Drive-By Body Pierce Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 Canucks and Nikita Zadorov resume contract talks: Nearing an agreement https://www.canucksdaily.com/nhl-team/vancouver-canucks/canucks-and-nikita-zadorov-resume-conversation-nearing-an-agreement 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_Hawk Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 Just now, Bob Long said: or a Mik trade/buyout, which would give us 22 mil left to work with this year. That would just be the icing on the cake in my opinion; the extra zing to get a better winger. Ideally, we resign Zad LT, Myers on a ~2.5m 2 yr deal, find a FA winger for Petey, and resign Lindholm...that's ideal. If Lindholm is out of the question, get a better winger for Petey and resign Blueger to get that C depth. Then....start pushing the dev of Willander, Petterson (D), and Lekkermaki; they are our LT future 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 Just now, BC_Hawk said: That would just be the icing on the cake in my opinion; the extra zing to get a better winger. Ideally, we resign Zad LT, Myers on a ~2.5m 2 yr deal, find a FA winger for Petey, and resign Lindholm...that's ideal. If Lindholm is out of the question, get a better winger for Petey and resign Blueger to get that C depth. Then....start pushing the dev of Willander, Petterson (D), and Lekkermaki; they are our LT future I like Lindy a lot, but it seems like he'll be getting silly offers from out east that we can't match. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 Getting close. 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_Hawk Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Bob Long said: I like Lindy a lot, but it seems like he'll be getting silly offers from out east that we can't match. Agree. Either of the two below scenarios would work for me to be honest Lindholm + Toffoli type Geuntzel + Stephenson I actually prefer the second, IF Tanner were reasonable. That guy is a PO machine. Then, make a trade for a Sam Bennett type.....now we are talking! Guentzel -Stephenson-Petey Bennett Type-Miller-Beoser Podz-Suter-Garland PDG-Aman-Bains/Karllson Hughes-Hronek Zad-Myers Soucy-Juulsen Friedman Demko Silovs Now that is a GREAT lineup. Lots of swiss army knifes. Can it be done...not sure, but its not out of question. Edited June 21 by BC_Hawk 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBatch Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 (edited) 13 minutes ago, BC_Hawk said: Agree 100% with what you're saying, but we need a bridge there; we can't simply wait for him to dev. Suter, Podz, Lafferty, etc are NOT top 6 players. We need to solidify the Top 6 before improving the D in my opinion. It's a pickle. Taking from Peter to pay Paul sort of thing. Was nice having a defense (after a freaking decade) you could be proud of. So yikes no thanks to Del Zotto, Hutton, Stretcher, Gubdranson era in the top four again. Or even anything but the 6-7th D. We have guys in Abby at least. Allvin said that there are 5 or 6 guys looking at the big jobs. Who they are, well Lekkermaki, Wolanin, Brisbois obvious guys. Karlsson maybe too. Thing is, no D's that move the needle (Willander isn't next year). Zadorov and Myers are easy. Bring them both back. Don't bring Cole back. Still a massive upgrade on what we've gotten used to the past decade. And still leaves money to do one guy in the top six Edited June 21 by IBatch 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrJockitch Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 28 minutes ago, IBatch said: Yep. Soucy or Zadarov likely need to play their off-side. And there is one more UFA (Dillion?) in the equation. Can still get EP his winger. If it's Guentzal, then Garland is likely the cost. I would take that trade off, especially if we can get some sort of asset for Garland. May be more prudent to get assets for Garland and to see what Mik has after a full season of recovery from destroying his knee instead of burning a tonne of assets to get rid of him, especially if he moves to bottom six. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_Hawk Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 1 minute ago, IBatch said: It's a pickle. Taking from Peter to pay Paul sort of thing. Was nice having a defense (after a freaking decade) you could be proud of. So yikes no thanks to Del Zotto, Hutton, Stretcher, Gubdranson era in the top four again. Or even anything but the 6-7th D. We have guys in Abby at least. Allvin said that there are 5 or 6 guys looking at the big jobs. Who they are, well Lekkermaki, Wolanin, Brisbois obvious guys. Karlsson maybe too. Thing is, no D's that move the needle (Willander isn't next year). Zadorov and Myers are easy. Bring them both back. Don't bring Cole back. That's the thing; I thought our D in 2023/24 was really good; best in a decade. In addition, we have a couple dev guys that will hopefully be pushing next year (Petterson and Willander). As such, lets us the resource to plug the huge void at Fwd. Outside of Lekkermaki, we have no Top 6 guys in the pipe. I'd cheap out on the bottom 6 (use inhouse guys vs resigning Blueger) to add fire power in top6. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_Hawk Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 (edited) 8 minutes ago, DrJockitch said: I would take that trade off, especially if we can get some sort of asset for Garland. May be more prudent to get assets for Garland and to see what Mik has after a full season of recovery from destroying his knee instead of burning a tonne of assets to get rid of him, especially if he moves to bottom six. So trade a guy that was our most consistent player in 23/24 to add depth to an already good D, while keeping a 4.75m anchor and hoping some FA magic beans work out? Any suggestions that include moving Garland that don't include getting a GREAT player back aren't worth discussing. Just dump Mik.....add a draft pick (1st or 2nd) OR retain 1m for 3 yrs. We just need to be rid of him, and geting tied to $ over 4 years in a buyout is not the answer. Edited June 21 by BC_Hawk 2 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKSR Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 7 minutes ago, DrJockitch said: I would take that trade off, especially if we can get some sort of asset for Garland. May be more prudent to get assets for Garland and to see what Mik has after a full season of recovery from destroying his knee instead of burning a tonne of assets to get rid of him, especially if he moves to bottom six. Then if Mik doesn't bounce back? Then what? We would have a bottom 6 that generates nothing. Always try and maintain your competitive advantage. One of ours is having Garland being an offensive driver for the 3rd line. The guy puts up 40 to 50 points playing in that role. Not much more you can ask of him or the 3rd line in general. 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck You Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKSR Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 2 minutes ago, Canuck You said: Me in the office right now: 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Vanderhoek Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 43 minutes ago, Bob Long said: true. I guess I'd prefer something like this to forcing more guys to their off side Hughes-Roy Z- Hronek Soucy-Myers Yes please! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandmaster Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 Be nice if we traded for Jake Guentzel, give em a 4th or something. That way you know how much is left for Big Z before free agency Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 2 minutes ago, Grandmaster said: Be nice if we traded for Jake Guentzel, give em a 4th or something. That way you know how much is left for Big Z before free agency sign and trade would be ideal, get it to 8 years to keep the AAV down a bit 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrJockitch Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 (edited) 23 minutes ago, BC_Hawk said: So trade a guy that was our most consistent player in 23/24 to add depth to an already good D, while keeping a 4.75m anchor and hoping some FA magic beans work out? Any suggestions that include moving Garland that don't include getting a GREAT player back aren't worth discussing. Just dump Mik.....add a draft pick (1st or 2nd) OR retain 1m for 3 yrs. We just need to be rid of him, and geting tied to $ over 4 years in a buyout is not the answer. That is trade a third line guy so that you can fit a star winger in to play with your best forward. I think I would be interested in that. Did we sign more D? We don’t have a good D atm. We have 4 NHL defencemen counting Juulsen. It is also trading a guy that might get you an asset back instead of trading a guy who will cost you assets to move and has been a very good player for you before a major injury. They have been trying to trade Mik, but not a lot of people want to take that on without a lot of juice. People forget that Mik-EP-Kuz were one of the better lines in the league briefly before he blew out his knee. Is he really a top 6 forward no, but could he be an effective forward in the bottom six and PKer, quite possibly. ‘I like Garland and thought he was great for us last year but at the same time he scores like a third liner, seemed to catch lightning in a bottle with Dak who is likely gone, makes $5M and doesn’t play either special teams. That is some tough salary utilization. So would I prefer to move Mik, yes. Do I want to trade Garland, no. Is this a perfect world where I can have everything I want, no unfortunately. Might moving Garland be the best (even if not preferable) option, quite possibly. Edited June 21 by DrJockitch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steviewonder20 Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 52 minutes ago, IBatch said: It's just the math. 50% more LHD's in the NHL than RHDs. Natural ones. On average that's two guys per team in the top six, playing their off-side. It's not the end of the world. As for Roy or Pesce. It's a choice. Prefer Zadorov. If we added one of those guys too, goodbye EPs wingman dreams but I wouldn't be sad either because wow, big upgrade in a D that finally had 6 NHL calibre guys again (not 7-8's with AHL guys up and down). Cole turned into Roy or Pesce and Myers back too? Sign me up. And well sorry EP. Wait for Lekkermaki. It looks like we can’t do it all this year, given our cap and the OEL money. If we have to choose between D and a winger, I agree we should lock down the best D corp we can afford long-term. Reading the tea leaves out there, it sounds like PA and Zads have already agreed on a number/term and his agent is patiently waiting for cap money to be freed up from a Mik trade, which might never happen. As incredible as it would be to land Guentzel, a top six winger might have to wait till next year and we probably have to dump both Garland and Mik to get there, as well as let DJ walk. . 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steviewonder20 Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 7 hours ago, IBatch said: 5.4 x 5 is his predicted UFA value. So guess we will see. That total amount goes down to 4.5 over 6 years. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_Hawk Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 3 minutes ago, Bob Long said: sign and trade would be ideal, get it to 8 years to keep the AAV down a bit True enough Bob; that extra year could mean all the diff....didn't think about that too much. In reality, assuming he is a 9m guy, that is 1m less per season for 8 vs 7 years. My guess is that's what will happen IF PA is truly sold on Jake, and that will go down shortly after Zad is locked up. PA will probably give Lindholm another shot too before making the trade. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jester13 Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 My prediction: Big Z: 6 years X 5AAV Guentzel: 7 years X 8AAV We now have a culture of core guys taking less to have a legit shot at the cup for the rest of their careers. I don't blame Joshua if he chases max bag because he's made fuck all throughout his career compared to others. I no longer underestimate Allvin & Co. LFG. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Baratheon Posted June 21 Popular Post Share Posted June 21 48 minutes ago, Drive-By Body Pierce said: Canucks and Nikita Zadorov resume contract talks: Nearing an agreement https://www.canucksdaily.com/nhl-team/vancouver-canucks/canucks-and-nikita-zadorov-resume-conversation-nearing-an-agreement I interpret this as them having moved on from big Z. They’re just trying to save face. Mark Friedman signing is my evidence. 5 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drive-By Body Pierce Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 1 minute ago, Baratheon said: I interpret this as them having moved on from big Z. They’re just trying to save face. Mark Friedman signing is my evidence. That sounds so oddly familiar. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_Hawk Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 3 minutes ago, steviewonder20 said: It looks like we can’t do it all this year, given our cap and the OEL money. If we have to choose between D and a winger, I agree we should lock down the best D corp we can afford long-term. Reading the tea leaves out there, it sounds like PA and Zads have already agreed on a number/term and his agent is patiently waiting for cap money to be freed up from a Mik trade, which might never happen. As incredible as it would be to land Guentzel, a top six winger might have to wait till next year and we probably have to dump both Garland and Mik to get there, as well as let DJ walk. . Don't disagree, but we also need to look at what garde A talent we have simmering in our dev pool. Two D men that should push for a spot in a year or two One projected top 6 fwd. I know where I'd be looking to inject FA talent..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Vanderhoek Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 2 minutes ago, steviewonder20 said: It looks like we can’t do it all this year, given our cap and the OEL money. If we have to choose between D and a winger, I agree we should lock down the best D corp we can afford long-term. Reading the tea leaves out there, it sounds like PA and Zads have already agreed on a number/term and his agent is patiently waiting for cap money to be freed up from a Mik trade, which might never happen. As incredible as it would be to land Guentzel, a top six winger might have to wait till next year and we probably have to dump both Garland and Mik to get there, as well as let DJ walk. . I see Blueger, Zadorov, and Myers back. Youve got potential for Friedman and Juulsen to conpete with an under 1m ufa depth dman for # 6. The team already stated they intend to fill some lower roster spots with internal competition and frankly thats what good teams do anyways. Blueger as a reliable bottom six center comes back and you fill one or two bottom six/depth spots with nicely seasoned and stewed youngsters from a pool of Raty, Bains, Karlsson, Sasson to name a few. You 100% have the ability and this IS the time to secure Guentzel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_Hawk Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 2 minutes ago, Jester13 said: My prediction: Big Z: 6 years X 5AAV Guentzel: 7 years X 8AAV We now have a culture of core guys taking less to have a legit shot at the cup for the rest of their careers. I don't blame Joshua if he chases max bag because he's made fuck all throughout his career compared to others. I no longer underestimate Allvin & Co. LFG. Agree, but think Bob is on to something; 8m x 8 years for Guentzel after a trade (4th or 5th rounder). Big Z may even get that 6th year to bring his cap to 4.75m 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.