2020 Roster and Fantasy GM Thread II

[m9]

they wanted out of the contract, but that didn’t make him a negative value asset. His contract wasn’t poor value until he was injured.

It was a negative asset for Florida - they traded him for essentially nothing to get out of the term.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

Agreed. Worthwhile gamble for sure. That doesn't change that he had large contract with term that Florida wanted out of. That's why he was traded for basically nothing.



He was a salary dump by Florida at the time. They wanted out of that contract and it was a worthwhile gamble by Gillis as he was an element they needed.

The trade was Booth + Reinprecht + 3rd round pick for Sturm + Samuelsson.

At the time of the trade, Booth had $4,250,000 for 4 years left. Reinprecht had $2,050,000 for 1 year left but was sent down to the AHL.
Sturm was signed for $2,250,000 for 1 year, Samuelsson had $2,500,000 left for 1 year.

For the first year of Booth, our cap didn't really change as Sturm and Samuelsson would have eaten up that portion anyways. It was mainly the 3 years left on Booths' deal afterwards that was a cap dump. It was a calculated risk that made sense at the time, but backfired. Oh well, at least we got a 3rd round pick out of it.

 

[m9]

The trade was Booth + Reinprecht + 3rd round pick for Sturm + Samuelsson.

At the time of the trade, Booth had $4,250,000 for 4 years left. Reinprecht had $2,050,000 for 1 year left but was sent down to the AHL.
Sturm was signed for $2,250,000 for 1 year, Samuelsson had $2,500,000 left for 1 year.

For the first year of Booth, our cap didn't really change as Sturm and Samuelsson would have eaten up that portion anyways. It was mainly the 3 years left on Booths' deal afterwards that was a cap dump. It was a calculated risk that made sense at the time, but backfired. Oh well, at least we got a 3rd round pick out of it.

I thought it was a great gamble by Gillis. Give up nothing of value to try to get a useful player. Made sense for Florida too as they didn't want Booth's big contract on the books going forward.

 

[Intangibos]

Agreed. Worthwhile gamble for sure. That doesn't change that he had large contract with term that Florida wanted out of. That's why he was traded for basically nothing.



He was a salary dump by Florida at the time. They wanted out of that contract and it was a worthwhile gamble by Gillis as he was an element they needed.

Wasn't Ehrhoff a cap dump? Would you classify Ehrhoff as a negative contract?

Booth's contract was a symptom, not the problem. If we had to dump Tanev last year if we didn't get to LTIR Ferland and others throughout the season, would you say the Tanev contract had negative value or would the problem be Eriksson/Myers?

 

[m9]

Wasn't Ehrhoff a cap dump? Would you classify Ehrhoff as a negative contract?

Booth's contract was a symptom, not the problem. If we had to dump Tanev last year if we didn't get to LTIR Ferland and others throughout the season, would you say the Tanev contract had negative value or would the problem be Eriksson/Myers?

Nope, Ehrhoff wasn't a negative contract which is why the Canucks had to give up a player worth a 2nd round pick to get the deal done (Patrick White) AND take on a bad contract in Lukowich to make the deal happen.

On the other hand the Canucks gave up nothing of value for Booth. Florida simply wanted to get out of that contract.

As for your ridiculous scenario, if the Canucks had to trade Tanev they would have received assets in return because that's what happens when you trade someone of value.

 

[Intangibos]

Nope, Ehrhoff wasn't a negative contract which is why the Canucks had to give up a player worth a 2nd round pick to get the deal done (Patrick White) AND take on a bad contract in Lukowich to make the deal happen.

On the other hand the Canucks gave up nothing of value for Booth. Florida simply wanted to get out of that contract.

As for your ridiculous scenario, if the Canucks had to trade Tanev they would have received assets in return because that's what happens when you trade someone of value.

I'd like to see Florida's cap situation, but generally if something is a negative value contract you have to pay to get rid of it. You don't just give it to someone straight up for a worse player. David Booth was 100% a better player than both Sturm and the finished Samuelsson. Even if you think Booth was a cap dump, they still got absolutely fleeced based on the results of the trade until Booth's injuries. $4.25m might have been a slight over-payment for Booth, but not nearly by enough to make it a negative contract.

If they had to get rid of a slightly bad contract for cap purposes then they had some serious management issues elsewhere which fits Tallon's management style perfectly. Don't forget that these guys paid for Las Vegas to take first line players from them. Also waived Grabner immediately despite him having a reputation for starting slow. If Tallon wants to dump a player it's honestly probably a player worth picking up.

You can even go back to the time at the trade and I'm pretty sure literally everyone saw this is a significant upgrade for the Canucks. I find it odd that at the time nobody was saying Florida is dumping a trash player in Booth and this attitude only appeared after Booth's career was derailed by serious injuries.

 

[m9]

I'd like to see Florida's cap situation, but generally if something is a negative value contract you have to pay to get rid of it. You don't just give it to someone straight up for a worse player. David Booth was 100% a better player than both Sturm and the finished Samuelsson. Even if you think Booth was a cap dump, they still got absolutely fleeced based on the results of the trade until Booth's injuries. $4.25m might have been a slight over-payment for Booth, but not nearly by enough to make it a negative contract.

If they had to get rid of a slightly bad contract for cap purposes then they had some serious management issues elsewhere which fits Tallon's management style perfectly. Don't forget that these guys paid for Las Vegas to take first line players from them. Also waived Grabner immediately despite him having a reputation for starting slow. If Tallon wants to dump a player it's honestly probably a player worth picking up.

You can even go back to the time at the trade and I'm pretty sure literally everyone saw this is a significant upgrade for the Canucks. I find it odd that at the time nobody was saying Florida is dumping a trash player in Booth and this attitude only appeared after Booth's career was derailed by serious injuries.

If you count Reinprecht & Sturm as a wash based on salaries and uselessness, the trade was basically Booth & a 3rd for Samuelsson who was near the end of the line. You can argue about negative value vs little to no value.. but it's fairly obvious that's not much value for Booth. Also Booth's contract at the time is equal to what, like 5.5 or so now? That's a pretty big number for a middle six guy.

And again, I liked the trade at the time too for the Canucks and I never said otherwise.

But it is what it is. Florida knew Booth was damaged goods and got out of that contract when they could even if it meant getting nothing in return.

 

[Frostage]

But it is what it is. Florida knew Booth was damaged goods and got out of that contract when they could even if it meant getting nothing in return.

I seem to remember Booth adjusting to Vancouver and being a fine player until his knee injury. That really seemed to derail him.

 

[m9]

I seem to remember Booth adjusting to Vancouver and being a fine player until his knee injury. That really seemed to derail him.

He did play fine here, but his concussion issues were well-established at the time of the trade and were likely the main reason Florida moved on.

 

[VanillaCoke]

At a low price, sure I'd be interested in Strome. I think something even like Gaudette+ or Virtanen+ seems fair.

Hard pass on Boeser for Strome. This was Boeser's worst season in goal-scoring (and he still produced well) but took a massive step forward with his two-way play. Even relative to the defensive mess on Chicago, Strome is pretty uniquely poor defensively (based on his RAPM numbers). He would need to play a very sheltered, scoring role. Boeser can do a lot more for us, IMO. The add on Chicago's side would have to be pretty significant.

I was thinking cheaper than that tbh

 

[member 290103]

Agreed no way would I give up Boeser for Strome. Friedman made it seem like the price would be cheap anyways. Lurker the Blackhawks board and seems like not many of them are high on strome anyways.

Boser for f***ing Strome? Holy shit.

 

[48MPHSlapShot]

Mikael Samuelsson was a very popular team mate. Staying healthy was a challenge for him but he was all heart and a tremendously smart player.
Booth was advertised (sold, lol) as a very good friend of Ryan Kesler. Um, no, RK wanted nothing to do with him and that was clear both on the ice
and on the bench.
At the time, I remember getting the sinking feeling "Oh boy! Desperation setting in."
It's difficult not having many promising prospects via the draft. Tends to tie the hands of a GM.
Kudos for Bo though...

 

[bossram]

Agreed. Worthwhile gamble for sure. That doesn't change that he had large contract with term that Florida wanted out of. That's why he was traded for basically nothing.

He was a salary dump by Florida at the time. They wanted out of that contract and it was a worthwhile gamble by Gillis as he was an element they needed.

they wanted out of the contract, but that didn’t make him a negative value asset. His contract wasn’t poor value until he was injured.

Yep. Large contract =/= negative value. When healthy, Booth was an effective player and worth the contract. He caught a dirty hit and that basically robbed him of his knee, unfortunately.

 

[bossram]

I was thinking cheaper than that tbh

I mean, if we wanna toss them Lind+ for Strome then sure. But I don't see Chicago making that happen.

And really, acquiring Strome means we're going to have to move out an equivalent salary/situation player (like a Virtanen).

 

[canuckking1]

Boser for f***ing Strome? Holy shit.

Where did I say i’d trade Boeser for strome?

 

[m9]

Yep. Large contract =/= negative value. When healthy, Booth was an effective player and worth the contract. He caught a dirty hit and that basically robbed him of his knee, unfortunately.

I've definitely beaten this issue to death, but Booth sprained his knee and was out for a few weeks. I can't pin his downfall to that fairly minor injury. I think it was just a cumulative impact of concussions and other injuries over time. And even with health, sometimes players just fall off.

 

[member 290103]

Where did I say i’d trade Boeser for strome?

you didn’t I don’t think...sorry if that was implied. I was just saying thats insane as I saw it thrown out there.

 

[canuckking1]

you didn’t I don’t think...sorry if that was implied. I was just saying thats insane as I saw it thrown out there.

Yeah someone suggested it. Not even close in terms of Value-wise.

 

[rt]

To VAN:
OEL (8.25)
Stepan-50% (3.25)
= 11.5m

To ARI:
Eriksson (6.00)
Horvat (5.50)
= 11.5m

 

[rypper]

Who was defending Tony DeAngelo again?
He just tweeted out "lol" at a democrat senator asking trump to provide aid to Iran in dealing with covid 19.

Because the idea of human beings dying is hilarious right?

 

[canuckking1]

Tony DeAngelo is worse defensively than Tyson Barrie and that's saying something. Why would we even want him politics aside?

 

[Cogburn]

Nope, Ehrhoff wasn't a negative contract which is why the Canucks had to give up a player worth a 2nd round pick to get the deal done (Patrick White) AND take on a bad contract in Lukowich to make the deal happen.

On the other hand the Canucks gave up nothing of value for Booth. Florida simply wanted to get out of that contract.

As for your ridiculous scenario, if the Canucks had to trade Tanev they would have received assets in return because that's what happens when you trade someone of value.

White was not worth a second round pick. He wasn't worth a second round pick when he was drafted. I think everyone saw that at the draft too. If we could have gotten a second round pick for him, he'd have been gone long ago.

Lukowich wasn't a terrible contract. It wasn't good, but he was 7/8/9 guy at 1.566 which was a bottom pairing cost. Ehrhoff cost 3.1, or 4.666 ish including Lukowich, who we submarined immediately, and Ehrhoff redefined our defenses role in offense. A negative to tack on to be sure, but one year at Lukowich's cap hit was a coup for Gillis in getting Ehrhoff for almost nothing.

We gave up White and Rahimi, neither played a game for us, or for the Sharks, and if I remember correctly, it was plastered all over these boards that precious few of us had much hope in them playing. Nothing we gave up, collectively or individually, was worth a 2nd round pick. We gave up nothing but two roster spots, got a cap dump and top four D. This is the definition of a cap dump from the Sharks.

Booth and Reinprecht and a third round pick for Samuelsson and Sturm was even. Samuelsson didn't have a lot of gas left in the tank (although I was sad to see him go), and Sturm wasn't a quality signing, both of whom were set to expire. Booth, a year of Reinprecht's salary and a pick for that was a great pick up too, at the time. In hindsight, Booth didn't work out, but it was the risk we should have taken.

Both trades are very similar. We receive a player that is an upgrade to our roster, with term and a higher cap hit then their team can afford, we send back players to accommodate the new contracts, and take back a single year of a overpriced contract. We gave up no value, took back salary in the long term, and the other team's motivation of getting cap relief is well documented. I like the Ehrhoff trade better then the Booth trade, as it turned out better, but that's all in hindsight too. Both are very, very similar structurally, we just took more years and more cap hit in the Booth trade, but compensated by sending cap back.

 

[Cogburn]

Nope, Ehrhoff wasn't a negative contract which is why the Canucks had to give up a player worth a 2nd round pick to get the deal done (Patrick White) AND take on a bad contract in Lukowich to make the deal happen.

On the other hand the Canucks gave up nothing of value for Booth. Florida simply wanted to get out of that contract.

As for your ridiculous scenario, if the Canucks had to trade Tanev they would have received assets in return because that's what happens when you trade someone of value.

White was not worth a second round pick. He wasn't worth a second round pick when he was drafted. I think everyone saw that at the draft too. If we could have gotten a second round pick for him, he'd have been gone long ago.

Lukowich wasn't a terrible contract. It wasn't good, but he was 7/8/9 guy at 1.566 which was a bottom pairing cost. Ehrhoff cost 3.1, or 4.666 ish including Lukowich, who we submarined immediately, and Ehrhoff redefined our defenses role in offense. A negative to tack on to be sure, but one year at Lukowich's cap hit was a coup for Gillis in getting Ehrhoff for almost nothing.

We gave up White and Rahimi, neither played a game for us, or for the Sharks, and if I remember correctly, it was plastered all over these boards that precious few of us had much hope in them playing. Nothing we gave up, collectively or individually, was worth a 2nd round pick. We gave up nothing but two roster spots, got a cap dump and top four D. This is the definition of a cap dump from the Sharks.

Booth and Reinprecht and a third round pick for Samuelsson and Sturm was even. Samuelsson didn't have a lot of gas left in the tank (although I was sad to see him go), and Sturm wasn't a quality signing, both of whom were set to expire. Booth, a year of Reinprecht's salary and a pick for that was a great pick up too, at the time. In hindsight, Booth didn't work out, but it was the risk we should have taken.

Both trades are very similar. We receive a player that is an upgrade to our roster, with term and a higher cap hit then their team can afford, we send back players to accommodate the new contracts, and take back a single year of a overpriced contract. We gave up no value, took back salary in the long term, and the other team's motivation of getting cap relief is well documented. I like the Ehrhoff trade better then the Booth trade, as it turned out better, but that's all in hindsight too. Both are very, very similar structurally, we just took more years and more cap hit in the Booth trade, but compensated by sending cap back.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

Nope, Ehrhoff wasn't a negative contract which is why the Canucks had to give up a player worth a 2nd round pick to get the deal done (Patrick White) AND take on a bad contract in Lukowich to make the deal happen.

On the other hand the Canucks gave up nothing of value for Booth. Florida simply wanted to get out of that contract.

As for your ridiculous scenario, if the Canucks had to trade Tanev they would have received assets in return because that's what happens when you trade someone of value.

Ehrhoff didn't necessarily have negative value at the time, but San Jose needed to move him out to fit Heatley under the cap. I remember reading after that trade that San Jose originally offered Ehrhoff in the package for Heatley, but Ottawa preferred Cheechoo instead.

 

[racerjoe]

Ehrhoff didn't necessarily have negative value at the time, but San Jose needed to move him out to fit Heatley under the cap. I remember reading after that trade that San Jose originally offered Ehrhoff in the package for Heatley, but Ottawa preferred Cheechoo instead.

Yep. The deal was basically a 2nd (white) for a cap dump and Ehrhoff. Rhami was just there to make the contracts work. That second was also basically a first for the unsigned white.