[Signing] Daniel Sprong to the Canucks

[Bretzky]

My only hope with this signing is if Sprong can become a younger and better version of Tanner Pearson(when healthy) in the forwards lineup this year….I’m ok with that for the price he signed for, and could be good I suppose!

Edited July 23 by Bretzky

[canuck73_3]

8 hours ago, LillStrimma said:

Well, you were one of those defending Jimbo back in the days when I was in the same position as Anthony is now.

I was blocked, picked on etc… 

 

But I talked about how bad Benning was.

 

Do you understand nowadays what I was talking about back then? 
Or is your mind still stuck with Dahlen? 

I don’t think Benning was terrible, never did. He had his strengths and his weaknesses. You’re too far the other extreme that you STILL can’t see passed a mediocre Swedish league player in Dahlen.

[canuck73_3]

25 minutes ago, Outsiders said:

Would you take a 2nd and 3rd for Garland? No cap coming back? I would! 

That is beyond stupid and cutting off your nose to spite your face stupid. Literally the best player on the best 3rd line in the league. Why are you guys so hell bent to move an important player on a line with fantastic chemistry? It makes ZERO sense. Especially after putting in the work to keep that line intact this off season. 

[Alflives]

25 minutes ago, HKSR said:

Why are you guys trying to trade Garland??  We have a very effective line in Joshua/Blueger/Garland that can play some hard minutes against top competition.  Why would we break that?

Maybe Sprong proves to be just as effective in that role as Garland? Then moving off Garland’s cap saves 4 per. Trading from a position of strength, like when we dumperood Fat Wallet. 

Edited July 23 by Alflives

[LillStrimma]

11 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:

I don’t think Benning was terrible, never did. He had his strengths and his weaknesses. You’re too far the other extreme that you STILL can’t see passed a mediocre Swedish league player in Dahlen.

You just showed that you’re stuck. 
You don’t think a scout was terrible as a GM. 
PA and JR has showed you how good it can be. 
 

I say as I said to Anthony… What areas as a GM was Benning good at?

Scouting isn’t in a GMs workload.

[Hogs and Podz]

57 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

I would say it might make Hoglander available more likely.

 

Can he be part of a package to land a top 4 D or upgrade in the top 6?

Hogs has more value than Podz so yah... Wouldn't be surprised if this ends up being the case.  

[Alflives]

Just now, LillStrimma said:

You just showed that you’re stuck. 
You don’t think a scout was terrible as a GM. 
PA and JR has showed you how good it can be. 
 

I say as I said to Anthony… What areas as a GM was Benning good at?

Scouting isn’t in a GMs workload.

Benning was great at doing what his owner wanted. 

[Coconuts]

28 minutes ago, HKSR said:

Why are you guys trying to trade Garland??  We have a very effective line in Joshua/Blueger/Garland that can play some hard minutes against top competition.  Why would we break that?

 

I don't think it's so much about folks actively advocating trading Garland so much as recognizing that if the Canucks are going to move out a larger salary, it'd probably he him. 

 

Why would we break that? Well, that depends entirely on who management wanted to acquire. If he's moved it's almost certainly to bring in a D. 

 

A somewhat less productive third line could probably be balanced by a stronger top six, and by overall better forward depth. 

 

Yeah, there's a very good chance we're done this offseason, but he's still the easiest larger salary to move out. 

[HKSR]

7 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Maybe Sprong proves to be just as effective in that role as Garland? Then moving off Garland’s cap saves 4 per. Trading from a position of strength, like when we dumperood Fat Wallet. 

 

1 minute ago, Coconuts said:

 

I don't think it's so much about folks actively advocating trading Garland so much as recognizing that if the Canucks are going to move out a larger salary, it'd probably he him. 

 

Why would we break that? Well, that depends entirely on who management wanted to acquire. If he's moved it's almost certainly to bring in a D. 

 

A somewhat less productive third line could probably be balanced by a stronger top six, and by overall better forward depth. 

 

Yeah, there's a very good chance we're done this offseason, but he's still the easiest larger salary to move out. 

Moving Garland wouldn't be my move.  We know he has strong chemistry with Joshua, and is one of the best play drivers on the entire Canucks roster.

 

What I would do is pay the 3rd round pick or so to move out Poolman's LTIR, and send PDG down to run a 22 man roster.  Let the cap accrue until about late November to early December where we will have a projected $4.5M in cap space to upgrade on Forbort. 

 

Then we let the $1.6M accrue until the TDL, at which time we will have a bit over $5M to work with ($6.6M if we looked for an upgrade on Suter).

 

Doing this, we upgrade our defence AND our top 6 without giving up Garland (a 50 point forward).  And we still have Sprong.

 

Moving out a 50pt Garland for a 65 to 70pt forward is only a 15 to 20 point increase.  Moving out Suter for a 65 to 70pt forward is a 30 to 40 point increase, not to mention the top 4 defenceman we added too. 

 

Bottomline, we need to be patient and acquire players at the right time to maximize our cap accruals.  There's a way to add a top 4 D and a top 6 F this season if we do this right.

[Coconuts]

2 minutes ago, HKSR said:

 

Moving Garland wouldn't be my move.  We know he has strong chemistry with Joshua, and is one of the best play drivers on the entire Canucks roster.

 

What I would do is pay the 3rd round pick or so to move out Poolman's LTIR, and send PDG down to run a 22 man roster.  Let the cap accrue until about late November to early December where we will have a projected $4.5M in cap space to upgrade on Forbort. 

 

Then we let the $1.6M accrue until the TDL, at which time we will have a bit over $5M to work with ($6.6M if we looked for an upgrade on Suter).

 

Doing this, we upgrade our defence AND our top 6 without giving up Garland (a 50 point forward).  And we still have Sprong.

 

Moving out a 50pt Garland for a 65 to 70pt forward is only a 15 to 20 point increase.  Moving out Suter for a 65 to 70pt forward is a 30 to 40 point increase, not to mention the top 4 defenceman we added too. 

 

Bottomline, we need to be patient and acquire players at the right time to maximize our cap accruals.  There's a way to add a top 4 D and a top 6 F this season if we do this right.

 

I get what you're saying, but it really depends on what management wants to do. 

 

I'm not too worried about Garland, we were 7th in goals scored last season and I reckon our overall depth scoring is probably better than it was. We'll see, but I really like our moves thus far. 

 

If there's a move out there to be made before next season begins I wouldn't be remotely surprised to see Garland go. There's something to be said for being a stronger team right out the gate. 

[filthy animal]

2 hours ago, Nucker67 said:

Thinking more about this signing, I think it was sneaky good. And at under a million for only 1-year.

 

JR/PA/RT all know what kind of player Sprong is. PIT drafted and developed him.

 

He's had a bit of a rough go his first few years in the pros, bouncing from the NHL to the AHL to the QMJHL, back tot he AHL and so forth. His last two seasons though, Sprong has seemed to turn a corner in SEA and DET. Just entering his prime (27) and being brought back into a familiar surrounding (management, coach, some players), they're putting him in a position to succeed at just the right time in his career. 

 

At $975,000, Sprong could turn out to be incredible value, especially if he clicks with Petey.

 

 

Its very low risk and provides good value. Even if Sprong scores 10 - 15 goals, 25 pts ish , nobody is going to complain. 

 

[DeNiro]

1 hour ago, Outsiders said:

Would you take a 2nd and 3rd for Garland? No cap coming back? I would! 

Nope.

 

A trade needs to make our roster better.

 

Simply trading Garland to gain cap space and thinking that will help us is wrong. 

[Provost]

1 hour ago, Coconuts said:

 

I don't think it's so much about folks actively advocating trading Garland so much as recognizing that if the Canucks are going to move out a larger salary, it'd probably he him. 

 

Why would we break that? Well, that depends entirely on who management wanted to acquire. If he's moved it's almost certainly to bring in a D. 

 

A somewhat less productive third line could probably be balanced by a stronger top six, and by overall better forward depth. 

 

Yeah, there's a very good chance we're done this offseason, but he's still the easiest larger salary to move out. 

Ya, the fact they arranged it so far to maximize Poolman’s LTIR to within $15k means they probably don’t plan on other moves unless something drops into their laps.

 

I think most people agree that the team is short a top six forward and a top four D to really cement into the top tiers of the league.  The only way to get one or both of those is to move out some salary.  If Heinen/Sherwood/Sprong can fill Garland’s role for less money… then he is really the only part you can move to make cap space.

 

Garland and Hoglander gone, and only running with a 21-22 man roster means you can get a player with about a $7 million cap.  I would rather do that in the offseason or early in the season rather than spending another draft class of picks of fill holes with rentals at the deadline.

 

I don’t think many folks consider that it is possible and even likely that the 3rd line doesn’t replicate its good half season of play from last year.  Joshua was a fringe NHL player and Garland could have been had for free the season before.  Progress isn’t linear and this could be the high water mark for them… same as Hoglander.

Edited July 23 by Provost

[Alflives]

Just now, DeNiro said:

Nope.

 

A trade needs to make our roster better.

 

Simply trading Garland to gain cap space and thinking that will help us is wrong. 

Not if Sprong proves he can play Garland’s minutes. Then we clear close to five off the cap moving Garland. That cap space can be used to get a guy like we did with Big Z last year on the cheap. 

[HKSR]

8 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

 

I get what you're saying, but it really depends on what management wants to do. 

 

I'm not too worried about Garland, we were 7th in goals scored last season and I reckon our overall depth scoring is probably better than it was. We'll see, but I really like our moves thus far. 

 

If there's a move out there to be made before next season begins I wouldn't be remotely surprised to see Garland go. There's something to be said for being a stronger team right out the gate. 

The counterargument would be that Garland already possesses immense chemistry with Joshua and Blueger.  If a quick and strong start is what we are looking for, it's not to acquire too many new guys so that the team is having to build chemistry before being a strong team unit.  My guess is Garland/Blueger/Joshua will be strong right out of the gate, and I think Suter will stay with Miller and Boeser to start for the same reason.  Eventually I could see Heinen or another making their way onto Miller's wing to have Suter back in a strong 4C role.

 

If we move Garland, we now have:

 

New Top 6 - Petey - New Top 6

New Top 6 - Miller - Boeser

New Middle 6 - Blueger - Joshua

New Bottom 6 - Suter - New Bottom 6

 

That would be all the lines, and half the forward group with new players.  Not the best way to be strong out of the gate. 

Keeping Garland and Suter where they are would ensure that 2 of the lines with strong chemistry are together to start the season.

[HarbularyBattery]

8 minutes ago, HKSR said:

The counterargument would be that Garland already possesses immense chemistry with Joshua and Blueger.  If a quick and strong start is what we are looking for, it's not to acquire too many new guys so that the team is having to build chemistry before being a strong team unit.  My guess is Garland/Blueger/Joshua will be strong right out of the gate, and I think Suter will stay with Miller and Boeser to start for the same reason.  Eventually I could see Heinen or another making their way onto Miller's wing to have Suter back in a strong 4C role.

 

If we move Garland, we now have:

 

New Top 6 - Petey - New Top 6

New Top 6 - Miller - Boeser

New Middle 6 - Blueger - Joshua

New Bottom 6 - Suter - New Bottom 6

 

That would be all the lines, and half the forward group with new players.  Not the best way to be strong out of the gate. 

Keeping Garland and Suter where they are would ensure that 2 of the lines with strong chemistry are together to start the season.

i cant imagine moving Garland. Would be a wildly unnecessary risk. There are better places to free up salary if we end up needing to do so

[Gawdzukes]

1 hour ago, canuck73_3 said:

I don’t think Benning was terrible, never did. He had his strengths and his weaknesses. You’re too far the other extreme that you STILL can’t see passed a mediocre Swedish league player in Dahlen.

 

But he's Petey's best friend and it caused him super huge emotional damage.  That argument was hilarious. In reality Petey was like man this Dahlen sucks, he may be my Swede buddy but I'm one of the best hockey players in the world. I ain't got the time or a care in the world about some crappy punk ass kid that can't even cut it in the AHL. I think this playing with friends angle is hilariously untrue at the elite NHL hockey level. Stars don't need to play NHL hockey with their friends in order to be successful.

[Gawdzukes]

55 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

 

I don't think it's so much about folks actively advocating trading Garland so much as recognizing that if the Canucks are going to move out a larger salary, it'd probably he him. 

 

Why would we break that? Well, that depends entirely on who management wanted to acquire. If he's moved it's almost certainly to bring in a D. 

 

A somewhat less productive third line could probably be balanced by a stronger top six, and by overall better forward depth. 

 

Yeah, there's a very good chance we're done this offseason, but he's still the easiest larger salary to move out. 

 

Exactly. You don't have to be an advocate for moving him in order to see the obvious reasons why it could be done. This is all without remembering Garland only has one more year left after this one. Does he get re-upped in this scenario, or if we're moving off him anyway would moving him be proactive and beneficial asset and cap wise?

 

That said I don't see them moving him this season unless it makes sense to go big game hunting at the TDL, and that would probably be predicated by others stepping up or an alteration to the current third line setup for the Canucks.

[The Duke]

Garland’s been a consistent just about 20-goals and 50 points for us and the 2 years before with the Coyotes.
 

That alone is pretty close to worth his salary considering it’s mostly done 5 on 5.  He’s a driver, not a floater.  

 

Then he also draws penalties and consistently keeps a high effort level. His underlying defensive stats are elite. 
 

I don’t think he’s untouchable or a part of the core per se, but he’s an elite support piece.
 

Hypothetically, I also think if we move him, we’re very likely a two line team. I’d want to spend a good chunk of that space on an 3rd line RH C or something if he were to be moved. 

[IBatch]

38 minutes ago, HKSR said:

The counterargument would be that Garland already possesses immense chemistry with Joshua and Blueger.  If a quick and strong start is what we are looking for, it's not to acquire too many new guys so that the team is having to build chemistry before being a strong team unit.  My guess is Garland/Blueger/Joshua will be strong right out of the gate, and I think Suter will stay with Miller and Boeser to start for the same reason.  Eventually I could see Heinen or another making their way onto Miller's wing to have Suter back in a strong 4C role.

 

If we move Garland, we now have:

 

New Top 6 - Petey - New Top 6

New Top 6 - Miller - Boeser

New Middle 6 - Blueger - Joshua

New Bottom 6 - Suter - New Bottom 6

 

That would be all the lines, and half the forward group with new players.  Not the best way to be strong out of the gate. 

Keeping Garland and Suter where they are would ensure that 2 of the lines with strong chemistry are together to start the season.

We aren't trading Garland with Joshua re-signed.   This is textbook JR.   He works in pairs.   And why would we even want too?   They are great together.    Take one thing out to fix what?    

 

Hogs and Podz are now the low lying fruit, teams can double retain, we can accrue some cap space as well as a reserve for injuries and mid/late/injury moves. 

[spook007]

2 hours ago, HKSR said:

Step 1:  Trade Poolman LTIR to accrue significant cap for the TDL.

 

Step 2:  Sign Tyson Barrie or Oliver Kylington at a Sprong-like 1 year deal.

 

Step 3:  Trade for Claude Giroux as a rental at the TDL

 

Playoff Lineup:

 

Debrusk-Petey-Sprong

Suter-Miller-Boeser

Hoglander-Giroux-Heinen

Joshua-Blueger-Garland (imagine being able to roll out this line as our 4th line!)

 

Hughes-Hronek

Soucy-Barrie

Forbort-Myers

Desharnais

 

Step 4:  Win Cup

That forward line up is a winning line up....

imagine... wauh....

[Gawdzukes]

23 minutes ago, The Duke said:

Garland’s been a consistent just about 20-goals and 50 points for us and the 2 years before with the Coyotes.
 

That alone is pretty close to worth his salary considering it’s mostly done 5 on 5.  He’s a driver, not a floater.  

 

Then he also draws penalties and consistently keeps a high effort level. His underlying defensive stats are elite. 
 

I don’t think he’s untouchable or a part of the core per se, but he’s an elite support piece.
 

Hypothetically, I also think if we move him, we’re very likely a two line team. I’d want to spend a good chunk of that space on an 3rd line RH C or something if he were to be moved. 

 

Personally I would redeploy that money in a top 6 winger/center role or on the defence. The whole point of moving Garland is to stop overpaying bottom 6 players. Other teams can afford to do things like this but they are usually buoyed by having ELC's contributing in the top 6 forwards or top 4 defence.

 

I will concede it's up to management's vison but ultimately a younger, cheaper player to grow as a third line center with a future move to the to top 6 would be ideal. Of course you would have to draft or trade for that most likely. We'll see what happens ... there is a tonne of balls in the air at this point. Have to see how it all shakes out this year. No guarantee Tocchet redeploys the same configuration with all the signings we've made.

[Nucker67]

Maybe Sprong is a cheap placeholder for Lekkerimaki. Sprong's contract is just under a million and only for the one season. Even if things with Sprong don't work out as hoped, it's not a big loss financially and they can bury him on the 4th line or in the press box. Although, I'm thinking Sprong could get 25 goals this year if playing with Petey.

 

Hoglander - Miller - Boeser

DeBrusk - Pettersson - Sprong/Lekkerimaki

Joshua - Blueger - Heinen

Suter - Aman - Sherwood

Podkolzin

 

* thinking Garland gets traded for D

[spook007]

2 hours ago, HKSR said:

Why are you guys trying to trade Garland??  We have a very effective line in Joshua/Blueger/Garland that can play some hard minutes against top competition.  Why would we break that?

$.... 

if they want an upgrade on D, they need to find the money somewhere, I guess...

Do like the line up you fabricated earlier... 

[spook007]

1 hour ago, LillStrimma said:

You just showed that you’re stuck. 
You don’t think a scout was terrible as a GM. 
PA and JR has showed you how good it can be. 
 

I say as I said to Anthony… What areas as a GM was Benning good at?

Scouting isn’t in a GMs workload.

Not getting involved in this garbage, however a GMs work load is what he makes it....