sting101
Registered User
- Feb 8, 2012
- 15,987
- 14,922
or Rangers fans trade proposalsReminds me of that one guy in fantasy hockey trying to sell you on his crap (for your good players) lol!
or Rangers fans trade proposalsReminds me of that one guy in fantasy hockey trying to sell you on his crap (for your good players) lol!
Is there any scenario where we could trade one (or both) for a player with slightly higher a hit for this year (and maybe next)?Dickinson has been a big disappointment...In fact, Sutter would have been an upgrade on him (can win face-offs, score, and defend)...I would be impressed if JR could make Dicky go away.
Poolman, to me, has been inconsistent..He's obviously a limited player, but his salary is a little north of 3rd pairing D man (who can occasionally fill in the top 4)...He is what he is.
Something that hasn't really been pointed out wrt the Toffoli valuation is that there was no retention and it brought me back to the recent proposals being thrown out in the Miller deal.
If we retain 50% on Miller and are getting some 1st, Kravstov, Lundkvist deal—that is atrocious value. If there's zero retention and 5.4MM next year is gone, the calculus changes but I don't think they should jump at that package as it truly is NYR's misfits who have a very limited future with the franchise.
There's two things that could drive insane amounts of value here: 1) two playoff runs and 2) the potential to retain down to ~850k cap this year, 2.7MM cap next year.
Can’t argue that… not that Canuck fans are angels lol. But feels like we are talking to a wall, same few fans imposing their opinion. Going nowhere.or Rangers fans trade proposals
Did Servalli post a rumor of how we are looking for like 4 1st round equivalent for Miller a little back. I imagine that is what we are asking for without retention. Price is going to be even more for retention and I doubt any team will want to pay that.I don't think there's any chance we retain on Miller. Team is looking to get rid of CAP and Miller's value is already sky high there's no need to charity unless you're getting a king's ransom. There's Ranger fans on the main board that think Lundkvist, 1st and Chytil is fair value for Miller retained at 50% - its a joke.
Can’t argue that… not that Canuck fans are angels lol. But feels like we are talking to a wall, same few fans imposing their opinion. Going nowhere.
1. You move Myers out, you have to replace him, essentially plugging one leak and springing another..He's playing his best hockey as a Canuck...Schenn,Poolman,Juulsen,Woo ,Hamonic is not a succession plan.The plan to fix the D should be straight forward just not completely within the teams control. As priorities I would focus on trying to achieve the following:
1. move Myers' contract, ideally without having to pay to move it.
2. trade for/develop a shutdown style 20-23 year old RHD with top 4 potential.
3. Move one of Rathbone or Hughes to the right side, likely Rathbone. Rathbone will be wasted playing behind Hughes and OEL.
4. Sign/trade for two bottom pairing D men for the right price (ala Schenn) with one being able to smoothly slot into the top four when necessary.
5. Build legitimate depth in the 7 to 9 slots with an emphasis on defense and toughness. A guy like Burroughs fits this role nicely.
Pairings starting the 23/24 season (if things go splendidly well, maybe even the 22/23 season):
Hughes - new guy 1
OEL-Rathbone
New guy 2 - Schenn (0r Schenn replacement)
I realize there is risk associated with Rathbone's development but I beleive this is what they should be targeting.
1. You move Myers out, you have to replace him, essentially plugging one leak and springing another..He's playing his best hockey as a Canuck...Schenn,Poolman,Juulsen,Woo ,Hamonic is not a succession plan.
2. Personally, I think Rathbone is expendable...If the Canucks trade for a young top 4 RHD, he could be part of that trade.
Dickinson and Poolman should be just treated as buy outs at this point.
If you find improvements just bury them it's 3.5 million we could use towards a good player
Did Servalli post a rumor of how we are looking for like 4 1st round equivalent for Miller a little back. I imagine that is what we are asking for without retention. Price is going to be even more for retention and I doubt any team will want to pay that.
Not that I disagree but there is no way we retainSomething that hasn't really been pointed out wrt the Toffoli valuation is that there was no retention and it brought me back to the recent proposals being thrown out in the Miller deal.
If we retain 50% on Miller and are getting some 1st, Kravstov, Lundkvist deal—that is atrocious value. If there's zero retention and 5.4MM next year is gone, the calculus changes but I don't think they should jump at that package as it truly is NYR's misfits who have a very limited future with the franchise.
There's two things that could drive insane amounts of value here: 1) two playoff runs and 2) the potential to retain down to ~850k cap this year, 2.7MM cap next year.
Putting them in the minors would save 1.125m each for Dickinson and Poolman for a 2.25m cap savings. For buyouts it would be like this:
-Dickinson's 2.65m = $991,677 for 4 seasons
-Poolman's 2.5m = $991,677 for 6 seasons
Essentially you would be lowering your cap by 2m for 4 seasons (and 1m for another 2 years) just to not roster these guys.
In both cases there is no real gain once you fill the roster spots with cheap depth guys.
Which would essentially send the team to the cellar..I don't think thats the plan.If you can move out Myers and his $6m, I'd be fine rolling any of the players you listed in his place for next season.
Disagree...actually pretty strongly.1. You move Myers out, you have to replace him, essentially plugging one leak and springing another..He's playing his best hockey as a Canuck...Schenn,Poolman,Juulsen,Woo ,Hamonic is not a succession plan.
2. Personally, I think Rathbone is expendable...If the Canucks trade for a young top 4 RHD, he could be part of that trade.
Sutter could score lol. Anything to minimize the negative shit stain Benning left here is pretty important work I guess...Dickinson has been a big disappointment...In fact, Sutter would have been an upgrade on him (can win face-offs, score, and defend)...I would be impressed if JR could make Dicky go away.
Poolman, to me, has been inconsistent..He's obviously a limited player, but his salary is a little north of 3rd pairing D man (who can occasionally fill in the top 4)..as advertised...He is what he is.
Which would essentially send the team to the cellar..I don't think thats the plan.