[proposal] - Sign Hronek long term + Package Willander (mini-sweetener) & Garland for Rasmus Andersson

[Johnny]

For the people that say we need these ELC players to step in and contribute seem to be missing a major piece of the puzzle

 

Ill go on record and say you’re absolutely right. ELC players need to be a part of the roster to be successful and even more so when dealing with dead cap.

 

However, there is the point of needing to recognize and take advantage of a top quality core and support them as fully as possible. Willander is at best not that for another complete season, look at how sergachev was brought up. We don’t necessarily have the luxury of time being hooked up to the Miller bus but we do have another top quality d prospect in the OHL named Hunter Brzustewicz who hopefully can step onto the canucks in 3-4 years

 

currently the d corps is paying for 3 top 3 dmen but one is a number 5 (Myers if you didnt know). Myers comes off the books next year so that cap can easily transfer to acquiring Andersson and put our D completely over the top.

 

i think on top of this trade happening Garland will need to be moved which will cost a pick. However having a cost controlled player that cant leave in the offseason might look attractive to a crumbling flames team

 

also looking at the penguins teams that won cups 2016/17 they used a lot of their picks and prospects to build those teams so hold on to your seats

[IBatch]

On 11/13/2023 at 2:54 PM, Johnny said:

For the people that say we need these ELC players to step in and contribute seem to be missing a major piece of the puzzle

 

Ill go on record and say you’re absolutely right. ELC players need to be a part of the roster to be successful and even more so when dealing with dead cap.

 

However, there is the point of needing to recognize and take advantage of a top quality core and support them as fully as possible. Willander is at best not that for another complete season, look at how sergachev was brought up. We don’t necessarily have the luxury of time being hooked up to the Miller bus but we do have another top quality d prospect in the OHL named Hunter Brzustewicz who hopefully can step onto the canucks in 3-4 years

 

currently the d corps is paying for 3 top 3 dmen but one is a number 5 (Myers if you didnt know). Myers comes off the books next year so that cap can easily transfer to acquiring Andersson and put our D completely over the top.

 

i think on top of this trade happening Garland will need to be moved which will cost a pick. However having a cost controlled player that cant leave in the offseason might look attractive to a crumbling flames team

 

also looking at the penguins teams that won cups 2016/17 they used a lot of their picks and prospects to build those teams so hold on to your seats

PENs also won those two cups after cap rose enough for them to provide their stars better support players. As for ELC's I said this during our "window" with EP, QHs and Brock - it's a mirrage.   It's not really a window.   Please name every single team that's won a cup, and tell me who was on their ELC's at the time that was driving the bus.   Since the cap came in.   I know exactly which teams did it.   Two and two cups.   Out of 20, and one was mostly veterans, just Staal and Ward, the other had a lot of vets too.     It's the RFA deals that matter for the most part anyways.   Crosby and Ovi are generational talents.    They had to wait a very long time to do it after they were paid... Crosby already got paid so it's not PIT.   It's not ANA either because Selanne, Pronger, Andy McDonald, Neidermayer, Giguere were driving the bus.   There was one team just after the cap started that did it.   And CHI did it their first cup (and then lost a pile of great players when Toews and Kane got paid).   The ELC's help sure, if they can do a better job in a roster spot.   Was that Co-ho for us in 2011?  So one player.  Plus like a few Tanev games that's it. 

Edited November 17, 2023 by IBatch

[Johnny]

1 hour ago, IBatch said:

PENs also won those two cups after cap rose enough for them to provide their stars better support players. As for ELC's I said this during our "window" with EP, QHs and Brock - it's a mirrage.   It's not really a window.   Please name every single team that's won a cup, and tell me who was on their ELC's at the time that was driving the bus.   Since the cap came in.   I know exactly which teams did it.   Two and two cups.   Out of 20, and one was mostly veterans, just Staal and Ward, the other had a lot of vets too.     It's the RFA deals that matter for the most part anyways.   Crosby and Ovi are generational talents.    They had to wait a very long time to do it after they were paid... Crosby already got paid so it's not PIT.   It's not ANA either because Selanne, Pronger, Andy McDonald, Neidermayer, Giguere were driving the bus.   There was one team just after the cap started that did it.   And CHI did it their first cup (and then lost a pile of great players when Toews and Kane got paid).   The ELC's help sure, if they can do a better job in a roster spot.   Was that Co-ho for us in 2011?  So one player.  Plus like a few Tanev games that's it. 

Im guessing you missed the point of my post a little, maybe i wasnt super clear

 

But here goes 

the most important part of creating a roster is recognizing when to go all in and when to sit back and just simply be happy making it to the second round.

 

as this year is going currently its looking like a move to go over the top would be a good idea, but lets make that decision in jan/feb.

 

ELC players are important, but even more so is a good cap structure and players performing at or above their contract 

 

[Coryberg]

On 11/10/2023 at 9:05 AM, Sativika said:

I agree that we'd have to sign Hronek. It'd suck to lose him after acquiring him in a somewhat blockbuster trade after one season with us. It would feel like when we got Toffoli and then he was gone  to free agency. Don't want that again. Hronek is key to our organization and I believe it's why Management made that trade for him.

Hronek is a RFA at seasons end. He can't walk.

[IBatch]

2 hours ago, Coryberg said:

Hronek is a RFA at seasons end. He can't walk.

Not to mention Toffoli was a rental (one we should have signed, but not the end of the world either).   Played a couple weeks for us and a few playoff games ... barely a Canuck at all. 

Edited November 19, 2023 by IBatch

[Elias Pettersson]

Yeah we’re not trading Tom Willander. 

[Jeremy Hronek]

12 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Yeah we’re not trading Tom Willander. 

 

I completely understand where you're coming from and you're right, we probably aren't trading Tom Willander 99.999% guaranteed.  

 

My only thing is this - IF we are going to 'dare to dream' about bringing in a legit #2A/#3 calibre defenseman (and no, Andrew Peeke isn't that guy), then that's probably the price you'll be looking at.  I know many people on here having been creating proposals involving any combination of Podkolzin, Hoglander, Garland, and our 2024 1st, but those assets don't have as much value as people may want to believe.  Lekkerimaki would be an attractive piece for other teams, but we'll likely need him since we're probably going to have to choose between Boeser and Kuzmenko at some point.

 

If the Canucks are destined to be a Top 10 team this year, then our 2024 1st isn't going to hold massive value.  Secondly, while someone like Podkolzin still has a lot of promise (imo), he's a D+4 player right now that still hasn't cracked the league.  Teams aren't going to be giving up a premium asset with Podkolzin being one of the center pieces in said deal.  

 

Trading for a legit #2A/#3 is wonderful in theory, but it's not going to be easy.  Podz + 2024 1st isn't going to cut it.  You and I both know what the potential cost for an aging and soon-to-be-UFA Chris Tanev would be (Hoglander). Hoglander has slowly and steadily gotten better and has late bloomer written all over him (i.e. could be a half-decent 2nd line player one day). Would it make sense to give up a guy like Hoglander for what may very well be an aging rental?  

 

My other thing with Willander is this:  IF you can trade Willander, AND package him with a long term bad contract (Garland) and STILL get a good #2A/#3 calibre defenseman in return that is signed for 3 seasons (Andersson), then I think it's a pretty good deal.  Not only do you cater to the 'compete now' philosophy, but you also significantly reduce the cap burden.  

 

With Myers and Beauviller slated to come off the books in the Summer, ALL/most of that money could go towards signing both Pettersson and Hronek to LONG TERM deals (7-8 years) instead of the rumoured shorter term deals they might be looking to get (due to our cap complications).  In this scenario, we could offer them more money because we would no longer be looking for a #2A/#3 calibre defenseman to add.  

 

Losing Willander would suck, but getting out of Garland's contract would be a big win.  Furthermore, we'd still have a plethora of prospects on the farm that could realistically step into the line-up on ELC's if need be (i.e. Raty, Podkolzin, Lekkerimarki, Hirose, Hunter B, etc).  So - maybe we wouldn't have that massive blue chip prospect anymore (Willander), but we'd have a lot of depth pieces (at low cost) that could potentially step up and help us.

 

So - in a weird sort of way, packaging Willander with Garland for someone like Andersson might actually help us both short term AND long term (long term in the sense that Garland would be off the books + you wouldn't be sacrificing half the farm for short term gain - just one guy).  And keep in mind with Andersson, we'd have him for this season + 2 more seasons until he would become a UFA at age 30.  Sign him to a 4 year deal afterwards and you'd then have Andersson (at or close to his peak) for 7 years.  

Edited November 20, 2023 by Jeremy Hronek

[Drakrami]

Oh god... being on top of the standings 18 games in does not make us a contender. A bunch of teams have been there and done that and got no where (Toronto, Edmonton, Carolina, New York)

 

Mortage our future by selling a great chip like Willander?

 

Are Canucks just a bunch of 1 shot adrenaline adolescents? 

[Jeremy Hronek]

15 minutes ago, Drakrami said:

Oh god... being on top of the standings 18 games in does not make us a contender. A bunch of teams have been there and done that and got no where (Toronto, Edmonton, Carolina, New York)

 

Mortage our future by selling a great chip like Willander?

 

Are Canucks just a bunch of 1 shot adrenaline adolescents? 

 

No.  

 

1. Willander + Garland in a hockey deal would actually significantly lessen our long term cap burden since the subtraction of Myers and Beauviller from the books in the Summer would give us the money to sign BOTH Pettersson and Hronek to LONG TERM deals (7-8 years) as opposed to shorter term 4 year deals (as is being rumoured) since a large chunk of that money could be spent on both players (as opposed to us signing both players to shorter term deals, saving some cap, and then using that freed up cap to sign a top 4 defenseman).  Given our cap situation over these next 3-4 years, being able to get Garland off the books AND bringing in a 'win now' #2A/#3 calibre d-man would be a huge win for both the short term AND long term.

 

2. Every other proposal suggested on here has some kind of package involving some variation of Podkolzin, Hoglander, Raty, 2024 1st, Lekkerimaki, Silovs, Hunter B, and Hirose.  Under my plan, all of those assets would stay here. Even if all/most of these guys don't become superstars like Willander might (per se), having those guys being able to potentially step into the line-up on ELC's and contribute (even on bottom 6 roles / 3rd pairings) would be a massive win......especially in a couple of seasons when OEL's buyout hits its peak.  

 

That is what I had in mind.  

Edited November 20, 2023 by Jeremy Hronek

[Jeremy Hronek]

On 11/14/2023 at 3:54 AM, Johnny said:

 

 

i think on top of this trade happening Garland will need to be moved which will cost a pick.

 

Packaging Willander with Garland would help the Canucks both short term AND long term: 

 

I think you nailed it in many ways with your post.  In all likelihood, getting rid of Garland would not only cost one a draft pick, but the return for such a deal would be little to nothing (since our trading partner, in theory, would be doing the Canucks a favour by taking Garland's contract off of us).  So essentially, you'd be depleting your asset pool to get rid of a contract........which is where my Willander + Garland solution comes in.

 

If the Canucks were to package Garland with Willander (i.e. a premium prospect that would have likely gone Top 10 in a normal draft), not only would you successfully get rid of Garland, but you'd probably be able to create a legitimate "hockey deal."   And so that's why the idea of packaging Willander + Garland appeals to me (in trading for a guy like Rasmus Andersson if Calgary decides to rebuild).

 

1. The Canucks, with the addition of Andersson, make an aggressive push to win the cup during their 3-4 year window (i.e. now until Hughes becomes a UFA).

 

2. By getting Garland off the books, combined with Myers and Beau coming off the books in the Summer, it gives the Canucks more cap options. For example, instead of being 'cap challenged' and only being able to sign both Pettersson and Hronek to 3-4 year deals (as is the current rumour), the Canucks would have more cap space available to sign both Pettersson and Hronek to 7-8 year deals.  So, in theory, as counter-intuitive as this would sound, a hypothetical deal involving Willander as a mini-sweetener to move Garland (to Calgary, for Andersson) would indirectly help set up the organization LONG TERM as well as the short term.  

 

3. Losing Willander would suck, but we could keep all of our other assets that Alvin and Rutherford have built and acquired. Hoglander, Podkolzin, Raty, Lekkerimaki, our 2024 1st, Hunter B, Hirose, McWard, Silovs, etc........ALL of these guys can stay put in our system. Now, here is my most important point.  Even if these players/prospects that I mentioned do NOT have the ceiling and potential that Tom Willander has, they can still be extremely valuable to us......why? because........even in bottom 6 roles or 3rd pairing roles, they can step into the line-up and contribute while still being on ELC's........and hence, potentially exceeding their cap hit values in a significant way.  

 

For example, it wouldn't be a complete surprise if BOTH Raty and Podkolzin made the team next year on ELC's. And in the following year, maybe Lekkerimaki would replace one of Kuzmenko or Boeser while being on an ELC.  Maybe Hirose and McWard, even if they end up being 3rd pairing calibre guys, can potentially join the team on ELC's.  Ditto for Silovs if he replaces DeSmith next season.  Given that OEL's cap penalty will reach its peak in 2-3 seasons, we are going to need these types guys.  Now - are ALL of the aforementioned prospects going to make the team?  Hell no.  BUT - by having a higher quantity of good prospects in our system, we can increase our chances.  THAT caters to the long term.  

 

For the short term however, yes, you bite the bullet, trade Willander (with Garland), and bring in a guy like Rasmus Andersson that can help us win NOW.  

 

I know many posters on here have this fantasy of trading any variation of Podkolzin, our 2024 1st, etc., but these assets don't have as much value as we think.  Podz is a D+4 pick that still hasn't made the team.  Teams aren't going to give up a premium asset with him being the center piece.  Furthermore, if the Canucks continue their current winning ways, their 2024 1st would likely be somewhere between 16-32.

[Elias Pettersson]

7 hours ago, Jeremy Hronek said:

 

I completely understand where you're coming from and you're right, we probably aren't trading Tom Willander 99.999% guaranteed.  

 

My only thing is this - IF we are going to 'dare to dream' about bringing in a legit #2A/#3 calibre defenseman (and no, Andrew Peeke isn't that guy), then that's probably the price you'll be looking at.  I know many people on here having been creating proposals involving any combination of Podkolzin, Hoglander, Garland, and our 2024 1st, but those assets don't have as much value as people may want to believe.  Lekkerimaki would be an attractive piece for other teams, but we'll likely need him since we're probably going to have to choose between Boeser and Kuzmenko at some point.

 

If the Canucks are destined to be a Top 10 team this year, then our 2024 1st isn't going to hold massive value.  Secondly, while someone like Podkolzin still has a lot of promise (imo), he's a D+4 player right now that still hasn't cracked the league.  Teams aren't going to be giving up a premium asset with Podkolzin being one of the center pieces in said deal.  

 

Trading for a legit #2A/#3 is wonderful in theory, but it's not going to be easy.  Podz + 2024 1st isn't going to cut it.  You and I both know what the potential cost for an aging and soon-to-be-UFA Chris Tanev would be (Hoglander). Hoglander has slowly and steadily gotten better and has late bloomer written all over him (i.e. could be a half-decent 2nd line player one day). Would it make sense to give up a guy like Hoglander for what may very well be an aging rental?  

 

My other thing with Willander is this:  IF you can trade Willander, AND package him with a long term bad contract (Garland) and STILL get a good #2A/#3 calibre defenseman in return that is signed for 3 seasons (Andersson), then I think it's a pretty good deal.  Not only do you cater to the 'compete now' philosophy, but you also significantly reduce the cap burden.  

 

With Myers and Beauviller slated to come off the books in the Summer, ALL/most of that money could go towards signing both Pettersson and Hronek to LONG TERM deals (7-8 years) instead of the rumoured shorter term deals they might be looking to get (due to our cap complications).  In this scenario, we could offer them more money because we would no longer be looking for a #2A/#3 calibre defenseman to add.  

 

Losing Willander would suck, but getting out of Garland's contract would be a big win.  Furthermore, we'd still have a plethora of prospects on the farm that could realistically step into the line-up on ELC's if need be (i.e. Raty, Podkolzin, Lekkerimarki, Hirose, Hunter B, etc).  So - maybe we wouldn't have that massive blue chip prospect anymore (Willander), but we'd have a lot of depth pieces (at low cost) that could potentially step up and help us.

 

So - in a weird sort of way, packaging Willander with Garland for someone like Andersson might actually help us both short term AND long term (long term in the sense that Garland would be off the books + you wouldn't be sacrificing half the farm for short term gain - just one guy).  And keep in mind with Andersson, we'd have him for this season + 2 more seasons until he would become a UFA at age 30.  Sign him to a 4 year deal afterwards and you'd then have Andersson (at or close to his peak) for 7 years.  

 

Tom Willander will be better than Rasmus Andersson.  Andersson was a 2nd round pick, Willander was a top 11 pick.  Willander skates better than Andersson, has more offensive upside and is only 18.  Would rather wait on Willander rather than trade for Andersson and then have to pay him an 8x8 contract in 2 years.

 

We are better off getting a stopgap player like a Tanev for a couple of years rather than trade our top prospect for a guy that we have to pay big time in a couple of years.

[Jeremy Hronek]

20 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

Tom Willander will be better than Rasmus Andersson.  Andersson was a 2nd round pick, Willander was a top 11 pick.  Willander skates better than Andersson, has more offensive upside and is only 18.  Would rather wait on Willander rather than trade for Andersson and then have to pay him an 8x8 contract in 2 years.

 

We are better off getting a stopgap player like a Tanev for a couple of years rather than trade our top prospect for a guy that we have to pay big time in a couple of years.

 

Trust me, I 100% understand your perspective.  

 

I feel like this is going to be difficult for me to explain without looking like a crackpot (am already likely coming across as one), and I'll so I'll try and explain it.  Basically, I want to create a scenario for the Canucks in which......

 

1. They retain 90-95% of their farm prowess over the next 3-4 years even while "going for it."

2. They continue 'filling the pipeline' of prospects as to avoid another post 2013 fall off a cliff.

3. They add a key piece to the current core and make a legit attempt at going for the cup

4. They add a 'win now' core piece signed for multiple years as opposed to a rental

5. They clear long term cap obligations so that they can offer both Pettersson and Hronek long-term 7-8 year deals instead of the rumoured 3-4 years deals to a lack of long term cap space (i.e. they could focus primarily on Pettersson and Hronek instead of being obligated to spend a sizeable portion of the freed up Myers/Beauvillier money on a Top 3 defenseman).   

 

Based on all of the above, I feel like the only way to achieve all of the above would be in using Willander as a "mini-sweetener" to move Conor Garland in a legitimate 'hockey deal' which would land us that #2A/#3 calibre defenseman.  

 

Yes, losing Willander would suck, but if moving Willander would allow us to

1. Move Garland in a hockey deal without needing to retain

2.Bring in a "win now" piece like Rasmus Andersson

3. Allow us the future cap space to sign both Pettersson and Hronek to long term 7-8 year deals

4. Allow us to keep the rest of our picks and prospects since the "go for now over these next 3-4 years" requirement will have been met

 

Then I think it's a good deal to make.  

 

My biggest concern with some of the other proposals that have been mentioned are as follows:

 

1. Chris Tanev is not only aging and breaking down, but he won't come cheap.  Ask any Flames fan right now and they'll tell you the same thing.  Tanev, god bless the guy, has been a warrior, but he hasn't looked the same this year.  He's a #4 calibre dman at best.  The asking price for Tanev is Hoglander.....a guy who has late bloomer written all over him.

 

2. Neither Podkolzin nor our 2024 1st will have much value.  Given where the Canucks are in the standings, combined with where they would be projected to finish IF they made a 'go for it now' type deal, that 2024 1st could likely be anywhere from 23-32.  Secondly, Podkolzin is a D+4 player that still hasn't made the NHL.  While you and I might think the world of Podkolzin (I actually think Podz will figure it out eventually and become a decent 2nd/3rd line tweener for us), other teams probably view him as a reclamation project at this point, and would likely try and buy low on him.  They aren't going to give up a premium asset with Podkolzin being a centre-piece in said deal.  

 

3. Silovs and Lekkerimaki. Now outside of Willander, Silovs and Lekkerimaki will have some significant value and should be able to garner some significant interest.  However, we need to consider the following:

A. We will likely need to choose between Boeser and Kuzmenko at some point.  Hence, the importance of having JL in your system so that he can step in on ELC as a replacement.

B. We will likely need a heir apparent to Thatcher Demko at some point (Demko will be a 30 year old UFA in 3 years and doesn't have the best track record of staying healthy).

 

And so the way I see it, moving either of Silovs or Lekkerimaki is an absolute no-no.  And to one of your earlier points, I don't think Andersson will get offered an 8*8 when he becomes a UFA in 3 seasons.  Andersson is a great player but he's not a superstar.  He'd probably get offered a 4-5 year deal at most (maybe I'm wrong?).   Given our "Swedish Penguins" culture, I could definitely see Andersson wanting to stay here if guys like Pettersson, Hronek, Hoglander, etc. are around.  Also agreed with you that Willander will likely become a better player than Andersson at some point, but will he become better than Andersson over the next 4 seasons? (during our 'window'?).  

 

In my scenario, the way things would play out is that we'd sign both Petey and Hronek to 7-8 year deals, have Andersson on board, and then have both Raty and Podkolzin (two ELC contracts) replacing Garland and Beauvillier next season.  

 

Now in conclusion, do I actually THINK that Alvin is going to package Willander with Garland in a "hockey deal?"  Absolutely not.  

 

Will be interesting to see what transpires however. 

Edited November 21, 2023 by Jeremy Hronek