2019 Roster and Fantasy GM Thread III

[me2]

Nop. Especially since his preferred destination is Florida .

American Money + No tax.

Were going to have to do a lot better than 8.8 mil.

$11m is a Vancouver level offer for Panarin.

 

[DownGoesMcDavid]

$11m is a Vancouver level offer for Panarin.

Yep. I'd rather throw that to Karlsson.

 

[Josepho]

Yep. I'd rather throw that to Karlsson.

Karlsson will get over 12.5

 

[DownGoesMcDavid]

Karlsson will get over 12.5

As he should especially with cap going up. I'd pay that for him too.

Imagine Petterssons and Boesers production if they had a legit Dman transitioning them the breakouts or feeding them at PP.

Hughes - Karlsson would be. Massive improvement from
Edler Stecher Hutton as our offensive dmen

 

[Horse McHindu]

Hahaha fair enough.

I’d stay away from Panarin then.

If he’s looking to cash in and make money that’s fine, but paying him 10+ million will cause us long term cap complications in my opinion (ie when Pettersson and Hughes have to be reupped).

I realize that the cap has gone up for the past 14 years, but I think the NHL will put a ceiling on the cap at some point. One of the reasons why the cap was created in the first place was so that small market teams could realistically compete......and that the NHL *wouldn’t* be the New York, Boston, and Los Angeles show like many other major sports.

I’d be inclined to go after Dzingel, but I’m also curious to see if Gaudette can play win........and if so, perhaps it would be in our best interests to promote Gaudette on the right side instead of having him on the 3rd line C position.....especially if we can’t move Sutter.

 

[Horse McHindu]

I know people are spitballing Karlsson and Stone on here, but I’d much rather spend that money building a deep team.

1) Re-up our Upcoming RFA’s (Boeser, Pettersson, Hughes) to cost controlled cap friendly deals over the coming years while simultaneously letting our ‘placement holders’ walk away via trade or non-signing (Gudbranson, Sutter, Eriksson).

2) Invest the extra money in depth (higher aav’s to bottom 6 players relative to other teams’ bottom 6 players). Get them on shorter contracts.

The Chicago and LA models from 2010-2015 is a good illustration of what I’m talking about. That’s what I want to be like.

 

[Ryp37]

I know people are spitballing Karlsson and Stone on here, but I’d much rather spend that money building a deep team.

1) Re-up our Upcoming RFA’s (Boeser, Pettersson, Hughes) to cost controlled cap friendly deals over the coming years while simultaneously letting our ‘placement holders’ walk away via trade or non-signing (Gudbranson, Sutter, Eriksson).

2) Invest the extra money in depth (higher aav’s to bottom 6 players relative to other teams’ bottom 6 players). Get them on shorter contracts.

The Chicago and LA models from 2010-2015 is a good illustration of what I’m talking about. That’s what I want to be like.

Yeah more beagles is exactly what this team needs

 

[Horse McHindu]

Yeah more beagles is exactly what this team needs

Look at those Chicago and LA teams and how they won their cups. All of their top players were on cost controlled cap friendly contracts. This allowed them to invest heavier on depth (shorter term contracts).

If “the plan” for Vancouver is to concert their efforts into trying to win ONE cup while worrying about cap complications later, then by all means, pay Karlsson or Stone 12 million. Just don’t cry when a guy like Boeser asks for 9 million, while a guy like Pettersson asks for Matthews money.

I think if it’s the goal of a hockey team to build a multi-cup winner, then the primary objective should be to get their core players to “buy in” by taking hometown discounts. Once that has happened, and you’ve built a pretty decent and promising team, THEN you will attract UFA’s that will be willing to take discounts to play on a winner (ie Hossa in Chicago).

OVerpaying UFA’s before you’ve reupped your core leads to a shortening of “the window” and long term cap complications. But again - if “the goal” is to focus on winning that ONE cup, then by all means..

 

[Ryp37]

Look at those Chicago and LA teams and how they won their cups. All of their top players were on cost controlled cap friendly contracts. This allowed them to invest heavier on depth (shorter term contracts).

If “the plan” for Vancouver is to concert their efforts into trying to win ONE cup while worrying about cap complications later, then by all means, pay Karlsson or Stone 12 million. Just don’t cry when a guy like Boeser asks for 9 million, while a guy like Pettersson asks for Matthews money.

I think if it’s the goal of a hockey team to build a multi-cup winner, then the primary objective should be to get their core players to “buy in” by taking hometown discounts. Once that has happened, and you’ve built a pretty decent and promising team, THEN you will attract UFA’s that will be willing to take discounts to play on a winner (ie Hossa in Chicago).

OVerpaying UFA’s before you’ve reupped your core leads to a shortening of “the window” and long term cap complications. But again - if “the goal” is to focus on winning that ONE cup, then by all means..

Yeah great insight as usual

 

[Horse McHindu]

Yeah great insight as usual

Take a look at Chicago and LA’s cup winning rosters between 2010-2015. What part of my post do you disagree with?

Even in 2016 and 2017 when the cap was much higher than it was in 2009, you can argue that Pittsburgh’s core players were signed for relatively cheap.

Show me one team so far that has won a cup with a 10+ million dollar AAV player. Notice how Chicago and LA started to slide once they gave their “thank you” deals to Kane, Toews, and Kopitar? (Well deserved deals mind you, but still)

 

[Ryp37]

Take a look at Chicago and LA’s cup winning rosters between 2010-2015. What part of my post do you disagree with?

Even in 2016 and 2017 when the cap was much higher than it was in 2009, you can argue that Pittsburgh’s core players were signed for relatively cheap.

Show me one team so far that has won a cup with a 10+ million dollar AAV player. Notice how Chicago and LA started to slide once they gave their “thank you” deals to Kane, Toews, and Kopitar? (Well deserved deals mind you, but still)

I honestly have no idea what your arguing

Yeah no kidding you have to have cost controlled contracts, signing more UFA bottom 6ers to term isn’t the way to do it.

And yeah teams have far too much loyalty to players in regards to their later contracts

 

[Horse McHindu]

I honestly have no idea what your arguing

Yeah no kidding you have to have cost controlled contracts, signing more UFA bottom 6ers to term isn’t the way to do it.

And yeah teams have far too much loyalty to players in regards to their later contracts

Agreed on all of the above.

I guess what I was arguing was that the contracts of Beagle, Roussel, Schaller, etc, won’t serve as hindrances to us right now since we are still assembling our core. Even guys like Sutter, Gudbranson, and Eriksson won’t serve as hindrances. Their contracts will come off the books just as our RFA’s need to be reupped.

From the vantage point, I have zero issue with those above contracts.

Once you start paying a Kings randsom for guys like Karlsson, Stone, etc, however, then all bets are off as far as having a long term manageable cap goes.

Ps - you’re right about the term for Beagle being crap. In the future however, once the Canucks have their core assembled, they will be in a position where they can call the shots and sign good depth players to higher AAV’s but shorter term contracts.

 

[Bettman Returnz]

Panarin/stone/karlsson are all hitting their prime. They are legit, bonafide top guys in this league. If you can get (sign) any of them, you do it. No questions asked. They would be perfect complements to the good young pieces we have now. If we have to fill a few bottom spots with cheap “plugs”, so be it!

 

[Wo Yorfat]

Agreed on all of the above.

I guess what I was arguing was that the contracts of Beagle, Roussel, Schaller, etc, won’t serve as hindrances to us right now since we are still assembling our core. Even guys like Sutter, Gudbranson, and Eriksson won’t serve as hindrances. Their contracts will come off the books just as our RFA’s need to be reupped.

From the vantage point, I have zero issue with those above contracts.

Once you start paying a Kings randsom for guys like Karlsson, Stone, etc, however, then all bets are off as far as having a long term manageable cap goes.

Ps - you’re right about the term for Beagle being crap. In the future however, once the Canucks have their core assembled, they will be in a position where they can call the shots and sign good depth players to higher AAV’s but shorter term contracts.

YeAh i guess the sun will burn out at some point so the eriksson deal is fine.

 

[Blue and Green]

Even guys like Sutter, Gudbranson, and Eriksson won’t serve as hindrances. Their contracts will come off the books just as our RFA’s need to be reupped.

Eriksson's contract is still active in 2021-22, the season where the salary cap could become an issue.

 

[MS]

Eriksson's contract is still active in 2021-22, the season where the salary cap could become an issue.

Yeah, I’m sure the $12 million of cap space taken up by Eriksson/Beagle/Roussel won’t be a hindrance at all when Pettersson and Hughes become RFAs at the same time!

Such terrible planning. The 4th year to those guys was idiotic.

 

[Blue and Green]

Yeah, I’m sure the $12 million of cap space taken up by Eriksson/Beagle/Roussel won’t be a hindrance at all when Pettersson and Hughes become RFAs at the same time!

Such terrible planning. The 4th year to those guys was idiotic.

The first rumour I saw for Beagle's contract was $2.5M x 3, and I thought, jeez that seems a little much. How I wish, now. No idea why they had such a burning need to sign him.

Roussel's doesn't seem so bad as he is a better player and also four years younger.

Best hope with Loui is that he decides to retire rather than ride the buses in the northeastern USA to collect his last $5M that season-- and Jimmy B ought to make it clear that it's the only option for him.

Luongo cap recapture is also potentially in play for that final season.

 

[Burke's Evil Spirit]

We will never pay the Luongo recapture.

Eriksson should be waived *this summer*. He's done as an NHLer. He might be willing to ride the bus for one season, but 3? I seriously doubt it.

 

[Burke's Evil Spirit]

Yeah, I’m sure the $12 million of cap space taken up by Eriksson/Beagle/Roussel won’t be a hindrance at all when Pettersson and Hughes become RFAs at the same time!

Such terrible planning. The 4th year to those guys was idiotic.

It'll be 18ish once that Edler extension sails!

 

[member 290103]

We will never pay the Luongo recapture.

Eriksson should be waived *this summer*. He's done as an NHLer. He might be willing to ride the bus for one season, but 3? I seriously doubt it.

100% this. Just keep sending him up and down.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Yeah, I’m sure the $12 million of cap space taken up by Eriksson/Beagle/Roussel won’t be a hindrance at all when Pettersson and Hughes become RFAs at the same time!

Such terrible planning. The 4th year to those guys was idiotic.

Beagle and Roussel can be traded that year..Also, Gudbranson and Sutter will be clear off the books.

 

[Skirbs1011]

Yeah, I’m sure the $12 million of cap space taken up by Eriksson/Beagle/Roussel won’t be a hindrance at all when Pettersson and Hughes become RFAs at the same time!

Such terrible planning. The 4th year to those guys was idiotic.

I mean it might not be to hard to sign them at all, Sign petey long term, bridge Hughes until the other salary is off the books. There is various ways around it.

 

[VanillaCoke]

100% this. Just keep sending him up and down.

Sure he'd probably retire or void his contract but NHL clubs never treat their players like that. Not dumb enough to sour potential FA signing in the future

 

[member 290103]

Sure he'd probably retire or void his contract but NHL clubs never treat their players like that. Not dumb enough to sour potential FA signing in the future

Um yeah....I think there is a point though where if the player is so far off contributing that you take the risk and just demote him. We have seen teams do it. This would be a clear case where the team would be warranted to dump the player.

 

[VanillaCoke]

Um yeah....I think there is a point though where if the player is so far off contributing that you take the risk and just demote him. We have seen teams do it. This would be a clear case where the team would be warranted to dump the player.

We did that, with gagner, and still did whats better for the player and send him to Toronto. Nhl clubs keep their image in mind..