Popular Post spook007 Posted June 30 Popular Post Share Posted June 30 (edited) 2 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said: Sure, the market will dictate itself. If someone wants to pay Zadorov $6 million and Lindholm $8 million all the power to them. It doesn’t mean we should pay it regardless what assets we traded for them. At the end of the day, we acquired them for our playoff run. If you want to call them rentals so be it. JR said he wanted to reward the team. Lindholm and Zadorov were the rewards. If Demko and Boeser are healthy for game 7 maybe we are in the cup finals. At some point you need to take the shot. So we did. Now we have to plan for next season and beyond. Allvin doesn’t want to overpay these guys based on his value. He even said that in his interview. So I don’t think you should be second guessing him right now because quite frankly you don’t know his next shot. You and I don’t know what he has planned next. When free agency is over then we can analyze what he did and can make an assessment at that time if he did well or not. This..... And thank god they did.... it was the most fun and excited this fan base has been since 2012, despite the lock down play offs... It made us all believe again... Just look at the amount of posts that has been written this offseason, despite us not picking in the 1st 3 rounds... We may or may not like/understand management's decision on various players, but they gave us hope... no reason to believe they won't do that again... Anf yes, with a healthy Demko and Brock available in game 7, we might have been playing Panthers in the finals instead... Who would have thought that possible a year ago except Alf and perhaps Apollo, wherever he is now... Edited June 30 by spook007 2 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentSam Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 3 minutes ago, Dizzle said: Never been a top 4 fixture in his life, But will be now after ten years in the league…. I’m not buying it. Even if (and that’s a big if) he did become that, you don’t pay for what a 29 year old player might become. You pay for what they’ve been. 4.5 would have been a generous offer. By the sounds of it they went as high as 5. Loved Zad, but have no problem letting him walk at that price. Some players into their prime early in age, some later . So how does your argument work in regards to signing EP40? can you explain your quote: ”you don’t pay for what a 29 year old player might become. You pay for what they’ve been. ” Declining asset im presuming. Fear Factors 2.0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coryberg Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 1 hour ago, Canuck You said: Kinda seems like PA and JR already put their foot down, I would be shocked if Z gets what he wants here...PA seems like a no none sense type of guy that moves on quick. Yeah there were some shots fired in that presser. He basically pointed the finger towards Z saying that he didn't want to stay in Vancouver, that he couldn't overpay him and it's about the team and not individuals. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzle Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 3 minutes ago, SilentSam said: Some players into their prime early in age, some later . So how does your argument work in regards to signing EP40? can you explain your quote: ”you don’t pay for what a 29 year old player might become. You pay for what they’ve been. ” Declining asset im presuming. Fear Factors 2.0 I'm actually not certain what you're trying to say... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook007 Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 (edited) 2 hours ago, RWJC said: Agreed, just remember this though because it’s part of the total equation and result of just two trades (not taking into account cap space provided as mentioned) without ANY returning asset retained. OUT: Lindholm Zadorov Kuzmenko Brzustewicz Jurmo 2024 first-round Conditional 2024 fourth-round pick 2024 5th round 2026 3rd round That’s a large price tag for …? It was actually a decent gamble... like every single attempt is... And lets see who comes in, as the cap space left open should be counted the other way, I guess? Imagine if Demko had stayed healthy? better than average chance we take 1 of the 4 we lost against Oilers... and the rest would be history... Edited June 30 by spook007 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coryberg Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 3 minutes ago, SilentSam said: Some players into their prime early in age, some later . So how does your argument work in regards to signing EP40? can you explain your quote: ”you don’t pay for what a 29 year old player might become. You pay for what they’ve been. ” Declining asset im presuming. Fear Factors 2.0 EP is 4 years younger than zadorov and has already had a 100+ point season playing over 20 minutes a game. Horrible comparison. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 1 hour ago, spook007 said: Does anyone know, what Zad wanted? has it been rumoured or anything? I also wanted him to stay, but I don't want us to be out of the FA players, just because we don't know a number on Zad... The 'we ran out of time' still ring in the ears... If anything this management group has done very little wrong... so lets see, what their plan is next... We've been soft for like the last 15-20 years, so the culture change was great... hopefully we are not back to being lambs to the slaughter, with QH and Petey to fend for themselves again... Monday can't come soon enough, as this is tearing fans apart... It is out there that they maxxed out at $5 million with some decent term. That is the right walk away price point. He is probably a $4 million dollar guy if you take the entire season and not just the playoffs into consideration., add some intangibles and popularity to that. It isn’t more than $5 million. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentSam Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 10 minutes ago, Coryberg said: EP is 4 years younger than zadorov and has already had a 100+ point season playing over 20 minutes a game. Horrible comparison. Lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bh90 Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 4 hours ago, NoCupSyndrome said: Haven't heard much about him, are there rumors on where he is expected to go? Utah? Rumors has it Capitals but at his stage of his career I'd assume he'd want to go to a contender There's been no news with him to Vancouver so that makes it likely in my opinion. Not much leaks from this front office 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook007 Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 Just now, Provost said: It is out there that they maxxed out at $5 million with some decent term. That is the right walk away price point. He is probably a $4 million dollar guy if you take the entire season and not just the playoffs into consideration., add some intangibles and popularity to that. It isn’t more than $5 million. I saw the reports of $5M offered... I'm not sure, I saw anything on term though, as that might also have played a factor? If Zad wanted 7-8 years and or NTC etc they may have backed off... I am not going to pretend, I know, what value his contract should be, but management have done excellent up to now in almost everything they've done, so I don't see, why they can't continue to do so.... In saying that, they had a unicorn size wise, which we've been starved off for a long time... A big physical D man that could actually skate and play... Will be interesting to see how, and if they can replace him... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentSam Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 Here we go, distractions and comparisons: Guentzel . The Canucks distraction : Tanev. a 34 yr old top 4 Dman .. getting 6 years perhaps .. can’t wait to see the meal ticket : Who is left after the posturing and distraction: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentSam Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 Necas may not be available: Or maybe Montour .. and I can’t wait to see that number: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWJC Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 (edited) 24 minutes ago, spook007 said: It was actually a decent gamble... like every single attempt is... And lets see who comes is, as the cap space left open should be counted the other way, I guess? Imagine if Demko had stayed healthy? better than average chance we take 1 of the 4 we lost against Oilers... and the rest would be history... Fair enough. My logic is this though…you shouldn’t have to pay to create cap space come Free Agency unless it’s a bad contract (eg. Mik). If you manage it correctly your assets hold value until you simply let them walk. Were we in a position to at least beef up the team for a better chance? Yep! but then if thats the case shouldn’t we have made a stronger pitch for someone who we believed had a better chance of remaining with the club (eg. a Toffoli) and that we could afford to extend? As a GM your job is to produce the best club you can with minimal collateral damage as possible along the way. We traded multiple assets for rentals, assets that for us were already in short supply. To that end, we should have at least recouped something lasting (other than playoff experience) if there was at very least a question of whether we could afford the rentals’ extension altogether. What we traded for we still have need for. If the plan was to pursue substitutes perhaps we should have done that at the time? i don’t like using hindsight in a debate so I’m not suggesting that return is the inherent problem, I just wish we had pursed players we intended to immediately extend. Sure it’s hard to gauge how they will perform, but it’s the same risk entering Free Agency, no? Had we pivoted differently perhaps we would have potentially at least retained tradable assets. Not anymore. anyway, just an opinion. can’t wait until Monday to see what shakes out! Edited June 30 by RWJC 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junkyard Dog Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 1 minute ago, SilentSam said: Necas may not be available: Or maybe Montour .. and I can’t wait to see that number: I thought I heard that Necas wanted out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 3 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said: I thought I heard that Necas wanted out? More importantly, why are we listening to some rando named Taj? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted June 30 Author Share Posted June 30 2 hours ago, RWJC said: Agreed, just remember this though because it’s part of the total equation and result of just two trades (not taking into account cap space provided as mentioned) without ANY returning asset retained. OUT: Lindholm Zadorov Kuzmenko Brzustewicz Jurmo 2024 first-round Conditional 2024 fourth-round pick 2024 5th round 2026 3rd round That’s a large price tag for …? By not re-signing Lindholm to $8 million and Zadorov to $6 million, we opened up $14 million in cap space to sign other players. How much did it cost to move Mikheyev? How much is $14 million in cap space worth? I’d argue it’s worth pretty much all of the assets we gave up. Also, if we turn around and sign Guentzel and Dillon for that freed up cap space of $14 million, we still got assets for what we gave up no? What does it matter if we re-signed Lindholm or Guentzel? What if we had traded all those guys for Guentzel instead of Lindholm and then re-signed him? It’s the exact same thing. Cap space allows you to acquire assets for free instead of having to make a trade. It’s just as valuable as draft picks and prospects. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWMc1 Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 5 minutes ago, RWJC said: Fair enough. My logic is this though…you shouldn’t have to pay to create cap space come Free Agency unless it’s a bad contract (eg. Mik). We traded multiple assets for rentals, assets that for us were already in short supply. To that end, we should have at least recouped something lasting (other than playoff experience) if there was at very least a question of whether we could afford the rentals’ extension altogether. What we traded for we still have need for. If the plan was to pursue substitutes perhaps we should have done that at the time? i don’t like using hindsight in a debate so I’m not suggesting that return is the inherent problem, I just wish we had pursed players we intended to immediately extend. Would have potentially at least helped us retain tradable assets. Not anymore. I think from management's perspective that Kuzmenko didn't fit our system and was struggling. If we kept him and he kept struggling, we would have had to try and move both Kuzmenko and Mikheyev. That would have put us in an even worse cap situation. By trading for Lindholm, we moved Kuzmenko's cap out and gave ourselves a chance at re-signing Lindholm; who fits our style better. If Lindholm doesn't re-sign then we gain the cap space. I personally did not like the deal and thought the only way it was worth it is if Lindholm re-upped. The only other positive is that it sends a clear signal to our team and potential acquisitions that this management group will do what it takes to contend for the Cup. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck You Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 13 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said: I thought I heard that Necas wanted out? My GF wanted out also and now I look down in a ditch and tell her It rubs the lotion on it's skin... Can't always have what you want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucks curse Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 24 minutes ago, SilentSam said: Here we go, distractions and comparisons: Guentzel . The Canucks distraction : Tanev. a 34 yr old top 4 Dman .. getting 6 years perhaps .. can’t wait to see the meal ticket : Who is left after the posturing and distraction: 1. Canucks will even have interest in JG at 10 unless they can get toff and Chandler for a total of 10 or thereabouts- which is a pipe dream 2. EF doesn’t know anything Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentSam Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 24 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said: I thought I heard that Necas wanted out? that could be posturing too ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWJC Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 2 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: By not re-signing Lindholm to $8 million and Zadorov to $6 million, we opened up $14 million in cap space to sign other players. How much did it cost to move Mikheyev? How much is $14 million in cap space worth? I’d argue it’s worth pretty much all of the assets we gave up. Also, if we turn around and sign Guentzel and Dillon for that freed up cap space of $14 million, we still got assets for what we gave up no? What does it matter if we re-signed Lindholm or Guentzel? What if we had traded all those guys for Guentzel instead of Lindholm and then re-signed him? It’s the exact same thing. Cap space allows you to acquire assets for free instead of having to make a trade. It’s just as valuable as draft picks and prospects. no, see this is the crux of my argument. We are going to pay more for players that we need because we are pursuing them through free agency. We aren’t picking up guys with 2-3 years left of term, we aren’t at liberty to pursue whomever we choose that is rostered by any of the 32 clubs…we are at mercy of what’s available to market at what will be the higher end of pricing. This is the time of year where salaries inflate in the NHL and set forth an increase for the following season as on paper comparables. To claim we’ve created cap space is redundant. What we’ve done is burned a number of draft picks just to have the option to extend players, which we tried and failed to do and will now replace because we couldn’t get them to agree to terms. how does that nullify where we are? It doesn’t. If we don’t retain the players we acquire in trade we lose out TWICE on value. There is no guarantee we can replace them adequately through Free Agency unless we’ve attempted to tamper and know exactly who can obtain and at what cost. my point is we are in no way shape or form a team that should be enlisting rentals when our asset pool is already very limited. We should have pursued players we perceive we can afford to extend, even if they raise their value through us, and done so so that we at least have an opportunity to recoup assets that went out the door if we decide to trade out what we just brought in. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook007 Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 (edited) 34 minutes ago, RWJC said: Fair enough. My logic is this though…you shouldn’t have to pay to create cap space come Free Agency unless it’s a bad contract (eg. Mik). If you manage it correctly your assets hold value until you simply let them walk. Were we in a position to at least beef up the team for a better chance? Yep! but then if thats the case shouldn’t we have made a stronger pitch for someone who we believed had a better chance of remaining with the club (eg. a Toffoli) and that we could afford to extend? As a GM your job is to produce the best club you can with minimal collateral damage as possible along the way. We traded multiple assets for rentals, assets that for us were already in short supply. To that end, we should have at least recouped something lasting (other than playoff experience) if there was at very least a question of whether we could afford the rentals’ extension altogether. What we traded for we still have need for. If the plan was to pursue substitutes perhaps we should have done that at the time? i don’t like using hindsight in a debate so I’m not suggesting that return is the inherent problem, I just wish we had pursed players we intended to immediately extend. Sure it’s hard to gauge how they will perform, but it’s the same risk entering Free Agency, no? Had we pivoted differently perhaps we would have potentially at least retained tradable assets. Not anymore. anyway, just an opinion. can’t wait until Monday to see what shakes out! Totally get what you're saying amigo. I think management figure this was the team they could assemble, that would have thee biggest chance of going all the way... so they went all in... And tbf had they succeded, I doubt anybody would have cared about tomorrow PS. They may have intended to extend the players, just not at the numbers they were wanting. Edited June 30 by spook007 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucks curse Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 36 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said: I thought I heard that Necas wanted out? He does EF doing EF things again yes people are wondering this but that’s logical he wants out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWJC Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 10 minutes ago, RWMc1 said: I think from management's perspective that Kuzmenko didn't fit our system and was struggling. If we kept him and he kept struggling, we would have had to try and move both Kuzmenko and Mikheyev. That would have put us in an even worse cap situation. By trading for Lindholm, we moved Kuzmenko's cap out and gave ourselves a chance at re-signing Lindholm; who fits our style better. If Lindholm doesn't re-sign then we gain the cap space. I personally did not like the deal and thought the only way it was worth it is if Lindholm re-upped. The only other positive is that it sends a clear signal to our team and potential acquisitions that this management group will do what it takes to contend for the Cup. Totally agree. Just a very expensive price to pay to do so. Kuz and EP had chemistry. Had mgmt convinced RT to relent a bit perhaps we could have vaulted Kuz’s value way back up and even retained a back up plan option for EP if all else fails. Instead we paid to move him out. Now we’ve also paid to let two top Free Agents walk to market value contracts…contracts we have to replace for what will likely amount to more than what we would want to pay to obtain their services. Speculation on my part but we shall see. Hope I’m totally wrong. There’s a reason we’re stuck pursuing UFAs. We don’t have trade capital and we’re certainly not going to pay the upcoming increased market value for any lesser quality player to come in via trade. We have some cap space but limited options with it. That’s the reality now. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junkyard Dog Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 3 minutes ago, canucks curse said: He does EF doing EF things again yes people are wondering this but that’s logical he wants out I mean he could see the potential implosion of the Canes with losing so many key FAs. Just a guess though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.