make the team next year on the 3rd line. I also expect Raymond to have a bounce back season. I also expect a full year out of Burrows, so his production will likely increase.

But on defense, only Keith Ballard is really in a position to take a much bigger role than he has this year. I'm impressed with what I have seen from Chris Tanev, and Yann Sauve and Ryan Parent are probably close to NHL ready. But none of our young defenders are ready to play the tough minutes that Bieksa does and none are able to move the puck the way Ehrhoff does.
A little OT, but man I wish Gillis has signed Hansen to two year contract last summer. He was willing and it would have kept him dirt cheap for next years cap. I realize he hadn't technically played a full season with Canucks, but he was clearly NHL material. Ah well, probably the only 'mistake' Gillis made and pretty small at that.

I agree that signing both Bieksa and Ehrhoff is likely impossible (unless they move Ballard, although doesn't he have a NMC? Highly doubt Gillis would ever ask him to waive it if so). Ehrhoff I want Gillis to keep at almost all costs. Powerplay QB's are at a premium in this league and you need to pay big dollars to keep them. Ehrhoff has a good record of staying healthy and seems to still be improving. I'm hoping for something around $5 million but it may take a little more than that. If Ehrhoff wants to maximize his payday though, he'll be gone. I don't think the Canucks can afford to pay Ehrhoff $6 million plus, but some teams with Cap space can.

I don't think Bieksa's any more or less likely to sign for a discount than Ehrhoff to be honest. Many seem to think he'll accept $4 million to stay but his PPG numbers are better than Hamhuis in his career, he's a RHS and will be coming off an excellent season. Bieksa would likely be looking at $5 million plus as a UFA considering how weak the crop on D is and the demand for quality vet D-men around the league. Even if he was willing to accept 'just' Hamhuis money, that would be too much for me considering how awful he was the previous three seasons.

I just think going into next season with Raymond as the only established scoring option for the second line wing is an extremely poor idea. Higgins needs to show he can be a contributing member for a team that doesn't suck again before anyone should expect offense from him. Hansen should not be on the second line unless there are injuries. Tambellini had his chance this season. I like the guy's game but he cannot be pencilled in anywhere. Hodgson is not a winger and should be eased into a prominent role on the team, not gifted one. Schroeder clearly needs AHL seasoning and while I like Shirokov, I don't think AV does. Sweatt? He looks like a decent find but it seems like a bit of a leap to be replacing Samuelsson.

I think you are severely overestimating the ability of the forwards you listed to replace Samuelsson. And while downgrading from Bieksa to a Montador-type would hurt, I think it would hurt less than downgrading a 50 point Samuelsson to the options listed.

I do think playoff performances will tell the final story, especially with Bieksa.

Waveburner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2011, 07:53 PM
  #61
Jay Cee
P4G
 
Jay Cee's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,692
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2 View Post
I'm sure Nashville want Edler but at $3m+ more (ie Weber at $6.5m+), take this example using this years numbers, which package would you rather have

Edler, Coho, 1st, Malhotra, Torres, Lapierre, Higgins

Weber, Blizznak, Bolduc, Oreskovich, Rypien
That is just picking random players though. It is not the consequence of what I am proposing. The defense budget under my idea is the same as this year and the cap is going up.

Yes you have to make tough choices some day in the cap world, but this is where good draft picks and signings go. I don't care how well you manage your salaries a deep, skilled team is bound to fall apart long term in the cap world. You just cannot have everything you want.

Jay Cee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2011, 09:01 PM
  #62
billvanseattle
Registered User
 
billvanseattle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: bellingham
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,948
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyatt4God View Post
Yes you have to make tough choices some day in the cap world, but this is where good draft picks and signings go. I don't care how well you manage your salaries a deep, skilled team is bound to fall apart long term in the cap world. You just cannot have everything you want.
This!

We have 14 signed for next year; and very little to pay anyone a significant salary like the Sedin's, who have proven that they were a steal.

For every player we sign at $3M+ we probably have to scrape the barrel for 2 -3 minimum wage players.

billvanseattle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2011, 10:13 PM
  #63
The Big Foot
Registered User
 
The Big Foot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Bhutan
Posts: 2,596
vCash: 500
It hasn't been mentioned enough around here that Bieksa's one good recent season came in his contract year. In the summer it was bandied around that he would play better cause of that, and lo and behold he has - maybe we should just be glad for what we've gotten out of him, hope he doesn't **** the bed in the playoffs, and plan around resigning Ehrhoff. I honestly think we could replace Bieksa with a solid more durable veteran (his injuries are a real problem).

I would be happy next year with a top four of Hamhuis, Ballard, Edler and Ehrhoff.

Between Rome, Tanev, Sauve, Parent, and Sweatt, we are covered for injuries and the #6 spot when everyone is healthy. That would leave a need for a veteran #5. If not Salo, then looking outside we could target guys like:
Scott Hannan
James Wisniewski
Jan Hejda
Radek Martinek

I honestly think next year Bieksa will be back to being Bad Bieksa, and we would be better saving a little money than giving him $4m if that's what he thinks he worth.

The Big Foot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2011, 11:57 PM
  #64
AmazingNuck
Registered User
 
AmazingNuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,126
vCash: 500
Bieksa is way too risky to re-sign IMO because he is a little injury prone and he has played terrible in some years. If he is anywhere above his current contract, I would let him walk. I would take Ehrhoff over Bieksa so long as the cap is less than 1.5m greater. However I think Gillid will be able to re-sign both. I hope Salo returns.. He has played extremely well and if the injuries haven't slowed him down that much, adding one year to his age shouldn't be much of a problem. Ideally all three would return and with a cap increase it isn't so unfeasible. However, if the option to upgrade Raymond into a better forward at the expense of cap and one of Ehrhoff/Bieksa, I say we take it.

AmazingNuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2011, 12:07 AM
  #65
The Big Foot
Registered User
 
The Big Foot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Bhutan
Posts: 2,596
vCash: 500
I'd be happy to see Bieksa back at ~3m but that's about it. Anything more I think is a mistake. People who think this guy deserves 4m+ after the three years of crap he gave us are crazy.

The Big Foot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2011, 12:17 AM
  #66
VanEric
Registered User
 
VanEric's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,344
vCash: 500
Sami Salo should sign for $1 million considering all the money this organization paid him to not play hockey. It would be interesting to know exactly how much money he earned here for games which he didn't play.

VanEric is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2011, 12:25 AM
  #67
The Big Foot
Registered User
 
The Big Foot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Bhutan
Posts: 2,596
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanEric View Post
Sami Salo should sign for $1 million considering all the money this organization paid him to not play hockey. It would be interesting to know exactly how much money he earned here for games which he didn't play.
Did you think that was a valid argument for Mitchell last summer? He missed just as much time as Salo during the four years he was here. Nobody ever seemed to think Mitchell owed us anything.

The Big Foot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2011, 12:25 AM
  #68
CpatainCanuck
Registered User
 
CpatainCanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,691
vCash: 500
Ballard at 4.2 million a season is a huge waste if he's going to be played like a 5th or 6th defenceman. If we was traded and replaced by Tanev the canucks could give nice raises to both Ehrhoff and Bieksa with money left over.

CpatainCanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2011, 12:36 AM
  #69
The Big Foot
Registered User
 
The Big Foot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Bhutan
Posts: 2,596
vCash: 500
I think Ballard will be better than Bieksa for the next few years and beyond. I personally think Ballard has been great lately - it's not all just about ice time.

The Big Foot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2011, 01:00 AM
  #70
Kagee*
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,094
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Big Foot View Post
I think Ballard will be better than Bieksa for the next few years and beyond. I personally think Ballard has been great lately - it's not all just about ice time.
It's exactly why Ehrhoff should be re-signed and Bieksa can be let go, as Ballard will take over his duties for the long run.

And it enables the Canucks to keep some quality forward depth.

Kagee* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2011, 01:40 AM
  #71
kanuck87
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,199
vCash: 500
I don't see the need to bring back both Ehrhoff and Bieksa. Eventually, we're going to need to find room for guys like Tanev, Sauve, and Parent, who aren't that far away from being NHL regulars. Bring back Alberts, and sign a short-term stopgap like Montador as our bottom-pairing. When our prospects are ready for full-time jobs in the NHL, then they won't be blocked by players who have long-term contracts and some sort of a NTC.

kanuck87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2011, 09:20 AM
  #72
The Big Foot
Registered User
 
The Big Foot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Bhutan
Posts: 2,596
vCash: 500
I think if we ever see our top 8 healthy this year (highly unlikely) this will go as an epic dream season of defensive depth. Eight NHL veterans.

The Big Foot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2011, 12:22 PM
  #73
VanEric
Registered User
 
VanEric's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CpatainCanuck View Post
Ballard at 4.2 million a season is a huge waste if he's going to be played like a 5th or 6th defenceman. If we was traded and replaced by Tanev the canucks could give nice raises to both Ehrhoff and Bieksa with money left over.
Our 5th is often a 4th or 3rd and sometimes 2nd given the injuries every year.

VanEric is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2011, 01:18 PM
  #74
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 8,869
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanEric View Post
Our 5th is often a 4th or 3rd and sometimes 2nd given the injuries every year.
You'd think people would be more amenable to this fact at this point of the season when the Canucks haven't had a fully healthy Top 6/7 once (and won't until, potentially, the playoffs). And yet here we are having the same ridiculous conversation again. It was bad enough having Tanev/Sauve/Oberg in the line-up at the same time -- imagining adding yet another AHLer to that mix because we decided to go cheap on our #5 defenseman. Yikes!

Proto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2011, 05:17 PM
  #75
Jarko2004
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 809
vCash: 500
I don't know, I think the Canucks have proven they can get by with (and remain comparable to other elite teams) with a cheaper D such as a 5,6,7 of Alberts, Tanev, and Rome (because he's signed anyway). Renew Alberts for about the same (1.3). Then only sign one of Erhoff or Bieska (obviously you still need solid injury depth).

That will leave space to bring back salary (for a forward or D) in a Schneider trade. In a perfect world, Luongo would get traded and Schneider and a cheaper veteran would carry on. Unfortunately that will never happen. Next best option would to have Luongo/Schneider all next season. But then they lose Schneider's future value for nothing. A trade would seem inevitable.

Resign Hansen at a raise (1.3?). Hodgeson needs to play in the NHL on a top 3 line whether they're Stanley Cup contenders or not. That would almost certainly mean not at centre. Torres goes simply because they don't need him. Many would still like to see Raymond replaced.

In any case the Canucks seem to be in good shape going forward. How about the first and only salary cap dynasty!

Jarko2004 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:16 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.